text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Sharp asymptotic lower bounds of the expected quadratic variation of discretization error in stochastic integration are given. The theory relies on inequalities for the kurtosis and skewness of a general random variable which are themselves seemingly new. Asymptotically efficient schemes which attain the lower bounds are constructed explicitly. The result is directly applicable to practical hedging problem in mathematical finance; it gives an asymptotically optimal way to choose rebalancing dates and portofolios with respect to transaction costs. The asymptotically efficient strategies in fact reflect the structure of transaction costs. In particular a specific biased rebalancing scheme is shown to be superior to unbiased schemes if transaction costs follow a convex model. The problem is discussed also in terms of the exponential utility maximization.'
author:
- |
Masaaki Fukasawa\
Department of Mathematics, Osaka University
title: Efficient Discretization of Stochastic Integrals
---
Introduction
============
The stochastic integral $X \cdot Y_\sigma$ with respect to a semimartingale $Y$ and a stopping time $\sigma$ is by definition a limit of $X^n \cdot Y_{\sigma}$ in probability, where $X^n$ is a sequence of simple predictable processes with $\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t - X_t| \to 0$ in probability as $n\to \infty$. This convergence of $X^n \cdot Y$ is essential not only for the theoretical construction of the stochastic integral but also for practical approximations in problems modeled with stochastic integrals. The aim of this paper is to give a way to choose $X^n$ efficiently in an asymptotic sense. The main assumption of the paper is that $X$ is a continuous semimartingale.
Denote by $K$ the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the absolutely continuous part of $\langle Y \rangle$ with respect to $\langle X \rangle$, which always exists in light of the Lebesgue decomposition theorem. Fukasawa [@SAFA] showed that $$\liminf_{n \to \infty}
\mathbb{E}[N[X^n]_\sigma] \mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]
\geq \frac{1}{6} \mathbb{E}[\sqrt{K} \cdot \langle X \rangle_\sigma],$$ where $N[X^n]_\sigma$ is the number of the jumps of a given simple predictable process $X^n$ up to $\sigma$ and $Z[X^n]:= (X-X^n) \cdot Y$ is the associated approximation error. If $Y$ is a local martingale, then $\mathbb{E}[|Z[X^n]_{\sigma}|^2] =\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]
\rangle_\sigma]$ under a reasonable assumption, and so the above inequality gives an asymptotic lower bound of the mean squared error of discretization. Notice that the bound does not depend on $X^n$. The inequality is sharp in that the lower bound is attained by $$\label{eff1}
\begin{split}
&X^n_t := X_{\tau^n_j}, \ \ t \in (\tau^n_j, \tau^n_{j+1}], \ \
j=0,1,\dots,\\
&\tau^n_0 := 0, \ \ \tau^n_{j+1} := \inf\{t > \tau^n_j ; |X_t
-X_{\tau^n_j}| = \epsilon_n K_{\tau^n_j}^{-1/4}\}, \ \ \epsilon_n
\downarrow 0
\end{split}$$ under a reasonable condition. We call such a sequence $X^n$ that attains the lower bound an asymptotically efficient scheme. The above result is extended and proved under a less restrictive condition in this paper as a particular case.
To obtain a precise approximation to $X \cdot Y$, one has to take $X^n$ as close to $X$ as possible. In practical contexts it may be inevitably accompanied by various kinds of cost, especially if $X$ is not of finite variation. The number of jumps $N[X^n]_\sigma$ is interpreted as one of them. In the context of mathematical finance for example, $X$ and $Y$ stand for a portfolio strategy and an asset price process respectively. Then $Z[X^n]$ represents the replication error associated to a discrete rebalancing strategy $X^n$. A continuous rebalancing is impossible in practice and $N[X^n]_\sigma$ corresponds to the number of trading, a measure on trader’s effort. The scheme (\[eff1\]) defines an asymptotically efficient discrete strategy which asymptotically minimizes the mean squared error relative to the specific cost function $\mathbb{E}[N[X^n]_\sigma]$.
The sequence $\mathbb{E}[N[X^n]_\sigma]$ is however just one of measures on costs. Again for example in the financial context, the cumulative transaction cost associated to $X^n$ is often modeled as $$\kappa \sum_{0 < t \leq \sigma} Y_t | \Delta X^n_t|$$ with a constant $\kappa > 0$. This is the so-called linear or proportional transaction cost model. More generally one may consider as a cost or penalty, $$\label{cost}
C[S,\beta; X^n] := \sum_{0 < t \leq \sigma}S_tK_t|\Delta X^n_t|^\beta
1_{\{|\Delta X^n| > 0\}}$$ with a nonnegative predictable process $S$ and a constant $\beta \geq 0$. Notice that $C[1/K,0;X^n]_\sigma$ and $C[Y/K,1;X^n]_{\sigma}$ represent the number of rebalancing and the cumulative linear transaction cost respectively. If $\beta \in (0,1)$ or $\beta >1 $, the cost is concave or convex respectively in the amount of transaction. Beyond these interpretations in the financial context, we treat the general form of $C[S,\beta;X^n]_\sigma$ as a penalty against taking $X^n$ too close to $X$. Then a natural problem would be to minimize $\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]$ relative to the expected cost $\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta; X^n]_\sigma]$ in the asymptotic situation that $\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t - X_t| \to 0.$ Fukasawa [@RFE](in Japanese) proposed this framework and proved that for all $\beta \in [0,2)$, $$\label{cx}
\liminf_{n \to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_\sigma]|^{2/(2-\beta)} \mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]
\geq \frac{1}{6} |\mathbb{E}[ (S^{2/(4-\beta)}K) \cdot \langle X\rangle_\sigma]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}$$ if $X^n$ is of the form $X^n_t = X_{\tau^n_j}$ for any $t \in (\tau^n_j,\tau^n_{j+1}]$ with an increasing sequence of stopping times $\tau^n = \{\tau^n_j\}$ with $\tau^n_0 = 0$ and $\sup_{j \geq 0}|\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma - \tau^n_j \wedge \sigma| \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$. The lower bound is sharp in that it is attained by $$\label{eff}
\begin{split}
&X^n_t := X_{\tau^n_j}, \ \ t \in (\tau^n_j, \tau^n_{j+1}], \ \
j=0,1,\dots,\\
&\tau^n_0=0, \ \ \tau^n_{j+1} =
\inf\left\{t > \tau^n_j; |X_t - X_{\tau^n_j}| \geq
\epsilon_n S_{\tau^n_j}^{1/(4-\beta)}\right\}, \ \ \epsilon_n \downarrow
0
\end{split}$$ under a reasonable condition. The proof is given in this paper as well under a less restrictive condition. This result does not give a complete answer to our problem in that the lower bound is for a restricted class of $X^n$ as $X^n_t = X_{\tau^n_j}$ for $t \in (\tau^n_j,\tau^n_{j+1}]$ with some $\{\tau^n_j\}$. We call such $X^n$ an unbiased scheme. Intuitively, taking $X^n$ in the unbiased manner is natural and necessary to have a good approximation to $X \cdot Y$. In fact in the case $\beta = 0$ and $C[S,\beta,X;X^n] = N[X^n]_\sigma$, as stated first, the unbiased scheme $X^n$ defined by (\[eff1\]) is asymptotically efficient. The main result of this paper shows that the discretization scheme (\[eff\]) is actually asymptotically efficient if $\beta \in [0,1]$, however not so if $\beta \in (1,2)$. In the latter case, surprisingly, the lower bound is reduced to one third and asymptotically attained by a sequence of biased schemes.
In Section 2, we give a general result on the centered moments of a random variable, which seems new and important itself and plays an essential role to derive lower bounds of discretization error in the stochastic integration. In Section 3, we give a sharp lower bound for unbiased schemes, which is a slight extension of the result of Fukasawa [@RFE](in Japanese). In Section 4, we give sharp lower bounds for possibly biased schemes and construct explicit schemes which asymptotically attain the bounds. In Section 5, we show that an asymptotically efficient scheme is a maximizer of a scaling limit of the exponential utility in the financial context of discrete hedging.
We conclude this section by mentioning related studies in the literature. Rootzén [@Rootzen] studied the discretization error of stochastic integrals with the equidistant partition $\tau^n_j = j/n$ and proved that the discretization error of a stochastic integral converges in law to a time-changed Brownian motion with rate $n^{-1/2}$ as $n \to \infty$. An extension to discontinuous semimartingales was given by Tankov and Voltchkova [@TV] in the equidistant case. Fukasawa [@AAP] gave an extension to another direction that admits a general sequence of locally homogeneous stochastic partitions and gave several sharp lower bounds of the asymptotic conditional variance of the discretization error. Hayashi and Mykland [@HM2005] revisited Rootzén’s problem in terms of the discrete hedging in mathematical finance. Motivated by this financial application, the mean squared error was studied by Gobet and Temam [@GT01], Geiss and Geiss [@GG06], Geiss and Toivola [@GT09] under the Black-Scholes model. Among others, Geiss and Geiss [@GG06] showed that the use of stochastic partitions does not improve the convergence rate. In a sense our result refines this observation under a general framework. Our problem is also related to Leland’s strategy for hedging under transaction costs. See Leland [@Leland], Denis and Kabanov [@DK], Fukasawa [@RAFE]. The difference is that we are looking for an efficient discrete hedging strategy which does not require a surcharge, while Leland’s strategy does it to absorb transaction costs. In a statistical framework, Genon-Catalot and Jacod [@GJ] studied an optimality problem for a class of random sampling schemes, which is smaller than our class. Finally remark that the use of hitting times such as (\[eff\]) has another advantage in terms of almost sure convergence. See Karandikar [@Karandikar1995].
Kurtosis-skewness inequalities
==============================
Here we study the centered moments of a general random variable. The reason why we need such a general framework is that in our problem of discretization, we encounter the moments of a martingale evaluated at a stopping time, which can follow any distribution with mean $0$ in light of Skorokhod stopping problem. The notation in this section is independent of that in other sections. We say a random variable $X$ is Bernoulli if the support of $X$ consists of two points. We say $X$ is symmetrically Bernoulli if $X$ is Bernoulli and its skewness is $0$, that is, $\mathbb{E}[(X-\mathbb{E}[X])^3] = 0$. For any random variable $X$ with $\mathbb{E}[X] = 0$, $\mathbb{E}[X^2] > 0$ and $\mathbb{E}[X^4] < \infty$, it holds that $$\label{Pearson}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} -
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \geq 1.$$ This is often called Pearson’s inequality and easily shown as follows: $$|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2 =
|\mathbb{E}[X(X^2-\mathbb{E}[X^2])]|^2 \leq
\mathbb{E}[X^2] (\mathbb{E}[X^4]- |\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2).$$ From this proof it is clear that the equality is attained only if $X$ is Bernoulli. Conversely if $X$ is Bernoulli, then we get the equality by a straightforward calculation. Pearson’s inequality was used by Fukasawa [@AAP][@SAFA] to obtain lower bounds of discretization error of stochastic integrals. This is however not sufficient for our current purpose. Fukasawa [@AAP] proved another inequality which looks similar to but independent of (\[Pearson\]): $$\label{Fukasawa}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \frac{3}{4}
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \geq
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^2]}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|]|^2}.$$ The equality is attained if and only if $X$ is Bernoulli. The proof is lengthy and unexpectedly different from that for Pearson’s inequality. See Appendix B of Fukasawa [@AAP]. From these inequalities we obtain the following lemmas.
\[KS1\] Let $\beta \in [0,1)$. For any random variable $X$ with $\mathbb{E}[X] = 0$, $\mathbb{E}[X^2] > 0$ and $\mathbb{E}[X^4] < \infty$, $$\label{ks1}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \frac{3}{4}
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \geq
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}.$$ The equality is attained if and only if $X$ is symmetrically Bernoulli.
[*Proof:* ]{} By H$\ddot{\text{o}}$lder’s inequality, we have $$\mathbb{E}[|X|] \leq |\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{(1-\beta)/(2-\beta)}
|\mathbb{E}[|X|^\beta]|^{1/(2-\beta)},$$ or equivalently, $$\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^2]}{|\mathbb{E}[|X|]|^2}
\geq \frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}.$$ The result then follows from (\[Fukasawa\]). ////
Let $\beta \in [0,2)$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$. For any random variable $X$ with $\mathbb{E}[X] = 0$, $\mathbb{E}[X^2] > 0$ and $\mathbb{E}[X^4] < \infty$, $$\label{ks20}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \alpha
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} - (1-\alpha)
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}} \geq \alpha.$$ The equality is attained if and only if $X$ is symmetrically Bernoulli.
[*Proof:* ]{} By H$\ddot{\text{o}}$lder’s inequality, we have $$\mathbb{E}[X^2] \leq |\mathbb{E}[|X|^\beta]|^{2/(4-\beta)}
|\mathbb{E}[X^4]|^{(2-\beta)/(4-\beta)},$$ or equivalently, $$\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}
{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2}
\geq \frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}.$$ Therefore, $$\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \alpha
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} - (1-\alpha)
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}} \geq
\alpha
\left\{
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} -
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3}
\right\}.$$ The result then follows from (\[Pearson\]). ////
\[KS2\] Let $\beta \in [0,2)$ and $\alpha \in (0,1]$. For any random variable $X$ with $\mathbb{E}[X] = 0$, $\mathbb{E}[X^2] > 0$ and $\mathbb{E}[X^4] < \infty$, $$\label{ks2}
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
\left\{\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \alpha
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \right\} > 1-\alpha.$$ Moreover if $X$ is Bernoulli, then $$\label{ks2s}
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
\left\{\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \alpha
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \right\} =
F_{\alpha\beta}\left(\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3}\right),$$ where $F_{\alpha\beta}$ is a continuous function with $F_{\alpha\beta}(0) = 1$. If $\beta \in (1,2)$, then $F_{\alpha \beta}(\infty) = 1-\alpha$.
[*Proof:* ]{} The inequality (\[ks2\]) is apparent from (\[Pearson\]) and (\[ks20\]). Let $X$ be Bernoulli. We suppose $\mathbb{E}[X^2] = 1$ without loss of generality. Then the support of $X$ is of the form $\{e^x,-e^{-x}\}$ and $\mathbb{P}[X = e^x] = 1/(1+e^{2x})$ with $x \in \mathbb{R}$. By a straightforward calculation, we get $\mathbb{E}[X^3] = 2 \sinh(x)$ and $$\frac{|\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}
{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^{\beta/(2-\beta)}}
\left\{\frac{\mathbb{E}[X^4]}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^2} - \alpha
\frac{|\mathbb{E}[X^3]|^2}{|\mathbb{E}[X^2]|^3} \right\}
= \frac{4 \alpha -3 + 4(1-\alpha)|\cosh(x)|^2}
{|\cosh(x)|^{2/(2-\beta)} |\cosh((\beta-1)x)|^{-2/(2-\beta)} }.$$ Putting $$\label{gdef}
g(x) = \cosh((\beta-1)x)|\cosh(x)|^{1-\beta},$$ the right hand side is given by $$\label{rhs}
\frac{4\alpha-3}{g(x)^{-2/(2-\beta)} |\cosh(x)|^2}
+ \frac{4(1-\alpha)}{g(x)^{-2/(2-\beta)}}.$$ Notice that $g(0) = 1$ and $g(x)^{-2/(2-\beta)}$ converges to $4$ as $|x| \to \infty$ for $\beta \in (1,2)$. ////
Let $g$ be defined by (\[gdef\]). Since $$g^\prime(x) = (\beta-1)\sinh((\beta-2)x) |\cosh(x)|^{-\beta},
\ \ g^{\prime \prime}(0) = (1-\beta)(2-\beta),$$ for $\beta \neq 1$, $g^\prime(x) = 0$ if and only if $x=0$. Further if $\beta \in [0,1)$ or $\beta \in (1,2)$, respectively, the minimum or maximum of $g$ is attained at $x =0$. Therefore if $\alpha \geq 3/4$ and $\beta \in (1,2)$, the function defined by (\[rhs\]) is decreasing in $|x|$ and converges to $1-\alpha$ as $|x| \to \infty$. However in the following sections, we use Lemma \[KS2\] with $\alpha = 2/3$, where the function is not necessarily monotone in $|x|$.
Efficiency for unbiased Riemann sums
====================================
Here we recall the problem with a rigorous formulation and give a slight improvement of the result of Fukasawa [@RFE]. Let $X$ and $Y$ be semimartingales defined on a filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}, \{\mathcal{F}_t\})$ which satisfies the usual conditions. We assume that that there exist a continuous local martingale $M$ and a locally bounded adapted process $H$ such that $$X = H \cdot \langle M \rangle + M.$$ Denote by $\mathcal{T}$ the set of the increasing sequences of stopping times $\tau = \{\tau_j\}$ with $0 = \tau_0 < \tau_1 < \cdots$ and $\lim_{j \to \infty} \tau_j = \infty$ a.s.. Given $\tau = \{\tau_j\}\in \mathcal{T}$, define a simple predictable process $X[\tau]$ as $X[\tau]_t = X_{\tau_j}$ for $t \in (\tau_j, \tau_{j+1}]$. Conversely, for a given simple predictable process $\hat{X}$, define $\tau[\hat{X}] \in \mathcal{T}$ as the sequence of the jump times of $\hat{X}$. By definition we have $$\begin{split}
&Z[X[\tau]]_t = \int_0^t X_s \mathrm{d}Y_s - \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
X_{\tau_j}(Y_{\tau_{j+1} \wedge t} -Y_{\tau_j\wedge t} ),\\
&Z[\hat{X}]_t = \int_0^t X_s \mathrm{d}Y_s - \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\hat{X}_{\tau[\hat{X}]_j + }(Y_{\tau[\hat{X}]_{j+1} \wedge t} -
Y_{\tau[\hat{X}]_j\wedge t} )
\end{split}$$ for $t \geq 0$. Our aim is to minimize $\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_{\sigma}]$ asymptotically when $$\label{sup}
\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t - X_t| \to 0$$ in probability as $n \to \infty$. Denote by $K$ the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the absolutely continuous part of the predictable quadratic variation $\langle Y \rangle$ with respect to $\langle X \rangle$, which always exists in light of the Lebesgue decomposition theorem. We consider the cost $C[S,\beta; \hat{X}]$ defined by (\[cost\]) for a given simple predictable process $\hat{X}$. We assume that $K$ and $S$ are positive, continuous and moreover, constant on any random interval where $\langle X \rangle$ is constant. By the last assumption, we have $$\label{Xconti}
K = \tilde{K}_{\langle X \rangle}, \ \ \tilde{K} = K_{F}, \ \
S = \tilde{S}_{\langle X \rangle}, \ \ \tilde{S} = S_{F},$$ where $F_s = \inf\{t \geq 0;\langle X \rangle_t > s\}$; see Karatzas and Shreve [@KS], 3.4.5.
Now we define a class of unbiased schemes in which at first we consider the efficiency or optimality of discretization. Denote by $\mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$ the set of the sequences of simple predictable processes $X^n$ of the form $X^n = X[\tau^n]$, $\tau^n = \{\tau^n_j\}\in \mathcal{T}$, such that there exists a sequence of stopping times $\sigma^m$ with $\sigma^m \to \sigma$ as $m \to \infty$,
1. for each $m$, (\[sup\]) holds with $\sigma^m$ instead of $\sigma$.
2. for each $m$, $$\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma^m}]^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma^m}$$ is uniformly integrable in $n$.
The uniform integrability condition for $\mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$ is usually easy to check. It is for example satisfied when considering the sequence of the equidistant partitions $\tau^n_j = j/n$ if $ \mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_t$ has a locally bounded Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to $\mathrm{d}t$. The exponent $2/(2-\beta)$ is actually chosen so that $\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma^m}]^{2/(2-\beta)} \propto n $ asymptotically in the equidistant case since $n^{-1}$ is the optimal convergence rate of $\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma^m}$ for the case. All reasonable $X^n$ should enjoy this property of rate-efficiency. Note that by the Dunford-Petis theorem, the uniform integrability is equivalent to the relative compactness in the $\sigma(L^1,L^\infty)$ topology. By the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, it is further equivalent to the relative sequential compactness in the same topology.
\[R1\] Let $\beta \in [0,2)$. The inequality (\[cx\]) holds for all $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$.
For the proof, we start with a lemma.
\[supsup\] Let $X^n$ be a sequence of simple predictable processes. Then (\[sup\]) implies that $$\label{brasup}
\sup_{j \geq 0} |\langle X \rangle_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma}
- \langle X \rangle_{\tau^n_j \wedge
\sigma}| \to 0$$ in probability as $n \to \infty$ with $\tau^n = \tau[X^n]$. Conversely if (\[brasup\]) holds for a sequence $\tau^n \in \mathcal{T}$, then (\[sup\]) holds with $X^n =
X[\tau^n]$.
[*Proof:* ]{} For any subsequence of $n$, there exists a further subsequence $n_k$ such that (\[sup\]) holds a.s. with $n=n_k$ as $k \to \infty$. It suffices then to show that (\[brasup\]) holds a.s. with this subsequence. Let $\Omega^\ast$ be a subset of $\Omega$ such that for any $\omega \in \Omega^\ast$, (\[brasup\]) does not hold with $n = n_k$, $k\to \infty$. Then, for $\omega \in \Omega^\ast$, there exist $\epsilon(\omega)>0$ and a sequence of intervals $I_m(\omega) = [a_m(\omega),b_m(\omega)]$ such that for each $m$, there exists $n=n_k$ such that $I_m(\omega) = [\tau^n_{j}(\omega), \tau^n_{j+1}(\omega)]$ and $$\inf_m |\langle X \rangle_{b_m}(\omega) - \langle X
\rangle_{a_m}(\omega)|
\geq \epsilon(\omega).$$ Since $(a_m(\omega), b_m(\omega))$ is a sequence in the compact set $[0,\sigma(\omega)] \times [ 0, \sigma(\omega)]$, it has an accumulating point $[a_\ast(\omega),b_\ast(\omega)]$ with $$|\langle X \rangle_{b_\ast}(\omega) - \langle X
\rangle_{a_\ast}(\omega)|
\geq \epsilon(\omega).$$ With probability one, $\langle X \rangle$ is continuous, so we may suppose that $a_\ast(\omega) < b^\ast(\omega)$ without loss of generality. Again with probability one, if $X$ is constant on an interval, then $\langle X \rangle$ is constant on the interval. So we may suppose that $X(\omega)$ is not constant on $[a_\ast(\omega), b_\ast(\omega)]$ without loss of generality. On the other hand, there exists a subsequence $X^m(\omega)$ of $X^{n_k}(\omega)$ such that $X^m(\omega)$ is constant on a non-empty interval of $[a_\ast(\omega), b_\ast(\omega)]$. Recalling the way that the subsequence was chosen, we conclude that $\mathbb{P}[\Omega^\ast] = 0$. ////
[*Proof of Theorem \[R1\]:* ]{} Put $\tau^n = \tau[X^n]$. By the usual localization argument, we may and do suppose without loss of generality that $X, \langle X \rangle, K, 1/K, S$ and $H$ are bounded up to $\sigma$, that (\[brasup\]) holds, and that $|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}$ is uniformly integrable in $n$. Define $K[\tau]$ as $K[\tau]_t = K_{\tau_j}$ for $t \in [\tau_j, \tau_{j+1})$ for $\tau \in \mathcal{T}$. Let $$\epsilon^n = \sup_{0 \leq s \leq \sigma}|K_s -
K[\tau^n]_s|.$$ By Lemma \[supsup\] and (\[Xconti\]), we have that $\epsilon_n$ is bounded and converges to $0$ in probability as $n\to \infty$. By It$\hat{\text{o}}$’s formula, $$\label{ito}
\begin{split}
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_t =&
\int_0^t (X_s - X^n_s)^2 \mathrm{d} \langle Y \rangle_s \\
\geq &
\int_0^t (X_s - X^n_s)^2 K_s \mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s \\
=&
\int_0^t (X_s - X^n_s)^2 K[\tau^n]_s \mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s
+
\int_0^t (X_s - X^n_s)^2 (K_s - K[\tau^n]_s
)\mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s \\
=&
\frac{1}{6}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
K_{\tau^n_j} (X_{\tau^n_{j+1}\wedge t} -
X_{\tau^n_{j}\wedge t} )^4 -
\frac{2}{3} \int_0^t K[\tau^n]_s (X_s-X^n_s)^3 \mathrm{d}X_s
\\ &+
\int_0^t (X_s - X^n_s)^2 (K_s - K[\tau^n]_s
)\mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s.
\end{split}$$
Now we show that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E}\left[
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\int_0^\sigma (X_s - X^n_s)^2 (K_s - K[\tau^n]_s)
\mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s \right] = 0.$$ Put $$\begin{split}
V^n =& |\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_{\sigma} \\ = &
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\int_0^\sigma (X_s - X^n_s)^2 \mathrm{d} \langle Y \rangle_s.
\end{split}$$ Since $1/K$ is bounded by a constant, say, $A > 0$ and $ K_s \mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_s \leq \mathrm{d}\langle Y \rangle_s$, we have $$|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\int_0^\sigma (X_s - X^n_s)^2 |K_s - K[\tau^n]_s|
\mathrm{d} \langle X \rangle_s
\leq A \epsilon^n V^n \to 0$$ in probability. Since $\epsilon^n$ is bounded and $V^n$ is uniformly integrable, $\epsilon^n V^n$ is uniformly integrable as well and so, we obtain that $\mathbb{E}[\epsilon^n V^n] \to 0$.
Similarly, we can show that $$\begin{split}
&|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\int_0^\sigma K[\tau^n]_s(X_s-X^n_s)^3 \mathrm{d}X_s
\right]
\\&=
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\int_0^\sigma K[\tau^n]_s(X_s-X^n_s)^3 H_s \mathrm{d}\langle X
\rangle_s
\right]
\to 0
\end{split}$$ by using the continuity of $X$ instead of $K$. So far we have obtained $$\begin{split}
&\liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]
\\& \geq \liminf_{n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{6}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
K_{\tau^n_j} (X_{\tau^n_{j+1}\wedge \sigma} -
X_{\tau^n_{j}\wedge \sigma} )^4
\right].
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, by H$\ddot{\text{o}}$lder’s inequality, $$\begin{split}
&\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{j \geq 1, \tau^n_j \leq \sigma}
|S_{\tau^n_{j} }|^{2/(4-\beta)} |K_{\tau^n_{j-1}}|^{1/p}
|K_{\tau^n_{j} }|^{1/q}
(X_{\tau^n_{j} } -
X_{\tau^n_{j-1}} )^2
\right] \\ &\leq
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
K_{\tau^n_j}
(X_{\tau^n_{j+1}\wedge \sigma} -
X_{\tau^n_{j}\wedge \sigma} )^4
\right]
\right|^{1/p}
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{0 < t \leq \sigma}
S_t K_t |\Delta X^n_t |^\beta 1_{\{|\Delta X^n_t| > 0\}}
\right]
\right|^{1/q}
\\ & =
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
K_{\tau^n_j}
(X_{\tau^n_{j+1}\wedge \sigma} -
X_{\tau^n_{j}\wedge \sigma} )^4
\right]
\right|^{1/p}
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
C[S,\beta,X^n]_{\sigma}\right]
\right|^{1/q}
\end{split}$$ where $p = (4-\beta)/(2-\beta)$ and $q = p/(p-1) = (4-\beta)/2$. The left hand side converges to $\mathbb{E}[(S^{2/(4-\beta)} K)\cdot \langle X
\rangle_{\sigma}]$. ////
\[R2\] Suppose that $\langle Y \rangle = K \cdot \langle X \rangle$. Let $\hat{S}$ be a positive continuous adapted process which is constant on any random interval where $\langle X \rangle$ is constant. Let $\epsilon_n$ be a positive sequence with $\epsilon_n \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$. Define $X^n$ as $$\label{hitting}
\begin{split}
&X^n_t := X_{\tau^n_j}, \ \ t \in [\tau^n_j, \tau^n_{j+1}), \ \
j=0,1,\dots,\\
&\tau^n_0 := 0, \ \ \tau^n_{j+1} := \inf\{t > \tau^n_j ; |X_t
-X_{\tau^n_j}| = \epsilon_n \hat{S}_{\tau^n_j}\}.
\end{split}$$ Then $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$ for any $\beta \in [0,2)$. Moreover if $X, \langle X \rangle, H, K, 1/K, S, 1/S, \hat{S}$ and $ 1/\hat{S}$ are bounded up to $\sigma$, then we have that for any $\beta \in [0,2)$, $$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2
, \ \
\frac{C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]}$$ are uniformly integrable in $n$, and $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{n \to \infty}
\epsilon_n^{2-\beta}
\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)} =
\mathbb{E}[(S\hat{S}^{\beta-2})\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma]\\
& \lim_{n \to \infty}
\epsilon_n^{-2} \mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}] =
\frac{1}{6}\mathbb{E}[\hat{S}^2 \cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma].
\end{split}$$ In particular if $\hat{S} = S^{1/(4-\beta)}$, or equivalently, $X^n$ is defined by (\[eff\]), then $$\lim_{n \to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}]
= \frac{1}{6}
|\mathbb{E}[
(S^{2/(4-\beta)}K) \cdot
\langle X \rangle_{\sigma}]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}.$$
[*Proof:* ]{} By the usual localization argument, we may and do suppose without loss of generality that $X, \langle X \rangle, H, K, 1/K, S, 1/S, \hat{S}$ and $1/\hat{S}$ are bounded up to $\sigma$. Then, notice that the uniformly integrability of $$\label{qv}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2$$ follows from the decomposition $$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2
= \langle X \rangle_\sigma +
2\int_0^\sigma (X_t-X^n_t)H_t\mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_t
+
2\int_0^\sigma (X_t-X^n_t)\mathrm{d}M_t.$$ Let us show $X^n \in \mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$. The convergence (\[sup\]) is apparent by definition. Since $$\label{costrep}
\begin{split}
C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma} =&
\sum_{0 < t \leq \sigma} S_tK_t|\Delta X^n_t|^{\beta - 2}|\Delta
X^n_t|^2 1_{\{|\Delta X^n_t| > 0\}}\\
=& \epsilon_n^{\beta -2} \sum_{ j \geq 1, \tau^n_j \leq \sigma}
S_{\tau^n_j}K_{\tau^n_j}{\hat{S}_{\tau^n_{j-1}}^{\beta-2}}
|X_{\tau^n_j} - X_{\tau^n_{j-1}}|^2,
\end{split}$$ there exists a constant $c >0 $ such that $$\frac{1}{c}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2
\right] \leq \epsilon_n^{2-\beta}
\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}] \leq
c
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2
\right].$$ Since $$\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
|X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^2
\right] =
\mathbb{E}[\langle X \rangle_\sigma]
+
\mathbb{E}[\int_0^{\sigma}(X_s-X^n_s)H_s\mathrm{d}\langle X
\rangle_s],$$ we obtain $\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]= O(\epsilon_n^{\beta - 2})$. On the other hand, $$\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma} \leq \sup_{ t \in [0,\sigma]}
\{K_t|X_t-X^n_t|^2\} \langle X \rangle_{\sigma}
\leq \epsilon_n^2 \langle X \rangle_{\sigma}
\sup_{ t \in [0,\sigma]}\hat{S}_t
\sup_{ t \in [0,\sigma]}K_t,$$ and so, we conclude that $$\label{cz}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}$$ is uniformly integrable. So far we showed that $X^n \in \mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$. The uniform integrability of $$\frac{C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]}$$ also follows from that of (\[qv\]) in light of (\[costrep\]). With the aid of the uniform integrability of (\[qv\]) and (\[cz\]), repeating the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[R1\], the convergence result follows from the fact that $$\begin{split}
\epsilon_n^{2-\beta}
C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma} =&
\sum_{ j \geq 1, \tau^n_j \leq \sigma}
S_{\tau^n_j}K_{\tau^n_j} \hat{S}_{\tau^n_{j-1}}^{\beta-2}
|X_{\tau^n_j} - X_{\tau^n_{j-1}}|^2
\\&\to \int_0^\sigma S_t \hat{S}_t^{\beta-2} K_t \mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_t
= (S \hat{S}^{\beta-2}) \cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma,
\\
\epsilon_n^{-2}
\sum_{ j \geq 1, \tau^n_j \leq \sigma}
K_{\tau^n_{j-1}}(X_{\tau^n_{j}} -
X_{\tau^n_{j-1}})^4 = &
\sum_{ j \geq 1, \tau^n_j \leq \sigma}
K_{\tau^n_{j-1}} \hat{S}_{\tau^n_{j-1}}^{2}
|X_{\tau^n_j} - X_{\tau^n_{j-1}}|^2
\\ &
\to \int_0^\sigma \hat{S}^{2}_t K_t \mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_t
= \hat{S}^{2} \cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma
\end{split}$$ in probability as $n\to \infty$. ////
The assumption $\langle Y \rangle = K \cdot \langle X \rangle$ implies in particular that $Y$ is quasi-left-continuous. That $Y$ is quasi-left-continuous is equivalent to that $Y$ has no predictable jump time. See Jacod and Shiryaev [@JS] for more details. For example, the Lévy processes are quasi-left-continuous. Of course so are the continuous semimartingales. The asymptotic efficiency of (\[eff\]) is no more true if $Y$ is not quasi-left continuous. In fact, if there is a predictable time $\tau$ such that $Y_{\tau} \neq Y_{\tau-}$, it is apparently more efficient to include $\tau$, or more precisely, a time immediately before $\tau$ into the sequence of stopping times for discretization. This is possible because $\tau$ is predictable.
Efficiency for possibly biased Riemann sums
===========================================
The case of $\beta \in [0,1]$
-----------------------------
The class $\mathcal{T}_u(S,\beta,\sigma)$ was a set of unbiased schemes, that is, $\{X^n\}$ of the form $X^n = X[\tau^n]$, $\tau^n \in
\mathcal{T}$. As an approximating sequence $X^n$ to $X$, we may consider more general simple predictable processes. In this section we answer the question that the scheme (\[eff\]) is asymptotically efficient in a more general class of simple predictable processes or not. First we get a positive answer for $\beta \in [0,1]$. The result improves Fukasawa [@SAFA] for the case $\beta = 0$. Denote by $\mathcal{T}(S,0,\sigma)$ the set of the sequences $X^n$ of simple predictable processes such that that there exists a sequence of stopping times $\sigma^m$ with $\sigma^m \to \infty$ as $m \to \infty$,
1. for each $m$, $$\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma^m]}|X^n_t-X_t|$$ is uniformly bounded and converges to $0$ in probability as $n \to \infty$, and
2. for each $m$, $$\mathbb{E}[C[S,0;X^n]_{\sigma^m}]
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma^m}$$ is uniformly integrable in $n$.
For $\beta \in (0,2)$, we need additional conditions from technical point of view. We define $\mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$ for $\beta \in (0,2)$ as the set of the sequences $X^n$ of simple predictable processes such that there exists a sequence of stopping times $\sigma^m$ with $\sigma^m \to \infty$ as $m \to \infty$,
1. for each $m$, $$\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma^m]}|X^n_t-X_t|,\ \
\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma^m]}\left|
\frac{\Delta X^n_t}{\Delta X[\tau[X^n]]_t}-1 \right|$$ are uniformly bounded and converge to $0$ in probability as $n \to \infty$, where $0/0$ is understood as $1$, and
2. for each $m$, $$|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma^m}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma^m}, \ \
\frac{C[S,\beta;X[\tau[X^n]]]_{\sigma^m}}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau[X^n]]]_{\sigma^m}]}$$ are uniformly integrable in $n$.
The convergence of the ratio between $\Delta X[\tau[X^n]]$ and $\Delta X^n$ to $1$ means that $X^n$ cannot be too biased. Of course it always holds if $X^n$ is unbiased since $X[\tau[X^n]] = X^n$. The uniform integrability of the normalized cost function associated with $X[\tau[X^n]]$ is reasonable in that it requires the sequence of stopping times $\tau[X^n]$ to be sufficiently regular. By Theorem \[R2\], the scheme $\{X^n\}$ defined by (\[hitting\]) is an element of $\mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$ for any $\beta \in [0,2)$. Therefore, the following theorem asserts that the scheme $\{X^n\}$ defined by (\[eff\]) is asymptotically efficient in the class $\mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$ if $\beta \in [0,1]$.
\[main1\] Let $\beta \in [0,1]$. The inequality (\[cx\]) holds for all $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$.
[*Proof:* ]{} Write $\tau^n = \tau[X^n]$ for brevity. By the usual localization procedure, we may and do suppose without loss of generality that $X, H \cdot M, \langle X \rangle, K, 1/K, S, 1/S$ and $H$ are bounded up to $\sigma$, that $\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t-X_t|$ is uniformly bounded and converge to $0$, and that $|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau[X^n]]]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}$ is uniformly integrable in $n$. For the case $\beta \in (0,1]$, we may have additionally that $$\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}\left|
\frac{\Delta X^n_t}{\Delta X[\tau^n]_t}-1 \right|$$ is uniformly bounded and converge to $0$, and that $$\frac{C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}]}$$ is uniformly integrable in $n$. Define $K$ and $K[\tau^n]$ as in the proof of Theorem \[R1\]. By It$\hat{\text{o}}$’s formula, $$\begin{split}
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma \geq
& \int_0^\sigma |X_s - X^n_s|^2
K[\tau^n]_s\mathrm{d}\langle X \rangle_s
+ \int_0^\sigma |X_s - X^n_s|^2(K_s - K[\tau^n]_s)\mathrm{d}\langle X
\rangle_s
\\ =& \frac{1}{6} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}K_{\tau^n_j}
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )
- \frac{2}{3}\int_0^\sigma K[\tau^n]_s(X_s-X^n_s)^3\mathrm{d}X_s \\
& +
\int_0^\sigma |X_s - X^n_s|^2(K_s - K[\tau^n]_s)\mathrm{d}\langle X
\rangle_s,
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta_j = X_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - X_{\tau^n_j \wedge \sigma}$ and $\delta_j = X_{\tau^n_j \wedge \sigma} - X^n_{\tau^n_j \wedge \sigma}$. As before, we can show that $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[
\int_0^\sigma |X_s - X^n_s|^2(K_s - K[\tau^n]_s)\mathrm{d}\langle X
\rangle_s] = 0, \\
& \lim_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\int_0^\sigma K[\tau^n]_s(X_s-X^n_s)^3\mathrm{d}X_s
] = 0
\end{split}$$ by the uniform integrability with the aid of Lemma \[supsup\]. Put $$F_t = \exp \left\{
\int_0^t H_s \mathrm{d}M_s - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^t H_s^2 \mathrm{d}\langle
M \rangle_s
\right\}.$$ Since $$\mathbb{E}[F_{\tau^n_{j+1}}/F_{\tau^n_j}] = 1, \ \
\sup_{t \geq 0, j \geq 0} \left|
1 - \frac{F_{t \wedge \tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma}}
{F_{\tau^n_j \wedge \sigma}}
\right| \to 0$$ in probability, again by It$\hat{\text{o}}$’s formula, we have that $$\begin{split}
&\liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]\\
& = \frac{1}{6}\liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}K_{\tau^n_j}
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )\right]
\\
& = \frac{1}{6}\liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}K_{\tau^n_j}
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )
\frac{F_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma}}{F_{\tau^n_j \wedge
\sigma}}
\right]
\\
& = \frac{1}{6} \liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}K_{\tau^n_j} \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )]
\right],
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[A]$ refers to the conditional expectation $\mathbb{E}[AF_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma}/F_{\tau^n_j \wedge
\sigma}| \mathcal{F}_{\tau^n_j \wedge \sigma}]$ for a random variable $A$. Notice that under $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j$, $X_{t \wedge \tau^n_{j+1}\wedge \sigma} -
X_{t \wedge \tau^n_j \wedge \sigma}$ is a martingale. Therefore, $$\begin{split}
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )]
=& \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^4]
+4 \delta_j\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]
+ 6\delta_j^2\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]
\\
=&
6\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2] \left(
\delta_j +
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]}
{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]}\right)^2
+ \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^4] - \frac{2}{3}
\frac{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]|^2}
{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]} \\
\geq &
\frac{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}}
{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}.
\end{split}$$ Here, we have used Lemma \[KS1\] for $\beta \in [0,1) $ and (\[Fukasawa\]) for $\beta = 1$.
By H$\ddot{\text{o}}$lder’s inequality, $$\begin{split}
&\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j+1}\leq \sigma}^{\infty}
|S_{\tau^n_j}|^{2/(4-\beta)}K_{\tau^n_j}
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]
\right] \\
&
\leq
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\frac{K_{\tau^n_j}|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]|^p}
{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}
\right]
\right|^{1/p}
\left|
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j+1} \leq \sigma} S_{\tau^n_j} K_{\tau^n_j}
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]
\right]
\right|^{1/q},
\end{split}$$ where $p = (4-\beta)/(2-\beta)$ and $q = p/(p-1) = (4-\beta)/2$. Since $$\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}\left|
\frac{|\Delta X^n_t|^\beta}{|\Delta X[\tau^n]_t|^\beta}-1 \right|, \ \
\sup_{\tau^n_{j+1} \leq \sigma}\left|
\frac{S_{\tau^n_j}K_{\tau^n_j}}{S_{\tau^n_{j+1}}K_{\tau^n_{j+1}}}
\frac{F_{\tau^n_{j+1} }}
{F_{\tau^n_{j}}} -1
\right|$$ are uniformly bounded and converge to $0$ in probability, we get $$\lim_{n \to \infty}
\frac{\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j+1} \leq \sigma} S_{\tau^n_j} K_{\tau^n_j}
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]
\right]}{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_\sigma]} =
\lim_{n \to \infty}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_\sigma]}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_\sigma]} = 1.$$ Here we have used the uniform integrability of $C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}/ \mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}]$ for $\beta \in (0,1]$. This is trivial if $\beta = 0$.
By the bounded convergence theorem, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}
\mathbb{E}
\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j+1}\leq \sigma}
|S_{\tau^n_j}|^{2/(4-\beta)}K_{\tau^n_j}
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]
\right]
= \mathbb{E}[(S^{2/(4-\beta)} K)\cdot \langle X\rangle_{\sigma}],$$ which completes the proof. ////
The case of $\beta \in (1,2)$
-----------------------------
Here we show that the unbiased scheme $X^n$ defined by (\[eff\]) is no more efficient for $\beta \in (1,2)$. We give a lower bound which is one third the previous one and construct a biased scheme which asymptotically attains it.
Let $\beta \in (1,2)$. For all $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$, $$\liminf_{n \to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_\sigma]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_\sigma]
\geq \frac{1}{18}
|\mathbb{E}[
(S^{2/(4-\beta)}K) \cdot
\langle X \rangle_\sigma]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}.$$
[*Proof:* ]{} Just use Lemma \[KS2\] with $\alpha = 2/3$ instead of Lemma \[KS1\] in the proof of Theorem \[main1\]. The rest is the same. ////
Suppose that $\langle Y \rangle = K \cdot \langle X \rangle$. Let $\beta \in (1,2)$ and $\epsilon_n$ be a positive sequence with $\epsilon_n \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$. For $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, define $\tau^n(\gamma) = \{\tau^n_j(\gamma)\}$ as $$\label{gamma}
\begin{split}
&\tau^n_0(\gamma) = 0, \ \ \tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma) =
\min\{\tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma, +), \tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma, -) \}, \\
& \tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma, +) =
\inf\left\{t > \tau^n_j(\gamma); X_t - X_{\tau^n_j(\gamma)} \geq
\epsilon_n e^\gamma S_{\tau^n_j(\gamma)}^{1/(4-\beta)} \right\}, \\
& \tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma, -) =
\inf\left\{t > \tau^n_j(\gamma);
X_t - X_{\tau^n_j(\gamma)} \leq
\epsilon_n e^{-\gamma} S_{\tau^n_j(\gamma)}^{1/(4-\beta)} \right\}.
\end{split}$$ Define a sequence of simple predictable processes $X^n(\gamma)$ as $$\label{Xgamma}
X^n(\gamma) = X[\tau^n(\gamma)] + \frac{2}{3} \epsilon_n
\sinh(\gamma) S[\tau^n(\gamma)]^{1/(4-\beta)},$$ where $S[\tau^n(\gamma)]_t = S_{\tau^n_j(\gamma)}$ for $t \in [\tau^n_j(\gamma), \tau^n_{j+1}(\gamma))$. Then $\{X^n(\gamma)\} \in \mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$. Moreover if $X,\langle X \rangle, H\cdot M, H, K, 1/K, S$ and $1/S$ are bounded up to $\sigma$, then $$\lim_{n \to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n(\gamma)]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n(\gamma)]\rangle_{\sigma}]
= \frac{F(|\gamma|)}{6}
|\mathbb{E}[
S^{2/(4-\beta)} \cdot
\langle Y \rangle_{\sigma}]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)},$$ where $F$ is a continuous function with $F(0) = 1$ and $F(\infty) = 1/3$. More explicitly, $$F(x) = F(x,\beta) = \frac{ 4|\cosh(x)|^2 -1}
{3|\cosh(x)|^{2/(2-\beta)} |\cosh((\beta-1)x)|^{-2/(2-\beta)} }.$$
[*Proof:* ]{} By the usual localization procedure, we may and do suppose without loss of generality that $X, H \cdot M, \langle X \rangle, K, 1/K, S, 1/S$ and $H$ are bounded up to $\sigma$. Put $X^n = X^n(\gamma)$ and $\tau^n = \tau[X^n] = \tau^n(\gamma)$ for brevity. Then it follows from definition that $$\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t-X_t|, \ \
\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}\left|
\frac{\Delta X^n_t}{\Delta X[\tau^n]_t}-1 \right|$$ are uniformly bounded and converge to $0$. By the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[R2\], we have that $$|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}, \ \
\frac{C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}]}$$ are uniformly integrable in $n$. Since these imply in particular that $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]}
{\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]]_{\sigma}]} = 1,$$ we conclude $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$.
Let $\Delta_j = X_{\tau^n_{j+1}} - X_{\tau^n_j}$ and $\delta_j = X_{\tau^n_j} - X^n_{\tau^n_j}$. Then we obtain, in a similar manner to the proof of Theorem \[main1\], that $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma]\\
& = \frac{1}{6} \liminf_{n\to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j} \leq \sigma} K_{\tau^n_j} \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )]
\right]
\end{split}$$ and that $$\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[
((\Delta_j + \delta_j)^4 - \delta_j^4 )]
=
6\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2] \left(
\delta_j +
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]}
{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]}\right)^2
+ \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^4] - \frac{2}{3}
\frac{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]|^2}
{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]},$$ where $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[A]$ refers to the conditional expectation $\mathbb{E}[AF_{\tau^n_{j+1}}/F_{\tau^n_j }| \mathcal{F}_{\tau^n_j}]$ for a random variable $A$. By the optional sampling theorem, $$\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[I\{\Delta_j = \epsilon_n e^\gamma
S_{\tau^n_j}^{1/(4-\beta)}\}]
= \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{ e^{\gamma} + e^{-\gamma}}, \ \
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[I\{\Delta_j = -\epsilon_n e^{-\gamma}
S_{\tau^n_j}^{1/(4-\beta)}\}]
= \frac{e^{\gamma}}{ e^{\gamma} + e^{-\gamma}}$$ and so, $$\begin{split}
&\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j] = 0, \ \
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2] =
\epsilon_n^2 S_{\tau^n_j}^{2/(4-\beta)}, \ \
\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3] =
2\epsilon_n^3 \sinh(\gamma) S_{\tau^n_j}^{3/(4-\beta)},\\
&\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^\beta] =
\epsilon_n^\beta \frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)}
S_{\tau^n_j}^{\beta/(4-\beta)}.
\end{split}$$ Moreover by Lemma \[KS2\], $$\begin{split}
&\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^4]- \frac{2}{3}
\frac{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]|^2}{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]} \\
&= F(|\gamma|)
\frac{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}}
{|\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}}
\\&= F(|\gamma|) \left|\frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)} \right|^{-2/(2-\beta)}
\epsilon_n^2 S_{\tau^n_j}^{2/(4-\beta)} \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]
\end{split}$$ with $F = F(\cdot,\beta)$, which satisfies $F(|\gamma|) \to 1/3$ as $|\gamma| \to \infty$. By definition of $X^n$, we have $$\delta_j +
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3]}
{\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]} = 0.$$ Therefore, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}
\epsilon_n^{-2}
\mathbb{E}[
\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma] = \frac{1}{6} F(|\gamma|)
\left|\frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)} \right|^{-2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[S^{2/(4-\beta)} \cdot \langle Y \rangle_{\sigma}].$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{n\to \infty}
\epsilon_n^{2-\beta}\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X[\tau^n]_{\sigma}] \\
&= \lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j}\leq \sigma}
S_{\tau^n_{j}} K_{\tau^n_j} \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[|\Delta_j|^{\beta}]
\right]\\
&= \frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\left[
\sum_{\tau^n_{j}\leq \sigma}
S_{\tau^n_{j}}^{2/(4-\beta)} K_{\tau^n_j} \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]
\right] \\
&= \frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)}
\mathbb{E}[S^{2/(4-\beta)} \cdot \langle Y \rangle_{\sigma}].
\end{split}$$ These convergences give the result. ////
The use of hitting times is essential to have a good performance. In fact if we consider a class of simple predictable processes $X^n$ such that $\tau[X^n]_{j+1} - \tau[X^n]_j$ is $\mathcal{F}_{\tau[X^n]_j}$-measurable for each $j \geq 0$, then we can show that $$\liminf_{n \to \infty}
|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_\sigma]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_\sigma]
\geq \frac{1}{2}
|\mathbb{E}[
(S^{2/(4-\beta)}K) \cdot
\langle X \rangle_\sigma]|^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}$$ when, for example, $X = Y$ and it is a Brownian motion. This is because the kurtosis $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^4] | \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]|^{-2}$ and skewness $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^3] | \hat{\mathbb{E}}_j[\Delta_j^2]|^{-3/2}$ of a conditionally standard normal random variable $\Delta_j$ are $3$ and $0$ respectively, while the lower bound of kurtosis is $1$ attained by Bernoulli random variables. The above measurability condition was supposed in Genon-Catalot and Jacod [@GJ].
Exponential utility maximization
================================
The schemes $X^n = X[\tau^n]$ with (\[eff\]) and $X^n = X^n(\gamma)$ defined by (\[Xgamma\]) with (\[gamma\]) are efficient for $\beta \in [0,1]$ and $\beta \in (1,2)$ respectively in that they attain the asymptotic lower bound of $$|\mathbb{E}[C[S,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}]|^{2/(2-\beta)}
\mathbb{E}[\langle Z[X^n]\rangle_{\sigma}]$$ for a reasonable class of approximating simple predictable processes $X^n$. In the financial context of discrete hedging, we may interpret the cost function $C[S,\beta;\hat{X}]_{\sigma}$ as the cumulative transaction cost associated to the rebalancing scheme $\hat{X}$. If we do so, then a more natural criterion for the optimality of $\hat{X}$ should be given in terms of the expected utility of the terminal wealth $-Z[\hat{X}]_{\sigma}- C[S,\beta;\hat{X}]_{\sigma}$. In this section, we see that the efficient schemes maximize a scaling limit of the exponential utility $$1- \mathbb{E}[\exp\{- \alpha_n(-Z[X^n]_{\sigma}-
C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma})\}], \ \
S^n = \kappa_n S, \ \ \alpha_n \to \infty,\ \
\alpha_n \kappa_n \to 0.$$ Here $\kappa_n$ is a deterministic sequence, which we interpret as the coefficient of the transaction costs. Letting $\kappa_n \to 0$, we try to obtain an asymptotic but explicit solution for the maximization problem which can be expected to have a good performance when $\kappa_n$ is sufficiently small. If $\kappa_n \to 0$, then we can make both $\langle Z[X^n] \rangle_\sigma$ and $C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}$ converge to $0$ by taking any $\{X^n\} \in \mathcal{T}(S,\beta,\sigma)$ such that $\sup_{t \in [0,\sigma]}|X^n_t-X_t| \to 0$ sufficiently slow. To find effective $X^n$ among others, we consider a scaling limit by letting $\alpha_n$, the risk-aversion parameter, diverge. In this section we assume $Y$ to be continuous in addition. By Jacod’s theorem of stable convergence of semimartingales, if there exists a continuous process $V$ such that $$\label{jacod}
\alpha_n^2 \langle Z[X^n] \rangle_t \to V_t, \ \
\alpha_n \langle Z[X^n],Y \rangle_t \to 0$$ in probability for all $t \geq 0$, then $\alpha_n Z[X^n]$ converges $\mathcal{F}$-stably in law to a time-changed Brownian motion $W_V$, where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion which is independent of $\mathcal{F}$. See Fukasawa [@AAP] for more details and sufficient conditions for (\[jacod\]). Note that the second condition of (\[jacod\]) is to make the replication error $Z[X^n]$ asymptotically neutral to the market return. If in addition $\alpha_n C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma}$ converges to a random variable $C_\sigma$ in probability, then $$\alpha_nZ[X^n]_{\sigma} + \alpha_n
C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma} \to W_{V_{\sigma}} + C_\sigma$$ in law. The limit law is a mixed normal distribution with conditional mean $C_\sigma$ and conditional variance $V_{\sigma}$. This implies in particular that $$1- \mathbb{E}[\exp\{- \alpha_n(-Z[X^n]_{\sigma}-
C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma})\}] \to
1- \mathbb{E}[\exp\{C_\sigma + \frac{1}{2}V_{\sigma}\}]$$ under the uniform integrability condition on $\exp\{\alpha_n(Z[X^n]_{\sigma}+ C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma})\}$. Then the maximization of the exponential utility reduces to the minimization of $C_\sigma + V_{\sigma}/2$. Under the additional assumptions that $$\alpha_n^4 \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\mathbb{E}[|\langle X \rangle_{\tau^n_{j+1} \wedge \sigma} - \langle X
\rangle_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}|^4
| \mathcal{F}_{\tau^n_{j} \wedge \sigma}] \to 0$$ in probability with $\tau^n = \tau[X^n]$ and that $$\alpha_n^{(6-2\beta)/(2-\beta)} \kappa_n^{2/(2-\beta)} \to \mu > 0,$$ we obtain that $$C_\sigma^{2/(2-\beta)}V_{\sigma} \geq \frac{\mu}{6} | S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma |^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}$$ for $\beta \in [0,1]$ by a similar argument to the proof of Theorem \[main1\] with the aid of Lemma A.2 of Fukasawa [@AAP]. This is in fact an extension of Theorems 2.7 and 2.8 of Fukasawa [@AAP]. It follows then that $$\begin{split}
C_\sigma + \frac{1}{2}V_{\sigma} &\geq
C_\sigma + \frac{\mu}{12} | S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma |^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}
C_\sigma^{-2/(2-\beta)} \\ &\geq
\hat{\mu}
S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma,
\end{split}$$ where $$\hat{\mu} = \left|\frac{\mu}{6(2-\beta)} \right|^{(2-\beta)/(4-\beta)} +
\frac{\mu}{12}
\left|\frac{\mu}{6(2-\beta)} \right|^{-2/(4-\beta)}.$$ Here we have used the fact that for given $c > 0$, $\min_{x > 0}\{x + c x^{-2/(2-\beta)}\}$ is attained at $x = (2c/(2-\beta))^{(2-\beta)/(4-\beta)}$. Therefore, $$\lim_{n \to \infty}
\{1- \mathbb{E}[\exp\{- \alpha_n(-Z[X^n]_{\sigma}-
C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma})\}]\} \leq
1 - \mathbb{E}[\exp\{\hat{\mu} S^{2/(4-\beta)} \cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma\}].$$ The upper bound is attained by the efficient scheme $X^n$ defined by (\[eff\]) with $\epsilon_n = \nu \alpha_n^{-1}$ and $$\nu = \mu^{1/2}
\left|\frac{\mu}{6(2-\beta)} \right|^{-1/(4-\beta)}.$$ This can be proved by applying Theorem 2.6 of Fukasawa [@AAP]. For $\beta \in (1,2)$, similarly we get $$C_\sigma^{2/(2-\beta)}V_{\sigma} \geq \frac{\mu}{18} | S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma |^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}$$ and so, $$\begin{split}
C_\sigma + \frac{1}{2}V_{\sigma} &\geq
C_\sigma + \frac{\mu}{36} | S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma |^{(4-\beta)/(2-\beta)}
C_\sigma^{-2/(2-\beta)} \\ &\geq
\check{\mu}
S^{2/(4-\beta)}
\cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma,
\end{split}$$ where $$\check{\mu} = \left|\frac{\mu}{18(2-\beta)} \right|^{(2-\beta)/(4-\beta)} +
\frac{\mu}{36}
\left|\frac{\mu}{18(2-\beta)} \right|^{-2/(4-\beta)}.$$ Therefore, $$\lim_{n \to \infty}
\{1- \mathbb{E}[\exp\{- \alpha_n(-Z[X^n]_{\sigma}-
C[S^n,\beta;X^n]_{\sigma})\}]\} \leq
1 - \mathbb{E}[\exp\{\check{\mu} S^{2/(4-\beta)} \cdot \langle Y \rangle_\sigma\}].$$ The upper bound is asymptotically attained by the efficient scheme $X^n = X^n(\gamma)$ defined by (\[gamma\]) and (\[Xgamma\]) when $|\gamma| \to \infty$, where $\epsilon_n = \check{\nu} \alpha_n^{-1}$ and $$\check{\nu} = \mu^{1/2}
\left|\frac{\mu}{18(2-\beta)} \right|^{-1/(4-\beta)} \left|
\frac{\cosh((\beta-1)\gamma)}{\cosh(\gamma)}
\right|^{1/(2-\beta)}.$$ Consequently, the efficient schemes obtained in the preceding sections are in fact maximizers of the exponential utility in an asymptotic sense.
[99]{} Denis, E. and Kabanov, Y. : Mean square error for the Leland-Lott hedging strategy: convex pay-offs. [*Finance Stoch.*]{} 14, no. 4, 625-667 (2010)
Fukasawa, M. : Asymptotic efficiency for discrete hedging strategies (in Japanese). [*Selected papers for the 10 th anniversary of Financial Technology Research Institute, Inc.*]{} (2009)
Fukasawa, M. : Discretization error of stochastic integrals. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} 21, 1436-1465 (2011)
Fukasawa, M. : Asymptotically efficient discrete hedging. [*Stochastic Analysis with Financial Applications*]{}, Progress in Probability 65, 331-346 (2011) Fukasawa, M. : Conservative delta hedging under transaction costs. to appear in [*Recent Advances in Financial Engineering*]{}, World Scientific (2012)
Geiss, C. and Geiss, S.: On an approximation problem for stochastic integrals where random time nets do not help. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{} 116, 407-422 (2006)
Geiss, S. and Toivola, A.: Weak convergence of error processes in discretizations of stochastic integrals and Besov spaces. [*Bernoulli*]{} 15, no. 4, 925-954 (2009)
Genon-Catalot, V. and Jacod, J.: Estimation of the diffusion coefficient for diffusion processes: random sampling. [*Scand. J. Statist.*]{} 21, no. 3, 193-221 (1994)
Gobet, E.; Temam, E. : Discrete time hedging errors for options with irregular payoffs. [*Finance Stoch.*]{} 5, no.3, 357-367 (2001)
Hayashi, T. and Mykland, P.A. : Evaluating hedging errors: an asymptotic approach. [*Math. Finance*]{} 15, no. 2, 309-343 (2005)
Jacod, J. and Shiryaev, A.N.: [*Limit theorems for stochastic processes*]{}. 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag (2002)
Karandikar, R.L. : On pathwise stochastic integration. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{} 57, no. 1, 11-18 (1995)
Karatzas, I. and Shreve, S.E.: [*Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York (1991)
Leland, H.E.: Option pricing and replication with transaction costs. [*Journal of Finance*]{} 40, 1283-1301 (1985)
Rootzén, H. : Limit distributions for the error in approximations of stochastic integrals. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} 8, no. 2, 241-251 (1980)
Tankov, P. and Voltchkova, E.: Asymptotic analysis of hedging errors in models with jumps. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{} 119, no. 6, 2004-2027 (2009)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Xavier Holt\
University of Sydney\
[xhol4115@]{}\
[uni.sydney.edu.au]{}\
Will Radford\
Hugo.ai\
[wradford@]{}\
[hugo.ai]{}\
Ben Hachey\
University of Sydney\
[ben.hachey@]{}\
[sydney.edu.au]{}\
title: Presenting a New Dataset for the Timeline Generation Problem
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This study combines surface-sensitive photoemission experiments with density functional theory (DFT) to give a microscopic description of H adsorption-induced modifications of the ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) surface electronic structure. We find a complex adsorption behavior caused by a strong coverage dependence of the H adsorption energies: Initially, O–H bond formation is energetically favorable and H acting as an electron donor leads to the formation of a charge accumulation layer and to surface metallization. The increase of the number of O–H bonds leads to a reversal in adsorption energies such that Zn–H bonds become favored at sites close to existing O–H bonds, which results in a gradual extenuation of the metallization. The corresponding surface potential changes are localized within a few nanometers both laterally and normal to the surface. This localized character is experimentally corroborated by using sub-surface bound excitons at the ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) surface as a local probe. The pronounced and comparably localized effect of small amounts of hydrogen at this surface strongly suggests metallic character of ZnO surfaces under technologically relevant conditions and may, thus, be of high importance for energy level alignment at ZnO-based junctions in general.'
author:
- 'J.-C. Deinert'
- 'O. T. Hofmann'
- 'M. Meyer'
- 'P. Rinke'
- 'J. Stähler'
bibliography:
- 'deinert\_etal\_H\_ZnO.bib'
title: 'Local Aspects of Hydrogen-Induced Metallization of the ZnO(10$\mathbf{\overline{1}}$0) Surface'
---
Introduction
============
Zinc oxide (ZnO) is a wide band gap ($E_\text{g} = 3.4~\text{eV}$), intrinsically *n*-type, transparent conductive oxide that has received much attention due to its potential use in novel opto-electronic devices such as organic light-emitting diodes and photovoltaics.[@Ozgur2005; @Klingshirn2010; @Ellmer2008] Moreover, it is already widely used in catalysis and chemical sensing.[@Spencer1999; @Buchholz2015; @Zhang2005; @Gonzalez2014] In all these cases, device functionality is governed mainly by the properties of the ZnO *surface* or its *interface* with, e.g., functional organic molecules. The opto-electronic properties of such interfaces depend critically on the alignment of energy levels [@Koch2007] and the occurrence of collective surface phenomena such as ZnO surface excitons.[@Deinert2014] ZnO also has a tendency to grow in self-organized nanoscale structures (rods, wires, ribbons, etc.) with large surface-to-bulk ratios.[@Wang2004; @Fan2005] In these nano-structures, the mixed-terminated (10${\overline{1}}$0) surface dominates, because it is energetically the most favorable.[@Meyer2003] The optical, electronic and catalytic properties of ZnO are highly sensitive to surface modifications such as impurities, defects or adsorbates,[@King2011] and yet a fundamental understanding of the key phenomena at the ZnO surface remains elusive.[@Li2014] This gap in our understanding is also a problem for surface functionalization by attachment of optically active molecules, where knowledge about the interfacial electronic structure is often restricted to a macroscopic, averaged view. In this Article we address this knowledge gap, by focusing on hydrogen (H) adsorption and by combining surface-sensitive photoemission experiments with *ab initio* density functional theory (DFT) to give a concise microscopic view on H adsorption-induced effects at the ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface.
In recent years, the significant impact of H doping on the electronic structure of ZnO has been recognized, which is highly relevant since hydrogen is a ubiquitous and prominent contaminant in both laboratory and industrial settings. Using density functional theory (DFT) it was found that atomic H acts as a source of the (unintentional) *n*-type conductivity by forming shallow donor states in *bulk* ZnO.[@VandeWalle2000; @Janotti/VandeWalle2007] This prediction was corroborated by several studies and extended from interstitial to adsorbed hydrogen at the ZnO surface.[@Wang2005; @Ozawa2011; @Woll2007]
The donor character of *adsorbed* H on ZnO has been known for decades. The experimental observation of increased conductance of ZnO films due to H adsorption[@Heiland1969] has been exploited by using ZnO as high-sensitivity sensor for hydrogen and carbon hydrates.[@Gopel1985; @Hishinuma1981] In the established picture, the electron donor character of H induces downward surface band bending that leads to a crossing of the conduction band minimum (CBM) and the Fermi level $E_\text{F}$. As a consequence, a strongly confined surface charge accumulation layer (CAL) forms,[@Luth2010] as sketched in Fig. \[bandscheme\](a). At the same time, this adsorption-induced interfacial charge transfer leads to a reduction of the net surface dipole, which results in a reduction of the work function $\Phi$. Moreover, analogous H-induced CAL formation was found in other transparent conductive oxides, SrTiO$_3$(001), SnO$_2$(110), and MgO.[@DAngelo2012; @Inerbaev2010; @Richter2013] In contrast to conventional semiconductors, e.g., Si or GaAs, the surface band bending on *n*-type ZnO extends only a few $10~\text\AA$ into the bulk, making it a exclusively *surface*-related phenomenon.[@Luth2010] First direct spectroscopic evidence of H-induced CAL formation at the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface was shown by Ozawa and Mase [@Ozawa2010; @Ozawa2011] who observed occupied states at the $\overline{\Gamma}$-point using angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ARPES). The authors proposed that the surface metallization is a consequence of the partial occupation of Zn4*s* conduction band states. This results in a single metallic band confined in the potential well between the vacuum interface and the CBM, in which a laterally delocalized two-dimensional electron gas with a maximum charge density of $10^{13}~\text{cm}^{-2}$ is formed \[cf. Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)\]. It was shown by Wöll and coworkers, that the formation of O–H-bonds at the ($10\overline{1}0$) surface is responsible for this semiconductor-to-metal transition.[@Wang2005] Based on their calculations they conclude further, that a complete saturation of both O–H and Zn–H-bonds at the surface leads to the restoration of the semiconducting state.
![\[bandscheme\] (a) Schematic energy level diagram of ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) *after* exposure to H with an average potential $V(z)$ across the interface. The CBM, which is located only 200 meV above the Fermi level in *n*-type ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0), is bent below $E_\text{F}$ leading to the formation of a few $10~\text{\AA}$ thick CAL. The net surface dipole is modified by H adsorption. Above-band-gap photoexcitation creates surface excitons that can be measured by photoemission with a time-delayed second pulse as indicated by the arrows. (b) Representative photoemission spectrum of H/ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) showing the secondary electron cutoff $E^\text{SE}$ at $E_\text{kin}=0$ and the occupation of electronic states in the CAL below $E_\text{F}$.](Fig1){width="76"}
Previous ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) studies have focused on surfaces with H adsorbed either exclusively on surface O sites,[@Wang2005] or have used comparably high H dosages that lead to a saturation of all energetically possible surface sites,[@Wang2005; @Heinhold2014; @Ozawa2011] These studies do therefore not investigate the *competition* of H adsorption at the two different sites, especially in the regime of low coverages. Although the different effects of O–H *vs.* Zn–H bond formation have been recognized previously, a detailed microscopic view of how single H atoms interact with the pristine or slightly H-covered ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) surface is not established. The picture of a laterally delocalized CAL can only provide a macroscopic, averaged description of the surface potential changes \[see Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)\].
In the present study, we focus on the *low* H coverage regime to elucidate the impact of H adsorption on the local potential and electronic structure of the mixed-terminated ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface. We measure the electronic states of single crystal ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surfaces using laser-based photoelectron spectroscopy (PES). This inherently surface sensitive method gives direct access to the occupied electronic states and work function of the ZnO surface. Complemetarily, we employ *ab initio* DFT calculations which facilitate an atomic scale description of the electronic structure. We demonstrate that different H pre-coverages, i.e., the amount of H already adsorbed on the surface, lead to drastic changes in the adsorption behavior of further H atoms. Furthermore, we develop a microscopic picture of the markedly different effects that O–H and Zn–H bond formation has on the landscape of the surface potential. Experimentally, the localized character of the H-induced potential changes is confirmed by using the sub-surface bound exciton as a local probe for the potential. These findings extend the conventional view of the delocalized and uniform character of the H-induced CAL at the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$)-surface to the low-coverage regime.
Methods
=======
Experimental Methods
--------------------
The experiments and sample preparation were performed in an ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chamber with a base pressure below $1\times10^{-10}~\text{mbar}$. Hydrothermally grown single crystal ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) samples (MaTecK GmbH) were prepared by $\text{Ar}^+$ sputtering ($0.75~\text{keV}$, $10~\text{min}$) and annealing cycles at $750\text{--}850~\text{K}$ for $30~\text{min}$ with comparably slow heating and cooling rates of $20~\text{K}~\text{min}^{-1}$, following established procedures.[@Diebold] Hydrogen was offered at a constant background pressure of $6.7(2)\times 10^{-7}~\text{mbar}$ ($0.5~\text{L s}^{-1}$), at a sample temperature of 100 K for all measurements presented in this paper.[^1] *Atomic* H was generated using a glowing tungsten filament at a distance of $\approx 15~\text{cm}$ in the line of sight of the sample surface, partly cracking the $\text{H}_2$ molecules. This is analogous to the procedure described in Refs. .[^2]
Femtosecond laser pulses were generated by a $200~\text{kHz}$ regeneratively amplified laser system. For static photoemission measurements photon energies of $h\nu=4.63~\text{eV}$ and $6.18~\text{eV}$ were created by frequency tripling and quadrupling of the fundamental 1.55 eV laser output. For time-resolved pump-probe photoelectron spectroscopy light pulses with 4.19 eV photon energy were generated by frequency doubling the output of an optical parametric amplifier and were then used to excite electron-hole (*e-h*) pairs \[see Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)\]. The temporal evolution of this nonequilibrium state is monitored by a time-delayed probe pulse with a photon energy of $4.63~\text{eV}$ (see Ref. for further details). Photoelectrons were detected using a hemispherical photoelectron analyzer (PHOIBOS 100, Specs GmbH) with energy resolution of $30\text{--}50~\text{meV}$. The photoelectron spectra were integrated over an angle of $\approx\pm2^\circ$ around the $\overline{\Gamma}$-point. The binding energy of the photoelectrons was referenced to the Fermi level ($E_{\text{F}}$) of the Ta sample holder which was in electrical contact with the sample surface.
The quality of the pristine surface was routinely checked by measurements of the work function $\Phi=4.50(5)~\text{eV}$ and the valence band maximum (VBM) at $E-E_\text{F}=-3.18(6)~\text{eV}$, all agreeing well with literature values.[@Ozawa2010] The work function was determined using PES by measuring the energetic position of the secondary electron cutoff $E^\text{SE}$, which is constituted by photoelectrons that barely overcome $\Phi=h\nu-(E_\text{F}-E^\text{SE})$ as depicted in Fig. \[bandscheme\](b).
While illuminating the freshly prepared surfaces, we always observe a work function reduction by few $10~\text{meV}$ along with a slight increase of the CAL intensity on a timescale of several 10 s. This is attributed to the formation of a small portion of surface defects by the UV illumination.[@Gopel1980] Experimental results shown here always refer to stabilized conditions. Additionally, there is a comparable shift of $\Phi$ on a timescale of hours due to the ubiquity of $\text{H}_2$ as residual gas even in UHV. This can be neglected in our experiments. We carefully checked for spectral shifts due to charging or photovoltage effects by varying the incident photon flux and found no shifts, neither for clean, nor for the hydrogen-covered ZnO surfaces. Low energy electron diffraction measurements showed the expected rectangular $(1\times1)$-pattern.
Computational Methods
---------------------
All calculations were performed with the Fritz-Haber-Institute *ab initio* molecular simulations (FHI-aims) code.[@Blum2009; @Havu/etal:2009] Unless otherwise noted, the functional of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof[@Perdew1996] (PBE) was employed. We account for van der Waals forces through the scheme of Tkatchenko and Scheffler[@Tkatchenko2009] using the parameteriz ation as described in Ref. . The ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) surface was modeled with a $4 \times 4$ unit cell containing 16 ZnO surface dimers, with a depth of 32 single-layers. We found that such a slab thickness was necessary to capture the whole extent of downward band-bending in the most extreme case in which each surface oxygen is decorated by a hydrogen atom. Since band-bending is entirely enclosed in our supercell, we did not employ the electrostatic schemes recently developed by some of us. [@Richter2013; @Xu2013; @Sinai2015] A region of 30 [Å]{} vacuum was inserted between the ZnO slab and its periodic replica. Polarization through the vacuum was prevented by means of a dipole correction.[@Neugebauer1992] The self-consistent field cycle was converged to $10^{-6}$ eV for the total energy, $10^{-4}$ eV for the electron density and $10^{-2}$ eV for the sum of eigenvalues. In FHI-aims, the basis is hierarchically ordered in *tiers*.[@Blum2009] For Zn we employed the tier 1 basis and for O the tier 2 basis together with *tight default* settings. For integrations, a tightly converged Lebedev grid was used. All calculations were done assuming a constant ZnO doping concentration of $\approx 10^{19} \text{~e~cm}^{-3}$, which was modeled using the virtual crystal approximation approach.[@Scheffler1987] Using the multiscale virtual crystal approximation dopant approach,[@Richter2013; @Xu2013] we tested carefully for all systems reported here that no transfer of bulk charge carriers to the quantum-mechanically treated 32-layer thick slab occurs. For the limiting case of a full O–H monolayer, we carefully verified that the amount and the spatial evolution of the band bending is not affected by the choice of the functional by comparing to hybrid density functional calculations using the Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE).[@Heyd03; @Krukau06] We adjust the amount of exact exchange to 0.4, in accordance with previous work [@Moll2013; @Hofmann2013] and denote this functional HSE\*. Moreover, we compared the relative energies of a slab with 100% O–H coverage and 0% Zn–H coverage and a slab with 75% O–H and 25% Zn–H using PBE and HSE\* for a $2\times2$-supercell. In PBE, exclusive adsorption on oxygen atoms is 0.16 eV more stable than in HSE\*. Hence, when comparing adsorption on O and Zn, we expect PBE to err slightly in favor of O–H adsorption. However, this does not affect the qualitative findings discussed in this work.
Results and Discussion
======================
![\[metallic\_state\_wf\] Dependency of the work function of different ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) samples on hydrogen dosage (blue curve) and integrated intensity of the CAL signature (red circles).](Fig2){width="86"}
An exemplary photoemission spectrum of the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface after dosing $25~\text{L}$ of $\text{H}_2$ is shown in Fig. \[bandscheme\](b). At this $\text{H}_2$ dosage, we observe a work function of $4.03(5)$ eV and a peak right below $E_\text{F} = 0$ eV, which we attribute to the CAL. To quantify the H-induced changes to the surface potential, we took a series of spectra for $\text{H}_2$ dosages ranging from 0 L to 500 L and analyzed the shift in $\Phi$ and the intensity of the CAL signature, which is shown in Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\]. The blue curve depicts the dependency of $\Phi$ on the $\text{H}_2$ dosage. The work function is continuously reduced by up to $\Delta\Phi_\text{max}=-0.65(5)~\text{eV}$, as compared to the work function of the pristine surface after annealing. Clearly, the shift of $\Phi$ occurs mainly at hydrogen dosages below 50 L, and for dosages approaching 100 L we observe a stabilization of the work function. A quantitatively identical dependency of $\Phi$ on H dosage is measured for different samples, as shown in Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\]. Our measured value of $\Delta\Phi_\text{max}$ is identical to the value for H-saturated surfaces reported in the literature.[@Ozawa2011]
To evaluate the effect of H adsorption on the surface electronic structure we analyzed the intensity of the CAL signature with respect to the hydrogen dosage as shown by the red squares in Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\].[^3] While the PE spectrum of the freshly prepared surface shows nearly zero intensity below $E_\text{F}$, the CAL intensity shows a distinct increase for hydrogen dosages up to 150 L. It should be noted that the spectral shape of the peak and its energetic position do not significantly change in this low dosage regime.[^4] In addition, the increasing intensity of the CAL peak at $E_\text{F}$ implies an increase of the electron density and, therewith, metallic character of the ZnO surface.
Continued dosing of hydrogen above 150 L then leads to a significant intensity *reduction* of the CAL signature, which is in contrast to the *stabilization* of $\Phi$ for high dosages. Despite this difference in behavior for high coverages, the characteristic change of the two H-induced effects in the dosage range between 50 and 150 L hints at a competition between two different processes: (i) the creation of DOS below $E_\text{F}$, i.e., metallization and a simultaneous reduction of the surface dipole for dosages $\lesssim 150$ L and (ii) the subsequent reduction of the CAL intensity accompanied by a stabilization of the surface dipole for higher dosages. These opposing effects may stem from the availability of two different adsorption sites: Zn and O surface atoms.
 ZnO supercell with 25% O–H pre-coverage. In our calculations we compare the energy difference for the adsorption of an additional H atom on either an O atom or a Zn atom next to an H-pre-covered O atom, as indicated.](Fig_3_supercell){width="8.6cm"}
![\[bond\_energies\] (a) Relative formation energy for the formation of one O-H bond ($\Delta G^{\text{O}}$) and one Zn-H bond ($\Delta G^{\text{Zn}}$) per $4\times4$ supercell, depending on the amount of oxygen atoms pre-covered with hydrogen. Formation of O–H bonds is clearly favored for pristine ZnO($10\overline{1}0$). The crossing of the zero line marks the O–H-bond pre-coverage at which the next H favorably adsorbs at a surface Zn atom next to an O–H bond. This coverage of 18 % is marked with a red dotted line. (b) Calculated work function change resulting from H adsorption at a surface with the same O–H pre-coverage as in (a). Diamonds and circles show $\Delta\Phi$ for H adsorption on O or a first Zn site, respectively.](Figure4_separate){width="8.6cm"}
To gain microscopic insight into the adsorption energetics, we performed DFT calculations. Strictly speaking, the correct way to determine the surface structures would be to generate *all* possible hydrogen configurations and to calculate their surface energy. The different configurations would then be populated according to Boltzmann-statistics at the experimental temperature of 100 K. The large number of possible configurations \[a ($4 \times 4$)-supercell can represent on the order of $2 \times 10^8$ different geometries\], renders this approach intractable.
The traditional approach is to deal with this is to neglect temperature effects, i.e., to assume $T=0~\text{K}$. This would reduce the problem to finding the conformation with the lowest energy, which could be done by cluster expansion or genetic algorithm methods. However, picking several random configurations we found that the energy differences are very small, on the order of 10 to 50 meV. Assuming $T=0~\text{K}$ also neglects configurational entropy, which is not constant for a coverage series. Instead, configurational entropy favors submonolayers with medium coverage over almost full or empty layers. Moreover, for a given hydrogen decoration, it favors layers with mixed adsorption sites over layers with only one adsorption site. Given the small energy differences between the geometries, we chose to simplify the calculations by assuming that for a fixed number of O–H and Zn–H bonds all configurations are essentially degenerate. This relieves us from the burden of finding the global minimum, and we can simply pick one arbitrary geometry as representative. Moreover, we can then use an analytic expression for the configurational entropy $S$. According to Boltzmann’s equation, it is given as $$S= k_B \mathrm{ln} \left[{n_{\text{OH}} \choose n_{\text{O}}}{ n_{\text{ZnH}} \choose n_{\text{Zn}}}\right]$$ Here, $n_{\text{O}}$ and $n_{\text{Zn}}$ denote the number of surface O and Zn atoms, respectively, and $n_{\text{OH}}$ and $n_{\text{ZnH}}$ the number of O–H and Zn–H bonds.
To keep the computational effort reasonable, we refrain from performing all 256 calculations that would be required to generate a full surface energy diagram as function of O–H and Zn–H coverage. Instead, we focus on the question whether at some point during the dosage of hydrogen atoms, the formation of Zn–H bonds could energetically compete with the formation of O–H bonds. Previous work by Wöll and co-workers [@Wang2005] suggested that surface O–H bonds are more stable than Zn–H bonds, since the latter were not observed at high temperatures. Furthermore, the sticking coefficient of hydrogen on the pristine Zn-terminated ZnO(0001) surface was found to be extremely small at $<1\times 10^{-6}$ (Ref. ), which illustrates the low formation probability of isolated Zn–H bonds. Taking this into consideration, we calculated the Gibbs energy for the formation of adding *another* hydrogen atom to a surface that is already pre-covered with a sub-monolayer of hydrogen *exclusively* adsorbed on oxygen. We considered pre-coverages in a wide range from 0% to 94%, specifically one, two, three, four, six, and eight H atoms in the unit cell, which were always distributed such that the distance between them was maximized (cf. Figure \[unitcell\]). Then, an additional hydrogen was introduced either on a Zn atom next to an O–H bond or on an additonal O atom. An example geometry for a pre-coverage of 25 % is shown in Fig. \[unitcell\]. The Gibbs energy of formation, $\Delta G$ is calculated separately for adsorption on Zn or O site as $$\Delta G^{\text{Zn/O}} = E_{n+1}-E_{n}-E(\text{H}) - TS$$ where $E_{n+1}$ is the energy of the 4$\times$4 supercell with one additional hydrogen adsorbed on either Zn on O, $E_{n}$ the energy of the supercell without the additional hydrogen, $E(\text{H})$ the energy of a hydrogen atom, $T$ the temperature in experiment (100 K) and $S$ the configurational entropy. Note that we have neglected the contribution from vibrational zero-point energies here.[^5]
We find that with increasing (pre)coverage of O–H bonds, the formation of further O–H bonds becomes increasingly energetically *unfavorable* with respect to the formation of Zn–H bonds. We attribute this to the amphoteric character of hydrogen which acts as an electron donor on oxygen but as an electron acceptor on Zn. Pre-covering the surface with O–H bonds reduces the work-function of ZnO and thus also the ionization energy and electron affinity. Consequently, with increasing O–H pre-coverage, charge-transfer from the electron donor to ZnO becomes less favorable, while charge transfer from ZnO to the electron acceptor becomes beneficial. As Fig. \[bond\_energies\](a) shows, this results in a turning point at an O–H coverage of approx. 18 %, where the adsorption of hydrogen on a zinc atom next to an O–H bond becomes energetically favorable compared to the formation of another O–H bond. This argument implies that there is a critical work function at which the adsorption of H on O and Zn is nearly isoenergetic and, thus, there is no distinct energetic benefit of one bond over the other.
This work function will essentially stabilize itself, as the adsorption of H on O lowers the work function and facilitates further adsorption on Zn, while conversely, the adsorption of H on Zn increases the work function and leads to further adsorption of H on O. It would thus explain why the work-function saturates before the hydrogen layer is completed.
Hence, for coverages around and above 18 %, always a complex mixed monolayer with O–H and Zn–H moieties will form. Therefore, it should be emphasized that for higher hydrogen coverages, the work-functions calculated with the artificial adsorption scheme adopted here do not correspond to adsorption structures that will occur in experiment.
Figure \[bond\_energies\](b) shows the calculated hydrogen-induced work function change $\Delta\Phi$ for a number of different adsorption geometries. To compare the effect of O–H *vs.* Zn–H bond formation on surfaces with different amounts of O–H bonds already present, $\Delta\Phi$ is plotted for an adsorption pattern where one *additional* H atom is adsorbed on either another surface O site or a first surface Zn site (red diamonds and blue circles, respectively). For the ($4 \times 4$)-supercell this means that the work function change for a certain O–H pre-coverage corresponds to an overall hydrogen coverage which is $6.25$ % higher than the given O–H *pre*-coverage, and it is always referred to the work function of the *pristine* ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface. In the theoretical case of exclusive O–H bond formation, we compute a work function change of up to $\Delta\Phi = -2.5$ eV, which corresponds to an overall O–H coverage of $56.25$ %. However, in experiment this maximum theoretical $\Delta\Phi$ cannot possibly be achieved, because Zn–H bond formation sets in well before the O–H coverage can reach such high values, as described above. We expect the stabilization of $\Phi$ by the formation of a complex adsorption pattern of O–H and Zn–H bonds for coverages around and above 18 % (see red dotted line in Fig. \[bond\_energies\]). This stabilization can be illustrated quantitatively by considering the effect of a first Zn–H bond on the overall work function (blue circles). Remarkably, the difference in $\Delta\Phi$ between H adsorption on a surface Zn *vs.* a surface O is as large as 1 eV in case of a 18 % O–H pre-coverage, and the resulting $\Delta\Phi = -0.95$ eV is comparable to the experimentally determined $\Delta\Phi_\text{max} = -0.65$ eV. Because of the stabilization of $\Phi$ by the formation of a complex adsorption pattern for hydrogen dosages above 18 %, the corresponding calculated $\Delta\Phi$ is expected to be much closer to the experimentally determined value.
Although these calculations and their underlying adsorption model do not allow us to identify the exact surface structure and conformation under experimental conditions (this would require combining *ab-initio* thermodynamics with statistical methods such as cluster expansions or kinetic Monte Carlo modeling, which is beyond the scope of the present work), our theoretical work unambiguously shows that the O–H monolayer does *not* complete before the Zn–H monolayer starts forming. Rather, the results indicate that both adsorption sites compete for hydrogen adsorption, which is expected to lead to a complex equilibrium between the O–H and Zn–H (sub)monolayers. This suggests that exposure of a pristine ZnO($10\overline{1}0$)-surface to hydrogen leads, at first, to the formation of O–H-bonds along with a work function reduction and CAL formation. Further dosing of H increasingly favors the formation of Zn–H-bonds, which results in a complex adsorption behavior and a mixed adsorption pattern, which is reflected in the change of slope of the experimentally determined $\Delta\Phi$ below 100 L. It should be noted that the experimentally determined rather moderate shift of the work function leading to saturation at $\Delta\Phi_\text{max}=-0.65(5)~\text{eV}$ \[see Fig.\[bond\_energies\](b)\] refers to the first $\Phi_\text{ini}$ measured after surface preparation. As this procedure involves slow cooling of the sample, the initial surface H coverage cannot be considered to be absolutely zero. We thus expect $\Phi_\text{ini}<\Phi_\text{pristine}$ and hence $\Delta\Phi_\text{exp}<\Delta\Phi_\text{theo}$, which is in accordance with the experimentally and theoretically determined values.
 Plane-averaged potential change, at the ZnO(10${\overline{1}}$0) surface for two different coverage geometries: a single O–H bond \[red curve, (b)\] and 3 O–H bonds and a single Zn–H bond \[violet curve, (c)\] per $4\times4$ supercell. The location of adsorbed H is highlighted by markers in (b), (c).](Fig_5_z-pot2b){width="8.6cm"}
As mentioned above, the properties and the functionality of interfaces between ZnO and molecular adlayers may strongly depend on the local, microscopic electronic structure. A complete picture of the H-induced changes at the ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface therefore requires a microscopic description of the changes to the electrostatic potential $U$. As a first step, we calculate the change of $U$ as
$$\begin{gathered}
\Delta U(x,y,z)= U^{\text{ZnO}+\text{H}} (x,y,z)-\\ \left(U^{\text{ZnO}}(x,y,z)+U^{\text{H}}(x,y,z)\right)\end{gathered}$$
where $U^{\text{ZnO+H}}$ is the potential of the ZnO surface with adsorbed hydrogen, $U^\text{ZnO}$ the surface without adsorbed hydrogen, and $U^{\text{H}}$ the potential of a hypothetical, free-standing hydrogen layer in the same geometry as the adsorbed hydrogen atoms. The potential was calculated on a regular grid with a grid spacing of 0.1 [Å]{} in each direction. The resulting $\Delta U$ is shown in Fig. \[bandbending\](a) along the surface normal for two different adsorption geometries: First, OH with a single hydrogen in a $4\times4$ supercell that is adsorbed on an oxygen atom \[corresponding to a coverage of $6.25$%, (red curve)\], and second, OH$_3$ZnH which contains 3 O–H and one Zn–H bond (violet curve). The corresponding adsorption geometries are depicted in Fig. \[bandbending\](b) and (c). The latter corresponds to a first Zn–H bond on a surface with 18.75% O–H pre-coverage and it is thus consistent with our previous calculations. For the sake of simplicity, here we averaged the potential in the $x$ and $y$ directions.[^6]
Notably, in both cases the potential changes extend less than $20~\text{\AA}$ into the ZnO bulk, which makes them strongly localized along the surface normal compared to surface charge accumulation layer depths in conventional semiconductors such as GaAs or Si.[@Kneschaurek1976; @Chen1989] The OH$_3$ZnH geometry exhibits a stronger confinement and the band bending extends only across the first four ZnO layers. To our knowledge, this is the first DFT calculation of the strongly confined surface downward band bending in such a material. It, thus, represents the first quantitative and microscopic confirmation of the established qualitative view of the strong charge accumulation layer in *n*-type materials \[cf. Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)\].[@Luth2010]
![\[potential\_cut\] Hydrogen adsorption induced potential change, $\Delta U$, for OH$_3$ZnH$_1$ adsorption geometry. (a) Dependence along the red dotted line indicated in (b) for different distances from the surface. $z=0$ Å corresponds to the line shown in (c). (b) $\Delta U$ in false colors along the ($x$-$y$)-plane at $z=0$ Å. (c) $\Delta U$ shown for the ($x$-$z$)-plane cut along the line indicated in (b). Isolines are drawn at 0.5 eV increments of $\Delta U$. ](Fig_6_potential){width="8.6cm"}
Apart from the laterally averaged changes to the surface potential, we computed the three-dimensional changes of $U$ with respect to the pristine ZnO$(10\overline{1}0)$ surface for the adsorption geometries displayed in Fig. \[bandbending\](b,c). Hence, our DFT calculations also provide a detailed description of the *lateral* structure of H-induced modifications to the surface potential energy landscape. Figures \[potential\_cut\](b) and (c) show the H-induced potential changes for the OH$_3$ZnH adsorption geometry in the ($x$-$y$)-plane at $z=0$ Å and in the ($x$-$z$)-plane, respectively. It is shown that O–H bonds lead to a pronounced reduction of $U$ (blue) which laterally extends over roughly 5 nm. This behavior is nearly identical to the $\Delta U$ caused by the lone O–H bond in the OH adsorption geometry (not shown). The Zn–H-induced *increase* of the potential (red) exhibits a similarly localized character. As a consequence, $\Delta U$ is close to zero everywhere else.
Figure \[potential\_cut\](a) shows $\Delta U$ along a line that is crossing an O–H site and a neighboring pair of O–H and Zn–H adsorption sites for different distances $z$ from the surface, as indicated in the top and side view \[Fig. \[potential\_cut\](b,c)\]. The definition of $z=0$ Å is shown in (c). It should be noted that $z=0$ Å corresponds to a position slightly above the final ZnO layer and thus roughly agrees with the position of further possible adsorbates. At $z=0$ Å, $\Delta U$ is strongly corrugated, varying between $-3.58$ eV at the single O–H bond and $+1.54$ eV at the Zn–H bond. Again, the counteracting character of O–H and Zn–H bonds becomes directly visible. As expected, for an excess of O–H bonds, and already shown in Fig. \[bandbending\], the average $\Delta U$ is negative for this geometry. Moving away from the surface, the corrugation of $\Delta U$ is smoothed, which can also be seen in Fig. \[potential\_cut\](c). This smeared out $\Delta U$ is what, at even larger distances (30 Å), defines the work function change $\Delta\Phi$.
The microscopic perspective on the surface potential modifications obtained from our calculations reveals that, in the low coverage regime, changes to the surface electronic structure are strongly localized both laterally and along the $z$-axis. This corroborates our experimental finding that the intensity of the CAL peak is increasing upon H adsorption without a distinct change of its spectral shape. During the initial stages of H adsorption, the predominant formation of O–H bonds creates *localized* and independent metallic sites, supposedly by partially filling the conduction band Zn4*s* states which are shifted below $E_\text{F}$. The accumulation of these potential wells then leads to the experimentally observed increase of the CAL peak \[cf. Fig. \[exc\_peak\](b,c)\].
The spatial extent of these wells, which are confined laterally within $\approx 5$ nm, indicates at which coverages the *delocalization* of charges within the CAL is to be expected. As can be seen in Fig. \[potential\_cut\], at an O–H coverage of 18 %, the potential wells partially start to overlap. An increase of the O–H coverage to 25 % and beyond would clearly lead to significant overlap and a generally delocalized character of the reduced potential. It should be noted, however, that at these coverages, the formation of Zn–H bonds has already become favorable (cf. Fig. \[bond\_energies\]), which suggests that the occurrence of a laterally delocalized CAL roughly coincides with the beginning of a mixed adsorption geometry.
![\[exc\_peak\] (a) SX signatures at a pump-probe delay of $1~\text{ps}$ for H dosages from 3 to 44 L, modified from Ref. . Intensities are normalized to the number of electrons excited from the valence into the conduction band by the pump pulse (cf. Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)). (b)-(c) Strongly simplified scheme of the ZnO surface showing the correlation of H dosage and the resulting density of potential wells with SX density for low coverages.](Fig7_rev_small){width="8.6cm"}
Until now, the *experimental* characterization of the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface focused on observables averaged over a certain surface area (CAL intensity, $\Delta\Phi$), because of the finite spot size of the laser. Now we use a local electronic state as a local probe of the corrugated potential: The (partly) hydrogen-terminated ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface favors the formation of subsurface-bound excitons (SX), which are localized at surface potential minima (see Ref. ). This excitonic state forms within 200 fs after above-band-gap-photoexcitation with the $4.19$ eV pump photons, as schematically shown in Fig. \[bandscheme\](a). It is then detected by using a time-delayed $4.63$ eV probe photon, which excites the hole-bound electron above the vacuum energy. The spectroscopic signature of the SX lies close to and below $E_\text{F}$, as shown in Fig. \[exc\_peak\](a). It is thus isoenergetic with the CAL signature \[Fig. \[bandscheme\](b)\]. However, the two states can be easily distinguished: While the CAL signature is an *equilibrium* property of the H-covered ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface and can, thus, be measured by static photoelectron spectroscopy, the SX require prior above-band-gap photoexcitation of the sample and are observed in the photoinduced *changes* of the PE spectra (see Ref. for details). Since, in bulk ZnO, the CBM is 200 meV *above* $E_\text{F}$ \[see Fig. \[bandscheme\](a)\] and exciton binding energies in ZnO are on the order of 60 meV, we concluded in Ref. that the SX must be connected to regions with downward surface band bending, i.e., where the CBM is located very close to, or below, $E_\text{F}$. In the present calculations we show that the reduction of the surface potential is caused by the formation of O–H bonds and that the resulting downward band bending is strongly localized at the O–H sites. This connection between H-induced surface band bending and the SX makes the latter a sensor for the strength and degree of the *localization* of the surface potential changes: An increase of the H coverage, i.e., an enhancement of the number of potential minima and, therefore, the number of SX sites should, thus, lead to an increase of the SX photoemission intensity.
The change in SX photoemission intensity with the amount of adsorbed hydrogen is shown in Fig. \[exc\_peak\](a). For the depicted, comparably low dosages between 3 and 44 L we indeed observe a significant SX signal increase. This finding is in agreement with the localized and noninteracting character of the potential wells created by O–H bond formation, which we found in our calculations (cf. Fig. \[potential\_cut\]). In the low coverage regime, these wells accumulate *without* leading to a spatial overlap of the SX species, as schematically depicted in Fig. \[exc\_peak\](b)–(c). Interestingly, here the SX remains largely unperturbed by significant changes to the *macroscopic* properties of the sample surface caused by H dosing: The work function for the presented H dosages changes by $\Delta\Phi=-250~\text{meV}$ and at the same time the CAL intensity increases by a factor of $\approx 10$ (cf. Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\]). These experimental findings, hence, confirm the strongly localized character of the potential change $\Delta U$, as predicted by our calculations.
In addition to the careful study of the SX in the low H coverage regime, we also examined the limiting case of high H dosages where the distance between H adsorption sites is greatly reduced and the surface electron density is at its maximum due to formation of the CAL. Both effects are expected to reduce the SX intensity because of (i) spatial overlap and resulting mutual screening of the electron-hole pairs and (ii) screening by the increased amount of electrons (cf. Refs. ). Indeed, by increasing the $\text{H}_2$ dosage to 150 L, where the CAL intensity is at its maximum (see Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\]), the SX signal is quenched, i.e., we observe barely any pump-induced signal below $E_\text{F}$ (not shown).
This observation suggests that in the hydrogen dosage regime between 44 L and 150 L, there is a transition of $\Delta U$ from the strongly localized character to a laterally smeared out CAL which results in the formation of a two-dimensional electron gas at the surface as suggested by Ozawa *et al.*[@Ozawa2011] for a comparable coverage. In conjunction with our theoretical results which suggest an enhanced overlap of potential wells for O–H coverages above $\approx 25$ %, we conclude that the delocalization of the surface charge is reached between 44 and 150 L. Remarkably, this roughly coincides with the coverage regime below 100 L at which isoenergetic Zn–H bond formation sets in (at 18 % O–H coverage), as deduced from the work function change further above.
For even higher hydrogen coverages we expect a significant difference between our theoretical model of adsorption and the situation in experiment. This is, because high hydrogen coverages were shown to lead to drastic changes in the surface geometric structure of various ZnO surfaces[@Woll2007] that cannot be accounted for in our model. Diffusion of hydrogen into the ZnO bulk may increase the number of defects and lead to substantial changes in the (near-)surface electronic structure.[@Wardle2006] In particular, it was found for the Zn-terminated ZnO surface, that hydrogen at high dosages forms bonds with initially sub-surface O atoms, indicating a complex reconstruction behavior at this surface that is suggested as the main stabilization mechanism for this polar surface.[@Becker2001; @Dulub2003]
Nevertheless, our experimental observation of a reduction of the CAL intensity for dosages above 150 L, as shown in Fig. \[metallic\_state\_wf\], is consistent with previous experiments.[@Ozawa2011] Furthermore, our calculations for the completely H-covered surface predict, in agreement with a previous study,[@Wang2005] a re-opening of the band gap at the surface, which leads to a restoration of the semiconducting state (see above). Experimentally, however, we never observe a complete quenching of the CAL, even for $\text{H}_2$ exposures up to 500 L. This strongly suggests that, at the hydrogen pressures used in our experiments, the hydrogen coverage of the ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) surface never completely saturates.
Summary and conclusion
======================
A detailed microscopic view of hydrogen adsorbed on the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface has been developed using surface sensitive photoemission experiments and DFT calculations. In the experiment, we observe the emergence of a photoelectron signature at the Fermi level which, at first, is enhanced by increasing the hydrogen dosage. These occupied electronic states are attributed to the gradual formation of a charge accumulation layer at the ZnO surface. For dosages exceeding 150 L, the CAL intensity is reduced. Simultaneously, we observe a reduction of the work function from $4.50(5)$ eV to about $3.8$ eV. We show that the observed work function change and CAL intensity variation can be explained by a competition between O–H and Zn–H-bonds. Zn–H bonds become energetically favored when $\approx18$% of the ZnO($10\overline{1}0$) surface is covered with O–H bonds, eventually leading to a complex mix of adsorption sites.
The corresponding changes to the surface potential stem from the amphoteric character of hydrogen at the O and Zn surface sites. At the former it acts as electron donor, leading to a reduction of the electrostatic surface potential, whereas, in the Zn–H bond, hydrogen accepts an electron, thereby increasing the surface potential. The prevalence of O–H bonds in the low coverage regime causes the crossing of CBM and $E_\text{F}$ and, thus, the surface metallicity. We calculate that, along the surface normal, the electrostatic potential change $\Delta U$ reaches only a few nm into the ZnO bulk, which is a direct confirmation of the conventional macroscopic view of the charge accumulation layer at the ZnO surface. Laterally, the potential changes in the low coverage regime remain mainly confined to the H adsorption site. This strong localization of the H-induced $\Delta U$ is confirmed experimentally by using the signature of the SX as a local probe.
Our study shows that the interaction of hydrogen with the ZnO(10$\overline{1}$0) leads to a complex electrostatic potential landscape that has to be treated on a microscopic level. The strongly localized character of H-induced changes to the surface potential for low H coverages is relevant regarding interfacial energy level alignment with functional molecules, especially considering that H is a ubiquitous contaminant. Thus, when dealing with hybrid interfaces of ZnO with functional molecules, not only macroscopic surface properties have to be considered, but also the electronic structure at the binding site of the adsorbate. Knowledge of this effect is therefore crucial for ZnO-based device applications and could also be intentionally used to tailor the properties of the ZnO surface.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions and support by M. Scheffler and M. Wolf. This work was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Sfb 951 and the European Community’s FP7 through Grant No. 280879-2 CRONOS. OTH thankfully acknowledges funding through the Austrian Science Fund FWF through the Erwin-Schrödinger Grant No. J 3258-N20. JCD acknowledges support by the International Max Planck Research School *Functional Interfaces in Physics and Chemistry*. PR acknowledges financial support from the Academy of Finland through its Centres of Excellence Program (project no. 251748).
[^1]: For comparison, we conducted a small set of experiments at $T = 300$ K and found qualitatively the same effects, albeit the sticking coefficient of hydrogen appears to be lower than at 100 K.
[^2]: The experiment does not allow a quantitative estimate of the cracking efficiency.
[^3]: The intensity of the CAL signature was determined by integrating the spectra in an energy range from $-0.74~\text{eV}$ to $0.12~\text{eV}$ after subtracting the secondary electron background.
[^4]: The energetic position of the CAL peak maximum can be derived from a single Gaussian fit to the data. We find a peak maximum at about $0.165$ eV below $E_\text{F}$ for a dosage of 200 L, which agrees well with the position of $-0.16(3)$ eV measured by Ozawa and Mase for the same dosage, see Ref.
[^5]: To check the influence of an increase of temperature on our results we also performed calculations using the above-described method for $T=300~\text{K}$ and find neither qualitative nor quantitative changes to our results (within the precision of the calculation).
[^6]: For both adsorption geometries, the calculated H-induced downward band bending is on the order of $1~\text{eV}$; still the potential reduction for the OH$_3$ZnH geometry is $0.3$ eV stronger because the effects of the three O–H bonds are summed up which is not compensated by the counteracting single Zn–H bond.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The attosecond ultrafast ionization dynamics of correlated two- or many-electron systems have, so far, been mainly addressed investigating atomic systems. In the case of single ionization, it is well known that electron-electron correlation modifies the ionization dynamics and observables beyond the single active electron picture, resulting in effects such as the Auger effect or shake-up/down and knock-up/down processes. Here, we extend these works by investigating the attosecond ionization of a molecular system involving correlated two-electron dynamics, as well as non-adiabatic nuclear dynamics. Employing a charge-transfer molecular model system with two differently bound electrons, a strongly and a weakly bound electron, we distinguish different pathways leading to ionization, be it direct ionization or ionization involving elastic and inelastic electron scattering processes. We find that different pathways result in a difference in the electronic population of the parent molecular ion, which, in turn, involves different subsequent (non-adiabatic) postionization dynamics on different time scales.'
author:
- Friedrich Georg Fröbel
- Karl Michael Ziems
- Ulf Peschel
- Stefanie Gräfe
- Alexander Schubert
title: 'The impact of electron-electron correlation in ultrafast attosecond single ionization dynamics'
---
[^1]
[^2]
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
For many elementary processes in multi-electron systems, such as in photoionization, electron-impact ionization, the Auger effect, and other radiative processes, the impact of correlated electron-electron dynamics plays a crucial role [@Matveev82SovPhys]. In the case of ionization, these electron correlations affect the state and the dynamics of the residual cation on an atto- and femtosecond timescale. As a consequence, the remaining bound electron(s) can be excited (shake-up/knock-up processes [@Sukiasyan12PRA]), relaxed (shake-down/knock-down), or even ejected subsequently (Auger process) [@Auger25JPR]. Such time-resolved ionization dynamics of multi-electron systems have been investigated in various theoretical and experimental studies, for a review see for example Ref..
On the experimental side, the advent of ultrashort femto- or even attosecond pulses in the extreme ultraviolet (XUV) regime being available either via table-top high-order harmonic generation or the newest generation of (X)FEL sources, for example, paved the way for the observation of these processes in real time, e.g. employing the attosecond streaking technology [@Uiberacker07Nature; @Corkum07NatPhys; @Calegari16JPB; @Zherebtsov11JPB; @Ossiander17NatPhys]. However, resolving the details of these complex correlated many-body phenomena involving nuclear and electronic degrees of freedom still poses a challenge for computational simulations.
Most of the theoretical work has been focused on the helium atom as the simplest two-electron system [@Hino93PRA; @Ossiander17NatPhys; @Pazourek12PRL; @Sukiasyan12PRA]. Effects which have been examined are the Wigner-Smith time delay and electron-electron correlation under the influence of an (infrared) laser field in the context of streaking spectroscopy . For molecules, the physics becomes even more complex, also due to the multi-scatterer nature compared to the centrosymmetric atoms. Ning et al. have investigated the simplest, prototypical molecule, H$_2^+$, and found pronounced interference effects (Cohen-Fano interferences, [@Cohen66PR]) caused by the two scattering centers [@Ning14PRA]. However, this prototype case inherently does not involve any multi-electron effects. Other molecular systems investigated theoretically include endohedral complexes of type A@C$_{60}$ [@Deshmuk14PRA; @Pazourek13Faraday] or, employing multi-configurational approaches, ionization and subsequent charge migration of small amino acids [@Remacle11PRA; @Hennig05JPCA; @Kuleff07CP; @Remacle06PNAS; @Ayuso17PCCP; @Lepine14NatPhot]. A few works have considered both, the correlated electron dynamics and the nuclear motion [@Despre15JPCL; @Vacher17PRL; @Vacher15PRA; @Sun17JPCA].
In order to reduce computational costs, numerical simulations commonly employ approximations such as the sudden approximation, frozen nuclear degrees of freedom, or the single-active electron approximation [@Kulander88PhysRevA]. Within the framework of the latter, one assumes that the dynamics of the active electrons is sufficiently fast so that the “inactive” electrons do no adapt within its time scale, i.e. no electron correlated dynamics occurs. However, it has been shown by Awasthi et al. that electron correlation even upon XUV- or X-ray-induced ionization of multi-electron systems plays an important role and cannot be neglected [@Awasthi08PhysRevA; @Awasthi10PhysRevA].
![\[fig:particleConf\] Configuration of the extended Shin-Metiu system: An ultrashort XUV pulse is used to ionize a linear molecule aligned with the pulse’s polarization axis. The molecule consists of two fixed nuclei at $\pm5$Å, two mobile electrons with coordinates $x$ and $y$, and a movable central nucleus at $R$. The mobile nucleus is initially localized at negative $R$ values, whereas the two electrons reside on both sides. Thus, in the electronic ground state, the electron at negative coordinates is stronger bound than the electron located at positive values.](Fig1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In this work, we investigate the effects of such electron-electron correlation as well as non-adiabatic effects on the postionization dynamics of a molecular charge transfer model system in a time-resolved picture. Moreover, we aim to thoroughly distinguish the processes contributing to the electron-nuclear post-ionization dynamics. The model system, which has been originally suggested by Shin and Metiu [@Shin95JCP; @Shin96JPC], has been extended by the group of Engel to include two electrons [@Erdmann04JCP2; @Falge12JPCA]. This system, which will be introduced in more detail in Sec.\[sec:theory\], possesses, due to asymmetric initial conditions, one stronger and one weaker bound electron with anti-parallel spin. Interaction with an attosecond XUV pulse leads to the emission of one electron. We show that several processes occur on different timescales which have an impact on the electronic configuration of the residual molecular ion: (a) direct photoemission of either the weaker or the stronger bound electron, without passing the respective other electron, yet, affecting its quantum state due to an altered electrostatic environment (shake-up/shake-down processes); (b) emission processes, where upon photoabsorption, the accelerated electron needs to ”pass“ the other electron. The latter process involves an immediate electron-electron interaction, which leads to both, inelastic and elastic scattering. As a result, the second electron is either excited into higher bound states (knock-up), relaxed into lower states (knock-down) [@Sukiasyan12PRA], or adopts the momentum of the electron originally accelerated by the electric field and is emitted in its stead (”indirect“ photoemission); and (c) non-adiabatic transition processes during the postionization dynamics.
The paper is organized as follows: After a short description of the model and the numerical methods utilized in Sec.\[sec:theory\], we will present the different pathways, analyzed additionally with the help of desymmetrized wave functions and restricted interactions of the electrons with the external electric field. The resulting dynamics is discussed by means of the final state-dependence in the residual ion in Sec.\[sec:results\]. The paper ends with a summary and conclusion in Sec.\[sec:summary\].
\[sec:theory\]Theory
====================
\[subsec:model\]The full model system
-------------------------------------
The model we apply in this work represents an extension to the one originally suggested by Shin and Metiu [@Shin95JCP; @Shin96JPC]. In their work, a linear, one-dimensional charge-transfer model system was employed consisting of two fixed nuclei with charges $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ at the positions $\pm L$/2, one moving nucleus ($Z$) in between with coordinate $R$, and one electron, here with coordinate $y$, giving rise to the potential: $$\begin{aligned}
V^\text{1e}(y,R&)={} \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\left[\frac{Z_1 Z}{|L/2-R|}\!+\!
\frac{Z_2 Z}{|L/2+R|}\!-\!\frac{Z\:\text{erf}(|R-y|/R_c)}{|R-y|} \right.\nonumber \\[6pt]
-&\left. \frac{Z_1\:\text{erf}(|L/2-y|/R_f)}{|L/2-y|} -
\frac{Z_2\:\text{erf}(|L/2+y|/R_f)}{|L/2+y|}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the error functions (erf) describe a truncated Coulomb interaction between individual particles. The truncation parameters $R_f$ and $R_c$ specify the interaction strength between the electron and the fixed nuclei and the mobile nucleus, respectively [@Shin95JCP; @Shin96JPC].
Here, we use an extension to this model introduced by Engel and coworkers, where a second electron, $x$, is added to the system [@Erdmann04JCP2; @Falge12JPCA]. The whole particle configuration is shown in Fig.\[fig:particleConf\]. The system’s potential takes on the form $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y,R) ={}& V^\mathrm{1e}(y,R)
+ \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\left[ - \frac{Z\:\text{erf}(|R-x|/R_c)}{|R-x|} \right.
\nonumber \\[6pt]
&- \frac{Z_1\:\text{erf}(|L/2-x|/R_f)}{|L/2-x|} -
\frac{Z_2\:\text{erf}(|L/2+x|/R_f)}{|L/2+x|} \nonumber \\
&\left.+\frac{\text{erf}(|x-y|/R_e)}{|x-y|} \right], \label{eq:pot}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_e$ scales the electron-electron interaction [@Erdmann04JCP; @Falge12JPCL; @Falge11JCP; @Falge12JPCA; @Falge17PCCP; @Erdmann03JCP; @Erdmann04JCP; @Erdmann04EPJD]. The fixed nuclei have a distance of $L = 10$Å. Nuclear charges are $Z = Z_1 = Z_2 = 1$. All truncation parameters have been set to $R_f = R_c = R_e = 1.5$Å, corresponding to the weak-coupling regime [@Falge17PCCP].
The three particle configuration of the model and its dynamics can be fully solved numerically. However, for interpretation, we calculate for the one-electron (1e) and the two-electron (2e) systems the (adiabatic) electronic eigenfunctions, $\varphi^{\text{1e}}_n(y;R)$ and $\varphi^{\text{2e}}_n(x,y;R)$, with eigenvalues $V^{\text{1e}}_n(R)$ and $V^{\text{2e}}_n(R)$, respectively, by solving the following eigenvalue equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{p_y^2}{2m_e}+ {V}^{\mathrm{1e}}(y,R) \right] \varphi^{\text{1e}}_n(y;R)
={}& V^{\text{1e}}_n(R)\,\varphi^{\text{1e}}_n(y;R)\label{eq:eigenequation1}\\
\left[\frac{p_x^2}{2m_e} + \frac{p_y^2}{2m_e} + {V}^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y,R) \right]
&\varphi^{\text{2e}}_n(x,y;R) ={}\notag\\ &V^{\text{2e}}_n(R)\,
\varphi^{\text{2e}}_n(x,y;R),
\label{eq:eigenequation2}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_e$ is the electron mass and $p_x$ and $p_y$ refer to the electronic momenta. For the two-electron case, the wavefunctions are symmetrized according to Pauli’s principle and correspond to an anti-parallel spin configuration. The obtained potential energy curves, $V_n^{1e/2e}(R)$, are shown in Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]a for one (upper panel) and two bound electrons (bottom panel). The one-electron model will be used to analyze the postionization dynamics of one ($y$) electron remaining in the parent ion after removal of the other ($x$) electron upon ionization. The first five electronic eigenfunctions of the single electron model, $\varphi_n^{\text{1e}}(y;R_0)$, are shown in Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]b for an asymmetric nuclear configuration, $R_0=-2.05$Å, corresponding to the system initialization (see below). Note, that among these states, for $n=0,1$, and 3, the electron is mostly localized on the left-hand side ($y<0$), i.e. at the two close nuclei (in a strongly bound location), whereas for $n=2$ and 4 it is predominantly located at the right hand side ($y>0$), i.e. at the single nucleus (weakly bound).
The system interacts with an ultrashort attosecond XUV pulse which, using the dipole approximation and velocity gauge, results in the Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}(t) ={}&\frac{{P}^2}{2M} + \frac{{p}_x^2}{2m_e} +
\frac{{p}_y^2}{2m_e} + V^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y,R) \notag\\
{}&+e\,\mathcal{A}(t)\left(-\frac{Z}{M}{P}+\frac{p_x}{m_e} +
\frac{p_y}{m_e}\right),
\label{eq:SE}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the proton mass and $P$ the nuclear momentum. The electric field of the ultrashort ionizing XUV pulse is described via its vector potential $\mathcal{A}(t)$ with a polarization along the molecular axis: $$\mathcal{A}(t) = -\frac{E_0}{\omega}\,g(t-T)\,\sin\big(\omega (t - T) + \phi\big).$$ Here, $E_0 = -8.7$V/Å (or -0.169a.u.) is the electric field strength (corresponding to an intensity of 1.0$\times 10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$), $\omega$ the field’s angular frequency, and $g(t-T)$ a Gaussian pulse envelope function centered around [$T = 0$]{} fs with a full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of $140$ as (2.894a.u.). The angular frequency corresponds to a wavelength of $\lambda = 80$nm ($\hat{=} \; 15.5$eV or 0.570a.u.), which is sufficient to singly ionize the molecule through single photon absorption, see Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]a. The spectral width of the attosecond pulse intensity is 18.4eV (0.676a.u.). The carrier-envelope phase (CEP) $\phi$ is set to zero, corresponding to a sine-shaped vector potential or an approximately cosine-shaped electric field.
![\[fig:energycurves\] (a) Potential energy curves $V^{\text{1e,2e}}_n(R)$ for the lowest electronic eigenstates $\varphi^{\text{1e,2e}}_n$ of the one-electron (1e) and two-electron (2e) systems. The blue-shaded area depicts the initial nuclear wave packet $\chi(R)$ centered around the minimum at $R_0=-2.05\,\text{\AA{}}$. (b) Potential energy $V^\mathrm{1e}(y,R_0)$ (solid black line) and first five electronic eigenfunctions of the single-electron system, $\left|\varphi^{\text{1e}}_n(y;R_0)\right|^2$, at the initial, near-equilibrium nuclear geometry $R_0$. ](Fig2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
\[subsec:numericaldetails\]Propagation and initialization
---------------------------------------------------------
The full system’s wave function $\Psi(x,y,R,t)$ is represented on a three-dimensional grid with a range of with 1024 grid points in $x$- and $y$-direction, respectively, and of with 128 points along the $R$-direction. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian defined in Eq.(\[eq:SE\]) is solved numerically with a timestep of 5as using the split-operator technique [@FeitJCoPh82] and the FFTW3 library [@FFTW3] for Fourier transforms. For the details on the numerics please see our previous publications, e.g. Ref.. The simulation starts at $t_0=-4$fs, well before the XUV pulse enters the system. Reflection at the grid boundaries is suppressed by multiplying $\Psi(x,y,R,t)$ at each timestep with a splitting function [@Metiu1987] $$\begin{aligned}
f(x,y)={}&
\big[1+\mathrm{e}^{\zeta_1\,(|x|-\zeta_2)}\big]^{-1}\,
\big[1+\mathrm{e}^{\zeta_1\,(|y|-\zeta_2)}\big]^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ with the parameters $\zeta_1=5.67$Å$^{-1}$ and $\zeta_2=235$Å.
### \[subsubsec:fullsys\]Full fermionic wave function
The initial state is assumed to be a product state of the two-electron adiabatic electronic ground state, $\varphi_0^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y;R)$, and a nuclear wave function $$\Psi(x,y,R,t_0)=\varphi_0^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y;R)\,\chi(R).
\label{eq:iniwf}$$ The adiabatic electronic eigenstates are obtained by solving the field-free electronic Schrödinger equations, Eqs.(\[eq:eigenequation1\]) and (\[eq:eigenequation2\]), via the relaxation method [@Kosloff86CPL].
The nuclear part of the initial wave function, $\chi(R)$, is assumed to be a Gaussian-shaped vibrational wave packet centered around the left local minimum of the double-well potential at $R_0\!=\!-2.05$Å (see shaded area in Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]a): $$\chi(R) = N_0\,e^{-\beta_R (R-R_0)^2}.
\label{eq:inichi}$$ Here, $N_0$ serves as normalization constant and the width $\beta_R\!=\!7.14$Å$^{-2}$. This way, the Gaussian closely resembles the left-hand side of the vibrational ground state eigenfunction, which is symmetric around $R=0$. We note that the factorized, asymmetric initial state does not correspond to the total ground state of the system. It rather corresponds to one of two energetically equal realizations. This is a common situation, where the system resides in one potential well as encountered, for example, in NH$_3$ inversion or isomerization processes.
The initial two-electron densities, i.e. $\int |\Psi(x,y,R,t_0)|^2\,\mathrm{d}R$, is displayed in the top layer of Fig.\[fig:initalWF\]. Note that cuts through the spatial distribution of the electronic part – given by the two-electron groundstate wavefunction $\varphi^\text{2e}_0(x,y;R)$ – approximately correspond to the one-electron functions $\varphi^{1e}_0(y;R)$ and $\varphi^{1e}_2(y;R)$. The simulation results obtained for these initial conditions (and their relation to the one-electron electronic eigenfunctions) are discussed in Sec.\[subsec:channels\]. Please note that as we neglect any spin-dependent interaction, spin and spatial coordinates factorize. We therefore only consider the (symmetric) spatial part of the full wave function.
![\[fig:initalWF\] Initial two-electron densities, $\int |\Psi(x,y,R,t_0)|^2\,\mathrm{d}R$, entering the propagation. Top plane: fully symmetric spatial wave function calculated via the relaxation method. Descending from top to bottom: Projection onto the 2D plane of the full system and the artificial subsystems, (A) and (B), respectively. ](Fig3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### \[subsubsec:subsys\]Artificial subsystems with distinguishable electrons
For analysis purposes, the full wave function, Eq.(\[eq:iniwf\]), is partitioned into two desymmetrized subsystems with
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{(A)~~}\psi_A(x,y,R,t_0) \equiv{}&\sqrt{2}\, \Psi(x,y,R,t_0)\,\Theta(y-x)
,\label{eq:psiA}\\
\text{(B)~~}\psi_B(x,y,R,t_0) \equiv{}& \sqrt{2}\, \Psi(x,y,R,t_0)\,\Theta(x-y)
,\label{eq:psiB}\end{aligned}$$
respectively (Fig.\[fig:initalWF\], lower panels). In above equation, $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. These partial wave functions each describing one half of the full system, split along the $x\!=\!y$-diagonal. By doing so, the wave functions $\psi_A(x,y,R,t_0)$ and $\psi_B(x,y,R,t_0)$ vaguely resemble a wave function in Hartree-product form, because now $x$ and $y$ effectively describe identical, yet *distinguishable* electrons. In the initial configuration of subsystem A (B) the $x$ ($y$) electron is strongly bound (with an approximate binding energy of $E_B^{\text{strong}}=V^\mathrm{1e}_2(R_0)-V^\mathrm{2e}_0(R_0)=15.1$eV), whereas the $y$ ($x$) electron ($E_B^{\text{weak}}=V^\mathrm{1e}_0(R_0)-V^\mathrm{2e}_0(R_0)=10.5$eV) is weakly bound. Technically, the abrupt cut-off of the wavefunction leads to a weak field-free ionization signal. This background signal is removed from the propagated wave function until $t=-250$as, i.e. before the ionizing XUV pulse interacts with the system, by truncating $\Psi(x,y,R,t\leq-250\,\text{as})$ through multiplication with $\Theta(25\,\text{\AA{}}-\abs{x})\,\Theta(25\,\text{\AA{}}-\abs{y})$. The different ionization pathways revealed by these subsystems’ dynamics are discussed in Sec.\[subsec:shakeup\].
### \[subsubsec:redH\]Restricted field interaction
For analysis, further disentanglement of individual ionization pathways and their underlying intramolecular dynamics is achieved by artificially restricting the field interaction. To this end, simulations on subsystems A and B are performed with the modified Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:modH}
{\mathcal{H}}'(t) ={}&\frac{{P}^2}{2M} + \frac{{p}_x^2}{2m_e} +
\frac{{p}_y^2}{2m_e} + V^{\mathrm{2e}}(x,y,R) \notag\\
{}&+e\,\mathcal{A}(t)\left(-\frac{Z}{M}{P}+\frac{p_{\xi}}{m_e}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi\in\{x,y\}$ refers to either the $x$ *or* the $y$ electron. Thus, field interaction is limited to a specific electron. This restriction allows us to distinguish direct and electron correlation driven photoionization pathways. Obtained results are presented and discussed in Sec.\[subsec:collision\].
Identification of single ionization {#subsec:ionanalysis}
-----------------------------------
To isolate fractions of the wave functions that belong to the singly ionized system, the photoelectron dynamics are devined via the ionization signal in regions far from the molecule using the mask function $$\label{eq:mask}
c(x,y) = c_x(x) \cdot \big[1 - c_y(y)\big]$$ with $$\label{eq:cutoff}
c_\xi(\xi) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } 0~<~\lvert \xi \rvert \leq \xi_c\\
\sin^2\big(\frac{\lvert \xi \rvert-\xi_c}{\Delta\xi}\frac{\pi}{2}\big)
& \text{if } \xi_c < \lvert \xi \rvert \leq \xi_c\!+\!\Delta\xi \\
1 & \text{if } \xi_c\!+\!\Delta\xi < \lvert \xi \rvert \leq
\xi_\mathrm{end}
\end{cases},$$ where $\xi\in\{x,y\}$ with corresponding $x_c = y_c = 25$Å, $\Delta x =\Delta y = 10\,$Å, and $x_\mathrm{end}=y_\mathrm{end}=240\,$Å marking the end points of the simulation grid. As a result, the mask $c(x,y)$ selects parts of the electronic wave functions $$\psi_{\text{out}}(x,y,R,t) \equiv c(x,y)\,\psi(x,y,R,t)$$ at large $x$ and low $y$ coordinates, corresponding to the emission of the $x$ electron, whereas the other ($y$) electron remains bound at the parent molecular ion. Due to symmetry in the electronic coordinates, it is sufficient to only evaluate signals along the $x$ direction. Note, that this mask is independent of $R$, as the nuclear part of the wave function remains well confined between the two outer nuclei. Further segmentation of $\psi_\text{out}(x,y,R,t)$ into subregions $S$ will be introduced in Sec.\[subsec:channels\].
\[sec:results\]Results and Discussion
=====================================
\[subsec:channels\]Fully correlated fermionic wave function
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interaction of the initial state with the ultrashort XUV pulse induces electron dynamics within the (non-ionized) two-electron system and leads to single ionization. While for atomic systems, an ionization signal can be extracted via projection of the wave function onto a set of Coulomb waves [@Pazourek12PRL], such an approach is not feasible for the multi-centered potential of the molecular model employed here. Instead, we remove the two-electron components for the first 35 two-electron states, for which both electrons are bound, from the total wavefunction. Then we project the remainder (containing only a single bound electron) onto the basis spanned by the electronic eigenfunctions $\{\varphi_n^{\text{1e}}(y;R)\}$ of the one-electron system [@Sukiasyan12PRA]: $$\begin{aligned}
&P_n(t) ={} \iint \left|{\int \varphi^{\text{1e}}_{n}(y;R)\,
\Psi^{\text{1e}}(x,y,R,t)~\mathrm{d}y}\right|^2 \mathrm{d}x~\mathrm{d}R,\end{aligned}$$ using the following defintions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi^{\text{1e}}(x,y,R,t) \equiv{} \Psi(x,y,R,t) - \sum_{m=0}^{34} a^\text{2e}_m(t)\,
\varphi^{\text{2e}}_m(x,y;R),\\
&a^\text{2e}_m(t) \equiv{} \iiint{ \varphi^{\text{2e}}_{m}(x,y;R)\,\Psi(x,y,R,t)~
\mathrm{d}x}~\mathrm{d}y~\mathrm{d}R.\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:2eproj\] Population of the single-electron states upon projection onto the basis spanned by $\{\varphi_n^\mathrm{1e}(y;R)\}$ after removal of all two-electron states (upper panel) and temporal profile of the XUV pulse’s electric field (lower panel). ](Fig4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The populations $P_n(t)$ are shown in Fig.\[fig:2eproj\] upper panel. Note, that in the basis considered here, only contributions are obtained, where the $y$ electron remains bound, while the $x$ electron is ejected. Projection onto $\{\varphi^\text{1e}_n(x;R)\}$ yields the same results for reversed roles. One finds that the first five one-electron states are considerably populated through the ultrashort XUV pulse (Fig.\[fig:2eproj\] lower panel) around $t=0$.
For comparison, within the single active electron approximation, the *sudden* removal of one of the electrons would yield time-independent one-electron state occupations obtained by projection of $\varphi_0^\text{2e}(x,y;R)$ onto $\{\varphi^\text{1e}_n(y;R)\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
b^{\text{1e}}_n \equiv{}{}& \iint \big|\int\varphi^{\text{1e}}_{n}(y;R)\,\varphi^{\text{2e}}_0(x,y;R)~
\mathrm{d}y \big|^2\,\mathrm{d}x~\mathrm{d}R.\end{aligned}$$ For the initial conditions considered here, only the states $n=0$ (ejecting the weakly bound electron) and $n=2$ (ejecting the strongly bound electron) would be populated significantly, leaving the remaining electron more tightly bound in the molecular system (*shake-down* process [@Ossiander17NatPhys]). The occupation of higher one-electron states, i.e. $n=$1,3, and 4, corresponding to a *shake-up* process [@Ossiander17NatPhys], would be approximately two orders of magnitudes lower ($b^{\text{1e}}_1/b^{\text{1e}}_0=0.013$, $b^{\text{1e}}_3/b^{\text{1e}}_0=0.008$, $b^{\text{1e}}_4/b^{\text{1e}}_2=0.006$).
In contrast, in our simulation with fully correlated electrons, depicted in Fig.\[fig:2eproj\], these three states show significant occupations. It is also noteworthy, that their population continues to rise after the XUV pulse has passed the system, while in particular the population of the one-electron groundstate ($n=0$) declines. Since non-adiabatic transitions occur on a much longer timescale (see below), we trace these phenomena back to the continued interaction between the bound ($y$) and the ejected ($x$) electron on early timescales, where a transition to higher bound states is associated with a *knock-up* process and one to lower states corresponds to a *knock-down* process [@Sukiasyan12PRA]. In the following, we aim to disentangle and quantify the various correlation-induced processes that occur during different ionization pathways. To this end, we will evaluate the postionization dynamics. Fig.\[fig:channel\] depicts a snapshot of the two-electron density, $\int \abs{\Psi(x,y,R,t)}^2\,\mathrm{d}R$, of the full antisymmetric system at $t = 3$fs after XUV-pulse interaction. As can be gathered, the dominant part of the wave function remains around the origin (corresponding to the non-ionized part of the system), with minor parts being delocalized into the $x$ or $y$ direction. These four double-stripe structures, where either $x$ or $y$ coordinate stays localized within $\pm$10Å, represent different single ionization processes. Electron densities in regions of high values of both coordinates, $|x|$ and $|y|$, simultaneously, corresponding to double ionization, are approximately four orders of magnitudes lower due to the much larger energy threshold for double ionization. Consequently, such contributions are not visible in Fig.\[fig:channel\]. In the following, we will concentrate on the single ionization dynamics occurring during the interval of 1 to 20fs after pulse arrival.
![\[fig:channel\] Two-electron density, $\int |\Psi(x,y,R,t=3\text{\,fs})|^2\,\mathrm{d}R$, of the fully antisymmetric system (mirror symmetry w.r.t. the $x=y$ diagonal) 3fs after ionization with an 140as XUV pulse centered at $T = 0$fs. Four different ionization channels can be distinguished, here illustrated for the emission of the $x$-electron ($x$ direction): Emission occurs either in *forward* ($x>+25$Å) or *backward* ($x<-25$Å) direction for positive (*up*) or negative (*down*) positions of the remaining $y$ electron. The corresponding channels along the $y$-axis are equivalent.](Fig5.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Naturally, the electron densities are symmetric with respect to the $x\!=\!y$-diagonal. It is therefore sufficient to restrict the analysis to electron densities emitted along one axis. Here we chose the $x$ axis and ascribe the labels *forward*/*backward* for positive/negative values in $x$. An apparent feature of the single ionization channels is the occurrence of two ionization pathways in every direction. This indicates that the remaining electron eventually stays at different potential minima (around $R=0$), for which we introduce the labels *up/down* for positive/negative values in $y$, respectively, as indicated in Fig.\[fig:channel\]. The electron densities in these four distinct ionization channels differ from each other in shape and amplitude. To distinguish the underlying processes, an evaluation region is defined according to Eqs.([\[eq:mask\]]{}) and (\[eq:cutoff\]) and further separated into subregions $S$ according to the ascribed labels, allowing us to collect and analyze the emitted wave function $\psi^S_\text{out}(x,y,R,t)$ of each channel separately. As the region of ionization is defined for no emission signal is detected until , when the fastest components of the ionized wave function enter the evaluation region. Ionization signal, i.e. $I_S(t)= \iiint \abs{\psi_\text{out}^S(x,y,R,t)}^2\,
\mathrm{d}x\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}R$, builds up within a subregion $S$ mainly over the period of $\sim$5fs. The build up is traced back to a kinetic energy distribution whose central 80% lie between 0.3 and 4.5eV with a maximum at 1.4eV. After 5fs the overall probability to find both electrons in each subregion continues to increase only slightly due to parts of the wave packet with lower kinetic energy entering the subregion. The respective probabilities at 5fs are $3.9\times10^{-6}$, $1.1\times10^{-4}$, $1.8\times10^{-5}$, and $2.8\times10^{-5}$ for the *forward-up*, *forward-down*, *backward-up*, and *backward-down* subregion, respectively. Fig.\[fig:py\] shows the time evolution of the average momentum, ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^S(t)$, of electron $y$, which remains bound in the molecular ion after electron $x$ has been emitted. The quantity ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^S(t)$ is calculated via the density distribution for the remaining $y$ electron, $\rho_S(p_y,t)$ by integrating over $\psi^S_{\text{out}}$ in each individual channels $S$: $${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^{S}(t) = \frac{ \int p_y\,\rho_S(p_y,t)~\dd p_y}{\int \rho_S(p_y,t)~\dd p_y},$$ where $$\rho_S(p_y,t) = \iint \left|
\widetilde{\psi}_{\text{out}}^S(p_x,p_y,P,t)\right|^2~\dd p_x~\dd P, \\$$ Here, $\widetilde{\psi}_{\text{out}}^S$ is the Fourier-transformed wave function $\psi^S_{\text{out}}$. The average momentum ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^{S}(t)$ illustrates that all four regions differ in the dynamics induced in the parent ion.
![\[fig:py\] Time-resolved momentum expectation values ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^S (t)$ of the remaining $y$ electron (black solid lines) after ionization of the full system for the different ionization channels, see Fig.\[fig:channel\], as indicated. For comparison, results from a simulation with a frozen nuclear configuration are added (red dotted lines). The expectation value ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}^S (t)$ of the remaining bound electron $y$ serves as an indicator for electron scattering during the emission process. ](Fig6.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In the following, we will interpret the different dynamics seen in Fig.\[fig:py\]a–d based on the leading contributions to photoemission into each evaluation region. However, there are further contributions to each channel, which will be isolated and investigated in Secs.\[subsec:shakeup\] and \[subsec:collision\].
We interpret the observations as follows: In the *forward-down* channel, Fig.\[fig:py\]d, the signal stems primarily from the *direct emission* of the weakly bound electron on the right-hand side of the molecule towards positive $x$ values, i.e. without passing the parent ion (and in particular the other electron) first. The strongly bound electron therefore remains on the left-hand side and is hardly affected by the ionization dynamics which is reflected in the nearly constant momentum expectation value of the remaining electron. In contrast, the oscillating signal in the *forward-up* channel, Fig.\[fig:py\]b, can be primarily traced back to the strongly bound electron at negative $x$ values being released towards positive $x$ values, such that it first passes the parent ion and the other electron. Its inelastic scattering with the remaining, weakly bound electron induces oscillations of the latter being reflected by the strong time dependence of the remaining electron’s average momentum. We note that the temporal behavior significantly changes for times $t>10$fs, if the nuclear configuration is frozen during the simulation (red dotted lines) suppressing non-adiabatic transitions.
A similar situation but with reversed roles can be seen for emission into the *backward* direction: Here, the *down* channel, Fig.\[fig:py\]c, corresponds to emission of the weakly bound electron after passing the strongly bound one. Thereby, inelastic scattering leads to a regular oscillation in the residual electron’s average momentum ${\langle}p_y{\rangle}(t)$. Fourier analysis of this oscillation occurring between $t=0$ and 10fs indicates that the corresponding energy of 2.89eV can be assigned to the energy gap between the electronic ground and first excited state of the one-electron system (2.78eV at $R_0$), see Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]a. Thus, upon ionization, an electronic wave packet in the residual molecular ion is excited oscillating around the left well’s minimum. The *backward-up* channel, Fig.\[fig:py\]a, on the other hand, corresponds to the direct emission of the strongly bound electron without passing the parent ion. A weak response towards a negative average momentum of the remaining electron, can be seen, in particular between 17 and 20fs, despite the absence of an immediate interaction between the escaping and the remaining electron. This feature is not present if the simulation is performed with a frozen nuclear configuration (dotted red lines). It originates in the induced nuclear dynamics leading to non-adiabatic transitions (intramolecular charge transfer), which will be discussed in more detail in Sec.\[subsec:collision\].
\[subsec:shakeup\] Reduced wave function: Distinguishable electrons
-------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="15.9cm"}
The previous analysis provided a first intuitive picture of intramolecular scattering effects in the course of ionization. However, as electrons are indistinguishable, the roles of emitted and remaining electrons during the scattering process cannot clearly be identified. To this end, the artificially truncated wave functions $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$, see Eqs.(\[eq:psiA\]) and (\[eq:psiB\]), are employed as initial conditions, thus rendering the two electrons distinguishable, see Sec.\[subsubsec:subsys\]. This way, electron-electron correlation originating from the antisymmetry of the wave function and interference effects between the two distinct initial density distributions (localized near $x=\pm5$Å & $y=\mp5$Å) are neglected. However, a comparison of the probabilities to find the particles in the evaluation regions, $I_S(t)$, between the full system and the sum of the subsystems A and B shows very good agreement, indicating that for the present system these types of correlation effects are of minor importance.
In Fig.\[fig:contributions\] the time-dependent two-electron densities of the full system with two indistinguishable electrons (upper part) and the subsystems, A (middle part) and B (lower part) with distinguishable electrons, are shown for an area corresponding to the emission of electron $x$ in *backward* (left panels) and *forward* direction (right panels), while electron $y$ remains bound to the parent ion. Above the two lower panels, a schematic picture indicates different underlying processes (blue/green arrows) in the $x,y$-configuration space (left) and the one-dimensional coordinate space (right). The thick blue arrows correspond to the four main contributions, i.e. photoemission with and without intramolecular electron-electron scattering, discussed in Sec.\[subsec:channels\], where either the strongly (A) or the weakly bound electron (B) interacts with the electromagnetic field and is released to either side of the molecule.
The first electron wave packet components enter the evaluation region at $x=\pm25\,$Å between 1 and 2fs after the interaction with the ionizing pulse. At this instant, electron density is mostly found in the *backward-up* channel for subsystem A and in the *forward-down* channel for subsystem B (blue arrows) corresponding to direct photoemission from the side of the molecule closest to the respective subregion. Additionally, a strong slightly delayed signal can be noted stemming from an emission into the opposite direction (blue arrows, A: *forward-up*, B: *backward-down*), corresponding to photoemission channels involving intramolecular electron-electron scattering, i.e. the $x$ electron first passing the $y$ electron before beind finally emitted.
The A/B distinction reveals additional signals with a smaller but still significant probability appearing in the *down* (A) channels and – to an even smaller extent – in the *up* (B) channels, which are not visible in Fig.\[fig:channel\] due to the larger amplitude of the more dominant signals (blue arrows). Their appearance reveals a correlated motion between the two electrons (indicated by green arrows), where the remaining $y$ electron is relocated (intramolecular charge-transfer) either prior to the photoelectron emission of the $x$ electron or afterwards. This question is addressed in the following section, \[subsec:collision\], by further dissecting the ionization pathways through restricting the electrons’ interaction with the electric field.
\[subsec:collision\]Restricted electron-field interactions
----------------------------------------------------------
To further investigate the intramolecular dynamics during and after the electron emission process, we perform simulations of the subsystems A and B, i.e. using distinguishable electrons, and restrict the interaction of the electromagnetic field to either the $x$ (ejected) or $y$ (remaining) electron by employing the modified Hamiltonian ${\mathcal{H}}'(t)$ defined in Eq.(\[eq:modH\]). This way, the absorption process of a system with distinguishable electrons is strictly limited to one specific single electron.
{width="17cm"}
The ionization wave function, $\psi^S_\text{out}(x,y,R,t)$, i.e. the part of the wave function entering the analysis region defined via the mask function, Eq.(\[eq:cutoff\]), is projected onto the set of adiabatic eigenfunctions $\{\varphi^{\text{1e}}_{n}(y;R)\}, n\in\{0,\dots,4\}$ of the one-electron system, obtained from Eq.(\[eq:eigenequation1\]) and shown in Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]b exemplarily for $R=R_0$. Note that these states differ in the electron’s spatial distributions: while for states with the quantum numbers $n\in\{0,1,3\}$, the $y$ electron is located on the (strongly bound) left-hand side, for $n\in\{2,4\}$ electron distribution is predominantly found on the (weakly bound) right-hand side. Thus, a transition between states from different sides corresponds to an intramolecular charge transfer. The population $P^{S'}_n(t)$ of the $n$th one-electron state by the $y$ electron is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{S'}_n(t) = \iint \left|{\int \varphi^{\text{1e}}_{n}(y;R)\,
\psi^{S'}_{\text{out}}(x,y,R,t)~\mathrm{d}y}\right|^2 \mathrm{d}x~\mathrm{d}R, \label{eq:pop}\end{aligned}$$ where the domain $S'$ limits the $x$ integration to either positive or negative values corresponding to the *forward* ($S'=\mathrm{fwd}$) or *backward* ($S'=\mathrm{bwd}$) channel, respectively, but does not distinguish between *up-* and *down-*channels anymore. Thus, $P^{S'}_n(t)$ are the populations of the single-electron states in the evaluation region, i.e. in the molecular parent ion after photoionization. Sketches next to the panels illustrate the dominant ionization pathways with labels ’1’ and ’2’ indicating the temporal order.
The populations are shown in Fig.\[fig:pop\] in *backward* (left panels, ${x<0}$) and *forward* direction (right panels, ${x>0}$) for the fully antisymmetric wave function (top panels, a and b) and the subsystems A and B as indicated (lower panels, c–h). The rise in the period of 1 to 5fs in all panels corresponds to the main part of the wave packet entering the evaluation region. In the subsequent time evolution, the overall probability within the evaluation region remains mostly constant leading to distinct plateau regions in $P^{S'}_n(t)$. However, small contributions with low kinetic energy (of the emitted $x$ electron) continue to enter the evaluation region at later times, while components with high kinetic energy are removed at the grid boundaries.
[l|l|c|c|cl|l|c|S\[table-format=2.2\]]{} & Channel $S$ &$x$ & $y$ & & Fig.\[fig:pop\] & &\
& *backward-up*& $<-25$Å & $>0$ &**III**&**direct emission** of the strongly bound electron & c, blue & 0.7 - 5.5 & 3.1\
& & & &&**indirect emission** via elastic collision with charge transfer & & 1.2 - 14.0 & 2.5\
&&&&& and subsequent **knock up** (inelastic scattering) & & 1.7 - 8.2 & 0.4\
&&&&**IX**& charge transfer via **non-adiabatic transition** (following **III**) & c, green &11.2 - 19.0 & 1.0\
& & & & & **scattered emission** of the strongly bound electron & & 1.0 - 5.9& 1.1\
&&&&& and subsequent **knock up** (inelastic scattering) & & 1.3 - 4.5 & 0.1\
& & & &**V**&**knock down** induced charge transfer (following **IV**) & d, green &6.2 - 16.2 & 0.5\
&&&&**X**& charge transfer via **non-adiabatic transition** (following **IV**) & d, green & 11.2 - 19.0 & 0.5\
& *backward-up*& $<-25$Å & $>0$ & & — & —& 0.0\
& & & & & **scattered emission** of the weakly bound electron & & 0.8 - 7.2 & 6.6\
&&&&& and subsequent **knock up** (inelastic scattering) & & 1.6 - 7.0 & 1.3\
& & & &&**indirect emission** via elastic collision with charge transfer & &1.5 - 7.1 & 0.9\
&&&&& and subsequent **knock up** (inelastic scattering) & & 2.5 - 4.6 & 0.04\
& & & & **I**&**direct emission** of the weakly bound electron &f, blue & 0.7 - 5.3 & 22.0\
&&&& **VIII**& **knock-down** induced charge transfer (following **VII**) &h, — & 4.2 - 18.5 & 0.5\
&&&& **XI**& charge transfer via **non-adiabatic transition** (following **VII**) &h, green & 9.9 - 19.3& 0.5\
Several processes (indicated by boldface roman numerals) can be identified and separated from each other. They are summarized with their associated ionization channel $S$ in Tab.\[tab:dichotomy\]. We first consider the cases, in which the electron (here, the $x$ electron) interacting with the electric field is the one being eventually emitted ([Fig.\[fig:pop\]c–f]{}). The strongest signal (panel f) corresponds to the emission of the weakly bound electron, initially located near $x=+5$Å (subsystem B), in *forward* direction corresponding to a direct photoemission (**I**) without scattering with the remaining electron. In this case, the strongly bound $y$ electron remains almost unaffected in its position located at the left-hand side (*down*), corresponding to the electronic ground state of the one-electron system, $n=0$ (see Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]b).
However, the removal of the $x$ electron results in an increase of the $y$ electron’s binding energy corresponding to a shake-down process. The energy change corresponding to a sudden electron removal can be estimated from the potential energy curves at $R_0$, $\Delta E_B\approx V^\mathrm{0e}(R_0)+V^\text{2e}_0(R_0)
-V^{\mathrm{1e}}_0(R_0)-V^{\mathrm{1e}}_2(R_0)$ (where $V^\text{0e}$ corresponds to the repulsion energy between the movable and the two fixed nuclei only) and accounts for 1.8eV. Comparing the relative populations at $t=5$fs, only a very weak shake-up into the one-electron states $n=1$ and 3 is noticed with populations of $P^\text{fwd}_1/P^\text{fwd}_0=0.0045$ and $P^\text{fwd}_3/P^\text{fwd}_0=0.0004$ relative to the groundstate. This is in line with the almost constant average momentum seen in Fig.\[fig:py\]d for the full (fermionic) system, indicating no coherent dynamics induced.
In contrast, emitting the weaker bound $x$ electron in the opposite (*backward*) direction, Fig.\[fig:pop\]e, such that inelastic scattering with the remaining strongly-bound $y$ electron occurs, entails a significant relative population of the first and third excited one-electron states of $P^\text{bwd}_1/P^\text{bwd}_0=0.21$ and $P^\text{bwd}_3/P^\text{bwd}_0=0.02$, respectively. Note, that these excited states are still localized on the left-hand side of the molecule (*down* channel). Since such an excitation does not occur in the *forward* direction, it must be a result of dynamical correlation between the accelerated $x$ electron and the “inactive” $y$ electron. This interaction corresponds therefore to a pure knock-up process (**II**) [@Sukiasyan12PRA]. As a consequence, within 2 and 5fs, a $y$ electron wave packet can be seen, oscillating within the left potential well, which is reflected in the damped oscillation pattern of the average momentum shown in Fig.\[fig:py\]c.
A similar situation is encountered, when the stronger bound electron (Fig.\[fig:pop\]c and d) interacts with the electric field and is ultimately emitted. If the $x$ electron emission occurs in the *backward* direction, Fig.\[fig:pop\]c, again, no intramolecular scattering occurs (**III**) and the weaker bound $y$ electron remains (initially) in its place, corresponding predominantly to the second excited state, $n=2$, which is localized on the molecule’s right-hand side (*up* channel). Again, a shake-down stabilization of the binding energy of approximately 1.8eV is expected and only a very weak shake-up to state $n=4$ is noted ($P^\text{bwd}_4/P^\text{bwd}_2=0.0048$).
In the *forward* direction, i.e. with immediate electron-electron interaction (**IV**), Fig.\[fig:pop\]d, the second excited state is dominant, too but also shows a considerable knock-up process ($P^\text{fwd}_4/P^\text{fwd}_2=0.10$). Additionally, an increase in the population of the one-electron ground state, $n=0$, can be noted. Therefore, inelastic intramolecular scattering with the weaker bound $y$ electron must have taken place resulting in a knock-down process (**V**) of the $y$ electron during the $x$ electron emission from the (stronger bound) lower energy levels. Comparing their respective peaks, the relative population achieved through the knock-down process is $P^\text{fwd}_0/P^\text{fwd}_2=0.45$. Since in the energetically lower $n=0$ state, the $y$ electron is located on the left-hand side, this correlation-driven process coincides with an intramolecular charge transfer (green arrows).
Finally, the lowest panels, Fig.\[fig:pop\]g and h, correspond purely to correlation-driven processes, in which the energy provided by the electric field is absorbed by electron $y$, but results eventually in the emission of electron $x$. Therefore, a nearly elastic collision between the two electrons must have occurred, in which the absorbing electron ($y$) transfers most of its acquired kinetic energy to the electron originally unaffected by the field ($x$). This “indirect photoemission” process (**VI**,**VII**), is very similar to the two-step-one (TS1) process in double ionization, where the electron emitted first pushes another electron out of an atom in a second step after photoabsorption [@Hino93PRA]. But in our case, the initially accelerated electron is not released in the end but rather takes the place of the subsequently emitted electron – similar to the elastic collision between billiard balls. Consequently, the resulting populations of the single-electron states of the remaining electron shown in Fig.\[fig:pop\]g for subsystem A resemble the one of subsystem B, seen in panel e, where the remaining electron is located at the strongly bound side. The same applies for subsystem B’s elastic collision process, Fig.\[fig:pop\]h, which rather resembles the populations found in A’s inelastic scattering, panel d including knock-up (within **VII**) and knock-down (**VIII**) features. Again, this is traced back to the accelerated $y$ electron taking $x$’s place *prior* to the emission of the $x$ electron. Note that the indirect photoemission leads to a charge transfer (through elastic collision) immediately after photoabsorption. We therefore conclude that the significant early signals, seen in Fig.\[fig:contributions\] in subsystem A’s *backward-down* channel (and with a lower amplitude also in subsystem B’s *forward-up* channel) correspond to the elastic collision process preceding the $x$ electron’s emission.
In panels c,d, and h of Fig.\[fig:pop\], where the $n=2$ state is predominantly occupied, a decrease occurs in $P^{S'}_2(t)$ after approximately $t\approx15$fs with a simultaneous increase of the $n=1$ state, $P^{S'}_1(t)$. This time-dependent feature can be traced back to the non-adiabatic nuclear reorganization dynamics (**IX,X,XI**) induced by the ionization process. Note that these transitions do not occur, if the simulation is performed with a frozen nuclear configuration (dotted lines). Fig.\[fig:Rydyn\] shows the correlated electron-nuclear dynamics for subsystem A with emission in backward direction (corresponding to Fig.\[fig:pop\]c) through the density function $\int \left|\psi_\text{out}^\text{bwd}(x,y,R,t)\right|^2\,\mathrm{d}x$. It can be seen that during the first 14fs, the shape of the electronic part only marginally changes, while the center of the nuclear distribution moves from $R_0=-2.05$Å towards larger values. This dynamics is induced by the Coulomb attraction between the remaining electron and the mobile nucleus, but is also consistent with the potential energy surface of the second state, $V^{\text{1e}}_2(R)$, see Fig.\[fig:energycurves\]a upper panel. The latter one exhibits a large gradient towards the molecular center ($R=0$), where a coupling region with the first excited state, $V^{\text{1e}}_1(R)$, is found. Indeed, at 17fs, the center of the nuclear distribution passes the origin and the electronic distribution begins to shift towards the left-hand side (to negative $y$ values), which is reflected in a slightly negative instantaneous average electronic momentum ${\langle}p_y {\rangle}^{\mathrm{backward-up}}(t)$ in the case of direct photoionization in the *backward-up* channel, cf. Fig.\[fig:py\]a, which is not present in the case of frozen nuclei (red dotted line). Therefore, upon ionization, nuclear dynamics is initiated, driving the system via non-adiabatic transition from the second to the first electronically excited state, $\varphi^{\text{1e}}_2(y;R) \rightarrow \varphi^{\text{1e}}_1(y;R)$ corresponding to an intramolecular charge transfer. Note, however, that this process is significantly slower than the charge transfer process driven by electronic correlation.
It is noteworthy that, here, despite these non-adiabatic transitions, the nuclear dynamics does not seem to affect the various ionization processes discussed above. We attribute this to the chosen near-equilibrium initial conditions for $\chi(R)$. Previous studies have shown, that nuclear dynamics following initial non-equilibrium configurations is reflected in the photoelectron momentum distribution [@Falge11JCP; @Falge17PCCP]. Investigations of such effects on the correlation-driven knock-up and knock-down processes are currently under way in our workgroup.
To summarize, all observed processes, i.e. direct photoemission with and without inelastic scattering leading to knock-up and knock-down transitions, as well as indirect photoemission through elastic collision, and non-adiabatic transitions, are summarized in Tab.\[tab:dichotomy\] together with their individual amplitudes at their respective maximum and build up times, i.e. the time span the corresponding wave packet requires to achieve approximately stable populations within the observed time window. These times differ for the individual processes mostly due to the different travelling distances (direct emission vs. scattered and indirect emissions) for the ejected electron to reach the evaluation zone and because of differences in their kinetic energies. However, the slightly longer timescales of knock-down processes in particular indicate a more complex electron-electron dynamics within the molecular system prior to the electron release.
Regarding the relative amplitudes, we note, that the correlation-driven pathways through elastic and inelastic scattering appear to be nearly of the same order of magnitude as the direct photoemission. This can be seen in Fig.\[fig:pop\]a and b, where the dynamics of the fully antisymmetric initial wave function without any restrictions on the electric-field interaction (solid lines) is qualitatively reproduced by the artificially restricted subsystems (dashed lines, corresponding to the direct sum of all individual pathways with restricted field interaction). Remaining discrepancies stem most likely from the missing simultaneous interaction of the XUV pulse with both electrons and also from the omission of interference effects between emitted density from the two initial localized electronic density distributions, which we have dropped by regarding electrons as distinguishable particles.
We conclude that the final state of the molecular parent ion after ionization depends strongly on dynamical correlation between electrons through elastic and inelastic intramolecular scattering events preceding the electron emission beyond static shake-up effects. Furthermore, we showed that such effects also significantly contribute to the total ionization probability. In particular, quantifying the effect of correlation-driven knock-up/knock-down processes and the indirect photoemission processes on the same magnitude as direct photoionization processes, underlines the deficiencies of the commonly applied single active electron approximation as well as the sudden approximation – even in the context of single-photon ionization of molecules.
![Electron-nuclear density of subsystem A in the *backward* channel, $\int \left|\psi_\mathrm{out}^{\mathrm{bwd}}(x,y,R)\right|^2\,\mathrm{d}x$. Here, the strongly bound $x$ electron is emitted and the $y$ electron remains initially on weakly bound side ($y>0$), before non-adiabatic transitions around $R=0$ lead to a charge transfer with significant electron density at the molecule’s left-hand side ($y<0$).[]{data-label="fig:Rydyn"}](Fig9.eps){width="8.5cm"}
\[sec:summary\]Summary
======================
We investigated the correlated electron-electron and electron-nuclear dynamics in a one-dimensional molecular charge-transfer model by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation numerically for two electronic and one nuclear degree of freedom. To this end, we considered ionization of a single electron by an ultrashort XUV pulse and investigated the exact scattering mechanism by carefully backtracking the electron’s interaction with the residual cation and in particular with the remaining bound electron.
We introduced different theoretical approaches to investigate the correlated electron dynamics and nuclear motion during and after the pulse interaction. First, by removing all unionized components from the total wave function and projection on the one-electron system to quantify shake and knock processes. Second, we dissected these processes and identified different contributions of ionization pathways by replacing the fermionic wave functions by that of two “distinguishable” electrons and by restricting the interaction of the XUV pulse to a specific electron within the molecule. Using this approach, time-dependent signatures in the evolution of the molecular parent ion were identified and traced back to various intramolecular scattering events on different time scales.
Thereby, we went beyond commonly employed approximations such as the sudden approximation, frozen nuclear degrees of freedom, or the single active electron approximation. Thus, significant contributions from electron-electron and non-adiabatic interactions within the single-photon ionization process were revealed on the atto- and femtosecond timescale. In particular, relevant pathways to the overall signal were isolated, in which inelastic scattering resulted in knock-up and knock-down phenomena beyond the typically regarded (sudden) shake effects. Additional pathways of significant contribution involving elastic scattering were found, where the electron originally accelerated by the electric field transfers its momentum to a different electron within the molecule and takes its place instead (indirect photoemission). Our analysis revealed differences in the temporal signatures of all identified processes and allowed to estimate their relevance within the overall photoemission process. It was shown that electron-correlation driven processes occur on the same order of magnitude as the direct photoemission. While for a two-electron system the amplitude of the elastic collision process may be overestimated due to the reduced dimensionality of the model system, we expect this process to become even more relevant in larger, multi-electron systems. Furthermore, it was shown that different ionization pathways leave the parent molecular ion in different electronic states. As a consequence, correlated electron-nuclear reorganization dynamics is induced.
We believe that the observations made here for a model system are representative for molecular systems and consequently that both, elastic and inelastic scattering among electrons, contribute significantly to the ionization processes and the postionization dynamics through various pathways beyond the single active electron picture.
F.G.F., S.G., and U.P. highly acknowledge support from the German Science Foundation DFG, IRTG 2101. A.S. and S.G. also acknowledge the ERC Consolidator Grant QUEM-CHEM. K.M.Z. and S.G. are part of the Max Planck School of Photonics supported by BMBF, Max Planck Society, and Fraunhofer Society.
[44]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1070/pu1982v025n12abeh005003) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.033423) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1051/jphysrad:0192500606020500) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.765) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05648) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys620) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/49/14/142001) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/44/10/105601) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3941) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.48.1271) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.163001) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.033404) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/40/21/f02) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.150.30) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.013423) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.053424) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1039/C3FD00004D) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.013411) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/jp046232s) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2007.04.012), [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601855103) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CP01856H) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.25) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502493j) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.083001) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.040502) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.6b12310)[ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.38.778)[ * *****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.063403)[ * *****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.063406) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.468795) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/jp952498a) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1806812) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/jp306566x) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1629275) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/jz3009826) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3585692) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CP01832K) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1578618) [ ** ****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2004-00105-4) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(82)90091-2) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1998.681704) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.452672) [ * *****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(86)80262-7)
[^1]: [These two authors contributed equally.]{}
[^2]: [These two authors contributed equally.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider $d$ independent walkers on ${ \mathbb{Z} }$, $m$ of them performing simple symmetric random walk and $r= d-m$ of them performing recurrent RWRE (Sinai walk), in $I$ independent random environments. We show that the product is recurrent, almost surely, if and only if $m\leq 1$ or $m=d=2$. In the transient case with $r\geq 1$, we prove that the walkers meet infinitely often, almost surely, if and only if $m=2$ and $r \geq I= 1$. In particular, while $I$ does not have an influence for the recurrence or transience, it does play a role for the probability to have infinitely many meetings. To obtain these statements, we prove two subtle localization results for a single walker in a recurrent random environment, which are of independent interest.'
address:
- 'Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Versailles, UVSQ, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, 78035 Versailles, France.'
- 'Technische Universität München, Fakultät für Mathematik, 85748 Garching, Germany '
- 'Université de Brest and Institut Universitaire de France, LMBA, UMR CNRS 6205, 29238 Brest cedex, France'
author:
- Alexis Devulder
- Nina Gantert
- Françoise Pène
title: Collisions of several walkers in recurrent random environments
---
Introduction and statement of the main results
==============================================
Recurrence and transience of products of simple symmetric random walks on ${ \mathbb{Z} }^d$ is well-known since the works of Pólya [@Polya]. If the product of several walks is transient, one may ask if they meet infinitely often. It is also well-known and goes back to Dvoretzky and Erdös, see ([@Dvoretzky_Erdos], p. 367) that $3$ independent simple symmetric random walks (SRW) in dimension $1$ meet infinitely often almost surely while $4$ walks meet only finitely often, almost surely. In fact, Pólya’s original interest in recurrence/transience of simple random walk came from a question about collisions of two independent walkers on the same grid, see [@PolyaInc], “Two incidents”.
The classical topic of meetings/collisions of two or more walkers walking on the same graph has found recent interest, see [@KrishnapurPeres], [@BarlowPeresSousi], where the grid is replaced by more general graphs. It is well-known that if a graph is recurrent for simple random walk, two independent walkers do not necessarily meet infinitely often, see [@KrishnapurPeres]. Since on a [*transitive*]{} recurrent graph, two independent walkers do meet infinitely often, almost surely, see [@KrishnapurPeres], the “infinite collision property” describes how far the recurrent graph is from being transitive. For motivation from physics, see [@CampariCassi].
We investigate this question for products of recurrent random walks in random environment (RWRE) and of simple symmetric random walks on ${ \mathbb{Z} }$. It is known already that, for any $n$, a product of $n$ independent RWRE in $n$ i.i.d. recurrent random environments is recurrent, see [@Z01], and that $n$ independent walkers in the same recurrent random environment meet infinitely often in the origin, see [@NMFa]. Here, we consider several walkers each one performing either a Sinai walk or a simple symmetric random walk, with the additional twist that not all Sinai walkers are necessarily using the same environment.
Let $d,m,r$ be nonnegative integers such that $m+r=d\ge 1$. We consider $d$ walkers, $m$ of them performing SRW $S^{(1)},...,S^{(m)}$ and the $r$ others performing random walks $Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ in $I$ independent random environments, with $I\le r$. More precisely, we consider $r$ collections of i.i.d. random variables $\omega^{(1)}:=\big(\omega^{(1)}_x\big)_{x\in\mathbb Z},\dots,
\omega^{(r)}:=\big(\omega^{(r)}_x\big)_{x\in\mathbb Z}$, taking values in $(0,1)$ and defined on the same probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F, {\textnormal{\textsf{P}}})$, such that $\omega^{(1)},...,\omega^{(I)}$ are independent and such that the others are exact copies of some of these $I$ collections, i.e., for every $j\in\{I+1,...,r\}$, there exists an index $J_j\in\{1,...,I\}$ such that $\omega^{(j)}\equiv\omega^{(J_j)}$. A realization of $\omega:=\left(\omega^{(1)},...,\omega^{(r)}\right)$ will be called an [*environment*]{}. Recall that we denote by $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\text{ the law of the environment } \omega.$$ We set $$Y_n
:=
\big(S_n^{(1)},...,S_n^{(m)},Z_n^{(1)},...,Z_n^{(r)}\big),
\qquad
n\in{ \mathbb{N} },$$ and make the following assumptions. Given $\omega=\left(\omega^{(1)},...,\omega^{(r)}\right)$ and $x\in \mathbb Z^d$, under $P_\omega^x$, $S^{(1)},...,S^{(m)},Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ are independent Markov chains such that $P_\omega^{x}(Y_0=x)=1$ and for all $y\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $n\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, $$\label{eqDefQuenchedLaw}
P_{\omega}^x\big[S^{(i)}_{n+1}=y+1\big|S_n^{(i)}=y\big]
=
\frac 12
=
P_{\omega}^x\big[S^{(i)}_{n+1}=y-1\big|S_n^{(i)}=y\big],
\quad
i\in\{1,...,m\},
$$ $$\label{eqDefQuenchedLaw_2}
P_{\omega}^x\big[Z^{(j)}_{n+1}=y+1\big|Z_n^{(j)}=y\big]
=
\omega^{(j)}_{y}
=
1-P_{\omega}^x\big[Z^{(j)}_{n+1}=y-1\big|Z_n^{(j)}=y\big],
\quad
j\in\{1,...,r\}.
$$ We set $S^{(i)}:=\big(S_n^{(i)}\big)_n$ and $Z^{(j)}:=\big(Z_n^{(j)}\big)_n$ for every $i\in\{1,...,m\}$ and every $j\in\{1,...,r\}$. Note that, for every $j$, $Z^{(j)}=\big(Z_n^{(j)}\big)_n$ is a [*random walk on $\mathbb Z$ in the environment*]{} $\omega^{(j)}$, and that the $S^{(i)}$’s are independent SRW, independent of the $Z^{(j)}$’s and of their environments. We call $P_\omega:=P_\omega^0$ the [*quenched law*]{}. Here and in the sequel we write $0$ for the origin in $\mathbb Z^d$. We also define the [*annealed law*]{} as follows: $$\mathbb P[\cdot]:=\int P_\omega[\cdot]{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}(\text{d}\omega).$$ Setting $\rho_k^{(j)}:=\frac{1-\omega_k^{(j)}}{\omega_k^{(j)}}$ for $j\in\{1,...,r\}$ and $k\in\mathbb Z$, we assume moreover that there exists $\varepsilon_0\in(0,1/2)$ such that for every $j\in\{1,...,r\}$, $$\label{eqHypothesesSinai1}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\omega_0^{(j)}\in[\varepsilon_0,1-\varepsilon_0]\big]=1,
\qquad
{ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}\big[\log \rho_0^{(j)}\big]=0,
\qquad
\sigma_j^2:= { \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}\big[(\log \rho_0^{(j)})^2\big]>0,$$ where ${ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}$ is the expectation with respect to ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$. Under these assumptions, the $Z^{(j)}$ are RWRE, often called [*Sinai’s walks*]{} due to the famous result of [@S82]. Solomon [@S75] proved the recurrence of $Z^{(j)}$ for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment. We stress in particular that the assumption $ \sigma_j^2 > 0$ excludes the case of deterministic environments, hence when we say “Sinai’s walk”, we always refer to a random walk in a “truly” random environment.
Our first result concerns the recurrence/transience of $Y:=(Y_n)_n$. Recurrence of $Y$ means that $S^{(1)},....,S^{(m)},Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ meet simultaneously at 0 infinitely often. As explained previously, this result is known for SRW (i.e. if $m=d$) since [@Polya] and more recently for RWRE (i.e. if $r=d$, that is, if $m=0$) in the case where the environments $\omega^{(j)}$ are independent (i.e. $I=r=d$, see [@Z01; @NMFa]) and in the case where the environment $\omega^{(j)}$ is the same for all the RWRE (i.e. $r=d,I=1$, see [@NMFa]). See also [@Gallesco] for related results.
\[TheoremProductRW\] If $m\le 1$, or if $m=d=2$, then, for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, the random walk $Y$ is recurrent with respect to $P^0_\omega$. Otherwise, for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, the random walk $Y$ is transient with respect to $P^0_\omega$.
In particular, a product of two recurrent RWRE and one SRW is recurrent, while a product of two SRW and one recurrent RWRE is transient.
When $Y$ is transient, a natural question is the study of the simultaneous meetings (i.e., collisions) of $S^{(1)},....,S^{(m)},Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$. That is, we would like to extend the results of [@Polya; @Dvoretzky_Erdos] to the case in which some of the random walks are in random environments (when $r\geq 1$). We recall that when $r=0$, the number of collisions is, by [@Polya; @Dvoretzky_Erdos], almost surely infinite if $m\leq 3$ and almost surely finite when $m\geq 4$. Interestingly, compared to Theorem \[TheoremProductRW\], the behaviour depends on whether $I=1$ (when the RWRE are all in the same environment) or $I\ge 2$ (at least two RWRE are in independent environments).
\[simultaneousmeeting\] We distinguish the $3$ following different cases.
- If $m\ge 3$ and $r\ge 1$, then, for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$, $$P^0_\omega\big[S_n^{(1)}=S_n^{(2)}=S_n^{(3)}=Z_n^{(1)}\mbox{ infinitely often}\big]
=
0,$$ i.e. almost surely, the walks $S^{(1)},S^{(2)},S^{(3)},Z^{(1)}$ meet simultaneously only a finite number of times. A fortiori, $S^{(1)},\dots ,S^{(m)},Z^{(1)}, \dots Z^{(r)}$ also meet simultaneously only a finite number of times.
- If $m=2$ and $r\geq I=1$, then for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$, $$P^0_\omega\big[S_n^{(1)}=S_n^{(2)}=Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}\mbox{ infinitely often}\big]
=
1,$$ i.e. almost surely, the walks $S^{(1)},S^{(2)},Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ meet simultaneously infinitely often.
- If $m=2$ and $r\geq I\ge 2$, then for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$, $$P^0_\omega\big[S_n^{(1)}=S_n^{(2)}=Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}\mbox{ infinitely often}\big]
=
0,$$ i.e. almost surely, the walks $S^{(1)},S^{(2)},Z^{(1)},Z^{(2)}$, and a fortiori the walks $S^{(1)},S^{(2)}$, $Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$, meet simultaneously only a finite number of times.
This last result can be summarized in the following manner. Assume that $r\geq 1$ and that $Y$ is transient (i.e. $m\ge 2$ and $r\ge 1$), then $S^{(1)},...,S^{(m)},Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ meet simultaneously infinitely often if and only if $m=2$ and $I=1$. Hence our results cover collisions of an arbitrary number of random walks in equal or independent random (or deterministic) recurrent environments.
The results of Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\] remain true if the simple random walks are replaced by random walks on $\mathbb Z$ with i.i.d. centered increments with finite and strictly positive variance. However, we write the proof of this theorem only in the case of SRW to keep the proof more readable and less technical.
The case of transient RWRE in the same subballistic random environment is investigated in [@DGP18] (in preparation).
In order to demonstrate Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\], we prove the two following propositions. The first one deals with two independent recurrent RWRE in two independent environments.
\[Lemmeannexe2\] Assume $r\geq I\geq 2$. For every $\varepsilon>0$, $\mathbb P\big[Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}\big]
=O\left((\log n)^{-2+\varepsilon}\right)$.
The second proposition deals with $r$ independent recurrent RWRE in the same environment.
\[Lemmeannexe1\] Assume $r> I=1$. For ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, there exists $c(\omega)>0$ such that, for every $(y_1,...,y_r)\in[(2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r\cup (2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^r]$, we have $$\limsup_{N\to+\infty}\frac{1}{\log N}
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac 1n\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}\prod_{j=1}^rP_\omega^{y_j}[Z_n^{(j)}=k]
\ge
c(\omega).
$$
These two propositions are based on two new localization results for recurrent RWRE, which are of independent interest. These two localization results use the [*potential*]{} of the environment (see ) and its [*valleys*]{}, these quantities were introduced by Sinai in [@S82] and are crucial for the investigation of the RWRE.
In the first one, stated in Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] and used to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\], we localize a recurrent RWRE at time $n$ with (annealed) probability $1-(\log n)^{-2+\varepsilon}$ for $\varepsilon>0$, whereas previous localization results for such RWRE were with probability $1-o(1)$ (see [@S82], [@Golosov84], [@KTT], [@Bovier_Faggionato] and [@Freire]), or with probability $1-C\big(\frac{\log\log\log n}{\log \log n}\big)^{1/2}$ for some $C>0$ (see [@Andreoletti_Alternative], eq. (2.23)), and they localize the RWRE inside one valley. In order to get our more precise localization probability, which is necessary to apply the Borel-Cantelli lemma in the proof of Item (iii) of Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\], we localize the RWRE in an area of low potential defined with several valleys instead of just one. To this aim, we study and describe typical trajectories of the recurrent RWRE into these different valleys. In our second localization result, stated in Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1Bis\] and used to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1\], we prove that for large $N\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, with high probability on $\omega$ (for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$), the quenched probability $P_\omega[Z_n=b(N)]$ is larger than a positive constant, uniformly for any even $n\in[N^{1-{\varepsilon}},N]$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$, where $b(N)$ is the (even) bottom of some valley of the potential $V$ of a recurrent RWRE $Z$ (defined in ). In order to get this uniform probability estimate, we use a method different from that of previous localization results, based on a coupling between recurrent RWRE.
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[SinaiEstimate\], we give an estimate on the return probability of recurrent RWRE, see Proposition \[MAJO\], which is of independent interest. Our main results for direct products of walks are proved in Section \[sec:product\]. The proofs concerning the simultaneous meetings of random walks are based on the above-mentioned two key localization results for recurrent RWRE, proved in Sections \[independentenv\] and \[sameenv\].
A return probability estimate for the rwre {#SinaiEstimate}
==========================================
We consider a recurrent one dimensional RWRE $Z=(Z_n)_n$ in the random environment $\omega=(\omega_x)_{x\in\mathbb Z}$, where the $\omega_x\in(0,1)$, $x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, are i.i.d. (that is, $Z_0=0$ and is satisfied with $Z$ and $\omega$ instead of $Z^{(j)}$ and $\omega^{(j)}$). We assume the existence of $\varepsilon_0\in(0,1/2)$ such that $$\label{eqHypothesesSinai}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}[\omega_0\in[\varepsilon_0,1-\varepsilon_0]]=1,
\qquad
{ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}[\log \rho_0]=0,
\qquad
{ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}[(\log \rho_0)^2]>0,$$ where $\rho_k:=\frac{1-\omega_k}{\omega_k}$, $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$. The following result completes [@NMFa Theorem 1.1] which says that, for every $0\leq\vartheta<1$, we have for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$, $$\sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{P_\omega^0[Z_n=0]}{n^\vartheta}
=
\infty.$$
\[MAJO\] For ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$, $$\sum_{n\ge 1}
\frac{P_\omega^0[Z_n=0]}n<\infty.$$
Before proving this result, we introduce some more notations. First, let $$\tau(x)
:=
\inf\{n\ge 1\ :\ Z_n=x\},
\qquad
x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }.$$ In words, $\tau(x)$ is the hitting time of the site $x$ by the RWRE $Z$. As usual, we consider the [*potential*]{} $V$, which is a function of the environment $\omega$ and is defined on ${ \mathbb{Z} }$ as follows: $$\label{eqDefPotentialV}
V(x)
:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\sum_{i=1}^x \log\frac{1-\omega_i}{\omega_i}
&
\textnormal{if } x>0,
\\
0
&
\textnormal{if }x=0,
\\
-\sum_{i=x+1}^0 \log\frac{1-\omega_i}{\omega_i}
&
\textnormal{if } x<0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The potential is useful since it relates to the description of the RWRE as an electric network. It can be used to estimate ruin probabilities for the RWRE. In particular, we have (see e.g. [@Z01 (2.1.4)] and [@Devulder_Persistence Lemma 2.2] coming from [@Z01 p. 250]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{probaatteinte}
P_\omega^b[\tau(c)< \tau(a)]
& = &
\bigg(\sum_{j=a}^{b-1} e^{V(j)}\bigg)\bigg(\sum_{j=a}^{c-1} e^{V(j)}\bigg)^{-1},
\qquad
a<b<c\end{aligned}$$ and, recalling $\varepsilon_0$ from and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InegEsperance1}
E_\omega^b[\tau(a)\wedge \tau(c)]
& \leq &
\varepsilon_0^{-1}(c-a)^2
\exp\Big[\max_{a\leq \ell \leq k \leq c-1; k\ge b}\big(V(k)-V(\ell)\big)\Big],
\qquad
a<b<c\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_\omega^b$ denotes the expectation with respect to $P_\omega^b$ and $u\wedge v:=\min(u,v)$, $(u,v)\in{ \mathbb{R} }^2$. For symmetry reasons, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InegEsperance2}
E_\omega^b[\tau(a)\wedge \tau(c)]
& \leq &
\varepsilon_0^{-1}(c-a)^2
\exp\Big[\max_{a\leq \ell \leq k \leq c-1,\ \ell\le b-1}\big(V(\ell)-V(k)\big)\Big],
\quad
a<b<c\, .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we have, for $k\ge 1$ (see Golosov [@Golosov84], Lemma 7) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InegProba1}
P_\omega^b[\tau(c)<k]
& \leq & k \exp\left(\min_{\ell \in [b,c-1]}V( \ell)-V(c-1)\right),\qquad b<c\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and by symmetry, we get (similarly as in Shi and Zindy [@ShiZindy], eq. (2.5) but with some slight differences for the values of $\ell$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InegProba2}
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)<k]
& \leq & k \exp\left(\min_{\ell \in [a,b-1]}V(\ell) -V(a)\right),\qquad a<b\, .\end{aligned}$$
Let $\gamma>0$. For ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, there exists $N(\omega)$ such that for every $n\ge N(\omega)$, $$n^{\frac 12-\gamma}
\le
\max_{k\in\{0,\dots, n\}} V(k)
\le
n^{\frac 12+\gamma},
\qquad
-n^{\frac 12+\gamma}
\le
\min_{k\in\{0,\dots, n\}} V(k)
\le
-n^{\frac 12-\gamma},$$ and such that the same inequalities hold with $\{-n,\dots, 0\}$ instead of $\{0,\dots, n\}$.
Observe that it is enough to prove that ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely, $$\label{Ineg}
n^{\frac 12-\gamma}
\leq
\max_{1 \leq k \leq n} V(k)\le n^{\frac 12+\gamma}$$ if $n$ is large enough (up to a change of $\log \rho_i$ in $-\log \rho_i$, in $\log \rho_{1-i}$ or in $-\log \rho_{1-i}$). The first inequality of is given by [@H65 Theorem 2]. The second inequality of is a consequence of the law of iterated logarithm for $V$, as explained in ([@Chung01], end of p. 248).
Let $\eta\in(0,1)$ and $n\geq 2$. We define $$z_+
:=
\inf\{y\ge 1\ :\ V(y)\le -(\log n)^{1-\eta}\},
\qquad
z_-
:=
\sup\{y\le -1\ :\ V(y)\le -(\log n)^{1-\eta}
\}.$$ Due to the previous lemma, choosing $\gamma$ small enough, we have that ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely, if $n$ is large enough, the following inequalities hold: $$\label{EEE0}
|z_\pm|
\le
\frac{(\log n)^{2-\eta}}{2}
\mbox{ and }
\max_{z_-\le i,j\le z_+} (V(i)-V(j))
\le
(\log n)^{1-\eta/10}.$$ We have by the strong Markov property, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IneqProbaReturnZero}
P_\omega^0[Z_n=0]
\le
P_\omega^0[\tau(z_+)>n,\ \tau(z_-)>n]
+
\sum_{k=0}^{n}P_\omega^0[\tau(z_+)=k]P_\omega^{z_+}[Z_{n-k}=0]
\\
+
\sum_{k=0}^{n}P_\omega^0[\tau(z_-)=k]P_\omega^{z_-}[Z_{n-k}=0].\end{gathered}$$ Recall that, given $\omega$, the Markov chain $Z$ is an electrical network where, for every $x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, the conductance of the bond $(x,x+1)$ is $C_{(x,x+1)}=e^{-V(x)}$ (in the sense of Doyle and Snell [@Doyle_Snell]). In particular, the reversible measure $\mu_\omega$ (unique up to a multiplication by a constant) is given by $$\label{reversiblemeas}
\mu_\omega(x)
:=
e^{-V(x)}+e^{-V(x-1)},
\qquad
z\in{ \mathbb{Z} }.$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^{z_\pm}[Z_{n-k}=0]&=&P_\omega^0[Z_{n-k}=z_\pm]\frac{\mu_\omega(0)}
{\mu_\omega(z_\pm)}\le \frac{\mu_\omega(0)}
{\mu_\omega(z_\pm)}=\frac{e^{-V(0)}+e^{-V(-1)}}{e^{-V(z_\pm)}+e^{-V(z_\pm-1)}}
\\
&\le&
\frac{e^{-V(0)}+e^{-V(-1)}}{e^{-V(z_\pm)}}\le \big(e^{-V(0)}+e^{-V(-1)}\big)
\exp\big[-(\log n)^{1-\eta}\big].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\label{EEE1}
\sum_{k=0}^{n}P_\omega^0[\tau(z_\pm)=k]P_\omega^{z_\pm}[Z_{n-k}=0]
\le
\big(e^{-V(0)}+e^{-V(-1)}\big)
\exp\big[-(\log n)^{1-\eta}\big].$$ Moreover we have due to and to Markov’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^0[\tau(z_+)>n,\ \tau(z_-)>n]
& \leq &
n^{-1}
E_\omega^0[\tau(z_+)\wedge \tau(z_-)]
\\
&\le&
n^{-1}
\varepsilon_0^{-1}
(z_+-z_-)^2\exp\Big[\max_{z_-\le \ell\le k\le z_+-1}[V(k)-V(\ell)]\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Now using , ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely, we have $$P_\omega^0[\tau(z_+)>n,\ \tau(z_-)>n]
\le
\varepsilon_0^{-1} n^{-1} (\log n)^{4-2\eta}\exp\big[(\log n)^{1-\eta/10}\big]$$ for every $n$ large enough. This combined with , and $e^{-V(-1)}\leq {\varepsilon}_0^{-1}$ gives ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely for large $n$ $$ P_\omega^0[Z_n=0]
\le
5 \varepsilon_0^{-1}\exp\big[-(\log n)^{1-\eta}\big].
$$ Consequently, $
\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{P_\omega^0[Z_n=0]}{n}<\infty
$ ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely, which ends the proof of Proposition \[MAJO\].
Direct product of Walks {#sec:product}
=======================
We start with a proof of Theorem \[TheoremProductRW\]. With a slight abuse of notation, we will write $0$ for the origin in ${ \mathbb{Z} }^k$, whatever $k$ is.
1\. If $m\geq 1$ and $r=0$, then $(Y_n)_n$ is a product of $m$ independent simple random walks on ${ \mathbb{Z} }$. It is well-known that it is recurrent if $m\in\{1,2\}$, and transient if $m\geq 3$. This follows from elementary calculations and the crucial fact that for any irreducible Markov chain $(G_n)_n$, $$\label{MCrecurr}
(G_n)_n \text{ is recurrent if and only if }\sum_{n\ge 0} P^x [G_n=0] = \infty,$$ where $x$ is one of the states of the Markov chain.\
2. If $m\geq 3$ and $r\geq 1$, then the 3-tuple of the three first coordinates of $(Y_n)_n$ is $\big(S_n^{(1)},S_n^{(2)},S_n^{(3)}\big)_n$ which is a product of $3$ independent simple random walks on $\mathbb Z$, hence is transient. So $(Y_n)_n$ is transient for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$.\
3. If $m= 2$ and $r\geq 1$, then applying the local limit theorem (see e.g. Lawler and Limic [@Lawler_Limic] Prop. 2.5.3) for $S^{(1)}$ and $S^{(2)}$ for $n\in{ \mathbb{N} }^*$, $$P_{\omega}^0 [Y_n=0]
=
\prod_{i=1}^2 P\big[S_{n}^{(i)}=0\big]
\prod_{j=1}^r P_{\omega^{(j)}}^0\big[Z_{n}^{(j)}=0\big]
\leq
\frac{c}{n}P_{\omega^{(1)}}^0\big[Z_{n}^{(1)}=0\big],$$ where $c>0$ is a constant. This and Proposition \[MAJO\] yield $
\sum_{n=0}^\infty P_{\omega}^0 [Y_n=0]
<
\infty
$ for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost $\omega$. Hence, (using the Borel-Cantelli Lemma or ), $(Y_n)_n$ is ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost surely transient.\
4. We now assume $m \in \{0,1\}$. We choose some $\delta\in(0,1/5)$ such that $3\delta r<\frac{1-2\delta}2$. We denote by $\lfloor x\rfloor$ the integer part of $x$ for $x\in{ \mathbb{R} }$. For $L\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\ge 0} P_{\omega}^0 [Y_n=0]
& \geq &
\sum_{n=\big\lfloor \frac{e^{(1-2\delta)L}}2\big\rfloor+1}^{\lfloor e^{(1-2\delta)L}\rfloor}
P_{\omega}^0 [Y_{2n}=0]
\\
& = &
\sum_{n=\big\lfloor \frac{e^{(1-2\delta)L}}2\big\rfloor+1}^{\lfloor e^{(1-2\delta)L}\rfloor}
P\big[S_{2n}=0\big]^m
\prod_{j=1}^r P_{\omega^{(j)}}^0\big[Z_{2n}^{(j)}=0\big].\end{aligned}$$ Due to [@NMFa] (Propositions 3.2, 3.4 and (3.22)), since $\delta\in(0,1/5)$, there exist $C(\delta)>0$ and a sequence $(\Gamma(L,\delta))_{L\in{ \mathbb{N} }}$ of elements of $\mathcal F$ (that is, depending only on $\omega$) such that $$\label{eqProbaLimsupGamman1}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\bigcap_{N\ge 0}\bigcup_{L\ge N}\Gamma(L,\delta)\right]
=
1$$ and such that, for every $L\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, on $\Gamma(L,\delta)$, we have $$\label{InegProbaZeroSinaionGamma1}
\forall i\in\{1,\dots,r\},
\, \forall k_i\in\big\{\lfloor e^{3\delta L}\rfloor+1,\cdots,\lfloor e^{(1-2\delta)L}\rfloor\big\},
\ \
P_{\omega^{(i)}}^0\big[Z_{2k_i}^{(i)}=0\big]
\ge
C(\delta)\, e^{-3\delta L}.$$ Due to the local limit theorem, this gives on $\Gamma(L,\delta)$, for large $L$ so that $\frac{e^{(1-2\delta)L}}2\geq e^{3\delta L}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &
\sum_{n\ge 0} P_{\omega}^0 [Y_n=0]
\geq
\frac{e^{(1-2\delta)L}}3
\left(\frac{c}{e^{(1-2\delta)L/2}}\right)^m
\bigg(\frac{C(\delta)}{e^{3\delta L}}\bigg)^r
\geq
c_1(\delta) e^{[(1-2\delta)/2-3\delta r]L},\end{aligned}$$ which goes to infinity as $L$ goes to infinity due to our choice of $\delta$, $c_1(\delta)$ being a positive constant. Thanks to , this gives $\sum_{n\ge 0} P_{\omega}^0 [Y_n=0]=+\infty$ for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost all $\omega$. Consequently, due to , $(Y_n)_n$ is recurrent for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$.
Recall that Sinai [@S82] (see also Golosov [@Golosov84]) proved the convergence in distribution of $\big(Z_n^{(i)}/(\log n)^2\big)_n$. Recall also that, due to de Moivre’s theorem, $\big(S_n^{(i)}/\sqrt{n}\big)_n$ converges in distribution. Due to Theorem \[TheoremProductRW\], $Y$ is recurrent iff $\sum_n 1/(n^{\frac m2}((\log n)^2)^{r})=\infty$, where $n^{\frac m2}((\log n)^2)^{r}$ is the product of the normalizations of the coordinates of $Y$ under the (non Markovian) annealed law ${ \mathbb{P} }$.
Note also that Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\] and the previous paragraph lead to the following statement (only for $r\geq 1$): if $\sum_{n\geq 1} \frac{1}{n^{m/2}(\log n)^{2I-2}}<\infty$, then almost surely, $S_n^{(1)},\dots ,S_n^{(m)},Z_n^{(1)}, \dots Z_n^{(r)}$ meet simultaneously only a finite number of times; otherwise, they almost surely meet simultaneously infinitely often.
Now we will start to prove Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\]. Note that the case $m\leq 1$ is already treated in Theorem \[TheoremProductRW\] which says that in this case the random walks meet infinitely often at $0$.
Let $A_n:=\big\{S_n^{(1)}=...=S_n^{(m)}=Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}\big\}$ for $n\geq 0$.\
[*Proof of (i).*]{} Assume $m= 3$ and $r= 1$. Observe that for large $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P^0_\omega[A_n]
& = &
\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z} \mathbb P^0_\omega\big[Z_n^{(1)}=k\big]\big(\mathbb P\big[S_n^{(1)}=k\big]\big)^3
\\
& \leq &
C\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z} \frac{\mathbb P^0_\omega\big[Z_n^{(1)}=k\big]}{n\sqrt{n}}
=
\frac{C}{n\sqrt{n}}\end{aligned}$$ for some $C>0$ since for every $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $n\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, $
\mathbb P\big[S_{2n}^{(1)}=k\big]
\leq
\mathbb P\big[S_{2n}^{(1)}=0\big]
\sim_{n\to+\infty}
(\pi n)^{-1/2}
$ due to the local limit theorem. Hence $
\sum_n \mathbb P^0_\omega\big[S_n^{(1)}=S_n^{(2)}=S_n^{(3)}=Z_n^{(1)}\big]
<
\infty
$ and (i) follows by the Borel-Cantelli lemma in this case and a fortiori when $m\geq 3$ and $r\geq 1$.\
[*Proof of (ii).*]{} Assume $m=2$ and $r\geq I=1$. Since $I=1$, all the RWRE are in the same environment, which is necessary to apply Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1\], which is essential to prove (ii). We use the generalization of the second Borel Cantelli lemma due to Kochen and Stone [@KochenStone] combined with a result by Doob. To simplify notations, we also write $\omega$ for $\omega^{(1)}$, so $\omega^{(i)}=\omega$ for every $1\leq i \leq r$.
We first prove that $\sum_n\mathbb P_\omega[A_n]=\infty$ a.s. More precisely, we fix an initial condition $x=(x_1,x_2,y_1,...,y_r)\in(2\mathbb Z)^{2+r}\cup(2\mathbb Z+1)^{2+r}$. We have for all $n$ and $\omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
P^{x}_\omega[A_{n}]
& = &
\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}
\mathbb P\big[x_1+S_n^{(1)}=k\big]\mathbb P\big[x_2+S_n^{(2)}=k\big]
\prod_{j=1}^r P_{\omega}^{y_j}\big[Z_n^{(j)}=k\big].
$$ Notice that, for every $i\in\{1,2\}$, due to the de Moivre-Laplace theorem (see e.g. [@Lawler_Limic Prop. 2.5.3 and Corollary 2.5.4], $$\sup_{k \in (x_i+n+2\mathbb Z),\ |k|\le(\log n )^3} \left|\mathbb P\big[x_i+S_n^{(i)}=k\big]
-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi n}} e^{-(k-x_i)^2/(2n)}
\right|=o(n^{-1/2}).$$ Consequently for large even $n$, for every $\omega$, $$P^{x}_\omega[A_{n}]
\geq
\sum_{|k|\le (\log n) ^3, k-(x_1+n)\in(2{ \mathbb{Z} })}
\frac{1}{\pi n}
\prod_{j=1}^r P_{\omega}^{y_j}\big[Z_n^{(j)}=k\big]
=
\frac{1}{\pi n}
\sum_{|k|\le (\log n) ^3}
\prod_{j=1}^r P_{\omega}^{y_j}\big[Z_n^{(j)}=k\big].$$ This remains true for large odd $n$. Hence for large $n$, $$\label{InegPAn}
P^{x}_\omega[A_{n}]
\geq
\frac{1}{\pi n} P_\omega^{(y_1,...,y_r)}\big[Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}\big]
-
\frac{1}{\pi n} P_\omega^{y_1}\big[\big|Z_n^{(1)}\big|>(\log n)^3\big].$$ Recall that $\big(Z_n^{(1)}/(\log n)^3\big)_n$ converges almost surely to 0 with respect to the annealed law (see [@DeheuvelsRevesez] Theorem 4, or more recently [@HuShi] Theorem 3). This holds also true for $P_\omega^{y_1}$ for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, so the last probability in goes to $0$ as $n\to+\infty$, which yields $
\lim_{N\to+\infty}\frac{1}{\log N}\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{n} P_\omega^{y_1}\big[\big|Z_n^{(1)}\big|>(\log n)^3\big]
=
0
$. Hence for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, $$\label{InegLimsupSumPAn}
\limsup_{N\rightarrow +\infty}
\frac 1{\log N}\sum_{n=1}^ N{P_\omega^x[A_n]}
\ge
\frac {c(\omega)}{\pi},$$ with $
c(\omega)
:=
\inf_{(y_1,...,y_r)\in[(2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r\cup (2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^r]}\limsup\limits_{N\rightarrow+\infty}\frac 1{\log N}
\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{n} P_\omega^{(y_1,...,y_r)}\big[Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}\big]
$. If $r=1$, then $c(\omega)=1$. If $r>1$, due to Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1\], $c(\omega)>0$ for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$. This implies that $$\label{sumPAn}
\sum_{n\ge 1}P_\omega^x[A_n]=+\infty.$$ Moreover, let $C>0$ be such that for all $n\geq 1$ and $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, $
\mathbb{P}\big[S_n^{(1)}=k\big]
\leq
C n^{-1/2}
$, which exists e.g. since $
\mathbb{P}\big[S_{2n}^{(1)}=k\big]
\leq
\mathbb{P}\big[S_{2n}^{(1)}=0\big]
\sim_{n\to+\infty}
(\pi n)^{-1/2}
$ by the local limit theorem. So for $1\leq n<m$, we have by Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P^{x}_\omega[A_{n}\cap A_{m}]
\\
& = &
\sum_{(k,\ell)\in\mathbb Z^2}
P_\omega^{(y_1,...,y_r)}\big[Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}=k,\ Z_m^{(1)}=...=Z_m^{(r)}=\ell\big]
\\
& \ &
\qquad \qquad \quad \ \times
\mathbb P\big[x_1+S_n^{(1)}=k\big]
\mathbb P\big[x_2+S_n^{(2)}=k\big]
\big(\mathbb P\big[S_{m-n}^{(1)}=\ell-k\big]\big)^2
\\
& \le &
\sum_{k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }}
P_\omega^{(y_1,...,y_r)}\big[Z_n^{(1)}=...=Z_n^{(r)}=k\big]
P_\omega^{(k,...,k)} \big[Z_{m-n}^{(1)}=...=Z_{m-n}^{(r)}\big]
\frac{C^4}{n(m-n)}
\\
& \le &
\frac{C^4}{n(m-n)}.
$$ Consequently, for large $N$, $$\sum_{1\le n,m\le N, m\neq n}P_\omega^{x}[A_{n}\cap A_{m}]
\leq
2\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{C^4}{n}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N-n}\frac{1}{\ell}
\leq
3C^4(\log N)^2.
$$ Applying this and we get for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, for every initial condition $x\in(2{ \mathbb{Z} })^{2+r}\cup (2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^{2+r}$, $$\label{sumPAnAm}
\limsup_{N\rightarrow+\infty}
\frac{\left(\sum_{n=1}^N P_\omega^{x}[A_n]\right)^2}{\sum_{1\le n,m\le N}P_\omega^{x}[A_{n}\cap A_{m}]}
\geq
\frac{(c(\omega))^2}{3\pi^2C^4}.
$$ Due to the Kochen and Stone extension of the second Borel-Cantelli lemma (see Item (iii) of the main theorem of [@KochenStone] applied with $X_n=\sum_{i=1}^n\mathbf 1_{A_i}$, or [@Spitzer p. 317]), and imply that $
P_\omega^x[A_n\ i.o.]
=
P_\omega^x\big[\cap_{N\geq 0}\cup_{n\geq N}A_n\big]
\ge
(c(\omega))^2/(3\pi^2C^4)>0
$, where i.o. means infinitely often. Now for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every $\omega$, due to a result by Doob (see for example Proposition V-2.4 in [@Neveu]), since $E:=\{A_n\ i.o.\}=\cap_{N\geq 0}\cup_{n\geq N}A_n$ is invariant (with respect to the shifts of the sequence $(Y_0, Y_1, Y_2, \ldots $)), for every $x\in(2\mathbb Z)^{2+r}\cup(2\mathbb Z+1)^{2+r}$, $\big(P_\omega^{(S^{(1)}_n,S^{(2)}_n,Z^{(1)}_n,...,Z^{(r)}_n)}[E]\big)_n$ converges $P_\omega^x$-almost surely to $\mathbf 1_E$. But $\inf_{x\in(2\mathbb Z)^{2+r}\cup(2\mathbb Z+1)^{2+r}} P_\omega^x[E]\geq (c(\omega))^2/(3\pi^2C^4)>0$, so we conclude that $\mathbf 1_E=1$ $P_\omega^x$-almost surely, thus $P_\omega^x(E)=1$, for ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}$-almost every environment $\omega$.\
[*Proof of (iii).*]{} Assume $m=2$ and $r=I=2$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P^0[A_n]
&=&
\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z} \mathbb P\big[Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}=k\big]\big(\mathbb P\big[S_n^{(1)}=k\big]\big)^2
\\
&\le &
\frac{C^2}{n}\mathbb P\left[Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}\right]
=
O\big(n^{-1}(\log n)^{-3/2}\big),\end{aligned}$$ due to Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\] and the local limit theorem. Hence $\sum_n\mathbb P^0[A_n]<\infty$ and (iii) follows due to the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
So there only remains to prove Propositions \[Lemmeannexe2\] and \[Lemmeannexe1\].
Probability of meeting for two independent recurrent rwre in independent environments {#independentenv}
=====================================================================================
The aim of this section is to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\], which is a key result in the proof of case (iii) of Theorem \[simultaneousmeeting\].
Let $Z^{(1)}$ and $Z^{(2)}$ be two independent recurrent RWRE in independent environments $\omega^{(1)}$ and $\omega^{(2)}$ satisfying .
The main idea of the proof is that $Z_n^{(1)}$ and $Z_n^{(2)}$ are localized with high (annealed) probability in two areas (depending on the environments, see Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\]) which have no common point with high probability (see Lemma \[LemmaIntersectionBottoms2IndependentPotentials\]). Due to [@S82], we know that, with high probability, $Z_n^{(i)}$ is close to the bottom $B_n^{(i)}$ of some valley (containing 0 and of height larger than $\log n$) for the potential $V^{(i)}$. Here and in the following, $V^{(i)}$ denotes the potential corresponding to $\omega^{(i)}$, defined as in with $\omega$ replaced by $\omega^{(i)}$. An intuitive idea to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\] should then be that $
p_n
:=
\mathbb P\left[\max_{i=1,2}\big|Z_n^{(i)}-B_n^{(i)}\big|\geq \big|B_n^{(1)}-B_n^{(2)}\big|/2\right]
$ is very small. More precisely we would like to prove that $p_n = O\big((\log n)^{-1-\varepsilon}\big)$. (In view of the proof of (iii) above, it would suffice to show that $\sum_n \frac{p_n}{n}<\infty$). However, this seems difficult to prove and we are not even sure that it is true. Indeed, in view of Lemma \[LemmaCardinalHTiPetits\] below (proved for a continuous approximation $W^{(i)}\approx V^{(i)}$), we think that with probability greater than $ 1/\log n$, $0$ belongs to a valley of height between $\log n - 2\log \log n$ and $\log n$ and that the annealed probability that $Z_n^{(i)}$ is close to the bottom of this valley (which is not $B_n^{(i)}$) should be greater that $1/\log n$. Hence, to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\], we will work with several valleys instead of a single one.
Proof of Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\]
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we use a Brownian motion $W^{(i)}$, approximating the potential $V^{(i)}$, to build a localization domain $\Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)$ for $Z_n^{(i)}$, $i\in\{1,2\}$. This localization is stated in Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] and is crucial to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\].
In order to construct our localization domain $\Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)$, we use the notion of $h$-extrema, defined as follows.
If $w:{ \mathbb{R} }\rightarrow { \mathbb{R} }$ is a continuous function and $h>0$, we say that $y_0\in\mathbb R$ is an [*$h$-minimum*]{} for $w$ if there exist real numbers $a$ and $c$ such that $a<y_0<c$, $w(y_0)=\inf_{[a, c]} w$, $w(a)\geq w(y_0)+h$ and $w(c)\geq w(y_0)+h$. We say that $y_0$ is an [*$h$-maximum*]{} for $w$ if $y_0$ is an $h$-minimum for $-w$. In any of these two cases, we say that $y_0$ is an [*$h$-extremum*]{} for $w$.
We also use the following notation.
\[calW\] As in [@Cheliotis], we denote by $\mathcal{W}$ the set of functions $w$ : ${ \mathbb{R} }\rightarrow { \mathbb{R} }$ such that the three following conditions are satisfied: [**(a)**]{} $w$ is continuous on ${ \mathbb{R} }$; [**(b)**]{} for every $h>0$, the set of $h$-extrema of $w$ can be written $\{x_k(w,h),\ k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }\}$, with $(x_k(w,h))_{k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }}$ strictly increasing, unbounded from below and above, and with $x_0(w,h)\leq 0 < x_1(w,h)$, notation that we use in the rest of the paper on $\mathcal{W}$; [**(c)**]{} for all $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $h>0$, $x_k(w,h)$ is an $h$-minimum for $w$ if and only if $x_{k+1}(w,h)$ is an $h$-maximum for $w$.
We now introduce, for $w\in\mathcal W$, $i\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $h>0$, $$b_{i}(w,h)
:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_{2i}(w,h) & \text{if } x_0(w,h) \text{ is an $h$-minimum},\\
x_{2i+1}(w,h) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ As a consequence, the $b_{i}(w,h)$ are the $h$-minima of $w$. We denote by $M_i(w,h)$ the unique $h$-maximum of $w$ between $b_{i}(w,h)$ and $b_{i+1}(w,h)$. That is, $M_i(w,h)=x_{j+1}(w,h)$ if $b_{i}(w,h)=x_j(w,h)$. For $w\in\mathcal W$, $h>0$ and $i\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, the restriction of $w-w(x_i(w,h))$ to $[x_i(w,h),x_{i+1}(w,h)]$ is denoted by $T_i(w,h)$ and is called an [*$h$-slope*]{}, as in [@Cheliotis]. If $x_i(w,h)$ is an $h$-minimum (resp. $h$-maximum), then $T_i(w,h)$ is a nonnegative (resp. nonpositive) function, and its maximum (resp. minimum) is attained at $x_{i+1}(w,h)$. We also introduce, for each slope $T_i(w,h)$, its [*height*]{} $H(T_i(w,h)):=|w(x_{i+1}(w,h))-w(x_i(w,h))|\geq h$, and its [*excess height*]{} $e(T_i(w,h)):=H(T_i(w,h))-h\geq 0$.
When $x_i(w,h)$ is an $h$-minimum, the restriction of $w$ to $[x_{i-1}(w,h),x_{i+1}(w,h)]$ will sometimes be called [*valley*]{} of height at least $h$ and of bottom $x_i(w,h)$. The height of this valley is defined as $\min\{w(x_{i-1}(w,h)),w(x_{i+1}(w,h))\}-w(x_i(w,h))$, which can also be rewritten $\min\{H(T_{i-1}(w,h)),H(T_{i}(w,h))\}$.
These $h$-extrema are useful to localize RWRE and diffusions in a random potential. Indeed, a diffusion in a two-sided Brownian potential $W$ (resp. in a ($-\kappa/2$)-drifted Brownian potential $W_\kappa$ with $0<\kappa<1$) is localized at large time $t$ with high probability in a small neighborhood of $b_{0}(W,\log t)$ (resp. some of the $b_{i}(W_\kappa,\log t-\sqrt{\log t})$, $i\geq 0$) see e.g. [@Cheliotis] and [@Cheliotis_Favorite] (resp. [@AndreolettiDevulder]). For some applications to recurrent RWRE, see e.g. [@Bovier_Faggionato] and [@Devulder_Persistence].
Let $C_1>2$ and $\alpha>2$. Define $\log^{(2)} x=\log \log x$ for $x>1$. As in [@Devulder_Persistence], we use the Komlós-Major-Tusnády almost sure invariance principle [@KMT], which ensures that:
\[lem:KMT\] Up to an enlargement of $(\Omega,\mathcal F,{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}})$, there exist two independent two-sided Brownian motions $\big(W^{(i)}(s), s\in{ \mathbb{R} }\big)$ ($i\in\{1,2\}$) with ${ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}\big[(W^{(i)}(1))^2\big]={ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}[(V^{(i)}(1))^2]=\sigma_i^2$ and a real number $\tilde C_1>0$ such that for all $n$ large enough, $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|t|\le(\log n)^\alpha}\Big|V^{(i)}(\lfloor t\rfloor)-W^{(i)}(t)\Big|>\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\right]
\le
(\log n)^{-C_1},
\qquad
i\in\{1,2\}.$$
Notice that $V^{(1)}$ and $V^{(2)}$ are independent, since $\omega^{(1)}$ and $\omega^{(2)}$ are independent. Due to ([@KMT], Thm. 1), there exist positive constants $a$, $b$ and $c$ such that for $N\in\mathbb N$, up to an enlargement of $(\Omega,\mathcal F,{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}})$, there exist two independent two-sided Brownian motions $(W^{(i)}(s), s\in { \mathbb{R} })$ ($i\in\{1,2\}$) on $(\Omega,\mathcal F,{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}})$ with ${ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}[(W^{(i)}(1))^2]={ \textnormal{\textsf{E}}}[(V^{(i)}(1))^2]=\sigma_i^2$ such that $$\label{KMT}
\forall x\in\mathbb R,\ \forall i\in\{1,2\},
\qquad
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|k|\le N}\Big|V^{(i)}(k)-W^{(i)}(k)\Big|>a\log N+x\right]
\le
b e^{-cx}.$$ Applying this result to $N:=\lfloor (\log n)^\alpha\rfloor+1$ and $x:=(\log (2b)+C_1\log^{(2)} n)/c$ and taking $\tilde C_1>2\left(a\alpha+\frac {C_1}c\right)$, we obtain that $$\label{eqKMT1}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|k|\le\lfloor (\log n)^\alpha\rfloor+1}\Big|V^{(i)}(k)-W^{(i)}(k)\Big|
>\frac{\tilde C_1}2\log^{(2)} n
\right]
\le
\frac 12(\log n)^{-C_1},$$ for all $n$ large enough. Moreover, for every $n$ large enough, $$\begin{gathered}
\ {\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|t|\le(\log n)^\alpha}\Big|W^{(i)}(\lfloor t\rfloor)-W^{(i)}(t)\Big|>\frac{\tilde C_1}2\log^{(2)} n\right]
\\
\le
3(\log n)^\alpha{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{0\le t<1}\big|W^{(i)}(t)\big|>\frac{\tilde C_1}2\log^{(2)} n\right]
\le
6(\log n)^\alpha{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\big|W^{(i)}(1)\big|>\frac{\tilde C_1}2\log^{(2)} n\right]
\\
\le
6(\log n)^\alpha\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{(\tilde C_1)^2}{8\sigma_i^2}(\log^{(2)} n)^2}
=
\frac{12}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(\log n)^{\alpha -\frac{(\tilde C_1)^2}{8\sigma_i^2}\log^{(2)} n}
\le
\frac 12(\log n)^{-C_1}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ since $\sup_{[0,1]} W^{(i)}=_{law} \big|W^{(i)}(1)\big|$. This combined with proves the lemma.
In the rest of the paper, we use the $W^{(i)}$ introduced in Lemma 4.2. We will use the valleys for the $W^{(i)}$. Fix some $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$. Let $$\label{hndef}
h_n:= \log n -5C_2\log^{(2)} n\, .$$ We know from ([@Cheliotis], Lemma 8) that $W^{(i)}\in\mathcal{W}$ almost surely (recall definition \[calW\]). Moreover, using [@HuShi Th 2.1] with $0<a=b$, we have $
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\sup_{0\leq s \leq t}[W^{(i)}(s)-\underline{W}^{(i)}(s)]<b\big]
\leq
(4/\pi)\exp[-\pi^2\sigma_i^2 t/(8b^2)]
$, where $\underline{W}^{(i)}(s):=\inf_{[0,s]} W^{(i)}$. Applying this several times to $W^{(i)}$ and $-W^{(i)}$ with $t=(\log n)^\alpha/10$ and $b=h_n$, the following holds with a probability $1-o\big((\log n)^{-2}\big)$ (since $\alpha>2$), $$\label{InegHypothesesMiPetits}
\forall i\in\{1,2\},\quad -(\log n)^{\alpha}
\leq
b_{-4}\big(W^{(i)}, h_n\big)
\leq
M_{3}\big(W^{(i)}, h_n\big)
\leq
(\log n)^{\alpha}.$$
The following lemma shows that Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\] is more subtle than it may seem at first sight.
\[LemmaCardinalHTiPetits\] Let $W$ be a two-sided standard Brownian motion and $\sigma >0$. Then, for every $n$ large enough, $$\label{InegProbaHT0}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[H(T_0(\sigma W,h_n))\leq \log n\big]
\geq
C_2(\log^{(2)} n)(\log n)^{-1},
$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InegProbaHCardTi}
&&
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[
\sharp\{j\in\{-5,...,5\},\ H(T_j(\sigma W,h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n))\leq \log n + C_2\log^{(2)} n\}\geq 2
\big]
\\
& = &
O\big((\log^{(2)} n)^2(\log n)^{-2}\big),
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
\label{InegProbaHCardTi2}
&&
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\exists j\in\{-5,...,5\},\ H(T_j(\sigma W,h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n))\le \log n + C_2\log^{(2)} n
\big]
\\
& = &
O\big((\log^{(2)} n)(\log n)^{-1}\big).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In particular, the probability that the height of the central valley for $W^{(i)}$ is less than $\log n$ is not negligible. However, with large enough probability, all the valleys close to $0$ except maybe one are large, with height greater than $\log n + C_2\log^{(2)} n$.
Let $\widetilde h_n:=h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n$. First, due to ([@NP], Prop. 1, see also [@Cheliotis] eq. (8)), $e\big(T_i\big(\sigma W,\widetilde h_n\big)\big)/\widetilde h_n$ is for $i\neq 0$ an exponential random variable with mean $1$. Consequently, for $i\neq 0$ and large $n$, $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[H\big(T_i\big(\sigma W, \widetilde h_n\big)\big)\leq \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n \big]
=
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[e\big(T_i\big(\sigma W, \widetilde h_n\big)\big)\leq 8C_2\log^{(2)} n\big]
\leq
\frac{9C_2\log^{(2)} n}{\log n}.$$ Observe that $e\big(T_0\big(\sigma W,\widetilde h_n\big)\big)/\widetilde h_n$ is by scaling equal in law to $e(T_0(W,1))$, which has a density equal to $
(2x+1)e^{-x}{\mathbf 1}_{(0,\infty)}(x)/3
$ due to ([@Cheliotis], formula (11)). Hence for large $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
C_2(\log^{(2)} n)(\log n)^{-1}
& \leq &
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[e\big(T_0\big(\sigma W,\widetilde h_n\big)\big)\leq 5C_2\log^{(2)} n\big]
\\
& \leq &
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[e\big(T_0\big(\sigma W,\widetilde h_n\big)\big)\leq 8C_2\log^{(2)} n\big]
\leq
9C_2(\log^{(2)} n)(\log n)^{-1}.
$$ This remains true if $\widetilde h_n$ is replaced by $h_n$. These inequalities already prove and . Moreover, due to ([@NP], Prop. 1), the slopes $T_i\big(\sigma W, \widetilde h_n\big)$, $i\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ are independent, up to their sign, so the random variables $H\big(T_i(\sigma W,\widetilde h_n)\big)$, $i\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ are independent. This and the previous inequalities lead to .
Because of , it seems reasonable to consider strictly more than one valley of height at least $h_n$ if we want to localize a recurrent RWRE with probability $\geq 1-(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}$ for $\varepsilon>0$. We first introduce some notation. Let, for $i \in \{1,2\}$, $j\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $n\geq 3$, $$\begin{aligned}
&
\Xi_{n,j}\big(W^{(i)}\big)
\\
& :=
\big\{
x\in\big[M_{j-1}\big(W^{(i)},h_n\big), M_j\big(W^{(i)},h_n\big)\big],
\ W^{(i)}(x)\leq W^{(i)}\big(b_j\big(W^{(i)},h_n\big)\big)+C_2\log^{(2)} n
\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Loosely speaking, $\Xi_{n,j}\big(W^{(i)}\big)$ is the set of points with low potential in the $j$-th valley for $W^{(i)}$. We also define $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)
& := &
\bigcup_{j=-2}^2
\Xi_{n,j}\big(W^{(i)}\big).
$$ In Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] (proved in Section \[proofofLocVert\]), we localize the RWRE $Z^{(i)}$ in a set of points which are close to the $b_j(.)$ “vertically”, instead of “horizontally” as in Sinai’s theorem (see [@S82]).
\[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $i\in\{1,2\}$. For all $n$ large enough, we have $$\mathbb P \big[Z_n^{(i)}\notin \Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)\big]
\leq
q_n:=(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}.$$
Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\] is then an easy consequence of Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] and of the following estimate on the environments.
\[LemmaIntersectionBottoms2IndependentPotentials\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$. For large $n$, $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[ \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big) \cap \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big) \neq \emptyset \big]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}.$$
First, let $k\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)$ for some $i\in\{1,2\}$ and $n \geq 3$. Hence $k\in\big[M_{j-1}\big(W^{(i)},h_n\big), M_j\big(W^{(i)},h_n\big)\big]$ and $W^{(i)}(k)\leq W^{(i)}\big(b_j\big(W^{(i)}, h_n\big)\big)+C_2\log^{(2)} n$ for some $j\in\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$. By definition of $h_n$-minima, we notice that the two Brownian motions $\big(W^{(i)}(x+k)-W^{(i)}(k),\ x\geq 0\big)$ and $\big(W^{(i)}(-x+k)-W^{(i)}(k),\ x\geq 0\big)$ hit $h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n$ before $-2C_2\log^{(2)} n$. By independence, it follows that, for $n$ large enough, for every $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $i\in\{1,2\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[k\in\Xi_n\big(W^{(i)}\big)\big]
& \leq &
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[T_{(i)}^+(h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n)<T_{(i)}^+(-2C_2\log^{(2)} n)\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad\times{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\big|T_{(i)}^-(h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n)\big|<\big|T_{(i)}^-(-2C_2\log^{(2)} n)\big|\big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &O\left(((\log^{(2)} n)/\log n)^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{(i)}^+(z):=\inf\{x>0 \ :\ W^{(i)}(x)=z\}$ and $T_{(i)}^-(z):=\sup\{x<0\ :\ W^{(i)}(x)=z\}$. Consequently, since $W^{(1)}$ and $W^{(2)}$ are independent, we have uniformly on $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[k\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big) \cap \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big)\big]
& = &
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[k\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big)\big]
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[k\in\Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big)\big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
O\big((\log^{(2)} n)^4/(\log n)^4\big).
\label{eqProbaApparteniraXin}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, applied with $2+{\varepsilon}>2$ instead of $\alpha$ and lead to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[ \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big) \cap \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big) \neq \emptyset \big]
\\
& \leq &
o\big((\log n)^{-2}\big)
+
\sum_{k=-\lfloor(\log n)^{2+{\varepsilon}}\rfloor}^{\lfloor (\log n)^{2+{\varepsilon}}\rfloor}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[k\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big) \cap \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big)\big]
\\
& \leq &
O\left((\log^{(2)} n)^4(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}\right)
\leq
(\log n)^{-2+2{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ for every $n$ large enough. Since this is true for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, this proves the lemma.
We have for large $n$, due to Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P \big[Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}\big]
& \leq &
\mathbb P \big[Z_n^{(1)}=Z_n^{(2)}, Z_n^{(1)}\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big), Z_n^{(2)}\in \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big)\big]
\\
&&
\qquad
+\mathbb P \big[ Z_n^{(1)}\notin \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big)\big]
+\mathbb P \big[ Z_n^{(2)}\notin \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big)\big]
\\
& \leq &
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[ \Xi_n\big(W^{(1)}\big) \cap \Xi_n\big(W^{(2)}\big) \neq \emptyset \big]
+2q_n.\end{aligned}$$ This and Lemma \[LemmaIntersectionBottoms2IndependentPotentials\] prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe2\].
Proof of Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] {#proofofLocVert}
---------------------------------------------------
We fix $i\in\{1,2\}$. To simplify notations we write $V$ for $V^{(i)}$, $Z_n$ for $Z_n^{(i)}$ and $W$ for $W^{(i)}$.
The difficulty of this proof is that we have to localize $Z_n$ with probability $1-(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}$ instead of $1-o(1)$ as Sinai did in [@S82]. For this reason we need to take into account some cases which are usually considered to be negligible. In order to prove Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\], we first build a set $\mathcal{G}_n$ of good environments, having high probability. We prove that on such a good environment, the RWRE $Z=(Z_n)_n$ will reach quickly the bottom $b_{\mathcal I_1}$ of one of the two valleys of $W$ surrounding $0$. We need to consider these two valleys because we cannot neglect the case in which $0$ is close to the maximum of the potential between these two valleys.\
\
Also, we cannot exclude that the valley surrounding $b_{\mathcal I_1}$ is “small”, that is, its height is close to $\log n$. Then, we have to consider two situations. If the height of this valley is quite larger than $\log n$, then with large probability, $Z$ stays in this valley up to time $n$ (see Lemma \[lemE2\]). Otherwise (in the most difficult case, Lemma \[lemE2compl\]), $Z$ can escape the valley surrounding $b_{\mathcal I_1}$ before time $n$, and in this case, with large probability, it reaches before time $n$ the bottom $b_{\mathcal I_2}$ of a neighbouring valley and stays in this valley up to time $n$. In both situations, we prove that $Z_n$ is localized in $\Xi_n(W)$, and more precisely in the deepest places of the last valley visited before time $n$. In order to prove this localization, we use the invariant measure of a RWRE in our environment, started at $b_{\mathcal I_1}$ or $b_{\mathcal I_2 }$.
We fix $\varepsilon>0$. Recall . We introduce for $j\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, $$x_j
:=
\lfloor x_j(W,h_n)\rfloor,
\qquad
b_j
:=
\lfloor b_j(W,h_n)\rfloor,
\qquad
M_j
:=
\lfloor M_j(W,h_n)\rfloor.$$
![Pattern of $W$ for a good environment $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n$ and representation of different quantities. []{data-label="figure2_Good_Env"}](Potentiel_Good_Environment_Section4_08.pdf)
We denote by $\mathcal{G}_n$ the set of [**good environments**]{} $\omega$ satisfying together with the following properties (see Figure \[figure2\_Good\_Env\]): $$\label{KMT1}
\sup_{|t|\le(\log n)^\alpha}\big|V(\lfloor t\rfloor)-W(t)\big|\leq \tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n,$$ $$\label{eqDefGn1}
\sharp\{j\in\{-5,..., 5 \},\ H(T_j(W,h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n))\leq \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n\}\leq 1,$$ with $h_n$ defined in . For every $n$ large enough, we have $$\label{PGn}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[(\mathcal{G}_n)^c\big]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}
,$$ due to and to Lemmas \[lem:KMT\] and \[LemmaCardinalHTiPetits\], since $C_1>2$ .
We now consider $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$ where $\mathcal{G}_n^+:=\mathcal{G}_n\cap\{x_1(W,h_n) \text{ is an $h_n$-minimum}\}$, that is, $$b_{-1}(W,h_n)
=
x_{-1}(W,h_n)
<
x_0(W,h_n)
=
M_{-1}(W,h_n)
\leq
0
<
b_0(W,h_n)
=
x_1(W,h_n).$$ Indeed, the other case, that is, $x_0(W,h_n)$ is an $h_n$-minimum, or equivalently $\omega \in\mathcal{G}_n^-$ with $\mathcal{G}_n^-:=\mathcal{G}_n \backslash \mathcal{G}_n^+$, is similar by symmetry.
Let us see how we can derive Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\] from and from Lemmas \[lemAtteinteb\_j\], \[lemE2\] and \[lemE2compl\] below. Applying Lemma \[lemAtteinteb\_j\] with $y=0$ and $j=-1$ on $\mathcal{G}_n^+$, the random walk $Z$ goes quickly to $b_{-1}$ or $b_0$ with high probability. More precisely, setting $E_1:=\{\tau(b_{-1})\wedge\tau(b_0)\leq n(\log n)^{-3C_2}\}$, there exists $\tilde n_0\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that, for every $n\ge\tilde n_0$, $$\label{controlE1a}
\forall\omega\in\mathcal G_n^+,
\qquad
P_\omega(E_1)\geq 1-(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Due to Lemmas \[lemE2\] and \[lemE2compl\], there exists $\tilde n_1\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that, for every $n\ge \tilde n_1$, $$ \forall \omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+,
\qquad
P_{\omega} \big[E_1,\ Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W)\big]
\leq
11(\log n)^{-2}$$ and so, using , $$\forall n\ge\max(\tilde n_0,\tilde n_1),
\quad
\forall \omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+,
\qquad
P_{\omega} \big[Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W)\big]
\leq
12(\log n)^{-2}.$$ By symmetry, this remains true with $\mathcal{G}_n^+$ replaced by $\mathcal{G}_n^-$. Therefore, due to , for every $n$ large enough, $$\mathbb P \big[Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W)\big]
\leq
\int_{\mathcal{G}_n}
P_{\omega} \big[Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W)\big]
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}(\text{d}\omega)
+
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[(\mathcal{G}_n)^c\big]
\leq
2(\log n)^{-2+{\varepsilon}}.$$ Since this is true for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, this proves Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\].
We will use the following property. For $j\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat \mu_j(x)
& := &
\exp\big[-\big(V(x)-V(b_j)\big)\big]
+
\exp\big[-\big(V(x-1)-V(b_j)\big)\big]
\\
& = &
\exp\big[V(b_j)\big]
\mu_\omega(x),
\qquad
x\in{ \mathbb{Z} },\end{aligned}$$ with reversible measure $\mu_\omega$ defined in . It follows from reversibility that $$\label{InegReversible}
\forall k\in{ \mathbb{N} },\,
\forall x\in{ \mathbb{Z} },\,
\forall b\in{ \mathbb{Z} },\,
\quad
P_{\omega}^b[Z_k=x]
=
\frac{\mu_\omega(x)}{\mu_\omega(b)} P_{\omega}^x[Z_k=b] \leq \frac{\mu_\omega(x)}{\mu_\omega(b)}
\leq
\exp[V(b)]\mu_\omega(x)\, .$$ In particular, $$\label{InegInvariantMeasureInduction}
\forall j\in{ \mathbb{Z} },\
\forall k\in{ \mathbb{N} },\
\forall x\in{ \mathbb{Z} },
\qquad
P_{\omega}^{b_j}[Z_k=x]
\leq
\widehat \mu_j(x).$$
\[lemAtteinteb\_j\] There exists $n_0\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that, for every $n\ge n_0$, every $\omega\in\mathcal G_n$, every $j\in\{-2,...,1\}$ and every integer $y \in]b_j, b_{j+1}[$, $$\label{eqLemmaSortieVallee}
P_\omega^y
\big[
\tau\left(b_j\right)\wedge\tau\left(b_{j+1}\right)
>
n(\log n)^{-3C_2}
\big]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$
Let $j\in\{-2,...,1\}$ and $\omega\in\mathcal G_n$. Assume for example that $y\in[M_j,b_{j+1}[$, the proof being symmetric in the case when $y\in]b_j,M_j]$. We set (see Figure \[figure2\_Good\_Env\] for $j=-1$) $$\begin{aligned}
A_j^+
& := &
\min(b_{j+1},\inf\{k\geq M_j\ : \ W(k)\le W(M_j(W,h_n))-h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n\}),
\\
A_j^-
& := &
\max(b_{j},\sup\{k\leq M_j : \ W(k)\le W(M_j(W,h_n))-h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n\}).\end{aligned}$$ 1. If $y\in[M_j,A_j^+[$, due to , and , applying Markov’s inequality, we get $$\begin{gathered}
P_\omega^y\left[\tau(A_j^-)\wedge\tau(A_j^+)>\frac{e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}{2}\right]
\leq
\frac{2{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}[b_{j+1}-b_{j}]^2}{e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}\exp\Big[\max_{[b_j,b_{j+1}]} V-\min_{[A_j^-, A_j^+]} V\Big]
\\
\leq
\frac{2{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}[M_2-b_{-2}]^2}{e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}
e^{\big(W(M_j(W,h_n))+\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\big)-\big(W(M_j(W,h_n))-h_n-C_2\log^{(2)} n-\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n-\log{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}\big)}
\\
\le
\frac{8\varepsilon_0^{-1}(\log n)^{2\alpha}e^{h_n+(C_2+2\tilde C_1)\log^{(2)} n+\log {\varepsilon}_0^{-1}}}{e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}
\le
8\varepsilon_0^{-2}(\log n)^{2\alpha+2\tilde C_1-C_2}
\le
\frac 13(\log n)^{-2}
$$ for every $n$ large enough, where we used $\sup_{[b_j(W,h_n),b_{j+1}(W,h_n)]}W=W(M_j(W,h_n))$ and $V(A_j^{\pm})\geq V(A_j^{\pm}\mp 1)-\log\frac{1-{\varepsilon}_0}{{\varepsilon}_0}$ in the second line and $C_2>2\alpha+2\tilde C_1+2$ in the last one. Hence by the strong Markov property, for $n$ large enough, for every $y\in[M_j,A_j^+]$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqPobataubjprocheMj}
P_\omega^y\left[\tau(b_j)\wedge\tau(b_{j+1})>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}\right]
\\
\le
\frac 13(\log n)^{-2}+ P^{A_j^-}_\omega\left[\tau(b_j)>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}/2\right]
+
P^{A_j^+}_\omega\left[\tau(b_{j+1})>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}/2\right].\end{gathered}$$ 2. Assume now that $y\in[A_j^+,b_{j+1}[$ (and so $A_j^+<b_{j+1}$). Observe that $W$ admits no $h_n$-maximum in the interval $]M_j(W,h_n),b_{j+1}(W,h_n)]$ by definition of $M_j(.)$, so $$\max_{M_j(W,h_n)\leq u\leq v\leq b_{j+1}(W,h_n)}(W(v)-W(u))<h_n.$$ Hence due to , , , and to Markov’s inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P^{y}_\omega\left[\tau(M_j)\wedge\tau(b_{j+1})>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}/2\right]
&\le
\frac{2[M_2-b_{-2}]^2}{{\varepsilon}_0 e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}
\exp\Big[\max_{M_j\leq \ell\leq k\leq b_{j+1}}\big(V(k)-V(\ell)\big)\Big]
\nonumber\\
&\le
\frac{8\varepsilon_0^{-1}(\log n)^{2\alpha} e^{h_n+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n}}{e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}}
\le
\frac 16(\log n)^{-2}
\label{pinf}\end{aligned}$$ for every $n$ large enough, since $2C_2>2\alpha+2\tilde C_1+2$. Moreover, due to , and , and since there is no $h_n$-maximum in $[A_j^+, b_{j+1}]$ and so $\sup_{[A_j^+, b_{j+1}]}W<W(A_j^+)+h_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
P^{y}_\omega\left[\tau(M_j)<\tau(b_{j+1})\right]
& \leq &
\bigg(\sum_{\ell=A_j^+}^{b_{j+1}-1}e^{V(\ell)}\bigg)\bigg(\sum_{\ell=M_j}^{b_{j+1}-1}e^{V(\ell)}\bigg)^{-1}
\nonumber\\
&\le&
\big[b_{j+1}-A_j^+\big] \exp\Big(\max\limits_{\ell\in\{A_j^+,...,b_{j+1}\}}V(\ell)\Big)\exp\big(-V(M_j)\big)
\nonumber\\
&\le&
2(\log n)^{\alpha}\exp\big[W(A_j^+)+h_n-W(M_j(W,h_n))+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\big]
\nonumber\\
&\le&
2(\log n)^{\alpha-C_2+2\tilde C_1}
\le
\frac 16(\log n)^{-2}\label{pmin}\end{aligned}$$ for every $y\in[A_j^+,b_{j+1}[$ for all $n$ large enough, since $C_2>\alpha+2\tilde C_1+2$. Gathering and , we get, for all $n$ large enough, for every $y\in[A_j^+,b_{j+1}[$, uniformly on $\mathcal{G}_n$ as the previous inequalities, $$\label{eqProbaAtteintebj+1}
P^{y}_\omega\left[\tau(b_{j+1})>n(\log n)^{-3C_2}/2\right]= P^{y}_\omega\left[\tau(b_{j+1})>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}/2\right]
\le
\frac 13(\log n)^{-2},$$ recalling . This already proves for $y\in[A_j^+,b_{j+1}[$.
3\. For symmetry reasons, we also get that, for every $n$ large enough, for every $y\in]b_j,A_j^-]$, $$\label{eqProbaAtteintebj}
P^{y}_\omega\left[\tau(b_{j})>e^{h_n+2C_2\log^{(2)} n}/2\right]\le \frac 13(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Finally, combining with and proves for $y\in[M_j, A_j^+[$. Hence, is true for $y\in[M_j, b_{j+1}[$ thanks to 2., and for $y\in]b_j, M_j]$ by symmetry. This proves the lemma.
We consider $\mathcal I_1\in\{-1,0\}$ such that $\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}\big)=\tau(b_{-1})\wedge\tau(b_0)$. Recall that $
E_1
=
E_1(n)
:=
\{
\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}\big)
\leq \alpha_n\}
$, where we set $$\label{alphandef}
\alpha_n
:=
n(\log n)^{-3C_2}.$$ We already saw in that, thanks to Lemma \[lemAtteinteb\_j\] with $y=0$ and $j=-1$, we have $$ \forall\omega\in\mathcal G_n^+,
\qquad
P_\omega(E_1)\geq 1-(\log n)^{-2}.$$ We consider the event $E_2=E_2(n)$ on which $Z$ first goes to the bottom of a “deep” valley: $$\begin{aligned}
E_2^+(j)
& := &
\{W[M_{j}(W,h_n)]-W[b_{j}(W,h_n)] > \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n\},
\qquad j\in{ \mathbb{Z} },
\\
E_2^-(j)
& := &
\{W[M_{j-1}(W,h_n)]-W[b_{j}(W,h_n)] > \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n\},
\qquad j\in{ \mathbb{Z} },
\\
E_2
& := &
E_2^+(\mathcal I_1)\cap E_2^-(\mathcal I_1).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that this event depends on $\omega$ but also on the first steps of $Z$ up to time $\tau(b_{I_1})$. Similarly as in , this event happens with probability $1-O((\log n)^{-1}\log^{(2)} n)$, so we cannot neglect $E_2^c$. We will treat separately the two events $E_2$ and $E_2^c$ (the study of $E_2^c$ being more complicated). Before considering these two events, we state the following useful result. We introduce for $j\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$, $$\begin{aligned}
M_{j}^+
& := &
b_{j+1}
\wedge
\inf\{k\geq M_{j},\ W(k)\leq W(b_{j}(W,h_n))+C_2\log^{(2)} n\},
\label{eqDefMj+}
\\
M_{j}^-
& := &
b_{j-1}
\vee
\sup\{k\leq M_{j-1},\ W(k)\leq W(b_{j}(W,h_n))+C_2\log^{(2)} n\},
\label{eqDefMj-}\end{aligned}$$ where $u\vee v:=\max(u,v)$, $(u,v)\in{ \mathbb{R} }^2$, so that $$\label{eqEp15}
\forall k\in ]M_j^-,M_{j-1}]\cup [M_j,M_j^+[,
\quad
W(k)>W(b_{j}(W,h_n))+C_2\log^{(2)} n.$$
For every $n$ large enough, $$\label{eq41Amelioree}
\forall \omega\in\mathcal{G}_n,\,
\forall j\in\{-2,\dots,2\},
\quad
\sup_{k\geq 0}
P_\omega^{b_{j}}\big(Z_k\in[M_{j}^-, M_j^+]\setminus \Xi_{n}(W) \big)
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$
We claim that due to and , $V(x)\geq W(b_j(W,h_n))+C_2\log^{(2)} n-\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n-\log{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}$ for every integer $x\in\big(\big[M_{j}^-, M_j^+\big]\setminus \Xi_{n,j}(W)\big)$ for $j\in\{-2,\dots, 2\}$. This follows from the definition of $\Xi_{n,j}(W)$ if $x\in[M_{j-1}, M_j]$, and from and the fact that $|V(y)-V(y-1)|\leq \log \frac{1-{\varepsilon}_0}{{\varepsilon}_0}$ otherwise. So, due to , and , for large $n$, for all $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n$ and $j\in\{-2,\dots,2\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sup_{k\geq 0}
P_\omega^{b_{j}}\big(Z_k\in[M_{j}^-, M_j^+]\setminus \Xi_{n}(W) \big)
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
\sum_{x=M^-_{j}}^{M_{ j}^+}
1_{\Xi_{n}(W)^c}(x)\widehat \mu_j(x)
\leq
\sum_{x=M^-_{j}}^{M_{j}^+}
1_{\Xi_{n,j}(W)^c}(x)
e^{V(b_{j})}\big[e^{-V(x)}
+e^{-V(x)+\log\frac{1-{\varepsilon}_0}{{\varepsilon}_0}}\big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
2(\log n)^\alpha {\varepsilon}_0^{-1} e^{\big(W(b_j(W,h_n))+\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\big)
-\big(W(b_j(W,h_n))+(C_2-\tilde C_1)\log^{(2)} n-\log{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}\big)}
\nonumber\\
& = &
2{\varepsilon}_0^{-2}(\log n)^{\alpha+2\tilde C_1-C_2}
\leq
(\log n)^{-2},\end{aligned}$$ since $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$.
In the next lemma, we consider the case where $Z$ goes quickly in a deep valley.
\[lemE2\] There exists $n_1\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for all $n\ge n_1$, $$\forall\omega\in \mathcal G_n^+,
\qquad
P_\omega(E_1,E_2,Z_n\notin\Xi_n(\omega))\le 3(\log n)^{-2}.$$
Due to , and , we have for large $n$, for all $\omega\in \mathcal G_n^+$ and all $j\in\{-2,\dots,2\}$ uniformly on $E_2^+(j)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PPPP1}
P_\omega^{b_{j}}\left[\tau(M_{j})<n\right]
\leq
n e^{\min_{[b_{j}, M_{j}-1]}V-V(M_{j}-1)}
\leq
n e^{V(b_{j})-V(M_{j}-1)}
\\
\leq
n \exp\big[\big(W(b_{j}(W,h_n))+\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\big)
-
\big(W(M_{j}(W,h_n))-\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n-\log{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}\big)
\big]
\\
\le
n e^{-(\log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n)+2\tilde C_1\log_ 2 n+\log \varepsilon_0^{-1}}
=
{\varepsilon}_0^{-1}(\log n)^{2\tilde C_1-C_2}
\le
(\log n)^{-2},\end{gathered}$$ since $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$. Similarly, using instead of , we have for large $n$, for all $\omega\in \mathcal G_n^+$ and all $j\in\{-2,\dots,2\}$, uniformly on $E_2^-(j)$, $$\label{PPPP2}
P_\omega^{b_{ j}}\left[\tau(M_{j-1})<n\right]
\le
(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Let $$\tau(x,y)
:=
\inf\{k\geq 0,\ Z_{\tau(x)+k}=y\},
\qquad
x\in{ \mathbb{Z} },\, y\in{ \mathbb{Z} }.$$ In particular, on $E_1\cap E_2\cap\big\{ \tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1-1}\big) \geq n\big\}
\cap\big\{\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}\big) \geq n\big\}$, recalling , $$\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}\big)
\leq
\alpha_n
\leq
n
\leq
\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}\big)
+\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1-1}\big)
\wedge
\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}\big),$$ and so $Z_n\in \big[M_{\mathcal I_1-1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}\big]\subset\big[M_{\mathcal I_1}^-, M_{\mathcal I_1}^+\big]$. Applying and combined with the strong Markov property at time $\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})$, and then , we get for large $n$, for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P_\omega[E_1,E_2, Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W)]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
P_\omega\big[E_1,E_2, Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W), \tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1-1}\big) \geq n,
\tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}\big) \geq n\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+P_\omega\big[E_2, \tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1-1}\big) < n\big]
+P_\omega\big[E_2, \tau\big(b_{\mathcal I_1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}\big) < n\big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
E_\omega\big[1_{E_1}
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\big(Z_{n-k}\in [M_{\mathcal I_1-1}, M_{\mathcal I_1}]
\setminus\Xi_{n}(W)\big)_{|k=\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})}\big]
+2(\log n)^{-2}
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
3(\log n)^{-2}.
\label{eqConclusionE2}\end{aligned}$$ This proves the lemma.
For the event $E_2^c$, we will use the following lemma, which is actually true for any Markov chain.
\[LemmaProbaHittingTime\] Let $a\ne b$. We have, $$\forall k\in{ \mathbb{N} },
\qquad
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)=k]
\leq
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)<\tau(b)].$$
Let $k\in{ \mathbb{N} }^*$. We have, by the Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)=k]
& = &
\sum_{n=0}^k P_\omega^b\big[\tau(a)=k, Z_n=b, \forall n<\ell \leq k, Z_\ell\neq b\big]
\\
& \leq &
\sum_{n=0}^k P_\omega^b\big[Z_n=b\big]P_\omega^b\big[\tau(a)=k-n, \tau(a)<\tau(b)\big]
\\
& \leq &
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)\in[0,k], \tau(a)<\tau(b)]
\\
& \leq &
P_\omega^b[\tau(a)<\tau(b)],\end{aligned}$$ where we used $P_\omega^b[Z_n=b]\leq 1$ in the second inequality.
\[lemE2compl\] There exists $n'_1\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for all $n\ge n'_1$, $$\forall \omega\in \mathcal G_n^+,
\quad
P_\omega(E_1,E_2^c,Z_n\notin\Xi_n(\omega))\le 8 (\log n)^{-2}.$$
An essential remark is that if we are on $E_2^c$ with $\omega\in\mathcal G_n^+$, then, due to , either we are on $E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)\setminus E_2^+(\mathcal I_1)$ or on $E_2^+(\mathcal I_1)\setminus E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)$. In the first case we set $$\mathcal I_2:=\mathcal I_1+1,\
A:=M_{\mathcal I_1}^+,\
B:=M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n)\mbox{ and }
D:=M_{\mathcal I_1}^-.$$ whereas in the second case we set $$\mathcal I_2:=\mathcal I_1-1,\
A:=M_{\mathcal I_1}^-,\
B:=M_{\mathcal I_1-1}(W,h_n)\mbox{ and }
D:=M_{\mathcal I_1}^+.$$ Loosely speaking, with large probability, $b_{\mathcal I_2}$ is the bottom of the second valley reached by $Z$, and $Z$ can reach it before time $n$ or not, so we have to consider both cases.
We introduce $
\tau'(A, b_{\mathcal I_2})
:=
\inf\{k\geq 0,\ Z_{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}) +\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1},A)+k}=b_{\mathcal I_2}\}
$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E_3
& := &
\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})+\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1},A)<n-2n(\log n)^{-6C_2}\}
\cap\{\tau'(A, b_{\mathcal I_2}) \leq n(\log n)^{-6C_2}\},
\\
E_4
& := &
\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})+\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1},A)\in[n-2n(\log n)^{-6C_2},n]\},
\\
E_5
& := &
\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})+\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1},A)>n\}\cap \{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}, D)>n\},
\\
E_6
& := &
\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}, D)\leq n\},
\\
E_7
& := &
\{\tau'(A, b_{\mathcal I_2}) \geq n(\log n)^{-6C_2}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $$\label{eqE2Union}
E_2^c
\subset
E_3\cup E_4\cup E_5\cup E_6\cup E_7.$$
- . First, $E_2^c\cap\{\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1\}\subset E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)$, so by and since $D=M_{\mathcal I_1}^-<M_{\mathcal I_1-1}<b_{\mathcal I_1}$ when $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1$, we have for large $n$ for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$, $$\label{eqProbaE2E6}
P_\omega(E_2^c\cap\{\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1\}\cap E_6)
\leq
E_\omega\big[1_{E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)}P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\big(\tau(M_{\mathcal I_1-1})<\tau(D)\leq n\big)\big]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$ The case $\mathcal I_1=\mathcal I_2-1$ follows similarly from , and so $$P_\omega(E_2^c\cap E_6)
\leq
2(\log n)^{-2}$$ for large $n$ for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$.
- . We start by proving that for every $n$ large enough, for every $\omega\in\mathcal G_n^+$, uniformly on $E_2^c$, $$\label{eqpourE4}
\forall x\in{ \mathbb{N} },
\qquad
P_{\omega}^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\left[\tau(A)\in[n-2n(\log n)^{-6C_2}-x,n-x]\right]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Using Lemma \[LemmaProbaHittingTime\] and then , we obtain on $E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)\setminus E_2^+(\mathcal I_1)$, since $b_{\mathcal I_1}<M_{\mathcal I_1}<A$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\omega}^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}
\big[\tau(A)=\ell\big]
& \leq &
P_{\omega}^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\big[\tau(A) < \tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})\big]
=
\omega_{b_{\mathcal I_1}}P_{\omega}^{b_{\mathcal I_1}+1} \big[\tau(A) < \tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})\big]
\\
& \leq &
e^{V(b_{\mathcal I_1})-V(M_{\mathcal I_1})}
\leq
e^{W[b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n)]- W[M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n)]+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n}
\\
& \leq &
e^{-h_n+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n}
=
(\log n)^{5C_2+2\tilde C_1}/n
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}
/(3n(\log n)^{-6C_2})\, ,
$$ for every $\ell\in \mathbb N$ and $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$ for every $n$ large enough, since $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$. Summing over $\ell$ proves in this case, the other case $E_2^+(\mathcal I_1)\setminus E_2^-(\mathcal I_1)$ being very similar.
Due to , for large $n$, for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$, by the strong Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P_\omega(E_2^c\cap E_4)
& = &
E_\omega\big[
1_{E_2^c}
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\big(\tau(A)\in[n-2n(\log n)^{-6C_2}-x,n-x]
\big)_{|x=\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})}\big]
\\
& \leq &
(\log n)^{-2}.
\label{eqProbaE4}\end{aligned}$$
- . Let us prove that for $n$ large enough, $$\label{eqE7}
\forall\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+,
\qquad
P_{\omega}(E_2^c\cap E_7)
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Due to the strong Markov property, it is enough to prove that for large $n$, for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$, uniformly on $E_2^c$, $$\label{eqLemmaTempsAtteintebI2}
P_\omega^A\left[\tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})\ge n(\log n)^{-6C_2}\right]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.$$ Recall that $h_n$-extrema are a fortiori $(h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n)$-extrema. Let us observe that due to and since $W(B)-W(b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))\leq \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n$, the only possible slope $T_j[W, h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n]$, $-5\leq j\leq 5$ with height $\leq \log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n$ is $[B, b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n)]$ (or $[b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n), B]$) so $W(B)-W(b_{\mathcal I_2}(W,h_n))>\log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n$. For the same reason, there is no $(h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n)$-extrema between $B$ and $b_{\mathcal I_2}(W,h_n)$, and so $\sup_{B\leq u \leq v\leq b_{\mathcal I_2}(W,h_n)}(W(v)-W(u))<h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n$ in the case $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1$. Hence in this case, due to , , and to Markov’s inequality, and since $\lfloor B\rfloor=M_{\mathcal I_1}<A<b_{\mathcal I_2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^{A}\left[\tau(\lfloor B\rfloor) \wedge \tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})
\geq n(\log n)^{-6C_2}
\right]
&\leq&
\frac{\varepsilon_0^{-1}4(\log n)^{2\alpha}
e^{h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)}n+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n}}{n(\log n)^{-6C_2}}
\nonumber\\
&\leq&
\varepsilon_0^{-1}4(\log n)^{2\alpha-C_2+2\tilde C_1}\le
\frac 12(\log n)^{-2}\, ,
\label{InegTempsAtteinteBbI2}\end{aligned}$$ for every $n$ large enough since $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$. This is also true in the case $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1-1$ by . Moreover in the case $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1$, we have $
\max_{[A,b_{\mathcal I_2}]}V
\leq
\sup_{[M_{\mathcal I_1}^+, b_{\mathcal I_2}(W,h_n)]}W+\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n
\leq
W(M_{\mathcal I_1}^+)+(h_n-2C_2\log^{(2)} n)+\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n
$ due to the previous remark, and . Also, $
W(M_{\mathcal I_1}^+)
\leq
W(b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))+C_2\log^{(2)} n
$ by , otherwise we would have $M_{\mathcal I_1}^+=b_{\mathcal I_1+1}$ and $
W(b_{\mathcal I_1+1})
\geq
W(b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n)) +C_2\log^{(2)} n
\geq
W(M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))-\log n
$ due to our hypothesis in this case $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1+1$, which in turn would give $
W(M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))
-
W(b_{\mathcal I_1+1}(W,h_n))
\leq
\log n+2\tilde C_1\log^{(2)}n
$, which contradicts since $2\tilde C_1<C_2$. So by , and , recalling that $W(b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))+h_n\leq W(M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))$ and $B=M_{\mathcal I_1}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^{A}\left[\tau(\lfloor B\rfloor )<\tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})\right]
& \leq &
\big(b_{\mathcal I_2}-A\big)
\exp\Big[\max_{[A,b_{\mathcal I_2}]}V-V(B)\Big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
2(\log n)^\alpha e^{\big(W(b_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))+h_n+(\tilde C_1-C_2)\log^{(2)} n\big)
-\big(W(M_{\mathcal I_1}(W,h_n))-\tilde C_1\log^{(2)} n\big)}
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
2(\log n)^{\alpha+2\tilde C_1-C_2}
\le
(\log n)^{-2}/2
\label{InegProbaAtteinteBbI2}\end{aligned}$$ for every $n$ large enough since $C_2\geq 2\alpha+2+10\,\tilde C_1$. We prove similarly in the case $\mathcal I_2=\mathcal I_1-1$. Then, and prove . Finally, combined with the strong Markov property lead to .
- . On $E_1\cap E_2^c\cap E_5$, we have $
\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})
\leq
n
\leq
\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})+\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}, A)\wedge\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}, D)
$ and in particular $Z_n\in[A\wedge D,A\vee D]= [M_{\mathcal I_1}^-, M_{\mathcal I_1}^+]$. Applying as in the simplest case, we get for large $n$, for all $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P_\omega(E_1\cap E_2^c\cap E_5, Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W) )
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
E_\omega\big[1_{\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})\leq \alpha_n\}}
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_1}}\big(Z_{n-k}\in [M_{\mathcal I_1}^-, M_{\mathcal I_1}^+]
\setminus \Xi_{n}(W)\big)_{|k=\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})}\big]
\leq
(\log n)^{-2}.
\label{eqConclusionE5}\end{aligned}$$
- . On $E_1\cap E_2^c\cap E_3$, we have $
\tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})
\leq
\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1})+\tau(b_{\mathcal I_1}, A)+\tau'(A, b_{\mathcal I_2})
<n
$. Moreover, the height of the valley $[M_{\mathcal I_2-1}(W,h_n), M_{\mathcal I_2}(W,h_n)]$ is at least $\log n+C_2\log^{(2)} n$ on $E_2^c$ due to , that is, we are on $E_2^-(\mathcal I_2)\cap E_2^+(\mathcal I_2)$. Also we get $
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_2}}
\big[\tau\big(M_{\mathcal I_2-1}\big)\wedge\tau\big(M_{\mathcal I_2}\big)<n\big]
\leq
2(\log n)^{-2}
$ by and uniformly on $E_2^c\cap \mathcal{G}_n^+$ for large $n$. Using and $[M_{\mathcal I_2-1}, M_{\mathcal I_2}]\subset[M_{\mathcal I_2}^-, M_{\mathcal I_2}^+]$, this gives for large $n$ for every $\omega\in\mathcal{G}_n^+$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P_\omega(E_1\cap E_2^c\cap E_3, Z_n\notin \Xi_n(W) )
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
E_\omega\big[1_{\{\tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})< n\}}
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_2}}\big(Z_{n-k}\in [M_{\mathcal I_2}^-, M_{\mathcal I_2}^+]
\setminus \Xi_{n}(W)\big)_{|k=\tau(b_{\mathcal I_2})}\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+
E_\omega\big[1_{E_2^c}
P_\omega^{b_{\mathcal I_2}}
\big[\tau\big(M_{\mathcal I_2-1}\big)\wedge\tau\big(M_{\mathcal I_2}\big)<n\big]
\big]
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
3(\log n)^{-2}.
\label{eqConclusionE3}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, and the controls on $E_i$, $3\leq i \leq 7$ prove Lemma \[lemE2compl\], which ends the proof of Proposition \[LemmaLocalisationVerticale\].
Probability of simultaneous meeting of independent recurrent rwre in the same environment {#sameenv}
=========================================================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1\], which is a consequence of the following proposition whose proof is deferred.
Let $r>1$ and let $Z^{(1)},...,Z^{(r)}$ be $r$ independent recurrent RWRE in the same environment $\omega$ satisfying .
\[Lemmeannexe1Bis\] Let $\delta\in(0,1)$. There exist events $\Delta_N(\delta)$, $N\geq 1$ and $\widehat b(N)\in 2{ \mathbb{Z} }$ depending only on the environment $\omega$, and constants $c(\delta)>0$, ${\varepsilon}(\delta)\in(0,1)$, with $$\label{eqProbaLiminfBN}
\liminf_{N\to+\infty}{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N(\delta)\big]
\geq
1-\delta,$$ such that $$\forall (y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r,
\exists N_1\in{ \mathbb{N} },
\forall N\geq N_1,
\forall \omega\in \Delta_N(\delta),
\forall j\in\{1,\dots, r\},$$ $$\label{PZ=b}
\forall n\in\big[N^{1-{\varepsilon}(\delta)}, N\big]\cap(2{ \mathbb{N} }),
\quad
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n^{(j)}=\widehat b(N)\big]\geq c(\delta).$$ This remains true if $(2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$ and $2{ \mathbb{N} }$ are replaced respectively by $(2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^r$ and $2{ \mathbb{N} }+1$.
Let $\delta\in(0,1)$. First, notice that by , $$\label{eqProbaLiminfBNio}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\limsup_{N\to+\infty}\Delta_N(\delta)\big]
=
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\bigcap_{N\in{ \mathbb{N} }}\bigcup_{n\geq N }\Delta_n(\delta)\right]
=
\lim_{N\to+\infty}{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\bigg[\bigcup_{n\geq N }\Delta_n(\delta)\bigg]
\geq
\liminf_{N\to+\infty} {\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}[\Delta_N(\delta)]
\geq
1-\delta.$$ Now, let $(y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$. There exists $N_1\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for every $N\geq N_1$, on $\Delta_N(\delta)$, $$\sum_{n=1}^N\frac 1n
\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}\prod_{j=1}^r P_\omega^{y_j}\left[Z_n^{(j)}=k\right]
\geq
\sum_{n=N^{1-{\varepsilon}(\delta)}}^N\frac {{\bf 1}_{2{ \mathbb{N} }}(n)}n
[c(\delta)]^r
\geq
[c(\delta)]^r \frac{{\varepsilon}(\delta)}{4}\log N$$ if $N$ is large enough. Consequently, we have on $\limsup_{N\to+\infty} \Delta_N(\delta)=\{\omega\in\Delta_N(\delta) \text{ i.o.}\}$, $$\limsup_{N\to+\infty}\frac{1}{\log N}
\sum_{n=1}^N\frac 1n
\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}\prod_{j=1}^r P_\omega^{y_j}\left[Z_n^{(j)}=k\right]
\geq
[c(\delta)]^r \frac{{\varepsilon}(\delta)}{4}
>
0.$$ This and prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1\] in the case $(y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$. The proof in the case $(y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^r$ is similar.
Now, it remains to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1Bis\].
Main idea of the proof of Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1Bis\]
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $Z$ be a RWRE as in Section \[SinaiEstimate\]. In order to prove that $Z_n$ is localized at $\widehat b(N)$ with a quenched probability $P_\omega^{y_j}$ greater than a positive constant, we use a coupling argument between a copy of $Z$ starting from $\widehat b(N)$ and a RWRE $\widehat Z$ reflected in some valley around $\widehat b(N)$, under its invariant probability measure. To this aim, we approximate the potential $V$ by a Brownian motion $W$, use $W$ to build the set of good environments $\Delta_N(\delta)$ and estimate its probability ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N(\delta)\big]$, and then define $\widehat b(N)$.
We build $\Delta_N$ as the intersection of $7$ events $\Delta_N^{(i)}$, $i=0,\dots, 6$. First, $\Delta_N^{(0)}$ gives an approximation of $V$ by $W$. Loosely speaking $\Delta_N^{(1)}$ guarantees that the central valley (containing the origin) of height $\log n$ has a height much larger than $\log n$, so that $Z$ will not escape this valley before time $n$ (see Lemma \[LemmaProaResterDansVallee\]). $\Delta_N^{(1)}$ also ensures that this central valley does not contain sub-valleys of height close to $\log n$, so that with high quenched probability, $Z$ reaches quickly the bottom of this valley without being trapped in such subvalleys (see Lemma \[LemmaTempsAtteintebN\]). To this aim, we also need that the bottom of this valley is not too far from $0$, which is given by $\Delta_N^{(3)}$, and that the value of the potential between $0$ and the bottom of this valley is low enough, which is given by $\Delta_N^{(4)}$ and $\Delta_N^{(2)}$. Additionally, $\Delta_N^{(5)}$ is useful to provide estimates for the invariant probability measure $\widehat \nu$, and is useful to prove that the coupling occurs quickly (Lemma \[Lemma\_Time\_Coupling\], using Lemmas \[LemInegaliteSupAtteinteLpm\] and \[LemMajorationNuBordsVallee\]). Finally, $\Delta_N^{(6)}$ says that $\widehat \nu\big(\widehat b(N)\big)$, which is roughly the invariant probability measure at the bottom of the central valley, is larger than a positive constant.
Construction of $\Delta_N(\delta)$
----------------------------------
Let $\delta\in(0,1)$. The aims of this section are the construction of the set of environments $ \Delta_N(\delta)$ satisfying and , and the proof of . We will construct $ \Delta_N(\delta)$ as an intersection $$\label{Deltandef}
\Delta_N(\delta):=\bigcap_{i=0}^6 \Delta_N^{(i)},$$ where the sets $\Delta_N^{(i)}$, defined below, also depend on $\delta$. In what follows, ${\varepsilon}_i$ is for $i>0$ a positive constant depending on $\delta$ and used to define the set $\Delta_N^{(i)}$. As in the previous section, we will approximate the potential $V$ by a two-sided Brownian motion $W$ such that ${\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(W(1))={\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(V(1))$ (see Figure \[figure1\] for patterns of the potential $V$ and of $W$ in $\Delta_N(\delta)$). We start with $\Delta_N^{(1)},\dots,\Delta_N^{(5)}$ which are $W$-measurable. Using the same notation as before for $h$-extrema, for a two-sided Brownian motion $W$, we define $$\label{DeltaN1def}
\Delta_N^{(1)}
:=
\{W\in\mathcal{W}\}\cap
\bigcap_{i=-1}^1\big\{H[T_i(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)]\geq (1+2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big\},$$ $$\label{DeltaNRdef}
\Delta_N^{(R)}
:=
\big\{
x_1\big( W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big) \text{ is a } ((1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)\text{-minimum for } W
\big\},$$
and $\Delta_N^{(L)} := \big[\Delta_N^{(R)}\big]^c$, where $R$ stands for right and $L$ for left, $\Delta_N^{(2)}:=\Delta_N^{(2,R)}\cup \Delta_N^{(2,L)}$ with $$\label{DeltaN2Rdef}
\Delta_N^{(2,R)}
:=
\bigg\{
\max_{\big[0, x_1\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big]} W
<
W\big(x_0\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big)
-{\varepsilon}_2\log N
\bigg\}
\cap \Delta_N^{(R)},$$ $$\label{DeltanNdef}
\Delta_N^{(2,L)}
:=
\bigg\{
\max_{\big[x_0\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big),0\big]} W
<
W\big(x_1\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big)
-{\varepsilon}_2 \log N
\bigg\}
\cap \Delta_N^{(L)};$$
$$\label{DeltaN3def}
\Delta_N^{(3)}
:=
\Big\{
-{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2
\leq
x_{-1}[W,(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N]
\leq
x_{2}[W,(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N]
\leq
{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2
\Big\};$$
$$\label{DeltaN4def}
\Delta_N^{(4)}
:=
\cap_{i=0}^1\{|W(x_i(W,(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N))|>{\varepsilon}_4\log N\}$$
and $\Delta_N^{(5)}:=\Delta_N^{(5,R)}\cup \Delta_N^{(5,L)}$, where $$\label{DeltaN5def}
\Delta_N^{(5,L)}
:=
\bigg\{
\min_{\big[0, x_1\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big]} W
>
W\big(x_0\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big)
+{\varepsilon}_5\log N
\bigg\}
\cap \Delta_N^{(L)},$$
$$\label{DeltaN5Rdef}
\Delta_N^{(5,R)}
:=
\bigg\{
\min_{\big[x_0\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big),0\big]} W
>
W\big(x_1\big(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\big)\big)
+{\varepsilon}_5 \log N
\bigg\}
\cap \Delta_N^{(R)}.$$
\[LEMME000\] Let $W$ be a two-sided Brownian motion such that ${\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(W(1))={\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(V(1))$. There exist $(\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_3,\varepsilon_4, \varepsilon_5)\in(0,1/10)^4$ with $\varepsilon_5=\varepsilon_2$ such that, for every $i\in\{1,...,5\}$, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}[\Delta_N^{(i)}]>1-\delta/10 $.
![Pattern of the potential $V$ and of $ W$ for $\omega\in\Delta_N\cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, where $x_i$ denotes $x_i(W, (1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N)$.[]{data-label="figure1"}](Potentiel_Delta_10.pdf)
First, by the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[LemmaCardinalHTiPetits\], there exists ${\varepsilon}_1\in(0,1/10)$ such that ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(1)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$.
We now introduce $\widetilde W_N(x):=W(x(\log N)^2)/\log N$, which has the same law as $W$ by scaling. We notice that $x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)$ is a local extremum for $\widetilde W_N$, so ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)=0\big]=0$. Hence we have $x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)<0<x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)$ a.s. We start with the case where $x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)$ is a $(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)$-minimum for $\widetilde W_N$, that is, the bottom $b_0(W,(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)$ of the central valley of depth at least $(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N$ for $W$ is on the right. That is, we assume we are on $\Delta_N^{(R)}\cap \mathcal{W}$. Since $\widetilde W_N$ is continuous on $\big[0, x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big]$, $\widetilde W_N$ attains its maximum on this interval at some $y\in\big[0, x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big]$. So, $\widetilde W_N(y)\in\big[0, \widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)\big]$, since $
\max_{[x_0(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1),x_1(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1)]}\widetilde W_N
=\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)$. If $\widetilde W_N(y)= \widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)$, then $y$ would be a $(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)$-maximum for $\widetilde W_N$, with $x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)<y<x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)$, which is not possible on $\mathcal{W}$. So, $
\widetilde W_N(y)
=
\max_{\big[0, x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big]} \widetilde W_N
<
\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)
$. Consequently, there exists ${\varepsilon}_2\in(0,1/10)$ such that $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[
\max_{\big[0, x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big]} \widetilde W_N
<
\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)
-{\varepsilon}_2
\bigg|
\Delta_N^{(R)}
\right]
\geq
1-\frac{\delta}{10},$$ and the same is true if we exchange $x_0$ and $x_1$ by symmetry (and then $[0, x_1(\dots)]$ is replaced by $[x_0(\dots), 0]$, and $\Delta_N^{(R)}$ by $\Delta_N^{(L)}$). Hence ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(2)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$ by scaling.
Moreover, there exists ${\varepsilon}_3\in(0,1/10)$ such that $
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(3)}\big]
=
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[-{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}\leq x_{-1}[\widetilde W_N,1-2{\varepsilon}_1]\leq x_{2}[ \widetilde W_N,1-2{\varepsilon}_1] \leq {\varepsilon}_3^{-1}
\big]
\geq
1-\delta/10
$, where we get the first equality by scaling.
Finally, there exists ${\varepsilon}_4\in(0,1/10)$ such that ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(4)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$, by scaling, since $\big|\widetilde W_N\big(x_i\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)\big|>0$ a.s. for $i\in\{0,1\}$. Indeed, $x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)<0$, so $\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)=\max_{[x_0(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1),0]}\widetilde W_N>0$ a.s. on $\Delta_N^{(R)}\cap \mathcal{W}$, and $\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)=\min_{[x_0(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1),0]}\widetilde W_N<0$ a.s. on $\Delta_N^{(L)}\cap \mathcal{W}$, so $\big|\widetilde W_N\big(x_0\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)\big|>0$ a.s. Similarly, $\big|\widetilde W_N\big(x_1\big(\widetilde W_N, 1-2{\varepsilon}_1\big)\big)\big|>0$ a.s.
Replacing $W$ by $-W$ in $\Delta_N^{(2)}$ proves that with ${\varepsilon}_5:={\varepsilon}_2>0$, the event $\Delta_N^{(5)}$ satisfies ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(5)}\big]={\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(2)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$.
From now on, $\varepsilon_1,...,\varepsilon_5$ are the ones given by Lemma \[LEMME000\]. Let $$\label{epsilondef}
\varepsilon:=\min(\varepsilon_1,\dots,\varepsilon_5)/9.$$
\[lemmeKMT2\] Up to an enlargement of $(\Omega,\mathcal F,{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}})$, there exist a two-sided Brownian motion $(W(s),\ s\in{ \mathbb{R} })$ defined on $\Omega$ such that ${\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(W(1))={\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(V(1))$ and a real number $\xi>0$ such that $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|t|\le 2\varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2}\big|V(\lfloor t\rfloor)-W(t)\big| >\varepsilon\log N\right]
=
O(N^{-\xi}).$$
Due to (applied with $N$ replaced by $2{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2$ and $x=({\varepsilon}/2)\log N-a\log[2{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2]$), there exists for $N$ large enough, possibly on an enlarged probability space, a Brownian motion $(W(s), \,s\in{ \mathbb{R} })$ such that $${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|k|\le 2\varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2}|V(k)-W(k)| >\frac\varepsilon 2\log N\right]\le N^{-c\frac{\varepsilon}{10}}$$ and such that ${\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(W(1))={\mathop{\mathsf{Var}}}(V(1))$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|t|\le 2\varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2}\big|W(t)-W(\lfloor t\rfloor)\big| >\frac\varepsilon 2\log N\right]
&\le&
5\varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2{\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\left[\sup_{|t|\le 1}|W(t)| >\frac\varepsilon 2\log N\right]
\\
&=&
O((\log N)^2 \exp[-\varepsilon^2(\log N)^2/(8\sigma^2)]).\end{aligned}$$ Combining these two inequalities proves the lemma.
Recall : it remains to define $\Delta_N^{(0)}$ and $\Delta_N^{(6)}$, see and below, and then we claim
\[LemmaProbaDeltaN\] For large $N$, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N(\delta)\big]\geq 1-\delta$. Hence holds true.
From now on, $W$ is the Brownian motion $W$ coming from Lemma \[lemmeKMT2\] and $\Delta_N^{(1)},...,\Delta_N^{(5)}$ are the corresponding events defined in –. We set $$\label{eq_def_Delta0}
\Delta_N^{(0)}:= \left\{\sup_{|t|\le 2\varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2}\big|V(\lfloor t\rfloor)-W(t)\big| \le \varepsilon\log N\right\}.$$ For $N$ large enough, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(0)}\big]>1-\delta/10$ by Lemma \[lemmeKMT2\]. In particular on the event $\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap \Delta_N^{(3)}$, we can apply the inequalities of $\Delta_N^{(0)}$ to any $t\in\big[x_{-1}\big(W, (1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N\big), x_{2}\big(W, (1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N\big)\big]$, since those $t$ satisfy $|t|\leq {\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2$. We now introduce (here this is for $V$ directly, not for $W$) $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_N^{(R)}
& := &
\inf\Big\{i\in { \mathbb{N} },\ V(i)-\min_{0\leq j\leq i} V(j) \geq (1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\Big\},
\\
\beta_N^{(R)}
& := &
\sup\Big\{i<\theta_N^{(R)},\ V(i)=\min_{0\leq j \leq \theta_N^{(R)}} V(j)\Big\},
\\
\theta_N^{(L)}
& := &
\sup\Big\{i\in (-{ \mathbb{N} }),\ V(i)-\min_{i\leq j\leq 0} V(j) \geq (1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\Big\},
\\
\beta_N^{(L)}
& := &
\inf\Big\{i>\theta_N^{(L)},\ V(i)=\min_{\theta_N^{(L)}\leq j \leq 0} V(j)\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ By ([@Dembo_Gantert_Peres_Shi], eq. (4.33)), there exists ${\varepsilon}_6>0$ such that if $N$ is large enough, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(6,R)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$, where $$\label{Delta6}
\Delta_N^{(6,R)}
:=
\Bigg\{
\sum_{i=0}^{\theta_N^{(R)}-1} e^{-\big[V(i)-V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\big]}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}
\Bigg\},
\quad
\Delta_N^{(6,L)}
:=
\Bigg\{
\sum_{i=\theta_N^{(L)}}^{-1} e^{-\big[V(i)-V\big(\beta_N^{(L)}\big)\big]}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}
\Bigg\}.$$ Replacing $V(.)$ by $V(-.)$ gives ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(6,L)}\big]\geq 1-\delta/10$. Consequently, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(6)}\big]\geq 1-2\delta/10$, where $$\label{eq_def_Delta6}
\Delta_N^{(6)}
:=
\Delta_N^{(6,R)}\cap \Delta_N^{(6,L)}.$$ This, combined with Lemma \[LEMME000\] and ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N^{(0)}\big]>1-\delta/10$, proves the lemma.
Random walk in an environment $\omega\in\Delta_N(\delta)$
---------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this subsection is to prove Proposition \[Lemmeannexe1Bis\] with the $\Delta_N(\delta)$ constructed in the previous section, see –, and . Let $\delta\in(0,1)$. We write $\Delta_N$ for $\Delta_N(\delta)$. We also fix $(y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$. There exists $N_2\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for $N\geq N_2$, ${\textnormal{\textsf{P}}}\big[\Delta_N\big]\geq 1-\delta$ (due to Lemma \[LemmaProbaDeltaN\]), $a_0\leq \varepsilon\log N$, and $\max_{1\leq j \leq r}|y_j|< \min({\varepsilon}_2,{\varepsilon}_4) (\log N)/(4a_0)$, where we set $a_0:=\log((1-\varepsilon_0)/\varepsilon_0)$.
We introduce, recalling , $$\label{eqDefWidehatbN}
\widehat b(N)
:=
2\big\lfloor\beta_N^{(R)}/2\big\rfloor{\bf 1}_{\Delta_N^{(R)}}
+
2\big\lfloor\beta_N^{(L)}/2\big\rfloor{\bf 1}_{\Delta_N^{(L)}}.$$ We will carry out the proof in the case $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$. The case $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(L)}$ is similar by symmetry. We define $\widehat x_i:=\lfloor x_i(W, (1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)\rfloor$, and $$\qquad
D_N^{(1)}
:=
\big\{\tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)<\tau(\widehat x_0)\big\},
\qquad
D_N^{(2)}
:=
\big\{\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge\tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}\big\}.$$ We sometimes write $x_i$ instead of $x_i(W,(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)$ in the following.
In the following lemma, we prove that $Z$ goes quickly to $\widehat b(N)$, which is nearly the bottom of the potential $V$ in the central valley $\big[\widehat x_0,\widehat x_2\big]$, with large probability under $P_\omega^{y_j}$, uniformly on $\Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$ and $j$.
\[LemmaTempsAtteintebN\] There exists $N_3\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for all $N\geq N_3$, $$\forall \omega\in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)},
\forall j\in\{1,\dots , r\},
\quad
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[D_N^{(1)}\big]
\geq
1-N^{-({\varepsilon}_1\wedge {\varepsilon}_2)/4},
\quad
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[D_N^{(2)}\big]
\geq
1-N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}.$$
Let $N\geq N_2$, $\omega\in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$ and $j\in\{1,\dots , r\}$. First, notice that $W(x_2)-W(x_1)=H[T_1(W, (1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N)]\geq (1+2\varepsilon_1)\log N$ because $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(1)}$. This gives, recalling $$\label{InegPreuvex2bN}
V(\widehat x_2)-V(\widehat x_1)
\geq
W(x_2)-W(x_1)-2\varepsilon \log N
\geq
(1+\varepsilon_1)\log N$$ since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(3)}\cap \Delta_N^{(0)}$ (see and the remark after it). Hence $0\leq \widehat b(N)\leq \beta_N^{(R)}\leq \theta_N^{(R)}\leq \widehat x_2\leq \varepsilon_3^{-1}(\log N)^2$.\
Now, assume that $\theta_N^{(R)}<x_1$. Since $V\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\geq (1+\varepsilon_1)\log N$, the previous inequalities would give, on $\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap\Delta_N^{(3)}$, $W\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-W\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\geq (1+\varepsilon_1-2\varepsilon)\log N\geq (1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N$. So, recalling that $W(x_1)=\min_{[0, x_1]}W$, there would exist a $((1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N)$-maximum for $W$ in $]0, x_1[$, which is not possible. Hence $x_1\leq \theta_N^{(R)}$.
So, $V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\leq V(\widehat x_1)\leq W(x_1)+\varepsilon \log N
< -8\varepsilon_4(\log N)/9$ because $\omega\in \Delta_N^{(0)}\cap\Delta_N^{(3)}\cap \Delta_N^{(4)}$. If $y_j>0$, then $\min_{[0, y_j]} V\geq -|y_j|a_0\geq -{\varepsilon}_4(\log N)/4>
V(\beta_N^{(R)})+2a_0
$, because $N\geq N_2$. Since similarly, $\max_{[0, y_j]} V\leq \varepsilon_4(\log N)/4$ and $\varepsilon_4<1$, we get successively $y_j\leq \theta_N^{(R)}$ and $y_j\leq \beta_N^{(R)}-2\leq \widehat b(N)-1$. If $y_j<0$, we prove similarly that $\widehat x_0<y_j$ since $V(\widehat x_0)\geq 8\varepsilon_4(\log N)/9$. Hence in every case, $\widehat x_0<y_j<\widehat b(N)$.
We now prove that $$\label{InegMaxV}
\max_{[y_j, \widehat b(N)]} V-V(\widehat x_0)
\leq
-[({\varepsilon}_1\wedge{\varepsilon}_2)/2]\log N.$$ To this aim, notice that $
\max_{[0, \widehat x_1]} V-V(\widehat x_0)
\leq
-{\varepsilon}_2 (\log N)/2
$ since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(2,R)}\cap\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap\Delta_N^{(3)}$, and that if $y_j<0$, we have $
\max_{[y_j,0]} V-V(\widehat x_0)
\leq
|y_j|a_0-(8/9){\varepsilon}_2\log N
\leq
-{\varepsilon}_2 (\log N)/2
$ since $W(x_0)\geq {\varepsilon}_2\log N$ on $\Delta_N^{(2,R)}$ and so $V(\widehat x_0)\geq (8/9){\varepsilon}_2\log N$. This gives when $\widehat b(N)\leq \widehat x_1$.\
Assume now $\widehat x_1<\widehat b(N)$. We have seen after that $0\leq \widehat b(N)\leq \theta_N^{(R)}\leq \widehat x_2$, moreover, $V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\leq V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)+a_0$ and we have proved that $V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\leq V(\widehat x_1)$, so we obtain $$V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-\varepsilon\log N-a_0
\le
V(\hat x_1)-\varepsilon\log N
\leq
W(x_1)
\leq
W\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
\leq
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+{\varepsilon}\log N$$ since $W(x_1)=\min_{[x_0,x_2]}W$ and $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(3)}\cap \Delta_N^{(0)}$, so that $$\label{minproches}
\big|W(x_1)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\big|
\leq
\varepsilon \log N+a_0
\leq
2\varepsilon \log N
\leq
2 \min(\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2)(\log N)/9.$$ Moreover there is no $((1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)$-maximum for $W$ in $(x_0, x_2)$, therefore, $$\label{InegMaxW}
\max_{[x_1, \widehat b(N)]} W
<
W\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+(1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N
\leq
W(x_1)+(1-2{\varepsilon}_1+3{\varepsilon}_1/9)\log N\, ,$$ by $\Delta_N^{(0)}$ applied to $\widehat b(N)$ followed by . Since $V(\widehat x_0)\geq V(\widehat x_1)+(1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N$ on $\Delta_N^{(1)}\cap\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap\Delta_N^{(3)}$, this gives $
\max_{[\widehat x_1, \widehat b(N)]} V-V(\widehat x_0)
\leq
-{\varepsilon}_1\log N
$ (since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap \Delta_N^{(3)}$). Recapitulating all this gives also when $\widehat x_1<\widehat b(N)$.
So by and , we get uniformly on $\Delta_N\cap\Delta_N^{R)}$ and $j$ for large $N$, $$P_\omega^{y_j}\big[\big(D_N^{(1)}\big)^c\big]
\leq
\big[\widehat b(N)-y_j\big]\exp\Big[\max_{[y_j, \widehat b(N)]} V-V(\widehat x_0)\Big]
\leq
\frac{2{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2}{ N^{({\varepsilon}_1\wedge {\varepsilon}_2)/2}}
\leq
N^{-({\varepsilon}_1\wedge {\varepsilon}_2)/4},$$ where we used $\omega\in \Delta_N^{(3)}$ and $\widehat x_0< y_j<\widehat b(N)<\widehat x_2$. This proves the first inequality of the lemma.
We now turn to $D_N^{(2)}$. Notice that $\big|\widehat b(N)-\widehat x_0\big|\leq|\widehat x_2-\widehat x_0|\leq 3{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2$ on $\Delta_N$ since $0\leq \widehat b(N)\leq \widehat x_2$ as proved after . Moreover, there is no $((1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)$-maximum for $W$ in $(x_0, x_1)$, so $\max_{x_0\leq u \leq v \leq x_1}(W(v)-W(u))<(1-2\varepsilon_1)\log N$. Also if $x_1<\widehat b(N)$, $\min_{[x_0,\widehat b(N)]} W=W(x_1)$ and lead to $\max_{x_1\leq u \leq v \leq \widehat b(N)}(W(v)-W(u))\leq(1-2\varepsilon_1+3\varepsilon_1/9)\log N$. Since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap \Delta_N^{(3)}$, this gives $$\label{eqPlusGrandeMonteeEntrex0etbN}
\max_{\widehat x_0\leq \ell \leq k \leq \widehat b(N)}\big(V(k)-V(\ell)\big)
\leq
(1-13\varepsilon_1/9)\log N.$$ Hence, we have by , $$E_\omega^{y_j}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge \tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\big]
\leq
\frac{[\widehat b(N)-\widehat x_0]^2}{\varepsilon_0}
\exp\Big[\max_{\widehat x_0\leq \ell \leq k \leq \widehat b(N)}\big(V(k)-V(\ell)\big)\Big]
\leq
\frac{9(\log N)^4N^{1-\frac{13{\varepsilon}_1}{9}}}{{\varepsilon}_0{\varepsilon}_3^{2}}.$$ So due to Markov’s inequality, $
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[\big(D_N^{(2)}\big)^c\big]
\leq
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}
$, uniformly in $\omega\in \Delta_N\cap\Delta_N^{(R)}$ and $j$, for large $N$.
In the following lemma, we prove that with large quenched probability, uniformly on $\Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, after first hitting $\widehat b(N)$, the random walk $Z$ stays in the central valley $\big[\widehat x_0,\widehat x_2\big]$ at least up to time $N$. To this aim, we now define $$D_N^{(3)}
:=
\big\{\forall k\in\big[\tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big), \tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+N-1\big],\ \widehat x_0<Z_k<\widehat x_2\big\}.$$
\[LemmaProaResterDansVallee\] We have for large $N$, $$\forall \omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)},
\forall j\in\{1,\dots,r\},
\quad
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[D_N^{(3)}\big]=P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau\big(\widehat x_0\big)\wedge\tau\big(\widehat x_2\big)\geq N\big]
\geq
1-2e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1}.$$
Let $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$. We recall that $|V(k)-V(k-1)|\leq a_0$ for every $k\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$. We have, since $x_1\leq \theta_N^{(R)}$ and so $V(\beta_N^{(R)})\leq V(\widehat x_1)$, and by , $$\label{InegVx2}
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-V(\widehat x_2)
\leq
V\big(\widehat x_1\big)+a_0 -V(\widehat x_2)
\leq
a_0 -(1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N.$$ Similarly, $$\label{InegV0}
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-V(\widehat x_0)
\leq
a_0 -(1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N.$$ Hence and lead respectively to $$\begin{aligned}
& P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}(\tau(\widehat x_2)<N)
\leq
N\exp\Big(\min_{[\widehat b(N),\widehat x_2-1]}V-V(\widehat x_2-1)\Big)
\leq
N e^{2a_0-(1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N}
\leq
e^{2a_0} N^{-{\varepsilon}_1},
\\
&
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}(\tau(\widehat x_0)<N)
\leq
N\exp\Big(\min_{[\widehat x_0,\widehat b(N)-1]}V-V(\widehat x_0)\Big)
\leq
N e^{2a_0-(1+{\varepsilon}_1)\log N}
\leq
e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1}.\end{aligned}$$ These two inequalities yield $
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau\big(\widehat x_0\big)\wedge\tau\big(\widehat x_2\big)<N\big]
\leq
2e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1}
$, uniformly on $\Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, which proves the lemma.
Now, similarly as in Brox [@Brox] for diffusions in random potentials (see also [@AndreolettiDevulder p. 45]), we introduce a coupling between $Z$ (under $P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}$) and a reflected random walk $\widehat Z$ defined below. More precisely, we define, for fixed $N$, $\widehat \omega_{\widehat x_0}:= 1$, $\widehat \omega_x:=\omega_x$ if $\widehat x_0<x<\widehat x_2$, and $\widehat \omega_{x_2} :=0$. We consider a random walk $\big(\widehat Z_n\big)_n$ in the environment $\widehat \omega$, starting from $x\in\big[\widehat x_0, \widehat x_2\big]$, and denote its law by $P_{\widehat \omega}^x$. That is, $\widehat Z$ satisfies with $\widehat \omega$ instead of $\omega$ and $\omega^{(j)}$ and $\widehat Z$ instead of $Z^{(j)}$. In words, $\widehat Z$ is a random walk in the environment $\omega$, starting from $x\in\big[\widehat x_0,\widehat x_2\big]$, and reflected at $\widehat x_0$ and $\widehat x_2$. Also, let $$\widehat \mu(\widehat x_0)
:=
e^{-V(\widehat x_0)},
\quad
\widehat \mu(\widehat x_2)
:=
e^{-V(\widehat x_2-1)},
\quad
\widehat \mu(x)
:=
e^{-V(x)}+e^{-V(x-1)},
\quad
\widehat x_0<x<\widehat x_2,$$ and $\widehat\mu(x)=0$ if $x\notin [\widehat x_0,\widehat x_2]$. Notice that $\widehat\mu(.)/\widehat\mu({ \mathbb{Z} })$ is an invariant probability measure for $\widehat Z$. As a consequence, $$\label{eqDefWidehatNu}
\widehat \nu(x)
:=
\widehat \mu(x){\bf 1}_{2{ \mathbb{Z} }}(x)/{\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })},
\qquad
x\in{ \mathbb{Z} },$$ is an invariant probability measure for $\big(\widehat Z_{2n}\big)_n$ for fixed $\widehat \omega$. That is, $P_{\widehat \omega}^{\widehat \nu}\big(\widehat Z_{2k}=x\big)=\widehat \nu(x)$ for every $x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and $k\in{ \mathbb{N} }$, where $P_{\widehat \omega}^{\widehat \nu}(.):= \sum_{x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }} \widehat \nu(x) P_{\widehat \omega}^{x}(.)$. Notice that $\widehat \nu$ and $\widehat \mu$ depend on $N$ and $\omega$.
We can now, again for fixed $N$ and $\omega$, build a coupling $Q_\omega$ of $Z$ and $\widehat Z$, such that $$\label{eqLawUnderQ}
Q_\omega\big(\widehat Z\in .\big)
=
P_{\widehat \omega}^{\widehat \nu}\big(\widehat Z\in .\big),
\qquad
Q_\omega(Z\in .)
=
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}(Z\in .),$$ such that under $Q_\omega$, these two Markov chains move independently until $$\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}
:=
\inf\big\{k\geq 0 ,\ \widehat Z_k=Z_k\big\},$$ which is their first meeting time, then $\widehat Z_k=Z_k$ for every $\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}\leq k<\tau_{exit}$, where $\tau_{exit}$ is the next exit time of $Z$ from the central valley $[\widehat x_0, \widehat x_2]$, that is, $$\tau_{exit}
:=
\inf\big\{k>\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}, \ Z_k\notin [\widehat x_0, \widehat x_2] \big\},$$ and then $\widehat Z$ and $Z$ move independently again after $\tau_{exit}$.
Now, we would like to prove that under $Q_\omega$, $Z$ and $\widehat Z$ collide quickly, that is, $\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}$ is very small compared to $N$. To this aim, we introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat L^-
& := &
\sup\{k\leq \widehat b(N),\ V(k)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\geq (1-{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\},
\\
\widehat L^+
& := &
\inf\{k\geq \widehat b(N),\ V(k)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\geq (1-{\varepsilon}_1)\log N\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $u\vee v:=\max(u,v)$. We have the following:
\[LemInegaliteSupAtteinteLpm\] We have for large $N$, $\tau(.)$ denoting hitting times by $Z$ as before, $$\forall \omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)},
\qquad
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)\vee\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\leq
4 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}.$$
Let $N\geq N_2$ and $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$. Notice that $\widehat x_0\leq \widehat L^-< \widehat b(N)< \widehat L^+\leq \theta_N^{(R)}\leq \widehat x_2$ similarly as after . Because $\omega \in \Delta_N^{(5,R)}\cap\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap \Delta_N^{(3)}$ and due to , we have since $\varepsilon_5=\varepsilon_2$, $$\label{eqInfVentrex0et0}
\forall k\in[\widehat x_0, -1],
\quad
V(k)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
\geq
W(x_1)+(\varepsilon_5-\varepsilon)\log N-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
\geq
({\varepsilon}_5/2)\log N.$$ Moreover, recalling $a_0=\log((1-\varepsilon_0)/\varepsilon_0)$, we have $
\min_{[0, \theta_N^{(R)}]}V
=
V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)
\geq
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-a_0
$, so $
\min_{[\widehat x_0, \widehat L^+]} V
\geq
\min_{[\widehat x_0, \theta_N^{(R)}]} V
\geq
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-a_0
$. Notice also for further use that, for every $k\in\big[\theta_N^{(R)},\widehat x_2\big]$, we have $
V\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-V(k)
\leq
W\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-W(k)+2\varepsilon\log N
<
(1-2\varepsilon_1+2\varepsilon)\log N
$ since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(0)}\cap\Delta_N^{(3)}$ and because there is no $((1-2{\varepsilon}_1)\log N)$–maximum for $W$ in $(\widehat x_1,\widehat x_2\big)$ and $\widehat x_1\leq \theta_N^{(R)}\leq k\leq \widehat x_2$, as proved after . Since $
V\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
\geq
(1+\varepsilon_1)\log N-a_0
$, this gives $$\begin{aligned}
\forall k\in\big[\theta_N^{(R)},\widehat x_2\big],
\quad
V(k)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
& = &
V(k)-V\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)+V\big(\theta_N^{(R)}\big)-V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
\nonumber\\
& \geq &
2{\varepsilon}_1\log N.
\label{InegMinVThetaX2}\end{aligned}$$ Putting together these inequalities gives in particular $
\min_{[\widehat x_0, \widehat x_2]} V
\geq
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-a_0
$. Furthermore, $$\label{eq2Star}
\max_{[\widehat b(N), \widehat L^+]} V
\leq
V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+(1-\varepsilon_1)\log N+a_0.$$ Hence, $$\max_{\widehat x_0\leq \ell\leq k\leq \widehat L^+-1,\ k\geq \widehat b(N)}[V(k)-V(\ell)]
\leq
\max_{[\widehat b(N), \widehat L^+]} V
-
\min_{[\widehat x_0, \widehat L^+]} V
\leq
(1-\varepsilon_1)\log N+2a_0.$$ This, , Markov’s inequality and $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(3)}$ give $$P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge \tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\leq
N^{-(1-{\varepsilon}_1/2)}
\varepsilon_0^{-1}4{\varepsilon}_3^{-2} (\log N)^4
N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}e^{2a_0}
\leq
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}$$ uniformly for large $N$. Moreover by , , and since $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(3)}$, $$P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)<\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)\big]
\leq
\big(\widehat L^+-\widehat b(N)\big)\exp\big[\max_{[\widehat b(N), \widehat L^+]} V-V\big(\widehat x_0\big)\big]
\leq
\frac{(\log N)^2 e^{2a_0}}{{\varepsilon}_3N^{2{\varepsilon}_1}}
\leq
\frac{1}{N^{{\varepsilon}_1/4}}$$ uniformly for large $N$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
& = &
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\\
& \leq &
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge \tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
+
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)<\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)\big]
\\
& \leq &
2 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}.\end{aligned}$$ We prove similarly that $
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\leq
2 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}
$ uniformly for large $N$, using and instead of and respectively, and because $\min_{[\widehat x_0, \widehat x_2]} V\geq V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-a_0$ which we proved after . This proves Lemma \[LemInegaliteSupAtteinteLpm\].
\[LemMajorationNuBordsVallee\] For large $N$, $$\forall \omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)},
\qquad
\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat x_0, \widehat L^-\big]\big)
+
\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat L^+, \widehat x_2\big]\big)
\leq
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}.$$
Let $N\geq N_2$ and $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$. Recall that $\widehat x_0\leq \widehat L^-< \widehat b(N)< \widehat L^+\leq \widehat x_2$, which is proved before . Notice that $\widehat L^-\leq x_1\leq \widehat L^+$, which is proved similarly as $x_1\leq \theta_N^{(R)}$ after . Using the same method as for with $\widehat L^+$ instead of $\theta_N^{(R)}$, we get $V\geq V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+({\varepsilon}_1/3)\log N$ on $\big[\widehat L^+, \widehat x_2\big]$. Also, $V\big(\widehat L^+-1\big)\geq V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)+({\varepsilon}_1/3)\log N$ Since $\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })\geq e^{-V(\widehat b(N))}$, this leads to $$\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat L^+, \widehat x_2\big]\big)
\leq
\big[\widehat x_2-\widehat L^++2\big]
e^{-V(\widehat b(N))}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/3}
/{\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })}
\leq
3{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/3}
\leq
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}/2$$ uniformly for large $N$, where we used $\omega \in \Delta_N^{(3)}$. We prove similarly that $
\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat x_0, \widehat L^-\big]\big)
\leq
N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}/2
$ uniformly for large $N$, which ends the proof of the lemma.
\[Lemma\_Time\_Coupling\] There exists $N_4\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ such that for $N\ge N_4$ for every $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, $$\label{InegProbaRencontre}
Q_\omega\big[\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}>N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\leq
5 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}$$ and $$\label{InegProbaExit}
Q_\omega[\tau_{exit}\leq N]
\leq
Q_\omega\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge \tau(\widehat x_2)< N\big]
=
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big[\tau(\widehat x_0)\wedge \tau(\widehat x_2)< N\big]
\leq
2e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1}.$$
Due to Lemma \[LemInegaliteSupAtteinteLpm\], we have for large $N$ for all $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
Q_\omega\big[\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}>N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\\
& \leq &
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)\vee\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}\big]
+
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)\vee\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)>N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\\
& \leq &
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_0 <\widehat b(N)\big]
+
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_0 \geq \widehat b(N)\big]
+4 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that under $Q_\omega$, $Z_0=\widehat b(N)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })$ by and , and $\widehat Z_0\in(2{ \mathbb{Z} })$ by and . So the process $\big(\widehat Z_k-Z_k\big)_{k\in{ \mathbb{N} }}$ starts at $\big(\widehat Z_0-\widehat b(N)\big)\in(2{ \mathbb{Z} })$ and only makes jumps belonging to $\{-2,0,2\}$, and thus up to time $\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}-1$ it is $<0$ (resp. $>0$) on $\big\{\widehat Z_0 <\widehat b(N)\big\}$ (resp. $\big\{\widehat Z_0 \geq \widehat b(N)\big\}$), and in particular at time $\tau\big( \widehat L^-\big)$ on $\big\{\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_0 <\widehat b(N)\big\}$ (resp. at time $\tau\big( \widehat L^+\big)$ on $\big\{\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_0 \geq \widehat b(N)\big\}$). This gives for large $N$ for all $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
Q_\omega\big[\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}>N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big]
\\
& \leq &
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_{\tau(\widehat L^-)}< \widehat L^-\big]
+
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_{\tau(\widehat L^+)} > \widehat L^+\big]
+4 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}
\\
& \leq &
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^-\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_{2\lfloor\tau(\widehat L^-)/2\rfloor} \leq \widehat L^-\big]
+
Q_\omega\big[\tau\big(\widehat L^+\big)<\tau_{\widehat Z=Z},\, \widehat Z_{2\lfloor \tau(\widehat L^+)/2\rfloor} \geq \widehat L^+\big]
\\
&&
+4 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}
\\
& \leq &
\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat x_0, \widehat L^-\big]\big)
+
\widehat \nu\big(\big[\widehat L^+, \widehat x_2\big]\big)
+4 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality comes from the fact that $
Q_{\omega}\big(\widehat Z_{2k}=x\big)
=
P_{\widehat \omega}^{\widehat \nu}\big(\widehat Z_{2k}=x\big)
=
\widehat \nu(x)
$ for every $x\in{ \mathbb{Z} }$ and every (deterministic) $k\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ as explained after , and from the independence of $\widehat Z$ with $Z$ and then $\tau(.)$ up to $\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}$. Now, applying Lemma \[LemMajorationNuBordsVallee\], this gives for large $N$ for every $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$.
Due to and Lemma \[LemmaProaResterDansVallee\], for large $N$ for every $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, holds.
Recall that we have fixed $\delta\in(0,1)$ and that comes from Lemma \[LemmaProbaDeltaN\]. Let us prove . To this aim, we fix $(y_1, \dots, y_r)\in (2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$. Let $N_1\in{ \mathbb{N} }$ be such that $N_1\geq\max(N_2,N_3,N_4)$ and such that for every $N\geq N_1$, $
{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2 [N^{-{\varepsilon}_5/2}+2N^{-2{\varepsilon}_1}]
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}
$, $
N^{-({\varepsilon}_1\wedge {\varepsilon}_2\wedge{\varepsilon}_4)/4}
\leq
1/8
$, $
N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/3}
\geq
N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}+N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}
$ and $
5 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}+2e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6e^{-a_0}/6
$, recalling $a_0=\log((1-\varepsilon_0)/\varepsilon_0)$. Now, we would like to give a lower bound for $P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n=\widehat b(N)\big]$ for $n$ even. Recall and . Let $N\geq N_1$, $\omega \in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)}$, $j\in\{1,\dots,r\}$, and $n\in(2{ \mathbb{N} })$, with $n\in[N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}+N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2},N]$. We have by the strong Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n=\widehat b(N)\big]
& \geq &
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n=\widehat b(N), \tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}\big]
\nonumber\\
& = &
E_\omega^{y_j}\big[{\bf 1}_{\{\tau(\widehat b(N))\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}\}}
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big)_{|k=n-\tau(\widehat b(N))} \big]
\nonumber\\
& \geq &
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[\tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1}\big]
\inf_{k\in[N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}, N]\cap(2{ \mathbb{N} })}P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big)\nonumber\\
&\geq &
\left(1- N^{-({\varepsilon}_1\wedge {\varepsilon}_2)/4}-N^{-\varepsilon_1/4}\right)
\inf_{k\in[N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}, N]\cap(2{ \mathbb{N} })}P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big)
\hphantom{aaa}
\label{InegProbaPyjZn}\end{aligned}$$ because $\widehat b(N)$ and $y_j$ are even (see ) and then $\tau\big(\widehat b(N)\big)$ is also even under $P_\omega^{y_j}$, and where we used Lemma \[LemmaTempsAtteintebN\] in the last line. Moreover, for $k\in[N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}, N]\cap(2{ \mathbb{N} })$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_\omega^{\widehat b(N)}\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big)
& = &
Q_\omega\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big)
\nonumber\\
& \geq &
Q_\omega\big(Z_k=\widehat b(N), \tau_{\widehat Z=Z}\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}, \tau_{exit}> N\big)
\nonumber\\
& = &
Q_\omega\big(\widehat Z_k=\widehat b(N), \tau_{\widehat Z=Z}\leq N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}, \tau_{exit}> N\big)
\nonumber\\
& \geq &
Q_\omega\big(\widehat Z_k=\widehat b(N)\big) -Q_\omega\big(\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}> N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/2}\big)-Q_\omega\big( \tau_{exit}\leq N\big)
\nonumber\\
& \geq &
\widehat\nu \big(\widehat b(N)\big) -5 N^{-{\varepsilon}_1/4}-2e^{2a_0}N^{-{\varepsilon}_1},
\label{InegProbaZhatBhatk}\end{aligned}$$ where we used in the first and last line, $Z_k=\widehat Z_k$ for $k\in\big[\tau_{\widehat Z=Z}, \tau_{exit}\big)$ under $Q_\omega$ in the third line, and $Q_\omega\big(\widehat Z_k=x\big)=P_{\widehat \omega}^{\widehat \nu}\big(\widehat Z_k=x\big)=\widehat \nu(x)$ since $k$ is even, and in the last line since $N\geq N_4$.
Notice that $
\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })
=
e^{-V(\widehat b(N))}
\sum_{i=\widehat x_0}^{\widehat x_2-1}e^{-[V(i)-V(\widehat b(N))]}
$, with $$\sum_{i=\widehat x_0}^{-1}e^{-[V(i)-V(\widehat b(N))]}
\leq
|\widehat x_0| N^{-{\varepsilon}_5/2}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2 N^{-{\varepsilon}_5/2}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}$$ since $N\geq N_1$, $\omega\in\Delta_N^{(3)}$ and thanks to .
Moreover, by , $
\sum_{i=\theta_N^{(R)}}^{\widehat x_2-1}e^{-[V(i)-V(\widehat b(N))]}
\leq
2{\varepsilon}_3^{-1}(\log N)^2 N^{-2{\varepsilon}_1}
\leq {\varepsilon}_6^{-1}
$ because $N\geq N_1$. Finally, $
\sum_{i=0}^{\theta_N^{(R)}-1} e^{-\big[V(i)-V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\big]}
\leq
{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}
$ since $\omega \in \Delta_N^{(6,R)}$ (see ). Moreover, $\big|V\big(\widehat b(N)\big)-V\big(\beta_N^{(R)}\big)\big|\leq a_0$. Hence, $
\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })
\leq
3{\varepsilon}_6^{-1}e^{a_0}
e^{-V(\widehat b(N))}
$. Moreover, $\widehat \mu\big(\widehat b(N)\big)\geq e^{-V(\widehat b(N))}$ since $\widehat x_0< \widehat b(N)<\widehat x_2$, and $\widehat b(N)$ is even by , so by , $
\widehat \nu\big(\widehat b(N)\big)
=
\widehat \mu\big(\widehat b(N)\big)/\widehat \mu(2{ \mathbb{Z} })
\geq
{\varepsilon}_6e^{-a_0}/3
$. This, and give for $N\geq N_1$, $$\forall \omega\in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(R)},
\forall n\in\big[N^{1-{\varepsilon}_1/3},N\big]\cap(2{ \mathbb{N} }),
\forall j\in\{1,\dots ,r\},
\quad
P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n=\widehat b(N)\big]
\geq
{\varepsilon}_6e^{-a_0}/8.$$ The proof is similar for $\omega\in \Delta_N \cap \Delta_N^{(L)}$ by symmetry. This, combined with Lemma \[LemmaProbaDeltaN\], ends with $c(\delta)={\varepsilon}_6e^{-a_0}/8>0$ and ${\varepsilon}(\delta)={\varepsilon}_1/3$. To prove that this remains true if $(2{ \mathbb{Z} })^r$ and $2{ \mathbb{N} }$ are replaced respectively by $(2{ \mathbb{Z} }+1)^r$ and $2{ \mathbb{N} }+1$, we just condition $P_\omega^{y_j}\big[Z_n=\widehat b(N)\big]$ by $Z_1$, and apply the Markov property and to $(y_1\pm 1,\dots,y_r\pm 1)$.
[**Acknowledgement**]{} A part of this work was done while AD and NG were visiting Brest. We thank ANR MEMEMO 2 (ANR-10-BLAN-0125) and the LMBA, University of Brest for its hospitality. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for comments which helped improve the presentation of the paper.
[DGPS07]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andreoletti, P.</span> (2005) Alternative proof for the localization of Sinai’s walk. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**118**]{}, 883–933.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andreoletti, P. and Devulder, A.</span> (2015) Localization and number of visited valleys for a transient diffusion in random environment. [*Electron. J. Probab.*]{} [**20**]{}, no 56, 1–58.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Barlow, M., Peres, Y. and Sousi, P.</span> (2012) Collisions of random walks. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Stat.*]{} [**48**]{}, no 4, 922–946.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bovier, A. and Faggionato, A.</span> (2008) Spectral analysis of [S]{}inai’s walk for small eigenvalues. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**36**]{}, 198–254.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Brox, Th.</span> (1986) A one-dimensional diffusion process in a [W]{}iener medium. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**14**]{}, 1206–1218.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Campari, R. and Cassi, D.</span> (2012) Random collisions on branched networks: How simultaneous diffusion prevents encounters in inhomogeneous structures. *Physical Review E* **86.2**.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cheliotis, D.</span> (2005) Diffusion in random environment and the renewal theorem. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**33**]{}, 1760–1781.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cheliotis, D.</span> (2008) Localization of favorite points for diffusion in a random environment. [*Stoch. Proc. Appl.*]{} [**118**]{}, 1159–1189.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chung, K. L.</span> (2001) A course in probability theory. Third edition, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Deheuvels, P. and Révész, P.</span> (1986) Simple random walk on the line in random environment. *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **72**, 215–230.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dembo, A., Gantert, N., Peres, Y. and Shi, Z.</span> (2007) Valleys and the maximum local time for random walk in random environment. *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **137**, 443–473.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Devulder, A.</span> (2016) Persistence of some additive functionals of Sinai’s walk. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Stat.*]{} [**52**]{}, no 3, 1076–1105.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Devulder, A., Gantert, N. and Pène, F.</span> (2018+) Arbitrary many walkers meet infinitely often in a subballistic random environment. In preparation.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Doyle, P. G. and Snell, E. J.</span> (1984) Probability: Random walks and Electrical Networks. Carus Math. Monographs [**22**]{}, Math. Assoc. Amer., Washington DC.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dvoretzky, A. and Erd[ö]{}s, P.</span> (1951) Some problems on random walk in space, Proceedings of the [S]{}econd [B]{}erkeley [S]{}ymposium on [M]{}athematical [S]{}tatistics and [P]{}robability, 1950, 353–367, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Freire, M.V.</span> (2015) Application of Moderate Deviation Techniques to Prove Sinai Theorem on RWRE. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**160**]{} (2) 357–370.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gallesco, C.</span> (2013) Meeting time of independent random walks in random environment. *ESAIM Probab. Stat.* **17**, 257–292.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gantert, N., Kochler M. and Pène, F.</span> (2014) On the recurrence of some random walks in random environment. *ALEA* **11**, 483–502.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Golosov, A. O.</span> (1984) Localization of random walks in one-dimensional random environments. *Commun. Math. Phys.* **92**, 491–506.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hirsch, W. M.</span> (1965) A strong law for the maximum cumulative sum of independent random variables. *Comm. Pure Appl. Math.* **18**, 109–127.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hu, Y. and Shi, Z.</span> (1998) The limits of Sinai’s simple random walk in random environment. *Ann. Probab.* **26**, 1477–1521.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hu, Y. and Shi, Z.</span> (2004) Moderate deviations for diffusions with Brownian potentials. *Ann. Probab.* **32**, 3191–3220.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kawazu, K., Tamura, Y. and Tanaka, H.</span> (1989) Limit Theorems for One-Dimensional Diffusions and Random Walks in Random Environments. [*Probab. Theory Related Fields*]{} [**80**]{}, 501–541.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kochen, S. P. and Stone C. J.</span> (1964) A note on the Borel-Cantelli lemma. *Illinois J. Math.* **8**, 248–251.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Komlós, J., Major, P. and Tusnády, G.</span> (1975) An approximation of partial sums of independent RV’s and the sample df. I, *Wahrsch verw Gebiete/Probability Theory and Related Fields* **32**, 111–131.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Krishnapur, M. and Peres, Y.</span> (2004) Recurrent graphs where two independent random walks collide infinitely often. [*Electron. J. Probab.*]{} [**9**]{}, 72–81.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lawler, G. F. and Limic, V.</span> (2010) Random walk: a modern introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Neveu, J.</span> (1964) Bases mathématiques du calcul des probabilités, Masson et Cie, Éditeurs, Paris.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Neveu J. and Pitman J.</span> (1989) Renewal property of the extrema and tree property of the excursion of a one-dimensional [B]{}rownian motion. [*Séminaire de [P]{}robabilités XXIII, Lecture Notes in Math.*]{} [**1372**]{}, 239–247, Springer, Berlin.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P[ó]{}lya, G</span> (1921) Über eine Aufgabe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung betreffend die Irrfahrt im Straßennetz. *Math. Ann.* **84**, 149–160.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P[ó]{}lya, G</span> (1984) Collected papers, Vol IV. Edited by Gian-Carlo Rota, M. C. Reynolds and R. M. Shortt. *MIT Press*, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shi, Z. and Zindy, O.</span> (2007) A weakness in strong localization for [S]{}inai’s walk. *Ann. Probab.* **35**, 1118–1140.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sinai, Ya. G.</span> (1982) The limiting behavior of a one-dimensional random walk in a random medium. [*Th. Probab. Appl.*]{} [**27**]{}, 256–268.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Solomon, F.</span> (1975) Random walks in a random environment. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**3**]{}, 1–31.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spitzer, F.</span> (1976) Principles of random walk, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 34, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, Second edition.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Zeitouni, O.</span> (2004) Lecture notes on random walks in random environment. [*École d’été de probabilités de Saint-Flour 2001*]{}. Lecture Notes in Math. [**1837**]{}, 189–312. Springer, Berlin.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we examine the Layer phase of the five dimensional, anisotropic, Abelian gauge model. Our results are to be compared with the ones of the 4D U(1) gauge model in an attempt to verify that four dimensional physics governs the four dimensional layers. The main results are i) From the analysis of Wilson loops we verified the $\frac{1}{R}$ behavior, in the layered phase, for the potential between heavy charges. The renormalized fine structure constant in the layer phase is found to be equal to that of 4D Coulomb phase,$\alpha_{layer}$=$\alpha_{4D}$. ii) Based on the helicity modulus analysis we show that the layers are in the Coulomb phase while the transverse bulk space is in the confining phase. We also calculated the renormalized coupling $\beta_{R}$ and found results compatible with those obtained from the Coulomb potential. Finally we calculated the potential in the 5D Coulomb phase and found $\frac{1}{R^{2}}$ behavior for the static $q \bar{q}$ potential. From the study of the helicity modulus we have a possible estimate for the five dimensional renormalized fine structure constant in the region of the critical value of the bare gauge coupling .'
author:
- 'K. Farakos[^1] and S. Vrentzos[^2]'
title: 'Establishment of the Coulomb law in the layer phase of a pure U(1) lattice gauge theory'
---
Introduction
============
The idea that we live on a hypersurface embedded in a higher dimensional space has attracted the interest of particle physicists and cosmologists in connection with the hierarchy and the cosmological constant problems. These ideas are motivated by string- and M-theory that are formulated in multidimensional spaces. One version is to consider the extra dimensions flat, compactified to a large scale $M_{KK}\sim \frac{1}{R}$ varying from the Planck scale to a few TeV depending on the number of extra dimensions [@ADD; @Dien]. An alternative concept is the so called brane world scenario [@RSBO], where all of the particles are localized on a three-dimensional submanifold (brane), embedded in a multidimensional manifold (bulk), while gravitons are free to propagate in the bulk. This model in five dimensions, implies a non-factorizable space time geometry of the form $AdS_{5}$ around the brane, assuming a negative five-dimensional cosmological constant . The four-dimensional particles are expected to be gravitationally trapped on the brane. Indeed gravitons and scalars for the second RS model [@RSBO] have a localized solution on the brane, plus a continuum spectrum . Gravitons, scalars and fermions also exhibit a normalizable zero mode localized on the brane if we assume a non trivial scalar background in the bulk, such as a kink topological defect toward the extra dimension [@Kehagias]. The most difficult task is the massless non-abelian gauge field localization on the brane, as any acceptable mechanism must preserve the charge universality [@Rubakov]. A localization mechanism that may be triggered by the extra dimensional gravity is proposed by the authors of refs [@FP; @FP2; @FP3]. It is based on the idea of the construction of a gauge field model which exhibits a non-confinement phase on the brane and a confinement phase on the bulk, that is to say, a higgs mechanism driven by the coupling with the gravity. Thus gauge fields, and more generally fermions and bosons with gauge charge, cannot escape into the bulk unless we give them energy greater than the mass gap $\Lambda_{G}$, which emerges from the nonperturbative confining dynamics of the gauge model in the bulk. In a previous work [@us] we have studied the 4+1 dimensional pure Abelian Gauge model on the lattice with two anisotropic couplings, independent from each other and the coordinates, focusing our attention to the study of the phase diagram and the order of the phase transitions. With this model we wanted to explore the possibility of a gauge field localization scheme based on the observation that the anisotropy of the couplings produces a new phase, the layer phase, which mimics the Coulomb behavior in four dimensions but confines along the remaining one. This model is known since the mid-eighties when Fu and Nielsen proposed it as a new way to achieve dimensional reduction [@FuNi]. It is defined on a D-dimensional space containing d-dimensional subspaces. If the $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}$ couplings in the d-dimensional subspaces are identical ($\beta$) and the remaining $\frac{D(D-1)-d(d-1)}{2}$ coupling coefficients are also to be taken identical ($\beta^{'}$), then for a certain range of parameters (typically $\beta^{'} \leq
\frac{1}{d}$ and $\beta \geq O(1)$)[^3] this new phase emerges. The confinement along the $ (D-d) $ directions and the resulting detachment of the d-dimensional layers leads to the following physical picture. Charged particles in the layer phase will mainly run only along the layers since if they attempt to leave the layers in which they belong they will be driven back by a linear potential, analogous to the one responsible for quark confinement. Also gauge particles will follow the layers since there is no massless particle (photon) moving across the layers. We must note here however that a stable layer phase exists only if $ D \geq 5 $ and $ d = D-1$ for the U(1) model. For $ d \leq 3 $ we cannot have a layer phase since lattice gauge theory in less than four dimensions exhibits confinement for all finite values of the coupling constant, rendering the 3-dimensional subspaces of the model incapable of realizing a Coulomb phase . Also, due to the asymmetric role of $\beta$ and $\beta^{'}$ in the action, there is no layer phase with their roles reversed.
Many numerical investigations of the model have been made using Monte-Carlo techniques, verifying the structure of the phase diagram and the properties of the different phases [@KoRAl; @KKDF; @FSDS]. In one of them [@KoRAl] the presence of fermions in the model was investigated. The analysis, both analytical (mean field approximation) and numerical (Monte Carlo simulations) revealed that the qualitative characteristics of the phase diagram remained unchanged, even though a slight restriction of the layer phase was observed in favor of the Coulomb one. In [@KKDF] the authors analyzed the structure of a U(1) model when the coupling $\beta^{'}$ in the fifth dimension depends on the coordinates exponentially, like in the RS model [@RSBO]. In ref[@FSDS] the 5D anisotropic abelian Higgs model was analyzed and the existence of a layer Higgs phase was established. Finally, we would like to mention the main results in [@us] for the phase diagram of the pure U(1) anisotropic gauge model: i) a weak first order phase transition between the 5D strong phase and the layer phase with the characteristics of 4D U(1) and ii) strong indications for a second order transition between the layer phase and 5D Coulomb phase. In a preliminary study of the six dimensional U(1) model we have found that the characteristics of the strong-layer phase transition remained the same but at the same time the transition between the layer and the 6D Coulomb phase turned into a strong first order one.
For the case of the anisotropic non-Abelian SU(2) gauge model the above picture changes [@RabBer]. Now the critical dimension for the formation of the layers is D=6 giving as a minimal dimension for the layers d=5. But, as it is shown in ref [@DFKK] a Layer Higgs phase in the non-abelian 5D model exists if one includes a scalar field in the adjoint representation.
In the present work we will focus our attention on the study of the long range interactions of charged particles on the layers, at an attempt to further justify our previous assumption [@us] that the layers incorporate all the features that emerge in ordinary U(1) gauge theory in 4-dimensions. To this end a very significant step is the establishment of the Coulomb law and for that we follow the usual approach: Measurements of Wilson loops (on the layers and for the 4-dimensional model), subsequent extraction of the potential and finally, estimates for the string tension ($\sigma$) and the renormalized charge or fine structure constant ($\alpha$) are obtained. An equally important byproduct of the above analysis is determination of the role of layer-layer interactions and their consequences (if any) for the physical picture in the layers.
Our work is organized as follows. In section 2 we present the four dimensional model along with the various analysis techniques used throughout this paper. In section 3 we present the layer phase results and a comparison with their 4D counterparts and finally, in section 4, we concentrate in the 5D Coulomb phase in order to show the clear distinction (both qualitative and quantitative) from the layer one as well as an attempt to explore the very nature of what should be a five-dimensional Coulomb law.
The 4-dimensional case
======================
Wilson loops and the static potential
-------------------------------------
One of the observables used in lattice gauge theories with great physical significance, is the Wilson loop defined as the gauge invariant quantity consisting of an ordered product of link variables along a contour C. If we denote by $U_{l}$ such a link variable then the Wilson operator is defined as $$W_{C} = \prod_{l \in C} U_{l}$$ and its expectation value on a rectangular loop C is: $$W(\widehat{R},\widehat{T}) \equiv \langle W_{C}[U] \rangle,$$ where $\widehat{R}$ and $\widehat{T}$ are the (dimensionless) spatial and temporal extention of the contour C. The symbol $\left < \dots \right > $ denotes the expectation value with respect to the 4d gauge action:\
$$S^{4D}=\beta \sum_{x, \mu \leq \nu}(1-Re(U_{\mu \nu}(x)))$$\
From the asymptotic behavior of the above quantity we can (in principle) derive the potential between two static charges using numerical methods through the formula $$\widehat{V}(\widehat{R})= - \lim\limits_{\widehat{T}\to \infty}\frac{\ln W(\widehat{R},\widehat{T})}{\widehat{T}}$$
There are also R-independent self energy contributions to $\widehat{V}(\widehat{R})$ that one has to take into account (see next section).
Helicity Modulus and the renormalized coupling
----------------------------------------------
A very usefull quantity for the characterization of phases in lattice gauge theories is the helicity modulus ($\bf{h.m}$), first introduced in this context by P.de Forcrand and M.Vettorazzo [@PFMV]. It characterizes the responce of a system to an external flux and has the behavior of an order parameter. It is zero in a confining phase and nonzero in a coulombic one [@PFMV; @Cardy].\
The helicity modulus is defined as: $$h(\beta)= \left. \frac{\partial^{2}F(\Phi)}{\partial \Phi^{2}}\right| _{\Phi=0}$$ were $\Phi$ is the external flux and $F(\Phi)$ the flux free energy given by: $$F(\Phi)=-\ln\left(Z(\Phi)\right),\quad Z(\Phi)= \int D\theta \mbox{\large e}^{\sum_{stack}(\beta\cos(\theta_{P}+\Phi)) + \sum_{\overline{stack}}
(\beta\cos(\theta_{P}))}$$ with $Z(\Phi)$ the partition function of the system due to the presence of the external flux. $\sum_{stack}
%, \sum_{\overline{stack}}$ is the sum over the stack of plaquettes, of a given orientation (e.g $\mu,\nu$) in which the extra flux is imposed ($\theta_{P} \rightarrow \theta_{P}+\Phi$), and $ \sum_{\overline{stack}}$ is its complement, consisting of all the plaquettes that remained unchanged.\
An observation that will subsequently play an important role is that the partition function $Z(\Phi)$ of equation (2.5) and hence the flux free energy is clearly $2\pi$ periodic . So, the extra flux we impose on the system is defined only $mod(2\pi)$.
If we, take for example: $ \mbox{stack}=\{\theta_{\mu \nu}(x,y,z,t) | \mu=1, \nu=2;x=1, y=1\}$ then, with a suitable change in variables we can spread the extra flux uniformly to all the plaquettes in the ($\mu-\nu$) plane. The partition function now becomes $$Z(\Phi)= \int D\theta \mbox{\large e}^{\beta\sum_{(\mu \nu)planes} \cos(\theta_{P}+\frac{\Phi}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}})+\beta\sum_{(\overline{\mu \nu})planes}\cos(\theta_{P})}$$ and from equation (2.4) we get for the h.m: $$h(\beta)=\frac{1}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}\left( \left< \sum_{(\mu \nu)\mbox{\tiny planes}}(\beta\cos(\theta_{P}))\right>
-\left< (\sum_{(\mu \nu)\mbox{\tiny planes}}(\beta\sin(\theta_{P})))^{2} \right>\right)$$ with the sum extending to all planes parallel to the given orientation. Now, consider for the moment the classical limit ($\beta\rightarrow\infty$) for the action of equation (2.6) where all the fluctuations are suppressed. In this limit the flux is distributed equally over all the plaquettes of each plane and does not change as we cross parallel planes. If we expand the classical action in powers of the flux [@PFMV], since in the thermodynamic limit $\frac{\Phi}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}$ is always a small quantity, we find: $$S_{\mbox{\tiny classical}}(\Phi)=\frac{1}{2}\beta \Phi^{2}\frac{V}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}\mbox{\normalsize + constant}\Longrightarrow
F_{\mbox{\tiny classical}}(\Phi)-F_{\mbox{\tiny classical}}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\beta \Phi^{2}\frac{V}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}$$ where V is the lattice volume, $V=L_{\mu}L_{\nu}L_{\rho}L_{\sigma}$.
The above expression for the free energy F holds all the way up to the phase transition, where fluctuations are present, if one only replaces the bare coupling by a renormalized coupling: $\beta \rightarrow \beta_{R}(\beta)$ (for details see [@PFMV; @Cardy]).
Upon replacing $\beta_{R}(\equiv\frac{1}{e_{R}^{2}})$ $\rightarrow$ $\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha_{R}}$ the above expression becomes: $$F_{[\mbox{\tiny finite $\beta$}]}(\Phi)-F_{[\mbox{\tiny finite $\beta$}]}(0)=
\frac{\beta_{R}}{2}\Phi^{2}\left(\frac{L_{\rho}L_{\sigma}}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\right)=
\frac{\Phi^{2}}{8\pi\alpha_{R}}\left(\frac{L_{\rho}L_{\sigma}}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\right)$$ The above equation does not show any periodicity in $\Phi$. To remedy this situation we have to consider all configurations whose flux is a multiple (k) of $2\pi$. $$F(\Phi)=-\mbox{ln}\left(\sum_{k}\mbox{\large e}^{-\frac{\beta_{R}}{2}\left(\frac{L_{\rho}L_{\sigma}}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\right) (\Phi+2 \pi k)^{2}}\right)$$ Now we can define $\beta_{R}(\beta)$ implicitly from the equation: $$\left.\frac{\partial^{2}F(\Phi,\beta_{R})}{\partial \Phi^{2}}\right| _{\Phi=0}=h_{0}(\beta)
\equiv h(\beta)\quad \mbox{or alternatively, } \left.\frac{\partial^{2}F(\Phi,\beta_{R})}{\partial \Phi^{2}}\right| _{\Phi=\pi}=h_{\pi}(\beta)$$ As equations (2.9) and (2.10) show, the renormalized coupling equals the helicity modulus up to exponentially small corrections [@PFMV].
Measurements
------------
Our Monte Carlo calculations for the case of four-dimensional QED are restricted to volumes $V=12^{4}$, $14^{4}$ and $16^{4}$. For all lattice sizes, the work of Jersak et al [@Jersak] has been closely followed. We used a 5-hit Metropolis algorithm supplemented by an overrelaxation method. About $10^{5}$ sweeps were used for thermalization and more than 2 x $10^{5}$ measurements, 10 sweeps apart from each other, for the determination of mean values. For the case of $V=16^{4}$ all planar rectangular Wilson loops with R=1,...,6 and T=1,...8 were calculated while for the rest we used $R,T < \frac{L}{2}$ loops in an effort to minimize finite size effects.
In general, one has to extract the potential from the logarithms of the expectation values of Wilson loops for large T.
$$-\ln\langle W_{C}[U] \rangle = V(R)\times T +const$$
This however requires a large enough volume to deal with the many issues that emerge in lattice calculations. Finite size effects are a constant “threat” to the validity of the results and in addition finite T effects must also be taken into account in the extraction of the potential. This means that significant deviations from a linear dependence on T should be investigated. To this end, a third term in the above equation is introduced
$$-\ln\langle W_{C}[U] \rangle = const + V(R)\times T + \frac{C}{T}$$
with C actually being a function of R.
The form of the “correction” term is an open question but we choose $\sim\frac{1}{T}$ as it is the simplest (and most obvious) choice. The potential V(R) has been calculated using both linear (eq. (2.11)) and non-linear (eq. (2.12)) dependence of the logarithms on T, at a variable number of points dependent on the volume under consideration, giving comparable results within errors. The resulting values were fitted to a superposition of linear + Coulomb potentials :
$$V(R)=\sigma_{cc} R - \frac{\alpha_{cc}}{R} + const$$
and $$V(R)=\sigma_{lc} R -\alpha_{lc} V_{lc}(R) +const$$ with $V_{lc}(R)$ the lattice Fourier transform of a massless bosonic propagator [@Jersak; @CHMV] which respects not only the momentum cut-off but also accounts for the periodicity of the lattice. $$V_{lc}(R)=\frac{4 \pi}{L_{s}^{3}}\sum_{\overrightarrow{k}\neq 0}\frac{\mbox{\large e}^{i\vec{k}\vec{R}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{3}2(1-\cos(k_{j}))}, \qquad k_{j}=0,\frac{2\pi}{L_{s}},\dots,\frac{2\pi(L_{s}-1)}{L_{s}}$$
All measurements focused on the Coulomb phase starting from values near the critical point and extending to larger values of $\beta$. In Table 1 we present the results for several volumes using both the continuum (eq. (2.13)) and the lattice Coulomb potential (eq. (2.14)) obtained from the non-linear fitting (eq. (2.12)). The notation we use is indicative. With $\bf{cc}$ we imply the use of continuum Coulomb potential ($\frac{1}{R}$) and with $\bf{lc}$ the use of lattice Coulomb potential (eq. (2.15)). A few remarks are now in order. First of all, the estimates of $\alpha$ using the two different types of potential, show a systematic deviation of the order of 0.010 - 0.020 which was also found to be true by Jersak et al [@Jersak]. Second, it is evident from Table 1 that the values of $\alpha$ show a quick convergence to the infinite volume limit as their deference, between the biggest volumes that we used ($14^{4}$ and $16^{4}$) is well within errors. The string tension starts at relatively large values due to finite size effects for the smaller system under study, only to reach a final value of 0.003 as the volume increases. This result is slightly bigger than the one found by Jersak et al. It appears that the reason for this systematic overestimation of $\sigma$ has its origin at the insertion of the extra term ($\sim\frac{1}{T}$) of equation (2.12). This extra term inserts an ”effective” string tension that adds up to the measurement, but this was anticipated. In ref [@CHMV] it was found that the static charge potential obtained from Wilson loops, acquires a confining contribution $\simeq \frac{cR}{T^{2}}$ for finite volume. This term has exactly the same form as the term ($\frac{C}{T}$) that we have added by hand and consequently we have enhanced an already present confining contribution to the potential. One could in general monitor the contribution of this extra term and subtract it in order to remedy the presented inconsistency between the values of the string tension ($\sigma$) as they are obtained through the use of equations (2.11) and (2.12) (Tables 1 & 2). Unfortunately, knowledge of the precise functional dependence of C from R is required, a topic that proves to be not an easy task. So, in order to extend our measurements for the renormalized charge to smaller volumes we have enhanced the signal for the string tension. This however does not affect the obtained values of $\alpha$, a fact most apparent in the subsequent analysis. In Table 2 we present our results for a linear fit (equation (2.11)) and L=16 for both types of potential ($\bf{c}$ontinuum $\bf{C}$oulomb and $\bf{l}$attice $\bf{C}$oulomb). Comparing with Table 1, for L=16, one can see that by reaching a big enough volume the extra term does not play any substantial role. Insofar as $\alpha$ is concerned, linear and non-linear fits give exactly the same results (within errors) (Figure.1). The string tension $\sigma$ is found smaller and compatible with zero within the statistical errors. The linear fit gives us a more convincing signal for the vanishing of the string tension with values comparable with the ones found by Jersak et al [@Jersak].
[|l|c|c|c|r|]{}\
$\beta$ & $\alpha_{cc}$ &$\sigma_{cc}$ &$\alpha_{lc}$ &$\sigma_{lc}$\
1.015 & 0.1860(20) & 0.0033(5) & 0.1693( 9) & 0.0027(3)\
1.020 & 0.1765(16) & 0.0035(4) & 0.1605( 9) & 0.0030(3)\
1.030 & 0.1631(13) & 0.0036(3) & 0.1484(11) & 0.0030(3)\
1.050 & 0.1472(12) & 0.0033(3) & 0.1339(11) & 0.0027(3)\
\
$\beta$ & $\alpha_{cc}$ &$\sigma_{cc}$ &$\alpha_{lc}$ &$\sigma_{lc}$\
1.015 & 0.1883(34) & 0.0039(10) & 0.1692(12) & 0.0024(3)\
1.025 & 0.1716(26) & 0.0040(10) & 0.1540(11)& 0.0027(3)\
1.030 & 0.1632(23) & 0.0034(10) & 0.1474(14)& 0.0023(4)\
1.040 & 0.1577(29) & 0.0035(10) & 0.1414(12)& 0.0027(3)\
1.050 & 0.1472(21) & 0.0045(15) & 0.1329(14)& 0.0020(4)\
\
$\beta$ & $\alpha_{cc}$ &$\sigma_{cc}$ &$\alpha_{lc}$ &$\sigma_{lc}$\
1.013 & 0.1975(2) & 0.0060(10) & 0.1765(12) & 0.0041(3)\
1.015 & 0.1906(2) & 0.0060(10) & 0.1708(14) & 0.0040(3)\
1.025 & 0.1730(2) & 0.0055(20) & 0.1552(12) & 0.0040(2)\
1.050 & 0.1537(2) & 0.0055(10) & 0.1366(10) & 0.0038(2)\
1.060 & 0.1466(2) & 0.0055(10) & 0.1307(10) & 0.0034(2)\
1.100 & 0.1338(2) & 0.0050(10) & 0.1182(10) & 0.0035(2)\
1.200 & 0.1087(2) & 0.0050(10) & 0.0968(10) & 0.0026(2)\
[|l|l|c|r|r|]{}\
$\beta$ & $\alpha_{cc}$ & $\sigma_{cc}$ & $\alpha_{lc}$ & $\sigma_{lc}$\
1.015 & 0.1868(30) & 0.0010(7) & 0.1698(23) & 0.0020(6)\
1.020 & 0.1771(26) & 0.0005(6) & 0.1610(23) & 0.0010(6)\
1.030 & 0.1638(22) & 0.0003(5) & 0.1488(20) & 0.0010(5)\
1.050 & 0.1476(20) & 0.0003(4) & 0.1342(18) & 0.0008(5)\
{width="9cm"}
\[f-2-1\]
In 1982 Luck [@Lck] using the close analogy between the 2-dimensional XY model and 4-dimensional compact QED arrived by means of a weak-coupling expansion, at the following form for the behavior of the renormalized fine structure constant $$\alpha(\beta)=\alpha_{c} -const\times(1-\frac{\beta_{c}}{\beta})^{\lambda}$$ with $\alpha_{c}\simeq 0.15$ and $\lambda\simeq 0.5$. The analysis lead him to the conclusion that the square of the renormalized charge takes a universal value $e_{c}^{2} \equiv 4 \pi \alpha_{c}$=1.90$\pm$ 0.10 at the deconfinement point.
By making use of equation (2.16) and the most accurate (to our knowledge) value for the critical $\beta$ in four dimensions ($\beta_{c}=1.0111331(21)$ [@ABLS]) we present in Table 3 our results for $\alpha_{c}$ and $\lambda$, were the last row (L=16) refers to the results of the linear fit and the L=10 entry actually amounts to a $16\times10^{3}$ lattice volume. Our values are in very good agreement with those found in ref[@Jersak] and those predicted through theoretical calculations [@Lck]. The systematic error in the analysis due to the presence of $\delta \beta_{c}$ turns out to be insignificant.
L $\alpha_{c-cc}$ $\alpha_{c-lc}$ $\lambda_{cc}$ $\lambda_{lc}$ $\chi^{2}_{d.o.f}$
---- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
10 0.230(25) 0.208(24) 0.31( 8) 0.33(10) 1.05
12 0.209( 7) 0.200( 4) 0.38( 5) 0.34( 3) 0.80
14 0.211(23) 0.190(10) 0.44(20) 0.45(13) 0.75
16 0.211(16) 0.190( 9) 0.42(16) 0.43(10) 0.20
16 0.211(23) 0.192(21) 0.43(10) 0.42(15) 0.10
: Results for $\alpha_{c}$ and $\lambda$
A pleasing fact is that both types of potential manage to describe equally well our data, giving identical results (within errors) and thus providing us with a signal for the existence of a massless photon in the Coulomb phase. The only noticeable difference between the two sets comes from the appearance of a systematic volume dependence for $\alpha_{c-lc}$, with evidence that better accuracy is provided by the lattice potential, as it better takes into account the system volume. Finally, the inclusion of the extra term ($\sim \frac{1}{T}$) proved quite efficient, since it allowed us to obtain the required information even at smaller volumes.
The 5-dimensional anisotropic model, layer phase
================================================
The model
---------
In this section we consider the five dimensional anisotropic U(1) lattice gauge model with two couplings $\beta$ and $\beta^{'}$: $$S^{5D}_{gauge}=\beta \sum_{x,1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq 4}(1- Re(U_{\mu\nu}(x))+
\beta^{'} \sum_{x,1 \leq \mu \leq 4}(1- Re(U_{\mu 5}(x))$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccc}
U_{\mu\nu}(x)& = & U_{\mu}(x)U_{\nu}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\mu})U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\nu})U_{\nu}^{\dagger}(x)\\
U_{\mu 5}(x) & = &U_{\mu}(x)U_{5}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\mu})U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x+\alpha_{5}\hat{5})U_{5}^{\dagger}(x)
\end{array}$$\
are the plaquettes defined on the 4-d subspace ($\mu,\nu$ = 1,2,3,4) and on the plane containing the transverse fifth direction ($x_{5}$) respectively . [^4] The link variables are defined as: $$U_{\mu}=\exp(i\theta_{\mu}(x)),\quad U_{5}=\exp(i\theta_{5}(x))$$ and in terms of them the plaquette variables can be written as $$U_{\mu\nu}(x)=\exp(i\theta_{\mu\nu}(x)),\quad U_{\mu 5}(x)=\exp(i\theta_{\mu 5}(x))$$ with the definitions $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\theta_{\mu\nu} & = & \theta_{\mu}(x)+\theta_{\nu}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\mu})-\theta_{\mu}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\nu})
-\theta_{\nu}(x) {}\\
\theta_{\mu 5} & = & \theta_{\mu}(x) + \theta_{5}(x+\alpha_{s}\hat{\mu})-\theta_{\mu}(x+\alpha_{5}\hat{5})
-\theta_{5}(x)
\end{array}$$ Before we proceed we would like to define the helicity modulus for this model. The anisotropy of the couplings and the resulting enrichment of the phase diagram introduces the necessity for two kinds of h.m. One probing the response of the system to an external flux through the spatial planes ($\mu-\nu$) and one for the transverse planes ($\mu-5$). $$h_{s}(\beta)=\frac{1}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}\left(\left<\sum_{P}(\beta\cos(\theta_{\mu\nu}))
\right>-\left<(\sum_{P}(\beta\sin(\theta_{\mu\nu}))^{2})\right>\right)$$ $$h_{5}(\beta^{'})=\frac{1}{(L_{\mu}L_{5})^{2}}\left(\left<\sum_{P^{'}}(\beta^{'}\cos(\theta_{\mu 5}))
\right>-\left<(\sum_{P^{'}}(\beta^{'}\sin(\theta_{\mu 5}))^{2})\right>\right)$$ with the sum of equation (3.3) extending on all the plaquettes on the transverse plane.
The phase diagram of this model includes three distinct phases (Fig.2). For large values of the couplings ($\beta$, $\beta^{'}$) the model lies in a $\bf{C}$oulomb phase on a 5D space. Now, with $\beta$ fixed, as $\beta^{'}$ decreases the system will eventually develop a behavior according to which the force in four dimensions will be Coulomb-like while in the fifth direction the system will exhibit confinement. This is the new $\bf{L}$ayer phase. For small values of both $\beta$ and $\beta^{'}$ the force is confining in all five directions and the coresponding phase is the $\bf{S}$trong phase.
The Wilson loops and the helicity moduli are expected to exhibit different behavior as one crosses the phase boundaries. In the $\bf{S}$trong (confinement) phase all Wilson loops obey the area law while at the same time the helicity modulus is zero throughout the appropriate range of parameters, both signals for confinement. In the 5D $\bf{C}$oulomb phase the opposite picture emerges. Wilson loops obey the perimeter law with the helicity modulus being nonzero and scaling with the lattice length as $\beta$ and $\beta^{'}$ increase. A five dimensional Coulomb-type force is present. Finally, the $\bf{L}$ayer phase consists of a mixture of both aforementioned phases. The Wilson loops constrained in the 4d subspaces ($W_{\mu\nu}$ with $1\leq\mu,\nu\leq 4$) obey the perimeter law while at the same time those that contain the fifth direction ($W_{\mu 5}$, $1\leq\mu\leq 4$) show an area law behavior. The helicity modulus shows also two different behaviors. The space h.m ($h_{S}(\beta$)) has a nonzero value in the layer phase while the transverse h.m ($h_{5}(\beta^{'})$) is constrained to a zero value as one would expect from a confining force (Figure 8).
Measurements
------------
The calculations of this section are dedicated entirely to the layer phase for the range of parameters $\beta^{'}$=0.2 and $1.015\leq \beta \leq 1.40$. In order to illustrate the qualitative and quantitative agreement between the layer phase of the 5 dimensional model and the corresponding 4d systems we focused on $16 \times 10^{4}$ and $12^5$ volumes, which in the context of the layer phase translates to ten and twelve layers of volume $16\times10^{3}$ and $12^4$ each[^5] . Every layer is (to a very large extent) decorrelated [@FSDS] from the others and every quantity measured on it a random variable with a given distribution. So, it really does not matter which layer we choose to observe, since each one of them will demonstrate exactly the same behavior. If we treat the system as a whole this would only amount to an increase in statistics. In order to probe the physics in the layers all planar rectangular Wilson loops with R=1,...,5 and T=1,...,8 and R=1,...,6 and T=1,...,6 depending on the case under study were constructed from link variables living only on the 4-dimensional subspaces ($U_{\mu},\quad \mu=1,2,3,4$) [^6] while at the same time independent runs were made to the corresponding 4-dimensional models ($V=16\times10^{3}$, V=$12^4$) for a straightforward comparison. Following the same steps as in the previous section we investigated the long range correlations, in terms of the dimensionless parameter $\alpha(\beta)$, in these two different systems.
###
We use equation (2.12) in order to extract the potential from the mean values of the Wilson loops. All points with T=1,2 were excluded from the fits and even T=3 for $R\geq4$ (Fig.3) [@Jersak]. We were able to determine the potential V(R) only at 4 points R=1,...,4 for each value of $\beta$ (because of the “noise” introduced by finite size effects) and compare these values with the ones from the 4-dimensional model.
{width="7cm"}
\[f-3-2\]
The obtained values were fitted to a superposition of a linear + $\bf{C}$oulomb potentials for both forms of the latter ($\bf{c}$ontinuum and $\bf{l}$attice). The $\sim \frac{1}{R}$ behavior describes well the data (Fig.4(a)) and gives results compatible with the ones obtained from the 4D model (Fig.4(b)). This serves as a first signal for the presence of a four dimensional Coulomb law in the layer phase. The second, and most important, is the fact that equally good results are provided by means of the four dimensional lattice propagator (eq. (2.15)), a quantity that describes the long range interactions in four dimensional lattices. The success in the description of the data comes as strong evidence of the four dimensional nature of the layers.
So, it seems that both signals, the $(\frac{1}{R})$ form of the potential in the layers and the success of the massless bosonic propagator in the description of the data, which by itself could be considered as evidence of the presence of a massless boson acting as mediator to the forces in the layer, point to the existence of a 4d gauge particle in the layer phase with all the characteristics of an “ordinary” photon. In Tables 4 and 5 we present the results for $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ for the two models, $16\times 10^{4}$ and $16\times 10^{3}$. The similarity between the two sets of measurements is very encouraging. The two systems reveal exactly the same behavior (as it is demonstrated by the two measured quantities) regardless of the form chosen for the Coulomb potential.
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1910(88) 0.0110(35) 0.1907(80) 0.0110(33)
1.030 0.1677(78) 0.0107(30) 0.1683(75) 0.0108(30)
1.050 0.1517(55) 0.0098(32) 0.1522(68) 0.0100(27)
1.070 0.1411(64) 0.0093(26) 0.1412(67) 0.0093(26)
1.080 0.1367(62) 0.0090(25) 0.1370(63) 0.0090(25)
1.090 0.1330(62) 0.0087(24) 0.1332(20) 0.0088(25)
1.100 0.1295(63) 0.0085(23) 0.1298(30) 0.0083(19)
1.200 0.1101(40) 0.0079(23) 0.1093(23) 0.0070(20)
1.300 0.0900(100) 0.0065(35) 0.0932(17) 0.0060(18)
1.400 0.0830(40) 0.0054(22) 0.0822(40) 0.0049(16)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results from the layer phase using the continuum Coulomb potential
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1747(80) 0.0097(34) 0.1753(73) 0.0097(34)
1.030 0.1541(70) 0.0096(29) 0.1546(70) 0.0096(28)
1.050 0.1394(64) 0.0089(27) 0.1397(63) 0.0090(27)
1.070 0.1296(61) 0.0083(25) 0.1322(69) 0.0083(25)
1.080 0.1256(59) 0.0080(24) 0.1258(59) 0.0081(25)
1.090 0.1221(59) 0.0078(24) 0.1223(54) 0.0079(24)
1.100 0.1189(56) 0.0075(23) 0.1192(50) 0.0075(22)
1.200 0.1065(60) 0.0068(24) 0.0981(48) 0.0062(20)
1.300 0.0792(96) 0.0057(20) 0.0855(44) 0.0054(17)
1.400 0.0763(38) 0.0048(16) 0.0754(39) 0.0043(16)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results using the lattice Coulomb potential
We repeat the whole analysis for the linear case using equation (2.11) since our “correction” term only affects the T direction and, as is evident from our 4-dimensional study, the value T=16 proves to be sufficient. The agreement between the relevant sets of measurements (Tables 6 & 7) is extremely good (indistinguishable within the errors) as one can also see in Figures 5(a) & 5(b).
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1967(133) 0.0097(51) 0.1974(136) 0.0098(52)
1.030 0.1734(120) 0.0095(46) 0.1741(115) 0.0095(45)
1.050 0.1567(112) 0.0088(43) 0.1574(112) 0.0089(43)
1.070 0.1459(107) 0.0083(41) 0.1462(106) 0.0083(41)
1.080 0.1413(101) 0.0080(39) 0.1418(103) 0.0081(40)
1.090 0.1372(101) 0.0079(35) 0.1378(100) 0.0078(33)
1.100 0.1341( 97) 0.0076(37) 0.1344( 95) 0.0077(35)
1.200 0.1115( 90) 0.0075(35) 0.1105( 83) 0.0063(32)
1.300 0.0961( 70) 0.0054(28) 0.0965( 75 ) 0.0055(27)
1.400 0.0860( 66) 0.0048(25) 0.0864( 65) 0.0050(25)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results for the continuum Coulomb potential, linear fits
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1806(122) 0.0083(50) 0.1812(124) 0.0080(50)
1.030 0.1592(110) 0.0082(45) 0.1597(111) 0.0080(50)
1.050 0.1438(103) 0.0076(43) 0.1444(103) 0.0076(40)
1.070 0.1339( 98) 0.0072(40) 0.1341( 98) 0.0073(40)
1.080 0.1296( 93) 0.0069(38) 0.1301( 94) 0.0070(40)
1.090 0.1259( 91) 0.0067(36) 0.1264( 92) 0.0068(40)
1.100 0.1230( 89) 0.0065(37) 0.1234( 85) 0.0064(35)
1.200 0.1024( 86) 0.0076(36) 0.1013( 76) 0.0055(33)
1.300 0.0883( 66) 0.0047(27) 0.0884( 69) 0.0051(30)
1.400 0.0790( 60) 0.0042(25) 0.0793( 60) 0.0040(20)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results for the lattice Coulomb potential, linear fits
###
The analysis presented above is now repeated for a larger system, $12^{5}$ at an attempt to further strengthen our results. For the extraction of the potential from Wilson loops only equation (2.12) has been used. Although we had to restrict ourselves to smaller Wilson loops, due to the smaller extend of the lattice in the ”time” direction, and utilize a much larger statistics for the 5D model the aforementioned picture does not change.
We present our results for the potential V(R) in Figure 6 ((a) and (b)). The continuum Coulomb potential ($\frac{1}{R}$) is used to fit the data from R=1 to R=5 with extremely good accuracy, $\chi^{2}$ is always in the range 0.8-1.1.
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1898(32) 0.0080(20) 0.1906(16) 0.0075(15)
1.025 0.1778(40) 0.0070(10) 0.1730(15) 0.0060(10)
1.050 0.1541(33) 0.0060(10) 0.1537(12) 0.0060(10)
1.100 0.1333(26) 0.0050( 5) 0.1338(13) 0.0050(10)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results for the continuum Coulomb potential
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\beta$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{4D}$ $\sigma_{4D}$
1.015 0.1735(10) 0.0060(20) 0.1708(14) 0.0040(2)
1.025 0.1588(10) 0.0052(20) 0.1552(12) 0.0040(2)
1.050 0.1386( 6) 0.0045(14) 0.1366(10) 0.0038(2)
1.100 0.1184( 5) 0.0037(11) 0.1182(10) 0.0035(2)
--------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Results for the lattice Coulomb potential
As it is evident from Figure 6 and Tables 8 & 9, where we compare results for the two different systems: $12^{4}$ in the Coulomb phase and $12^{5}$ in the layer phase, for the same $\beta$, the presented consistency cannot pass unnoticed. It is not only the qualitative characteristics of the layer phase that point to the 4-dimensional nature of the forces governing the layers but also the quantitative agreement with results from the pure 4D model. We found that all results from this section for the effective fine structure constant fall on the same region of values making them almost indistinguishable as Figure 7 shows.
### The renormalized fine structure constant, a summary of results
We find with the help of equation (2.16) and Tables 4 and 5, fitting $\alpha(\beta)$ using $\beta_{c}=1.0111331(21)$ that:
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.230(30) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.32(10) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.210(30) $\lambda_{lc}=0.32(10)$ ($V=16\times10^{4}$)\
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.230(25) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.31( 8) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.208(24) $\lambda_{lc}$ = 0.33(10) ($V=16\times10^{3}$)\
And for the linear fits, from Tables 6 and 7 we have:\
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.235(49) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.32(16) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.216(45) $\lambda_{lc}=0.32(16)$ ($V=16\times10^{4}$)\
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.238(52) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.31(16) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.219(48) $\lambda_{lc}=0.31(16)$ ($V=16\times10^{3}$)\
Finally from Tables 8 and 9 we have:\
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.201(14) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.51(22) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.198(08) $\lambda_{lc}=0.395(60)$ ($V=12^{5}$)\
$\alpha_{c-cc}$=0.209(07) $\lambda_{cc}$=0.38(05) $\alpha_{c-lc}$=0.200(04) $\lambda_{lc}=0.334(25)$ ($V=12^{4}$)\
using the continuum ($\bf{cc}$) and lattice Coulomb ($\bf{lc}$) potential respectively. [^7].
We can conclude that the layer-layer interactions are negligible and as a result the interaction between two charges on a layer is a long range Coulomb interaction with a massless carrier the photon.
### Results from the helicity modulus
The main effort, as far as the h.m is concerned, was focused on volumes $12^{4}$ and $12^{5}$ for the four and five dimensional systems respectively. We supplement the 5D results with data from our previous work [@us].
{width="7cm"}
\[f-3-3\]
As the Figure 8 and Table 10 reveal, the 4d subspaces (layers) of our model realize the above transition the exact same way as a 4D system realizes the passage from a confining phase to the Coulomb phase. The transverse h.m ($h_{5}(\beta^{'})$) remains zero throughout the transition, indicating confinement through the fifth direction while at the same time the space h.m ($h_{S}(\beta)$), measured on the layers, obtains the same values as the corresponding quantity of the four dimensional model.
--------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------
$\beta$ $h(\beta)_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ $h(\beta)_{\mbox{\tiny 4D}}$ $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny 4D}}$
1.015 0.4941(22) 0.1611(7) 0.4908(8) 0.1622(4)
1.025 0.5455(15) 0.1460(5) 0.5462(5) 0.1458(3)
1.050 0.6216(14) 0.1281(4) 0.6196(4) 0.1285(2)
1.100 0.7134( 9) 0.1116(4) 0.6196(5) 0.1116(2)
1.200 0.8526( 6) 0.0934(3) 0.8520(3) 0.0935(1)
--------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------
: Results for the helicity modulus and the corresponding values of $\alpha$
Using the values we found from the helicity modulus (Table 10) and adopting the behavior of equation (2.16) for $\alpha$ we have :\
$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny c-layer}}$=0.198(4) $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$=0.28(2) ($V=12^{5}$)\
$\alpha_{c-4D}$=0.201(2) $\lambda_{4D}$=0.276(8) ($V=12^{4}$)\
These results are to be added to the ones of the previous subsection and the excellent agreement for the renormalized fine structrure constant $\alpha_{c}$ with the lattice Coulomb results must be noticed.
The Coulomb phase
=================
Looking in the 5D ($\beta$,$\beta^{'}$) phase diagram (Figure 2) there is a separate phase for big values of $\beta$ and $\beta^{'}$ which we mention as a Coulomb 5D phase. In order to characterize this phase we calculate the potential V(R) between two heavy charges using the same techniques as in sections 2 and 3. If we follow the diagonal line $\beta$=$\beta^{'}$ there is a first order phase transition between the 5D strong phase and the 5D Coulomb phase for approximately $\beta$=$\beta^{'}$=0.74 as we show in Figure 9.
For this part of our study we go deep in the 5D Coulomb phase following the diagonal line of $\beta$=$\beta^{'}$ in the phase diagram for the biggest volume under study ($12^{5}$). By taking the gauge couplings $\beta,\beta^{'}$ equal, the previous anisotropy of the model is now lost. As a consequence most equations used in the previous sections recive an almost natural generalization to five dimensions.
Due to the passage from a 4-dimensional world (3+1) to a higher dimensional one (n + 3 + 1 ) the form of the Coulomb potential changes. The $\sim \frac{1}{r}$ behavior no longer holds. The extra dimensions add powers to the denominator resulting to a $\frac{1}{r^{1+n}}$ power law. We remind that:\
$$V(r)\varpropto \int { \frac{d^{3+n}k}{(2\pi)^{3+n}} \quad \mbox{\large e}^{i\vec{k}\vec{r}} \frac{1}{\vec{k}^{2}}} \quad \mbox{ and for the case n=1 we found }
\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}r^{2}}$$ using for the calculation spherical co-ordinates: $$\vec{k}=(k\sin\theta_{2}\sin\theta_{1}\cos\phi,k\sin\theta_{2}\sin\theta_{1}\sin\phi,
k\sin\theta_{2}\cos\theta_{1},k\cos\theta_{2})
\quad d^{4}k=k^{3}dkd\phi\sin\theta_{1}
d\theta_{1}\sin^{2}\theta_{2}d\theta_{2}$$ $$\left ( 0<k<\infty,\quad 0<\phi<2\pi,\quad 0<\theta_{1}<\pi,\quad 0<\theta_{2}<\pi
\right ).$$
Keeping all this in mind a natural generalization of equation (2.13) would be, for the case of a 5-dimensional Coulomb potential:\
$$V_{5D}(R)=const + \sigma_{5D}R + \frac{\hat{\alpha}_{5D}}{R^{2}}\quad
\mbox{with }\quad \hat{\alpha}_{5D}=\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi^{2}}\equiv\frac{\alpha_{5D}}{\pi}$$
{width="8cm"}
\[f-4-1\]
$\beta$ $\hat{\alpha}_{5D}$ $\sigma_{5D}$ $\chi^{2}$/d.o.f
--------- --------------------- --------------- ------------------ --
1.100 0.0330(9) 0.00033(24) 0.67
1.200 0.0293(8) 0.00033(25) 0.74
1.300 0.0264(6) 0.00028(18) 0.66
: Results from the 5D Coulomb potentials and V=$12^{5}$
Equation (4.1) describes well our data (Figure 10 and Table 11) while at the same time additional endorsement comes from the fact that all attempts to use the 4-dimensional potentials for the description of the data were fruitless, with a $\chi^{2}_{d.o.f}$ ranging from 7 to 20, thus excluding any connection with a 4D law. Another point worth mentioning is that even if we subtract the confining term ($\sigma_{5D}R$) from equation (4.1) we still get acceptable results ($\chi^{2}_{d.o.f}$ $\simeq$ 1-1.2) with the resulting change in the values of $\hat{\alpha}_{5D}$ beeing within errors.
With the form of potential established to $\sim \frac{1}{R^{2}}$ we continue with the generalization of equation (2.15) to five dimensions. $$V_{lc}^{5D}(R)=\frac{4 \pi^{2}}{L_{s}^{4}}\sum_{\overrightarrow{k}\neq 0}\frac{\mbox{\large e}^{i\vec{k}\vec{R}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{4}2(1-\cos(k_{j}))}, \qquad k_{j}=0,\frac{2\pi}{L_{s}},\dots,\frac{2\pi(L_{s}-1)}{L_{s}}$$ $$V_{5D}(R)=\sigma^{5D}_{lc} R -\hat{\alpha}^{5D}_{lc} V^{5D}_{lc}(R) +const$$
$\beta$ $\hat{\alpha}^{5D}_{lc}$ $\sigma^{5D}_{lc}$ $\chi^{2}$/d.o.f
--------- -------------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --
1.100 0.0298( 4) 0.0005(3) 1.68
1.200 0.0265( 6) 0.0004(2) 1.90
1.300 0.0239(10) 0.0004(2) 1.80
: Results from the 5D lattice Coulomb potential and V=$12^{5}$
The above values are not as good, in terms of the $\chi^{2}$, as the ones obtained from the continuum Coulomb potential. They show a systematic deviation of order 10%-12% from our previous results but that was also the case for the measurements of section 3. Nevertheless they constitute a second estimate for the effective fine structure constant in five dimensions.
Finally we go on and measure the helicity modulus for this phase to acquire our final estimate for $\alpha$. Due to the homogeneity of the model in the line $\beta=\beta^{'}$ the choice of the plane in which the extra flux is imposed is not restricted, since all the planes are now equivalent. Every possible choice will lead us to the same result (a fact verified by our measurements). So, we continue with what we shall generally call helicity modulus in 5D ($h_{5D}(\beta)$) measured on the ($\mu \nu$ planes).
$$h_{5D}(\beta)=\frac{1}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}\left( \left< \sum_{(\mu \nu)\mbox{\tiny planes}}(\beta\cos(\theta_{P}))\right>
-\left< (\sum_{(\mu \nu)\mbox{\tiny planes}}(\beta\sin(\theta_{P})))^{2} \right>\right)$$
Lets pause here for a moment to consider the classical limit of the above equation. With all fluctuations suppressed we have (following subsection 2.2) :\
$$S^{5D}_{\mbox{\tiny classical}(\Phi)}=\frac{1}{2}\beta\Phi^{2}\frac{V_{5D}}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}=
\frac{1}{2}\beta\Phi^{2}\frac{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}L_{\rho}L_{\sigma}L_{\kappa}}{(L_{\mu}L_{\nu})^{2}}=
\frac{1}{2}\beta\Phi^{2}L_{\kappa}$$ $$\rightarrow
F_{\mbox{\tiny classical}}(\Phi)-F_{\mbox{\tiny classical}}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\beta\Phi^{2}L_{\kappa}$$ Again, with the replacement $\beta \rightarrow \beta_{R}$ and use of equation (2.10) we have for the helicity modulus: $$h_{5D}(\beta)\sim \beta_{R}(\beta)L_{\kappa}$$ Hence the h.m scales with the lattice length and as one approaches the infinite volume limit the signal obtained from this quantity is infinitely enhanced. Although the argument presented above is based mainly on the classical approach, this is indeed the case and the helicity modulus applied for the five dimensional system behaves exactly as equation (4.5) predicts. So, in order to extract the value of $\beta_{R}$, the appropriate rescaling is needed. To that end, all measurements in this section concerning the h.m are the product of the simple rescaling that equation (4.5) suggests $\left(h_{5D}(\beta)\rightarrow\frac{h_{5D}(\beta)}{L_{\kappa}}\right)$. In Table 13 one can find the verification of all this where the estimates from the two lattice volumes ($8^{5}$ and $12^{5}$) are identical, within the error bars.
------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------------
$\beta=\beta^{'}$ $h(\beta)_{\mbox{\tiny 5D}}$ $\hat{\alpha}_{\mbox{\tiny 5D}}$ $h(\beta)_{\mbox{\tiny 5D}}$ $\hat{\alpha}_{\mbox{\tiny 5D}}$
0.800 0.5017(4) 0.0505(2) 0.5014(4) 0.0506(2)
0.900 0.6312(4) 0.0402(2) 0.6306(5) 0.0402(3)
1.000 0.7460(3) 0.0339(2) 0.7458(3) 0.0340(2)
1.100 0.8547(3) 0.0297(1) 0.8539(7) 0.0297(1)
1.200 0.9611(2) 0.0264(1) 0.9610(2) 0.0264(1)
1.300 1.0653(3) 0.0238(1) 1.0657(2) 0.0238(1)
1.400 1.1693(2) 0.0217(1) 1.1694(2) 0.0217(1)
------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------------
: The helicity modulus and the resulting values of $\hat{\alpha}$ for the five dimensional Coulomb phase and two lattice volumes $8^{5}$ and $12^{5}$
As Table 13 shows the agreement between the values of $\hat{\alpha}$ as they are obtained from the five dimensional helicity modulus and the corresponding lattice Coulomb potential (Table 12) is almost perfect. The measurements of the helicity modulus are extended near the critical point in order to sketch the behavior of the effective renormalized charge $\hat{\alpha}_{5D}(\beta)$ as we approach the transition. We observe that there is no volume dependence as the difference between the results from the two lattice volumes is within the statistical error.
Conclusions
===========
Throughout this whole investigation we observed no discrepancy between the two systems at any point: The 4D pure U(1) gauge model in the Coulomb phase and the anisotropic 5D U(1) model in the layer phase exhibit exactly the same behavior. From the values and the form of the potential, to the estimates for the renormalized coupling and the string tension and finally to the values of $\alpha_{c}$ and $\lambda$. All signals point to the four dimensional nature of the long range interactions in the layers and the presence of a massless particle, the photon, albeit the need for larger volumes. The obtained agreement respponds, indirectly, on another subtile matter, which is the role of the layer-layer interactions in the physical picture. It seems, to the extend that we can observe, that there is no evidence of any significant influence that could lead to an essential alteration from the known four dimensional laws. To clarify this point we would like to add a few remarks regarding the nature of the gauge particle. Fu and Nielsen, in a followup work [@FuNi], have thoroughly examined the properties of this gauge particle. Their analysis suggested, from a strong coupling expansion point of view, that to lowest-order approximation the photon propagator is identical with the one in the isotropic 4-dimensional U(1) gauge field model. But, upon corrections the propagator received contributions from the layer-layer coupling ($\beta^{'}$). Taking into account the contributions of all graphs consisting of plaquettes connecting neighboring layers (by means of an effective action) they have managed to show that to order $\beta^{'4}$ $$\mbox{photon propagator}= \mbox{ordinary photon propagator}\times \left(1-\frac{1}{48}\frac{\beta^{'4}}{\beta}\right)$$ for links in the same layer. [^8] But, for the range of our measurements, corrections of this order of magnitude are put into shadow by our error estimates. It is beyond our measuring capabilities to examine the possible reprecautions of such a term and the differentiations that it could lead. On the optimistic side though, for the whole range of the parameters that we used for our analysis this “correction” ranges from 0.999967 (starting point) to 0.999976 (end point). So we strongly doubt that any meaningfull diversion from the four dimensional law can be found.
A second point that deserves attention is the use of the helicity modulus for the extraction of the renormalized coupling ($\beta_{R}(\beta)$). The obtained information from the use of this quantity is in very good agreement with the results obtained from the traditional method of determination of $\beta_{R}$ using the Wilson loops, with one advantage: it is much cheaper, from a computer power(/time) point of view, to use the helicity modulus than to resort to Wilson loops. The required information comes directly from a single measurement, without any intermediate steps, thus reducing drastically the complexity of the method, compared to the usual approach. To that end (and) for the characterization of the various phases of our model we find the helicity modulus a much better tool than Wilson loops. Finally, in the 5D Coulomb phase we found that the values of the effective $\alpha_{5D}$(=$\pi\hat{\alpha}_{5D}$) are smaller than the values of effective $\alpha_{4D}$=$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny layer}}$ as our results indicate and also that the effective $\alpha_{5D}$ is slightly bigger than the bare coupling $\alpha_{0}$=$\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{4\pi}$=$\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{1}{4\pi}$ , where $g_{0}^{2}$=$\frac{g_{5}^{2}}{\alpha}$ $\simeq$ $g_{5}^{2} \Lambda_{UV}$ the dimensionless 5D bare U(1) gauge coupling [^9]. The values of $\beta$ that we used for the determination of the 5D Coulomb potential are far away from the phase transition. In order for someone to be able to compare results between 4D and 5D an extrapolation up to the critical point is neccesary. To that end, we calculated the helicity moduli for two different volumes (Table 13) and fitted the results using equation (2.16) under the assumption that there is no drastic change in the behavior of $\hat{\alpha}$ as we go to five dimensions and consequently, that the equation remains still valid for the particular case under study. We used the critical value of $\beta$ as a free parameter and found: (i) that there is no volume dependence and (ii) the renormalized fine structure constant takes the value of $\alpha_{c-5D}$=0.218(48), a value near to the one in four dimensions and $\lambda$=0.49(37). Unfortunately the quality of the fit was not pleasing ($\chi^{2}\mbox{\tiny d.o.f}=0.0007$, hence the large errors) but it did manage to reproduce the value of the critical $\beta$ in the correct region ($\beta_{c}=0.741$).
Because the 5D QED is not a pertubativelly renormalizable field theory and the gauge coupling has Mass dimensions ($g_{5}^{2}\sim M^{-1}$) , powers of the cutoff $\Lambda_{UV}$ appear in the calculations of loops corrections (see [@Dien] and references therein) to the vertex and self energy graphs. In the lattice calculations the cutoff does not appear explicitly but only implicitly through the volume dependence of Monte Carlo results. So, in the presence of matter fields, we expect a strong volume dependence for the effective renormalized charge $\alpha_{5D}(\beta)$ in the extrapolation to the critical $\beta$ and to the infinite volume, different from what we found in the present paper for the pure U(1). This study is outside the scope of this work but we believe that it deserves further investigation.
Acknowledgements
================
We acknowledge support from the EPEAEK programme “Pythagoras II” co-funded by the European Union (75%) and the Hellenic State (25%). We are very greatfull to P.de Forcrand for a series of very usefull conversations regarding the helicity modulus and its applications and to G.Koutsoumbas, K.Anagnostopoulos and P.Dimopoulos for their help and support, for reading and discusing this manuscript.
[99]{} I.Antoniadis Phys.Lett.$\bf{B246}$:377-384,1990;
I.Antoniadis, K. Benakli Phys.Lett.$\bf{B326}$:69-78,1994 \[hep-th/9310151\];
Nima Arkani-Hamed,S.Dimopoulos,G.R.Dvali Phys.Rev.$\bf{D59}$:086004,1999
\[hep-ph/9807344\];\
Nima Arkani-Hamed,S.Dimopoulos,G.R.Dvali Phys.Lett.$\bf{B429}$:263-272,1998
\[hep-ph/9803315\];\
C. P. Bachas $\bf{JHEP 9811}$:023,1998 \[hep-ph/9807415\]
K.R.Dienes, E.Dudas, T.Gherghetta Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B537}$:47-108,1999 \[hep-ph/9806292\]; Keith R. Dienes , Emilian Dudas , Tony Gherghetta Phys.Lett.$\bf{B436}$:55-65,1998 \[hep-ph/9803466\]. L.Randall , R.Sundrum Phys.Rev.Lett.$\bf{83}$:4690-4693,1999. \[hep-th/9906064\];\
L.Randall , R.Sundrum Phys.Rev.Lett.$\bf{83}$:3370-3373,1999. \[hep-ph/9905221\];\
B.Bajc, G.Gabadadze Phys.Lett.$\bf{B474}$:282-291,2000. \[hep-th/9912232\];\
I.Oda Phys.Lett.$\bf{B496}$:113-121,2000 \[hep-th/0006203\];\
A.Perez-Lorenzana . J.Phys.Conf.Ser.$\bf{18}$:224-269,2005. \[hep-ph/0503177\]
A. Kehagias, K. Tamvakis Phys.Lett.$\bf{B504}$:38-46,2001 \[hep-th/0010112\];
V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov Phys.Lett.$\bf{B125}$:136-138,1983;
V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov Phys.Lett.$\bf{B125}$:139,1983.;
H. Davoudiasl,J.L.Hewett,T.G.Rizzo Phys.Lett.$\bf{B473}$:43-49,2000 \[hep-ph/9911262\];
T.Gherghetta,A.Pomarol Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B586}$:141-162,2000 \[hep-ph/0003129\];
A.Pomarol Phys.Lett.B486:$\bf{153}$-157,2000 \[hep-ph/9911294\]
V.A. Rubakov Phys.Usp.$\bf{44}$:871-893 \[hep-ph/0104152\];\
S.L. Dubovsky, V.A. Rubakov [Int.J.Mod.Phys.$\bf{A16}$:4331-4350,2001]{} \[hep-th/0105243\]
K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides Phys.Lett.$\bf{B621}$:224-232,2005 \[hep-th/0504014\] K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides Phys.Rev.$\bf{D73}$:084012,2006 \[hep-th/0602200\] K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides Phys.Rev.$\bf{D75}$:024018,2007 \[hep-th/0610010\]
P. Dimopoulos , K. Farakos, S. Vrentzos Phys.Rev.$\bf{D74}$:094506,2006 \[hep-lat/0607033\]
Y.K. Fu , Holger Bech Nielsen Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B236}$:167,1984.;\
Y.K. Fu , Holger Bech Nielsen Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B254}$:127,1985.
A.Hulsebos,C.P.Korthals-Altes,S.Nicolis Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B450}$:437-451,1995 \[hep-th/9406003\]
P.Dimopoulos, K.Farakos, A.Kehagias and G.Koutsoumbas Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B617}$:237-252,2001 \[hep-th/0007079\]
P.Dimopoulos,K.Farakos Phys.Rev.$\bf{D70}$:045005,2004 \[hep-ph/0404288\];\
P.Dimopoulos,K.Farakos,S.Nicolis Eur.Phycs.J.$\bf{C24}$,87,2002 \[hep-lat/0105014\];\
P.Dimopoulos,K.Farakos,C.P.Korthals-Altes,G.Koutsoumbas,S.Nicolis\
JHEP $\bf{0102}$:005,2001 \[hep-lat/0012028\]
D.Berman, E.Rabinovici Phys.Lett.$\bf{B157}$:292,1985\
Y.K. Fu, Liang-Xin Huang and Da-Xin Zhang Phys.Lett.$\bf{B335}$:65-70,1994
P.Dimopoulos, K.Farakos and G.Koutsoumbas, Phys.Rev.$\bf{D65}$:074505,2002
\[hep-lat/0111047\]
Michele Vettorazzo, Philippe de Forcrand Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.$\bf{129}$:739-741,2004
\[hep-lat/0311007\];\
Michele Vettorazzo, Philippe de Forcrand Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B686}$:85-118,2004 \[hep-lat/0311006\];\
Michele Vettorazzo, Philippe de Forcrand Phys.Lett.$\bf{B604}$:82-90,2004 \[hep-lat/0409135\]
J.L.Cardy Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B170}$:369-387,1980
J. Jersak, T. Neuhaus, P.M. Zerwas Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B251}$:299,1985.;\
J. Jersak, T. Neuhaus, P.M. Zerwas Phys.Lett.$\bf{B133}$:103,1983. G. Cella, U.M.Heller, V.K.Mitrjushkin and A.Vicere Phys.Rev.$\bf{D56}$:3896-3902,1997
\[hep-lat/9704012\]
J.M. Luck Nucl.Phys.$\bf{B210}$:111,1982\
G. Arnold, B.Bunk, T.Lippert and K.Schilling Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.$\bf{119}$:864-866,2003 \[hep-lat/0210010\]
M.Luscher,K.Symanzik and P.Weisz Nucl.Phys. $\bf{B173}$ (1980) 365;\
M.Luscher, Nucl.Phys. $\bf{B180}$ (1981) 317.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: This result comes from the mean field analysis of the theory.
[^4]: By $\alpha_{s}$ and $\alpha_{5}$ we denote the two different lattice spacings: one referring to the 4-dimensional subspaces and the other to the transverse fifth direction.
[^5]: In the notation that will be used from now on 4D will signify the four dimensional model while 4d the four dimensional subspaces (layers) of the five dimensional system.
[^6]: Although finite size effects forced us to disregard all borderline sizes.
[^7]: Although the values of $\alpha_{c}$ come very close to the value $\frac{\pi}{12}$ predicted at large R from the picture of the rough string [@LSW], this should be ascribed to the small four dimensional volume.
[^8]: Ordinary propagator means a propagator for which $\beta^{'}$=0 so that all layers are isolated from each other.
[^9]: here $\alpha$ is the 5D lattice spacing and $\Lambda_{UV}$ the ultraviolet cutoff.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: |
Do chemically saturated antihyperon abundancies\
signal the quark gluon plasma?
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Introduction and Motivation
===========================
The prime intention for present and future ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions lies in the possible experimental identification of the quark gluon plasma (QGP). The QGP represents a theoretically hypothesized and from QCD lattice calculations convincingly established new phase of matter, where quarks and gluons are deliberated from the hadronic particles and move freely over an extended, macroscopically large region. Moreover, considering several different observations within the Lead Beam Programme at the CERN-SPS, strong ‘circumstantial evidence’ for the temporal formation of the QGP has been conjectured [@HJ00] very recently. As one particular example, strangeness enhancement has been predicted already a long time ago as one of the much favored diagnostic probes for the short-time existence of a QGP [@KMR86]: The main idea is that the strange (and antistrange) quarks are thought to be produced more easily and hence also more abundantly in such a deconfined state as compared to the production via highly threshold suppressed inelastic hadronic collisions. In this respect, especially the antihyperons and also the multistrange baryons were advocated as the appropriate candidates [@KMR86].
In Fig. \[fig:KMR\] we depict the intriguing observation from the seminal report article of Koch, Müller and Rafelski: It shows the approach to chemical equilibrium of the various population densities of strange hadronic particles containing at least one antistrange quark as a function of time within a hot and baryonrich hadronic system. Even after 1000 fm/c the antihyperons do not approach by far their chemical equilibrium values! It was argued that within a thermalized fireball environment of hadronic particles the strange antibaryons are dominantly be produced by subsequent binary strangeness exchange reactions with the (maybe) chemically equilibrated kaons like $$\label{sprodb}
K + \bar{p} \, \rightarrow \, \pi + \bar{\Lambda }, \bar{\Sigma }
\, \, \, ; \, \,
K + \bar{\Lambda } \, \rightarrow \, \pi + \bar{\Xi }$$ with very low cross sections. On the other hand, assuming the existence of a temporarily present phase of QGP and following simple coalescence estimates the abundant (anti-)strange quarks can easily combine with the light (anti-)quarks to form the strange hadrons [@KMR86], which do then, in return, come close to their chemical equilibrium values. (Of course, these predictions can only be regarded as qualitative, yet plausible: A satisfactory theoretical understanding of the dynamics and of the hadronisation of a hypothetical deconfined phase as well as the production of strangeness in this state is at present not really given.)
Indeed, an enhancement of strangeness has been reported, calibrated in relation to p+p or p+A collisions [@SQM98]. This is in particular true for the antihyperons (and to a little lesser extent for multistrange baryons). Such an enhancement can certainly not be explained by the above mentioned binary strangeness exchange reactions. On the theoretical side the analysis of measured abundancies of hadronic particles with simple thermal models [@BMS96; @CR00; @KM00] strongly supports the idea of having established an equilibrated fireball in some late stage of the reaction, where all hadrons with light and/or strange quark content do exist in number nearly according to their chemical equilibrium values. (The thermodynamical properties found by the various groups can phenomenologically easily be explained in fact by a rapidly hadronizing and disintegrating QGP phase [@Sp98]. This has very recently been pursued in trying to extract the critical energy density [@KM00].) (Nearly perfect) Chemical equilibration is found to be true for the antihyperons. Alas, this all then gives strong support for some new exotic mechanism like, most plausible, the temporary formation of a deconfined and strangeness saturated new state of matter.
Although intriguing, after all this may not be the correct interpretation of the observed antihyperon yields: In the following we elaborate on our recent idea of antihyperon production by multi-mesonic reactions like $n_1\pi + n_2 K \rightarrow \bar{Y}+p $ corresponding to the inverse of the strong binary baryon-antibaryon annihilation process [@GL00]. The latter process, on the other hand, dictates the timescale of how fast the antihyperon densities do approach local chemical equilibrium with the pions, nucleons and kaons. This timescale is thus to a good approximation proportional to the inverse of the baryon density. Adopting an initial baryon density of approximately 1–2 times normal nuclear matter density $\rho_0 $ for the initial and thermalized hadronic fireball, the antihyperons will equilibrate on a timescale of 1–3 fm/c! This timescale competes with the expansion timescale of the late hadronic fireball, which is in the same range or larger. In any case it becomes plausibel that these multimesonic, hadronic reactions, contrary to the binary reactions (\[sprodb\]), can explain most conveniently a sufficiently fast equilibration [*before*]{} the (so called) chemical freeze-out occurs at the parameters given by the thermal model analyses (, and where the baryon density has dropped to around 0.5 - 0.75 $\rho_0 $). One can always argue that before this point in time a new state of matter might have occured as the energy density becomes close to or above 1 GeV/fm$^3$ [@Heinz]. (This is the value what lattice QCD at present estimates for the critical energy density, where at equilibrium and zero net baryon density the transition to a deconfined state should occur.) Our interpretation does rest on the (conservative) view that before the chemical freeze-out already a hadronic system has established. Whether even before this stage a deconfined state or a non-equilibrium stage of hadronic string-like excitations had existed is then still a matter of debate, but it is not the present issue for explaining the chemical saturation of the antihyperons at chemical freeze-out.
Before we detail this mechanism of antihyperon production and also comment on a few of the necessary assumptions (and potential reservations [@Heinz]), we first want to briefly sketch in the next section a couple of interesting conclusions on overall strangeness production (i.e. the most dominant kaons and $\Lambda $s) and equilibration obtained within a microscopic hadronic transport model [@Ge98; @BCGEMS00].
Strangeness production and equilibration
========================================
As outlined in the introduction the possible strangeness enhancement in heavy ion collisions has been one of the driving motivation for the experimental study of strange particle production. Since a relative enhancement is observed already in hadron-hadron collisions for increasing energy (see Fig. \[fig:Jochen\]), which is certainly not due to any macroscopic or bulk effects, the to be measured strangeness should be compared relative to p+p collisions at the same energy. The arguments for enhanced strangeness production via the QGP should generally apply already for the most dominant strange particles, the kaons, as their chemical equilibration time in a hadronic fireball has been estimated to be $\approx 100$ fm/c [@KMR86] (see also fig. \[fig:KMR\] and fig. \[fig:Elena2\]). On the other hand, it was also argued that a factor of 2-3 enhancement in the $K/\pi $-ratio relative to the one obtained in p+p collisons can only be seen as an indirect signal for QGP creation [@KM86]. Moreover, as we will now summarize, nonequilibrium inelastic hadronic reactions can explain to a very good extent the overall strangeness production seen experimentally [@Ge98; @Ma89].
In a recent systematic study we had investigated the properties of $K^+ $, $K^-$ and $\Lambda $ particles in nuclear reactions from SIS to CERN-SPS energies [@Ge98] within the microscopic hadron-string transport approach HSD (for details describing the transport algorithm see [@CB99]). An important ingredient has been the implementation of the elementary cross sections for strangeness production in baryon-baryon, baryon-meson and meson-meson channels. An enhancement of the scaled kaon yield due to hadronic rescattering both with increasing system size and energy was found. This is expected within any hadronic model if the kaons and other particles do not feel any attractive potentials. After the [*primary*]{} string fragmentation of intrinsic p-p–collisions the hadronic fireball starts with a $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio still far below chemical equilibrium with $\approx 6 - 8 \% $ at AGS to SPS energies before the hadronic rescattering starts. As the average kinetic energy and the particle density increases monotonically with incoming kinetic energy of the projectile while the lifetime of the fireball increases with the system size, a smooth and continous enhancement is expected in a hadronic description by these effects. The outcome for the most dominant strange particles, the $K^+$-mesons, is summarized in fig. \[fig:Jochen\].
We want to emphasize that the secondary (meson-baryon) and ternary (meson-meson) induced string-like interactions do contribute significantly to the total strange particle production, particular for reactions at SPS energies. Via these channels about the same number of strange and anti-strange quarks is produced as in the primary p+p collisions. This then explains the factor 1.75 as the relative enhancement compared to p+p (compare fig. \[fig:Jochen\]). Hence, the major amount of produced strange particles (kaons, antikaons and $\Lambda $s) at SPS-energies can be understood in terms of early and still energetic, non-equilibrium interactions. On the other hand, at the lower AGS energies, the relative enhancement factor of $\approx 3$ can not be fully explained within the cascade type calculations [@Ge98]. This might indicate some new physics involved for the primary $s\bar{s}$ production mechanism: Including meson potentials can help to reasonably understand the production of $K^+$ and especially $K^-$ mesons at lower SIS energies, yet some smaller, but still significant underestimation at AGS energies does persist [@CB99; @Ca99].
Only for a system close to thermal equilibrium, as was assumed in the early calculations [@KMR86], the overall strangeness production rates (for kaons and $\Lambda $s) are substantially suppressed due to the high thresholds. As pointed out above and also in a very recent study [@BCGEMS00] this is due to the oversimplified initial conditions. In [@BCGEMS00] ‘infinite’ hadronic matter is simulated within a cubic box, starting with a nonequilbrium initial configuration in momentum space which does somehow resemble the initial or early intermediate situation in a true heavy ion collision. One particular microscopic simulation towards equilibrium is depicted in fig. \[fig:Elena2\]. As one can see really chemical equilibrium for the kaons and antikaons is approached only at $\approx 50$ fm/c at the given energy and baryon density (which both are higher than the ones calculated from the chemical freeze-out point [@BMS96]). This is in accordance with the early calculations [@KMR86]. On the other hand one also sees that eg the $K^+/\pi^+$-ratio $\approx 0.15$ starts via the decay of the early string excitations already at a quite large value and then stays rather constant in time. As elaborated above, in a simulation of a true heavy ion collision strangeness is produced in the very early stage and these early produced strange/antistrange quarks then suffice to explain the majority of strange particles (kaons, antikaons and $\Lambda $s) at SPS energies.
In addition, it was also shown in [@BCGEMS00] that local kinetic equilibrium is reached on a sufficient fast timescale by the multiple processes of subsequent string fragmentation. The string excitations do provide a very efficient mechanism to produce transversal energy. In summary, the microscopic transport calculations do support qualitatively the idea that there exists a regime in time during the heavy ion collision where thermal and chemical equilibrium among the various hadronic particles should be (locally) realised.
Antihyperon production by kaons and pions
=========================================
We now repeat and detail on our previous idea on antihyperon production [@GL00]: Not subsequent binary hadronic reactions of type (\[sprodb\]) but in fact multi-pionic and kaonic interactions in a thermalized hadronic gas lead to a very fast chemical equilibration of the antihyperon degrees of freedom. For this one has to look first on the following annihilation reactions similar to the standard baryon annihilation $\bar{p} + p \rightarrow
n \, \pi $, but now involving one antihyperon and then do apply rigorously the concept of detailed balance: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Lambda } + N & \leftrightarrow & {n}_{\bar{ \Lambda }}\, \pi + K \nonumber
\\[2mm]
\bar{\Xi } + N & \leftrightarrow & {n}_{\bar{ \Xi }}\, \pi + 2 K
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
\bar{\Omega } + N & \leftrightarrow & {n}_{\bar{ \Omega }}\, \pi + 3 K \nonumber
$$ or, in shorthand notation, $$\label{antihyp1}
\bar{Y} + N \, \leftrightarrow \, {n} \pi + n_Y K
\, \, \, .$$ $n_Y$ counts the number of anti-strange quarks within the antihyperon $\bar{Y}$. ${n}+ n_Y$ is expected to be around $\approx 5-7 $. The reactions (\[antihyp1\]) are all exothermic. It is also plausible to assume that the annihilation cross sections are approximately the same like for $N\bar{p}$ at the same relative momenta. Hence, in the relevant regime of a thermal hadronic gas with temperatures of $T\approx 120 - 200 $ MeV one has $\sigma _{p \bar{Y}\rightarrow n \pi + n_Y K}
\approx \sigma _{p\bar{p} \rightarrow n \pi} \approx 50 $ mb, which is indeed a large cross section.
The above reactions (\[antihyp1\]) do effectively lead to the following master equation for the respectively considered antihyperon density within a hadronic gas: $$\label{mastera}
\frac{d}{dt} \rho _{\bar{Y}} \, =\, -
{\langle \!\langle}\sigma _{\bar{Y}N} v _{\bar{Y}N} {\rangle \!\rangle}\left\{
\rho _{\bar{Y}} \rho_N \, \vphantom{\sum_{n}}
- \, \sum_{{n}}
{\cal R}_{(n,n_Y)}(T,\mu_B,\mu_s) (\rho _\pi)^{{n}} (\rho _K )^{n_Y}
\right\} \, \, \, .$$ The ‘back-reactions’ of several effectively coalescing pions and kaons are incorporated by the ‘mass-law’ factor $${\cal R}_{(n,n_Y)}(T,\mu_B,\mu_s) \, = \,
\frac{ \rho _{\bar{Y}}^{eq.} \rho ^{eq.}_N }
{(\rho ^{eq.}_\pi)^{{n}} (\rho ^{eq.}_K )^{n_Y}} \, p_n \, \, \, .$$ Here $p_n$ states the (unknown) relative probability of the reaction (\[antihyp1\]) to decay into a specific number $n$ of pions with $\sum_n p_n =1$. ${\cal R }$ has a clear physical origin as it is responsible to [*assure detailed balance*]{} in the competition between the annihilation process and the various contributing multi-mesonic ‘back reactions’. ${\cal R}$ then depends only on the temperature and the baryon and strange quark chemical potentials. ${\langle \!\langle}\sigma _{\bar{Y}N} v _{\bar{Y}N} {\rangle \!\rangle}$ denotes the thermally averaged cross section. We take $N$ as synonym for any baryonic particle, most dominantly the nucleons and $\Delta $-excitations. Furthermore, $\Gamma _{\bar{Y}} \equiv
{\langle \!\langle}\sigma _{\bar{Y}N} v _{\bar{Y}N} {\rangle \!\rangle}\rho_B $ gives the effective annihilation rate of the respective antihyperon specie on a baryon. Assuming that the pions, baryons and kaons stay in thermal and chemical equilibrium, the master equation then becomes simply $$\label{masterd}
\frac{d}{dt} \rho _{\bar{Y}} \, = \, - \,
\Gamma _{\bar{Y}}
\left\{
\rho _{\bar{Y}} \, - \,
\rho ^{eq }_{\bar{Y}}
\right\} \, \, \, .$$ It should become clear by now that indeed the mean annihilation rate yields the characteristic inverse time to drive the antihyperon densities to their chemical equilibrium values, i.e. it corresponds to the inverse of the characteristic chemical equilibration time. So how large is it?
At the onset of thermalization and chemical equilibration for all other degrees of freedom in the hadronic fireball the baryon density might still be rather large and could exceed two times normal nuclear matter density [@So96; @Cass]. In fig. \[fig:WC\] we have depicted the net baryon density as a function of time at a space region for particles at midrapidity obtained within a microscopic transport model [@Cass]. The figure illustrates that a pure hadronic fireball (without any string-like excitations) at two times baryon density has established during the ongoing (longitudinal) expansion. It is interesting to note that the chemical freeze-out ‘point’ with the parameters calculated in [@BMS96; @CR00; @KM00] takes place at a value of $0.5-0.75 \, \rho_0$. This would correspond to a time of 8-10 fm/c in fig. \[fig:WC\]. Taking now for the average baryon density evolving shortly before the chemical freeze-out point $ <\rho_B > \approx 1-2 \rho_0 $ and employing the above estimate for the antihyperon annihilation cross scetion, i.e. $\sigma _{p \bar{Y}\rightarrow n \pi + n_Y K} \approx 50 $ mb, one has for the chemical equilibration time of antihyperonic particles the striking number $$(\Gamma _{\bar{Y}})^{(-1)} \, = \,
\frac{1}{{\langle \!\langle}\sigma _{N \bar{Y}\rightarrow n \pi + n_Y K}
v _{\bar{Y}N} {\rangle \!\rangle}<\rho_B > }
\, \approx \, 1 - 3 \, \mbox{fm/c}
\, \, \, .
\label{taueq}$$ This is a very fast process (!) and lies below the typical fireball lifetime of $10$ fm/c. (Indeed, microscopic calculations within (U)RQMD have shown that antibaryon annihilation takes place with considerable rate and that the overall anti-baryon yield can be hardly described within the standard transport approaches exactly because of the large annihilation cross section [@S95].) Antihyperons are forced rather immediately to local chemical equilibrium together with the pions, kaons and nucleons by the ‘back reactions’! One has to be a little bit more precise [@Heinz]: What actually has to be compared is the timescale of how fast the fireball does expand or, refering to the rate (\[taueq\]), of how fast the baryon density does drop. From fig. \[fig:WC\] one finds that this timescale is 3-4 fm/c. This is a reasonable expectation. Hence, there is no need for any ‘exotic’ explanation (like eg the temporal existence of a potential QGP saturated in strangeness) to account for the thermally and chemically equilibrated particle number of antihyperons observed at the chemical freeze-out point. In fact, beyond that ‘point’ (which, of course, is actually some continous regime where inelastic decoupling occurs) with already a moderately low baryon density (and correspondingly low pion and kaon densities) it will be that the multi-mesonic creation process becomes more and more ineffective. This would then also explain the claer ‘position’ of the chemical freeze-out point for the antihyperons.
To be more quantitative some explicite coupled master eqautions for an expanding system have to be considered. Such work is in progress [@GLnew]. In addition one can also study at which point on average the antihyperon degrees of freedom kinetically do decouple (thermal freeze-out). The decoupling does depend probably and most simply on the explicit (and unknown) parametrisation of the elastic cross section of the antihyperons with the pions. This has been pointed out already by Hecke et al [@So98] when adressing the fact that the experimentally deduced effective inverse slopes $`T_{Y}'$ of the (anti-)hyperon spectra and especially of the multi-strange $\Omega $-spectrum do not follow the linear increasing trend in mass.
Summary, conclusions and outlook
================================
To summarize, the multi-mesonic source of production of antihyperons is a consequence of detailed balance and, as the rate $\Gamma_{\bar{Y}}$ is indeed very large, this is the by far most dominant source compared to any binary production channel (\[sprodb\]). This, as we believe, is a remarkable observation as it clearly demonstrates the importance of hadronic multi-particle channels. At the moment such ‘back-reactions’ cannot be handled within the present transport codes and some clever strategy has to be invented. This could be a nice exercise for the future. Nonetheless, as we have shown, there exists a simple non-exotic mechanism $^{c,d}$ for explaining the $\bar Y$ abundancies in a purely hadronic scenario.
One might be tempted to ask whether a similar reasoning also applies for the multi-strange hyperons (the $\Xi $ and the $\Omega $) for which also some significant enhancement has been reported. The answer is ‘no’. The equilibration rate here would be governed by the density of antibaryons and is thus too low, or putting it differently, the equilibrium density of multi-strange hyperons is much higher than the one of antihyperons. It might be that only more exotic microscopic processes (or potentially only the celebrated deconfined state of matter) can explain the enhancement [@SBBBZSG99].
The mechanism to work out for the antihyperonic degrees of freedom is based on two rather moderate assumptions: (I) The thermally averaged annihilation cross section for antihyperons colliding with a nucleon, i.e. $\bar{Y} + N $, is roughly as large as the measured one for $\bar{p} + p$ or $\bar{p} + n$. (II) At the onset for the equilibration of the antihyperons one has to assume a hadronic fireball with still a moderate baryonic density and where the pions together with the nucleons [*and*]{} the kaons are assumed to be nearly in chemical equilibrium. As discussed in the second section, the abundant and early production of kaons and antikaons can reasonably be accounted for by hadronic transport models. If, as presented in some of the thermal models, a strangeness suppression factor $\gamma_s $ for each unit of strangeness is introduced [@CR00], one then finds for the stationary point of the master equation [@GL00] $$\label{semieq}
\rho _{\bar{Y}}^{eq} \rightarrow
\rho _{\bar{Y}} =
(\gamma_s )^{n_Y} \rho _{\bar{Y}}^{eq.}
\, \, \, ,$$ which is consistent with the employed phenomenological prescription [@CR00].
There is also a clear hint at AGS energies of enhanced anti-$\Lambda $ production: On the one hand the E859 Collaboration has measured the $\bar{\Lambda }/\bar{p} $ ratio in Si+Au at 14.6 AGeV and had reported a large value $\bar{\Lambda }/\bar{p} = 2.9 \pm 0.9 \pm 0.5 $ for some central rapidity window. On the other hand such a value has also been discovered, albeit for low transverse momentum, by the E864 Collaboration for the most central collisions [@E859]. According to the thermal models the deduced temperatures at the AGS-energies are lower and the obtained baryon densities are even higher. Our argument should thus perfectly apply. Measurements of antihyperon production could also be done at possible future heavy ion facilities at GSI working then at much higher bombarding energies comparable or exceeding AGS energies. This would be a very interesting opportunity to unreveal the here proposed mechanism.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work presented had been done in various collaborations with E. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, J. Geiss, S. Leupold and U. Mosel. I am in particular indebted to W. Cassing for providing fig. \[fig:WC\] and to S. Leupold, with whome the idea of multimesonic antihyperon production has been developed and further pursued. I also want to thank U. Heinz for the many interesting, albeit controversial discussions and J. Nagle for discussing the status of the $\bar{Y}$-production at AGS. This work has been supported by BMBF and GSI Darmstadt.
Notes {#notes .unnumbered}
=====
Invited talk at the Symposium on ‘Fundamental Issues in Elementary Matter’, 241. WE-Heraeus-Seminar, 25-29 September, Bad Honnef, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]
Our idea has been triggered by a recent work [@RS00] (but see also next footnote $^d$) which dealt with the question of how antiprotons might maintain nearly perfect chemical equilibrium until so called thermal freezeout at temperatures $T\approx 110 $ MeV much lower than at chemical freeze-out. However, the baryon densities are typically much lower between these two stages of chemical freeze-out to thermal freeze-out ($\rho_B \sim 0.5-0.05 \rho_0$, compare also fig. \[fig:WC\]), so that the multipionic reactions $ n \pi \leftrightarrow N + \bar{p} $ becomes less effective while competing against the rather rapid expansion and dilution. Our intention, on the other hand, has been to explain qualitatively via the adressed multihadronic channels the production of antihyperons before and at the so called point of chemical freeze-out.
The here discussed multi-mesonic channels for producing antihyperons are not considered for the first time: In fact they had been taken into account in the set of master equations for the strange hadronic particle densities by Koch et al [@KMR86]. The now mysterious question is then why the authors had not come at that time to our present conclusion? Much to the contrary they put forward the agenda for the antihyperons as a clear signature of a QGP. Looking at Fig. B3 in [@KMR86] they have only considered the annihilation cross section $
\sigma_{p\bar{p}\rightarrow 5 \pi} \approx 10$ mb, which is a factor of 5 or so smaller than the total annihilation cross section. Still, inspecting fig. \[fig:KMR\], their equilibration rate of the antihyperons is even then still two to three orders of magnitude too small!
[99]{}
U. Heinz and M. Jacob, ‘Evidence for a New State of Matter: An Assessment of the Result from the CERN Lead Beam Programme’, CERN Press Office (2000), nucl-th/0002042.
P. Koch, B. Müller and J. Rafelski, .
The international symposium on Strangeness in Quark Matter (July 1998), Padua (Italy), [*J. Phys. G *]{}[**25**]{}, 143-484 (1999); 14th International Conference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus-Collisions (Quark Matter ’99) (May 99), Torino (Italy), .
P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe and J. Stachel, .
F. Becattini, J. Cleymans, A. Keränen, E. Suhonen and K. Redlich, ‘Features of particle multiplicities and strangeness production in central heavy ion collisions between 1.7A and 158A GeV/c’, nucl-th/0002267.
S. Kabana and P. Minkowski, ‘Mapping out the QCD phase transition in multiparticle production’, hep-ph/0010247.
C. Spieles, H. Stöcker and C. Greiner, ; A. Dumitru, C. Spieles, H. Stöcker and C. Greiner, .
C. Greiner and S. Leupold, ‘Antihyperon-Production in relativistic heavy ion collisions’, nucl-th/0009036.
U. Heinz, private communication.
J. Geiss, W. Cassing and C. Greiner, .
E. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, C. Greiner, M. Effenberger, U. Mosel and A. Sibirtsev, .
J. Kapusta and A. Mekjian, ; T. Matsui, B. Svetitsky and L. McLerran, .
R. Matiello, H. Sorge, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, .
W. Cassing and E. Bratkovskaya, .
J. Geiss, PHD thesis, Universität Giessen (1998).
W. Cassing, .
G. Li, C. Ko, G. Brown and H. Sorge, .
W. Cassing, private communication.
H. Sorge et al, ; M. Bleicher, M. Belkacem et al, .
C. Greiner and S. Leupold, work in progress.
H. van Hecke, H. Sorge and N. Xu, .
R. Rapp and E.V. Shuryak, ‘Resolving the Antibaryon-Production Puzzle in High-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions’, hep-ph/0008326.
S. Soff et al, .
G.S.F. Stephans and Y. Wu, for the [*E859*]{} Collaboration, [*J. Phys. G *]{}[**23**]{}, 1895 (1997); T.A. Armstrong et al., [*E864*]{} Collaboration, .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We classify wormholes endowed with redshift effects and finite mass into three types. Type I wormholes have their radial pressure dying out faster, as one moves away from the throat, than any other component of the stress-energy and thus violate the least the local energy conditions. In type II (resp. III) wormholes the radial and transverse pressures are asymptotically proportional and die out faster (resp. slower) than the energy density. We introduce a novel and generalizable method for deriving, with no cutoff in the stress-energy or gluing, a class of each of the three wormhole types. We focus on type I wormholes and construct different asymptotically flat solutions with finite, upper- and lower-bounded, mass $M$. It is observed that the radial pressure is negative, and the null energy condition is violated, only inside a narrow layer, adjacent to the throat, of relative spacial extent $\epsilon$. Reducing the relative size of the layer, without harming the condition of traversability, yields an inverse square law of $\epsilon$ versus $M$ for supermassive wormholes. We show that the diameter of the shadow of this type I supermassive wormhole overlaps with that of the black hole candidate at the center of the Milky Way and that the recent derivation, using the up-to-date millimeter-wavelength very long baseline interferometry made in Astrophys. J. **795** 134 (2014) \[arXiv:1409.4690\], remains inconclusive.
We show that redshift-free wormholes, with positive energy density, have one of their barotropic equations of state in the phantom regime (at least in the region adjacent to the throat), have their stress energy tensor traceless, and are anisotropic. They are all type III wormholes having their variable equations of state approaching 1 and $-1$ at spatial infinity. We also introduce a new approach for deriving new redshift-free wormholes.
author:
- 'Mustapha Azreg-Aïnou'
title: 'Confined-exotic-matter wormholes with no gluing effects – Imaging supermassive wormholes and black holes'
---
Introduction\[secI\]
====================
How exotic is exotic matter? Do young and old galaxies harbor exotic matter? So far there has been no simple or advanced theory about exotic matter nor a prediction and all we know about it is its mathematical definition: it violates our perception of energy. That is, if an observer measures some negative local amount of energy density, we say that that corresponds to exotic matter.
The other thing we know about exotic matter is its possible wormhole sustainability [@MT; @V]. While they are of exotic nature, wormholes may interact with ordinary matter and may be indirectly observed through the effects they have on light and particle paths as well as on fields [@Chet; @Az; @gf; @sh; @gf2], on falling hot objects and spots [@hs] and so on.
The field equations of classical general relativity do not fix the topology of its solutions nor do they fix the amount of exotic matter needed to sustain the throat of a wormhole. Quantum effects allow for violations of the local and averaged [@anec] null energy condition (NEC) and might be used to support and stabilize wormholes.
Since exotic matter remains still a mystery, workers, using different techniques, have ever strived hard to derive wormhole solutions that minimize its use [@MT; @V] and [@m1]-[@m8]. To the best of our knowledge, no classification of wormholes has been performed so far. Observers of events are usually located far away from the sources, say, at spatial infinity, where observable entities may behave differently. The only distinctions among wormholes, which are widely used by workers, are finiteness of the mass, traversability, and stability. Other observable entities that may distinguish between wormholes are the components of the stress energy tensor (SET). It is the duty of this paper to perform this classification based on the relative behavior of the components of the SET at spatial infinity.
Another, but implicit, classification of wormholes concerns redshift-free wormholes and wormholes endowed with it. The radial and transverse pressures of redshift-free wormholes, with positive energy density and finite mass, behave the same way at spatial infinity, so there is no classification added for these solutions. This fact could be announced as a uniqueness theorem. This is no longer the case for wormholes endowed with redshift effects where three types of solutions, having finite mass, emerge.
The classification of wormholes motivates a new mathematical quest for theoretical wormholes fueled by the recent activities [@sh; @hs] to whether the observations of the shadow or hot spots are able to distinguish between a supermassive black hole (SMBH), located at Sagittarius A$^\star$ (Sgr A$^\star$), and a supermassive wormhole (SMWH). Questioning if the SMBH candidate at the center of the Milky Way is a SMWH is right but trying to answer it is hard. In fact, we have noticed that the wormhole solutions used in these investigations are the types that demand the most exotic matter. We will show that it is possible, without using the cut and paste technique, to construct their counterparts which violate the least the NEC and yield a value $46\,\mu\text{as} \text{ --- } 54 \,\mu\text{as}$ for the diameter of the shadow.
This is the same value derived very recently [@Sgr], using the millimeter-wavelength very long baseline interferometry (VLBI). The image of the emission surrounding the SMBH candidate in the center of the Milky Way reveals, at 1.3 mm VLBI, the same features of general relativity including that of a shadow of diameter $\sim 50\,\mu\text{as}$. Knowing that Sgr A$^\star$ along with M87 are on the list of the main targets of the Event Horizon Telescope [@EHT], the sensitivity of these measurements will increase with the inclusion of Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array VLBI-station [@VLBI].
In Sec. \[secfe\] we review the field equations ant the local energy condition’s (LEC’s). We specialize to solutions having finite mass and positive energy density and derive some general formulas. In Sec. \[secs\] we consider redshift-free static wormholes and construct by a new procedure some new exact solutions. Those redshift-free wormholes, with positive energy density, have one of their barotropic equations of state in the phantom regime (at least in the region adjacent to the throat), have their stress energy tensor traceless, and are anisotropic. In Sec. \[secr\] we focus more on solutions with variable redshift function and constant finite mass. We classify them into three types I, II, and III. Type I (respectively type III) wormholes violate the least (respectively the most) the LEC’s. The importance of type I and type III solutions is that they can be used by distant observers for testing hypotheses and in computer simulations. We introduce a 3-parameter approach to derive, without gluing, a class of each of the three wormhole types. The approach splits into two directions, in the one of which only one parameter remains free, and in the other one two parameters remain free to confine the exotic matter. We discuss the violations of the LEC’s and traversability.
Sec. \[secsd\] is devoted to an application. First, we show that the wormhole solution that has been used [@sh] for evaluating the shadow of the SMBH candidate is type III. We use, instead, a type I solution and show that the evaluation of the shadow is inconclusive. Said otherwise, the outcome of the observation is such that (a) the candidate might either be a (or Kerr) SMBH or a type I SMWH, (b) the candidate is a type III SMWH with relatively large amounts of exotic matter in the center of the galaxy. Based on the recent results of Ref [@Sgr], this last possibility is ruled out.
In Sec. \[secg\] we show how the approach introduced in Sec. \[secr\] can be generalized and provide two more wormhole solutions. We conclude in Sec. \[secc\].
Field equations and LEC’s \[secfe\]
===================================
The metric of a static, spherically symmetric, wormhole is better brought to the form [@MT] $$\label{b1}
{{\rm d}}s^2=A(r){{\rm d}}t^2-\frac{{{\rm d}}r^2}{1-b(r)/r}-r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,$$ in coordinates. The throat is located at $r=r_0>0$ and it corresponds to the minimum value of $r^2$. We assume symmetry of the two asymptotically flat regions, which particularly implies that if the mass of the wormhole is finite then it is the same as seen from both spatial infinities. The metric , representing a wormhole solution ($A>0$ for $r\geq r_0$), is exempt from any singularity, particularly the curvature $\mathcal{R}$ and Kretschmann $R_{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}R^{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}$ scalar invariants are regular everywhere on the throat and off it $$\label{inv}
\mathcal{R}=\frac{P_{C}}{2r^2A^2},\quad R_{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}R^{{\alpha}{\beta}\mu\nu}=\frac{P_{K}}{4r^6A^4},$$ where ($P_C,P_K$) are polynomials in $A(r)$ and its first and second derivatives, $b(r)$ and its first derivative, and $r$.
Besides the constraint $A>0$ for $r\geq r_0$, the functions $A$ and $b$ are further constrained by [@MT; @V] $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{r\to\infty}A=\text{finite}=1,{\nonumber}\\
&b<r\text{ if }r>r_0\;\text{ and }\;b(r_0)=r_0,{\nonumber}\\
\label{b2}&\lim_{r\to\infty}(b/r)=0,\\
&rb'<b\;(\text{in the region adjacent to the throat}),{\nonumber}\\
&b'(r_0)\leq 1.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $rb'=b$ may hold on the throat. The value of the limit in the first line is set to 1 by rescaling $A$ and redefining $t$. For a wormhole solution, the shape function $b$, which is positive on the throat, need not preserve the same sign[^1] on the whole range of $r$. In the case where $b$ may have both signs, the fourth line is violated, not in the region adjacent to the throat (where $b>0$), rather in the region(s) where $b'\geq 0$ and $b<0$. This results in a wormhole solution with an effective mass inside the radius $r$ that is negative whenever $b<0$ \[Eq. (11.42) of Ref. [@V]\].
The first and third lines in ensure asymptotic flatness. The proper radial distance is defined by $$\label{prd}
\ell\equiv\int_{r_0}^r\sqrt{-g_{rr}(\bar{r})}{{\rm d}}\bar{r}=\int_{r_0}^r\frac{{{\rm d}}\bar{r}}{\sqrt{1-b(\bar{r})/\bar{r}}}.$$ The first constraint in the second line ensures that $\ell$ is real and the second one ensures that the throat $r_0$ is a minimum value of $r(\ell)$. The remaining constraints, fourth and fifth lines in , ensure that $r(\ell)$ is an increasing, convex (concave up), function of $\ell$; that is, as one moves away from the throat $r(\ell)$ increases and turns upward (here $\ell$ represents a horizontal axis and $r$ a vertical one).
The constraints hold even if the mass of the wormhole is not finite. If the latter is finite, we have the further constraint $$\label{b3}
\lim_{r\to\infty}b\equiv b_{_\infty}=2GM=2M.$$
The SET is usually taken anisotropic of the form [@MT; @V] $T^{\mu}{}_{\nu}={\rm diag}({\rho}(r),-p_r(r),-p_t(r),-p_t(r))$, ${\rho}$ being the energy density and $p_r$ and $p_t$ are the radial and transverse pressures. The filed equations $G^{t}{}_{t}=8\pi T^{t}{}_{t}$, $G^{r}{}_{r}=8\pi T^{r}{}_{r}$, and the identity $T^{\mu}{}_{r;\mu}\equiv 0$ yield, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b4}
&b'=8\pi r^2{\rho},{\nonumber}\\
&(\ln A)'=\frac{8 \pi r^3p_r +b}{r (r-b)},\\
&4 p_t=4 p_r+2 r p_r{}'+r(p_r+\rho )(\ln A)',{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where a prime denotes derivation with respect to $r$.
The SET is subject to the requirements of the LEC’s, known as null, weak (WEC), strong (SEC), and dominant (DEC) conditions. These requirements read, respectively [@V] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ec}
&\text{NEC: }& &{\rho}+p_r\geq0,\,{\rho}+p_t\geq0, {\nonumber}\\
&\text{WEC: }& &{\rho}\geq0,\,{\rho}+p_r\geq0,\,{\rho}+p_t\geq0, {\nonumber}\\
&\text{SEC: }& &{\rho}+p_r\geq0,\,{\rho}+p_t\geq0,\,{\rho}+p_r+2p_t\geq0, {\nonumber}\\
&\text{DEC: }& &{\rho}\geq0,\,p_r\in[-{\rho},{\rho}],\,p_t\in[-{\rho},{\rho}] .\end{aligned}$$
One of our main purposes in this work is to construct wormhole solutions that violate the least the LEC’s. These are the more realistic wormholes in the framework of the theory of general relativity or its extended theories. From now on and throughout this paper, we specialize to wormholes having a positive energy density ${\rho}$, this already frees us from concern with one of the constraints of the LEC’S . Working with ${\rho}\geq 0$ is a common approach followed by workers in this field (see for instance [@MT; @LPR; @LPR1; @LPR2]). If the mass is finite, which is the case in which we will be interested most, and ${\rho}\geq 0$, Eqs. and along with the first line yield $$\label{cm}
2M-r_0=8\pi\int_{r_0}^{\infty}r^2{\rho}\,{{\rm d}}r \geq 0\qquad (\text{for }{\rho}\geq 0).$$ This implies $$\label{cm1}
M\geq r_0/2,$$ for wormholes with finite mass and positive or null energy density. The saturation is attained only for ${\rho}= 0$: $M= r_0/2$. This sets a lower limit for the mass of wormholes whose energy density is everywhere positive or null.
Two other conclusions that result from ${\rho}>0$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cm1a}&b\geq r_0\qquad (\forall\,r\geq r_0),\\
\label{cm1b}&x\equiv 8\pi r_0{}^2{\rho}_0\leq 1 \qquad [{\rho}_0\equiv {\rho}(r_0)>0].\end{aligned}$$ The positiveness of $b$, when ${\rho}>0$, results from application of the second line and the first line . The inequality in results from application of the fifth line and the first line .
The condition that the mass is finite defines the asymptotic behavior of ${\rho}$. In order for the integral in to converge, ${\rho}>0$ must behave as $$\label{cm2}
{\rho}\sim {\rho}_{_\infty}r^{-3-{\sigma}}\;\;\text{ as }\;\; r\to\infty\qquad ({\sigma}>0).$$
There does not seem to be an upper limit for the mass that is valid for all wormholes having finite mass and positive energy density. As we shall see in the subsequent sections, if such an upper limit exits it will depend on the whole expression of ${\rho}$; that is, the near throat and asymptotic behaviors are not sufficient to fix an upper limit for the mass.
Redshift-free static wormholes\[secs\]
======================================
If no redshift effects occur ($A=1$) Eqs. take the forms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b6}
&b'=8\pi r^2{\rho},{\nonumber}\\
&8 \pi r^3p_r +b=0,\\
&2 p_t=2 p_r+r p_r{}'.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Since the the energy density and the pressures depend only on $r$, we can always assume two barotropic equations of state of the form $$\label{b5}
p_r(r)={\alpha}(r){\rho}(r),\quad p_t(r)={\beta}(r){\rho}(r).$$ These barotropic assumptions are valid for any static, spherically symmetric, solution be it redshift-free or other. Since we are interested in the case of positive ${\rho}$, the inequality applies: $b\geq r_0>0$. The second line shows that $p_r$ and ${\alpha}$ are negative for all $r\geq r_0$. Combining the last two lines yields $$\label{b7}
p_t=\frac{b-rb'}{16\pi r^3},$$ which is positive by the fourth line at least in the region adjacent to the throat. Thus, ${\beta}$ and the dimensionless anisotropy parameter [@MH; @V2] ${\Delta}\equiv (p_t-p_r)/{\rho}={\beta}-{\alpha}$ are both positive (at least in the region adjacent to the throat).
Using , the first two lines and yield $$\begin{aligned}
&b(r)=r_0\exp\Big(-\int_{r_0}^{r}\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde{r}}{\tilde{r}{\alpha}(\tilde{r})}\Big),{\nonumber}\\
\label{b8}&{\rho}=b'/(8\pi r^2),\\
&2{\beta}=-({\alpha}+1),{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the second line . We see that in the absence of redshift effects the knowledge of ${\alpha}(r)$ suffices to determine all the necessary functions ($b,{\rho},p_r,p_t$). This consists the method of resolution we introduce to construct wormhole solutions with no redshift effects. Equivalently, one may use ${\beta}$, instead of ${\alpha}$, to determine all the other functions.
The third line implies that the SET is traceless ${\rho}+p_r+2p_t=0$.
The coefficient ${\beta}(r)$ being positive at least in the region adjacent to the throat, the last line results in $$\label{b9}
{\alpha}(r)<-1\;\;(\text{in the region adjacent to the throat}),$$ which lies in the phantom regime (at least in the region adjacent to the throat). Notice that in this regime it is not possible to have ${\beta}={\alpha}$, that is, an isotropic solution, since in this case the third line would imply ${\alpha}=-1/3$, which is not allowed by . The conclusion is even stronger than that: For a given solution, there is no sphere of radius $r\geq r_0$ where all the components of the pressure are equal to each other. A similar conclusion concerning gravastars was drawn in [@V2] where it was shown that such objects cannot be perfect fluids.
Using and it is straightforward to show that most of the local (null, weak, strong, and dominant) energy conditions [@V] are violated at least in the region adjacent to the throat, for ${\rho}>0$ implies ${\rho}+p_r=(1+{\alpha}){\rho}<0$ and $p_r \notin [-{\rho},+{\rho}]$; the condition $p_t \in [-{\rho},+{\rho}]$ is satisfied only if ${\beta}\leq 1$ ($-3\leq{\alpha}<-1$). The constraint ${\rho}+p_t=(1+{\beta}){\rho}>0$ is satisfied at least in the region adjacent to the throat and ${\rho}+p_r+2p_t=0$ is satisfied everywhere.
There is a variety of factors ${\alpha}(r)$ leading to closed-form expressions for all the functions ($b,{\rho},p_r,p_t$). These can be easily seen from the first line and are investigated in the following two subsections. So, in the remaining part of this section, we fix the expression of ${\alpha}(r)$ and use to determine simple expressions for the functions ($b,{\rho},p_r,p_t$) and the metric.
$\pmb {\alpha}$ is constant
---------------------------
By we see that the only possibility where ${\alpha}$ is constant is the case ${\alpha}= \text{constant}<-1$. Let $\nu\equiv -1/{\alpha}$ yielding $0<\nu<1$. The metric and the necessary functions read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s1}
&{{\rm d}}s^2={{\rm d}}t^2-\frac{{{\rm d}}r^2}{1-(r_0/r)^{1-\nu}}-r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,{\nonumber}\\
&b=r_0(r/r_0)^{\nu},\quad {\rho}=\frac{\nu}{8\pi r_0{}^2(r/r_0)^{3-\nu}},\\
&p_r=-{\rho}/\nu,\quad p_t=\frac{1-\nu}{2\nu}{\rho}\qquad (0<\nu<1).{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that the limits of (${\rho},p_r,p_t$), as $r\to\infty$, vanish but that of $b$ diverges, so the mass is infinite. It is also easy to check that all the constraints are satisfied. The special case $\nu=1/2$ was discussed in Ref. [@MT]. This solution has been rederived in [@Kalam; @LPR].
$\pmb{{\alpha}+1\propto -(r/r_0)^{\mu}}$, $\pmb{\mu>0}$
-------------------------------------------------------
Another closed-form solution is derived taking ${\alpha}+1\propto -(r/r_0)$. To satisfy we may choose, for the sake of simplicity, the constant of proportionality positive everywhere. Thus, we write ${\alpha}$ as $$\label{s2}
{\alpha}=-1-k^2\frac{r}{r_0}\;\text{ and }\;k^2>0.$$ Direct integration yields $$b=\frac{(1+k^2)r_0r}{k^2r+r_0}.$$ Since $b_{_\infty}=(1+k^2)r_0/k^2$ is finite we introduce the mass parameter defined in : $2M=(1+k^2)r_0/k^2$. This implies the general result : $M>r_0/2$. In terms of ($M,r_0$) we obtain the following solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s3}
&{{\rm d}}s^2={{\rm d}}t^2-\Big(1-\frac{2 M}{r+2 M-r_0}\Big)^{-1}{{\rm d}}r^2-r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,{\nonumber}\\
&b=\frac{2 M r}{r+2 M-r_0},\quad {\rho}=\frac{M (2 M-r_0)}{4 \pi r^2 (r+2 M-r_0)^2}>0,\\
&p_r=-\frac{M}{4 \pi r^2 (r+2 M-r_0)},\quad p_t=\frac{M}{8 \pi r (r+2 M-r_0)^2}.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$
The components of the SET vanish at spatial infinity. The constraints are all satisfied. For instance, the last two lines read, respectively $$-\frac{2Mr^2}{(r+2 M-r_0)^2}<0\;\;(\forall\;r\geq r_0),\quad -\frac{r_0}{2M}<0.$$
The above solution generalizes easily to the case[^2] ${\alpha}+1\propto -(r/r_0)^{\mu}$ and $\mu>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s4}
&{{\rm d}}s^2={{\rm d}}t^2-\Big(1-\frac{2 M}{\mathcal{R}^{1/\mu }}\Big)^{-1}{{\rm d}}r^2-r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,{\nonumber}\\
&b=\frac{2 M r}{\mathcal{R}^{1/\mu }},\quad
{\rho}=\frac{M (2^{\mu } M^{\mu }-r_0{}^{\mu })}{4 \pi r^2
\mathcal{R}^{(\mu +1)/\mu }}>0,\\
&p_r=-\frac{M}{4 \pi r^2 \mathcal{R}^{1/\mu }},\quad p_t=\frac{M}{8 \pi r^{2-\mu } \mathcal{R}^{(\mu +1)/\mu }},{\nonumber}\\
&\mathcal{R}\equiv r^{\mu }+2^{\mu } M^{\mu }-r_0{}^{\mu },\quad M>r_0/2,\quad \mu>0.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$
According to the analysis made in [@MT], these wormholes are traversable. At spatial infinity the energy density dies out as fast as $r^{-3-\mu}$ and the pressures as $r^{-3}$ where $\mu$ is an arbitrary positive constant. This behavior is general and applies to all redshift-free static wormholes with finite mass parameter. In fact, if ${\rho}\sim {\rho}_{_\infty}r^{-3-\mu}$ ($\mu>0$) as $r\to\infty$, then the first, second, and third lines in yield, respectively, $b\sim b_{_\infty}-8\pi{\rho}_{_\infty}r^{-\mu}/\mu$, $p_r\sim -b_{_\infty} r^{-3}/(8\pi)$, and $p_t\sim b_{_\infty} r^{-3}/(16\pi)$. The solutions , as well as the special case , are the simplest ones with these properties. Since the violations of the LEC’s are attributable to $p_r$, which is negative, this dashes any hope for obtaining redshift-free solutions with $p_r$ dying out faster than $r^{-3}$.
Now, we consider the limiting case $M=r_0/2$. We obtain the wormhole solution [@MT] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s5}
&{{\rm d}}s^2={{\rm d}}t^2-\Big(1-\frac{2 M}{r}\Big)^{-1}{{\rm d}}r^2-r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,{\nonumber}\\
&b=2M,\quad M=r_0/2,\quad{\rho}\equiv 0,\\
&p_r=-\frac{M}{4 \pi r^3},\quad p_t=\frac{M}{8 \pi r^3},{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ which can also be derived from and taking $b=\text{ constant }=2M$ \[It is also derived from taking the limit $\mu\to\infty$\]. With $\rho\equiv 0$ and $p_r<0$, this represents the most exotic matter distribution. This is not a wormhole since the latter has ${\rho}=p_r=p_t\equiv 0$.
Had we assumed the fluid isotropic, such a solution would not exist even in the full regime where $A$ is not constant. In fact, a solution which behaves at spatial infinity as ${\rho}\sim r^{-3-{\sigma}}$ and $p_r=p_t\sim r^{-3}$ yields a nonasymptotically flat solution.
The solutions derived in this section have their pedagogical values and will be added to the long list of solutions used for pedagogical purposes (see for instance [@MT; @LPR; @LPR1; @LPR2], [@az3]-[@refw]). Except the solution , which has been derived elsewhere, the solution and its generalization are new and have simple structures. Because of these latter properties, some of these pedagogical solutions may find their way to applications: they may have a potential use in computer simulations and/or in testing hypotheses. This was the case with the rotating wormhole derived for pedagogical purposes in Ref. [@teo], which was used in Ref. [@col] to investigate the high energy collision of two particles in the geometry of a rotating wormhole.
Static wormholes with redshift effects\[secr\]
==============================================
If the redshift effects are present ($A'\neq 0$), wormholes with finite positive mass and $p_r$ dying out faster than any other component of the SET may exist. In this case, however, the radial gravitational tidal forces, which vanish if $A'= 0$ [@MT], constrain, and may prevent, traversibility of the wormhole.
Asymptotic treatment of reveals the following results. Wormhole solutions, with finite positive mass, that are of the form $$\label{r0}
{\rho}\sim {\rho}_{_\infty}r^{-3-{\sigma}} \,\text{ and }\, p_r\sim p_{r_{\infty}} r^{-3-\eta}\quad (\text{as }r\to\infty)$$ where (${\sigma},\eta$) are assumed to be positive numbers, may exist if
: $\eta - {\sigma}> 1$ ($\Rightarrow r^{-4-{\sigma}}>r^{-3-\eta}$) yielding $$\label{r1}
4p_{t}\sim b_{_\infty}{\rho}_{_\infty}r^{-4-{\sigma}}\Rightarrow 4p_{t_{\infty}}=b_{_\infty}{\rho}_{_\infty};$$
: $0<\eta - {\sigma}\leq 1$ yielding $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r2}
4p_{t}\sim [{\delta}_{1}^{\eta - {\sigma}} b_{_\infty}{\rho}_{_\infty}-2(1+\eta)p_{r_{\infty}}]r^{-3-\eta}\\
\Rightarrow 4p_{t_{\infty}}={\delta}_{1}^{\eta - {\sigma}} b_{_\infty}{\rho}_{_\infty}-2(1+\eta)p_{r_{\infty}},
\end{gathered}$$ where ${\delta}_{1}^{\eta - {\sigma}}=1$ if $\eta - {\sigma}=1$ and 0 if $0<\eta - {\sigma}< 1$;
: $\eta \leq {\sigma}$ yielding $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r3}
2p_{t}\sim -(1+\eta)p_{r_{\infty}}r^{-3-\eta}\\
\Rightarrow 2p_{t_{\infty}}= -(1+\eta)p_{r_{\infty}}.
\end{gathered}$$
In all three cases, $A$ and $b$ behave asymptotically as $$\label{r4}
A\sim 1-\frac{b_{_\infty}}{r},\quad b\sim b_{_\infty}-\frac{8\pi{\rho}_{_\infty}}{{\sigma}r^{{\sigma}}}.$$ Notice that, in the solutions of type I, $p_r$ vanishes asymptotically faster than the other components of the SET; these are the best solutions minimizing the use of exotic matter. In the solutions of type II, the pressures have the same asymptotic behavior and vanish faster than the energy density. To the best of our knowledge, no solutions of type I and II are available in the literature. A solution of type III, with $\eta={\sigma}=1$ and thus $p_{t_{\infty}}=-p_{r_{\infty}}$, was derived in Eqs. (35) to (40) of Ref. [@LPR].
![[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
Since in the remaining parts of this work we will be focusing on wormholes with positive energy density, we consider the case of wormholes with ${\rho}_{_\infty}>0$. Whatever the signs of the radial and transverse pressures, the classification made in Eqs. , , and yields the following order relations asymptotically ($r\to\infty$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{type I:}& &{\rho}>|p_t|>|p_r|;{\nonumber}\\
\label{lec}&\text{type II:}& &{\rho}>|p_t|\sim |p_r|;\\
&\text{type III:}& &{\rho}<|p_t|\sim |p_r|.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Using , it is easy to see that all the LEC’s are satisfied asymptotically by type I and II wormholes. If $p_{r_{\infty}}>0$ and $p_{t_{\infty}}>0$, then all the LEC’s, but the DEC, are satisfied asymptotically by type III wormholes. Now, if $p_{r_{\infty}}<0$ or/and $p_{t_{\infty}}<0$, none of the LEC’s are satisfied by type III wormholes.
The aim of this section is to derive closed-form wormhole solutions of type I and II. The barotropic equations no longer are suitable as ansatzes, so we will introduce a new systematic approach.
Since the number of unknown functions in exceeds the number of equations, we recall that the general procedure used in the literature consists in fixing two of the unknown functions and solving for the remaining functions. In the following we will fix (${\rho}>0,p_r$). Notice that the classification made in Eqs. , , and is merely based on the asymptotic behavior of the wormholes, which is a common fact, and not on the detailed solutions or on the working ansatzes.
The aim of the following section is to use a type I wormhole, instead of a type III one [@sh], to evaluate the shadow of the SMBH candidate located at the center of the Milky Way. This is based on the criterium that type I wormholes are more realistic than type III ones having the same energy density, for the former solutions minimize the use of exotic matter. The shadow of the same SMBH has been evaluated using the Schwarzschild solution, which is the simplest known black hole solution. We will follow the same path and select the simplest type I wormhole solutions, which are derived assuming a smooth energy density distribution [@MT; @LPR] ${\rho}={\rho}_0r_0{}^{m}/r^{m}$ ($m=3+{\sigma}$ and ${\rho}_{_\infty}={\rho}_0r_0{}^{m}$). We start with the case $m=4$ (${\sigma}=1$): $$\label{r4b}
{\rho}=\frac{{\rho}_0r_0{}^4}{r^4}=\frac{{\rho}_{_\infty}}{r^4}\qquad ({\sigma}=1).$$ Introducing the variable $x$ defined in , the first line yields $$\label{r5}
b=(1+x)r_0-\frac{xr_0{}^2}{r}\quad\text{with}\quad 0<x\leq 1,$$ from which we obtain $$\label{r5a}
b_{_\infty}=(1+x)r_0=2M,$$ and then $$\label{r6}
b=2M-\frac{(2 M-r_0) r_0}{r}\quad\text{with}\quad x=\frac{2 M-r_0}{r_0}.$$ Now, the constraints $0<x\leq 1$ lead to $$\label{r7}
\frac{r_0}{2}<M\leq r_0$$ where the lower limit has been shown to apply to all wormholes having finite mass and positive energy density and the upper limit is specific to . However, the choice is widely used in the literature [@MT; @LPR]. Thus, the upper limit derived in , which results from a mere realization of the constraints on $b$, applies to a wider set of wormhole solutions of the three types.
The next step is to choose a form for $p_r$ yielding a type I solution and determine $A$. Seeking simplicity of the final closed-form solutions, our approach consists in taking $p_r$ as a two-term polynomial in $1/r$ of the form $$\label{r8}
p_r=\frac{c_n}{r^n}+\frac{c_{n+1}}{r^{n+1}}\qquad (n=3+\eta>3),$$ yielding $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r9}
\frac{8 \pi r^3 p_r+b}{r (r-b)}=\frac{8 \pi(c_{n+1}+c_n r)+r_0 [(1+x) r-xr_0] r^{n-3}}{(r-r_0) (r-xr_0)
r^{n-2}}\\=\frac{N(r)}{(r-r_0) (r-xr_0)
r^{n-2}}.\end{gathered}$$ In order to not have a horizon at $r_0$ we set $N(r_0)\equiv 0$, where $N(r)$ is the numerator of the r.h.s. of $$\label{r10}
8 \pi(c_{n+1}+c_n r_0)+r_0{}^{n-1}=0.$$ The remaining equation could be integrated and leads to no horizon at $r_0$ if $(0<)\,x<1$. In this case, one of the constants ($c_n,c_{n+1}$) remains undetermined and the case $x=1$ would not yield a wormhole solution.
There are two possible directions which we shall follow: Case (1), treated in Sec. \[secr1\], one may add another constraint to fix both constants ($c_n,c_{n+1}$). To ease the calculations and obtain a simple closed-form metric and SET, it would be better to set $N(xr_0)= 0$, which would allow for an equal treatment of the cases $x<1$ and $x=1$ and yields a polynomial in $1/r$ in the r.h.s. of if $n$ is an integer. For $x=1$, the constraint $N(xr_0)= 0$ is the same as $N'(r_0)= 0$ allowing $N(r)$ to have a double root at $r=r_0$, as is the denominator of the r.h.s. of . Case (2), treated in Sec. \[secr2\], one adds no further constraint. We will use $c_n$ as a free parameter and the wormhole solution will be valid only for $(0<)x<1$.
Case (1): A further constraint ($\pmb{0<x\leq 1}$)\[secr1\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
The constraint $N(xr_0)= 0$ reads $$\label{r11}
8 \pi(c_{n+1}+c_n xr_0)+x^{n-1}r_0{}^{n-1}=0.$$ Equations and are linear in ($c_n,c_{n+1}$), so one can always solve them analytically. They are identical for $x=1$. We solve them for $x<1$ $$\label{r12}
\hspace{-1mm}c_n=-\frac{1-x^{n-1}}{8\pi (1-x)}r_0{}^{n-2},\, c_{n+1}=\frac{x(1-x^{n-2})}{8\pi (1-x)}r_0{}^{n-1},$$ and we analytically extend them to $x=1$ since the limit, as $x\to 1$, in each r.h.s. of exists. If $n$ is an integer[^3], the extension is done on introducing the partial sums $$\label{r13}
S_k(x)\equiv \sum_{i=0}^kx^i=\Bigg\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{1-x^{k+1}}{1-x}, & \text{if }\; x<1, \\
k+1, & \text{if }\; x=1,
\end{array}$$ ($S_0(x)\equiv 1$) and the extended expressions of ($c_n,c_{n+1}$) read $$\label{r14}
\hspace{-1mm}c_n=-\frac{S_{n-2}(x)r_0{}^{n-2}}{8\pi},\, c_{n+1}=\frac{xS_{n-3}(x)r_0{}^{n-1}}{8\pi}.$$ For $x=1$, these expressions coincide with those we would obtain on solving , $N(r_0)= 0$, along with $N'(r_0)= 0$.
From now on we will omit to write the argument of $S_k$ unless there is a confusion. We can now write explicitly the expression of $p_r$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r15}
p_r=-\frac{S_{n-2}r_0{}^{n-2}}{8\pi r^n}+ \frac{xS_{n-3}r_0{}^{n-1}}{8\pi r^{n+1}}\\
=-\frac{[(r/r_0)-1]S_{n-2}+1}{8\pi r_0{}^{2}(r/r_0)^{n+1}}<0,\end{gathered}$$ where we have used $xS_{n-3}=S_{n-2}-1$. This is manifestly negative for all $r\geq r_0$. With this expression of $p_r$ the factors $r-r_0$ and $r-xr_0$ in the r.h.s. of cancel out and the remaining expression, which is equal to $A'/A$ by the second line , reduces to a polynomial in $1/r$ given by $$\label{r16}
\frac{A'}{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{S_ir_0{}^i}{r^{i+1}}.$$ Using the first constraint in , we are led to $$\label{r17}
A=\exp\Big(-\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{S_ir_0{}^i}{i\,r^{i}}\Big).$$ In the limit $r\to\infty$, we obtain $$\label{r18}
A\sim 1-\frac{S_1r_0}{r}=1-\frac{2M}{r},$$ where we have used .
Introducing the dimensionless variable $y\equiv r/r_0$ \[already used in \] and re-expressing as ${\rho}=x/(8\pi r_0{}^2y^4)$, Eq. yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r18b}
p_t=\frac{2[(n-2)y+1-n]S_{n-2}+2(n-1)}{32\pi r_0{}^2y^{n+1}}\\
+\frac{[xy^{n-3}-(y-1)S_{n-2}-1](\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{S_i}{y^{i}})}{32\pi r_0{}^2y^{n+1}}.\end{gathered}$$ This is a polynomial in $1/r$ the highest power of which is $xS_{n-3}{}^2/(32\pi r_0{}^2y^{2(n-1)})$ and its lowest power depends on $n$. The solution is of type III if $n=4$ ($\eta=1$), of type II if $n=5$ ($\eta=2$), and of type I if $n\geq 6$ ($\eta\geq 3$). Given $b_{_\infty}=S_1r_0$, ${\rho}_{_\infty}=xr_0{}^2/(8\pi)$, and $p_{r_{\infty}}=-S_{n-2}r_0{}^{n-2}/(8\pi)$, it is straightforward to check Eqs. , , and . For instance, for $n=5$ we find $p_{t_{\infty}}=(xS_1+6S_3)r_0{}^3/(32\pi)$, which is the coefficient of $1/r^5=1/r^{3+\eta}$ \[the lowest power in \], this is conform with . For $n\geq 6$ we find $p_{t_{\infty}}=xS_1r_0{}^3/(32\pi)$, which is the coefficient of $1/r^5=1/r^{4+{\sigma}}$ \[the lowest power in \], this is conform with .
In the limit $n\to\infty$, the graph of $p_r$ approaches that of the semi-step function ${\Theta}(r)$ defined by $$\label{stf}
{\Theta}(r)=\bigg\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-1/(8\pi r_0{}^2), & \text{if }\; r=r_0, \\
0, & \text{if }\; r>r_0.
\end{array}$$
The solution derived in this section has the property that the scaled functions ($b/r_0,r_0{}^2{\rho},r_0{}^2p_r,r_0{}^2p_t$) and $A$ do depend only on ($x,y$). Using this property, it is possible to show that $r_0{}^2p_t$ may undulate for fixed $0<x\leq 1$ and $y\geq1$, as depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\] and Fig. \[Fig2\]. So, it is not possible to prove analytically the positiveness of $p_t$ because of the existence of local extreme values the critical points of which depend on $n$. On the throat, $p_t$ is positive and vanishes only in the special case $x=1$. This is obvious from its value at the point ($x,y=1$) $$\label{r19}
p_t(x,1)=\frac{n-x-S_{n-2}(x)}{32\pi r_0{}^2},$$ which is 0 if $x=1$ knowing that $S_{n-2}(1)=n-1$. For $x<1$, $p_t(x,1)> 0$ since $S_{n-2}(x)< n-1$. This is confirmed graphically for the cases $n=6$ and $n=10$, as depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\] and Fig. \[Fig2\], where $r_0{}^2p_t$ read, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
&r_0{}^2 p_t=\frac{x S_1}{32 \pi y^5}+\frac{x S_2+8 S_4}{32 \pi y^6}-\frac{9 x S_3+S_1 S_4}{32 \pi y^7}{\nonumber}\\
\label{r20} &-\frac{S_6}{32 \pi y^8}-\frac{(1+x^4)S_3}{32 \pi y^9}+\frac{x S_3{}^2}{32 \pi y^{10}},\\
&r_0{}^2 p_t=\frac{x}{32 \pi y^5} \Big(\sum _{i=1}^5 \frac{S_i}{y^{i-1}}\Big)+\frac{16 S_8+x S_6}{32 \pi y^{10}}{\nonumber}\\
\label{r21}&-\frac{S_1 S_8+17 x S_7}{32 \pi
y^{11}}-\frac{1}{32 \pi y^{12}} \Big(\sum _{i=1}^6 \frac{S_{i+9}}{y^{i-1}}\Big)+\frac{xS_7{}^2}{32 \pi y^{18}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $xS_1S_3-S_2S_4=-S_6$ and $x S_2-S_4=-(1+x^4)$ in and $x S_i S_7-S_{i+1} S_8=-S_{i+9}$ ($i:1\to 6$) in .
Fig. \[Fig1\] and Fig. \[Fig2\] show only a portion of the $y$ axis where $p_t\geq 0$, however, we have numerically checked that the equation $p_t(\bar{r})=0$, where $p_t$ is given by ($n=6$) or by ($n=10$), has no root $\bar{r}> r_0$ for $0<x\leq 1$.
Fig. \[Fig4\] shows clearly how the violation of the NEC is narrowed as $n$ increases. The solution we provide in the Case (2) will do better; in that, for the same value of $n$ the region of violation of the NEC gets narrower.
![[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="32.70000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="32.70000%"}\
The proper radial distance from the throat to any point $r$, which is defined by , takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\ell =-\frac{(1+x)r_0}{2}\ln\bigg[\frac{(1-x)r_0}{(\sqrt{r-r_0}+\sqrt{r-xr_0})^2}\bigg]\\
+\sqrt{(r-r_0)(r-xr_0)}\qquad (0<x<1).\end{gathered}$$ If $x=1$, $\ell$ simplifies to $$\label{nw}
\ell =\int_{r_0}^r\frac{\bar{r}\,{{\rm d}}\bar{r}}{\bar{r}-r_0}\to\infty,$$ which diverges. The solution corresponding to $x=1$, however it satisfies all the constraints , it does not fulfill the requirement that it be a shortcut through spacetime between two distant asymptotically flat regions. This may not be considered as a wormhole solution.
Case (2): No further constraints ($\pmb{0<x<1}$)\[secr2\]
---------------------------------------------------------
{width="32.70000%"} {width="32.70000%"} {width="32.70000%"}\
The only constraint one needs to solve is yielding $$\label{r2-1}
c_{n+1}=-r_0c_n-\frac{r_0{}^{n-1}}{8\pi}.$$ Introducing the dimensionless constant $c$ defined by $$c_n\equiv r_0{}^{n-2}c,$$ we obtain $$\label{r2-1b}
p_r= \frac{8\pi cr_0{}^{n-2}(r-r_0)-r_0{}^{n-1}}{8\pi r^{n+1}}=\frac{8\pi c(y-1)-1}{8\pi r_0{}^{2} y^{n+1}}.$$ With this expression of $p_r$, $A$ has no horizon at $r=r_0$ for all $c_n$ at the expense of having $p_r$ negative in the vicinity of the throat: $p_r(r_0)=-1/(8\pi r_0{}^{2})$. The only constraints we may impose on $c_n$ is to ensure positiveness of $p_t$. It may seem possible to generate wormhole solutions where $p_r$ is negative only in the vicinity of the throat. In fact, from the asymptotic behavior of type I wormholes, we see that $p_{t_{\infty}}$ is positive without constraining $c_n=p_{r_{\infty}}$. Thus, for type I wormholes, $c_n$ may a priori assume positive values, depending on $x$, provided $p_t$ remains positive everywhere. When this is the case—it is the case indeed as we shall see below—$p_r$ vanishes at some point $r_1$ then becomes positive. At $r_1$, $p_t$ is certainly positive by . From the end-behavior of type II wormholes, we see that $c_n$ may also assume positive values constrained by $c_n<x(1+x)r_0{}^{3}/[16\pi (n-2)]$, where we have used $b_{_\infty}=S_1r_0$, ${\rho}_{_\infty}=xr_0{}^2/(8\pi)$, and $n=\eta+3$.
In this Case (2), however, it is not possible to derive general solutions valid for all $n>3$ , so we provide an example of resolution for $n=6$ which will yield a type I solution: $$\label{r2-2}
p_r=\frac{8\pi r_0{}^{4}c(r-r_0)-r_0{}^{5}}{8\pi r^{7}}=\frac{8\pi c(y-1)-1}{8\pi r_0{}^{2} y^{7}}.$$ In this case also the graph of $p_r$ approaches that of the semi-step function in the limit $n\to\infty$. With this expression of $p_r$ the factor $r-r_0$ in the r.h.s. of cancels out and the remaining expression, which is equal to $A'/A$ by the second line , reduces to $$\label{r2-3}
\frac{A'}{A}=\frac{8 \pi r_0{}^{4}c+r_0 [(1+x) r^3+r_0 r^2+r_0{}^2 r+r_0{}^3]}{r^4 (r-x r_0)}.$$ Performing the elementary integrals, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&A=\Big(1-\frac{x r_0}{r}\Big)^{a} \exp \Big(\sum _{i=1}^3 \frac{(8 \pi c+S_{3-i})r_0{}^i}{i\, x^{4-i}\, r^i}\Big),{\nonumber}\\
\label{r2-4}\quad &a(x,r_0,c)\equiv \dfrac{8 \pi c+S_4}{x^4}\qquad (0<x<1),\\
&r_0^2 p_t=\frac{1}{y-x} \,\Big[\frac{x (1+x)}{32 \pi y^4}+\frac{x-64 \pi c}{32 \pi y^5}{\nonumber}\\
&\qquad +\frac{10+x+8 \pi c (11+9 x)}{32 \pi y^6}-\frac{1+10x (1+8 \pi c)}{32 \pi y^7}{\nonumber}\\
&\label{r2-5}\qquad -\frac{1}{32 \pi y^8}-\frac{1-64 \pi ^2 c^2}{32 \pi y^9}-\frac{(1+8 \pi c)^2}{32 \pi y^{10}}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The constraint $0<x<1$ yields $0<xr_0<r_0\leq r$ and this implies that $A>0$ for all $r$. The other functions (${\rho},b$) keep their expressions as given in and . In the limit $r\to\infty$, ($A,p_t$) behave as in and , respectively.
$\hspace{3mm}x\hspace{3mm}$ $\hspace{3mm}c_{{\text{lim}}}$ $\hspace{3mm}x\hspace{3mm}$ $c_{{\text{lim}}}$ $\hspace{3mm}x\hspace{3mm}$ $\hspace{3mm}c_{{\text{lim}}}$
----------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------
0.1 0.012 0.4 0.037 0.7 0.069
0.2 0.020 0.5 0.047 0.8 0.083
0.3 0.028 0.6 0.057 0.9 0.098
: Limiting values $c_{{\text{lim}}}(x)$ of $c$. The equation $p_t(\bar{r})=0$, where $p_t$ is given by , has no root $\bar{r}\geq r_0$ for $c\leq c_{{\text{lim}}}(x)$. \[Tab1\]
Table \[Tab1\] provides, in terms of $x$, the limiting values $c_{{\text{lim}}}(x)$ of $c$ at, or below, which $p_t$ is positive for all $r\geq r_0$. Now, for $c\leq c_{{\text{lim}}}(x)$, the transverse pressure being positive, the radial one $p_r$ is negative only near the throat, vanishes at $$\label{r2-6}
r_1=r_0+\frac{r_0}{8 \pi c},$$ then remains positive for $r>r_1$. $r_1=1.4r_0$ for the largest value of $c_{{\text{lim}}}=0.098$ given in Table \[Tab1\], corresponding to $x=0.9$, and $r_1=4.3r_0$ for the smallest one. This shows that the field equations admit a simple, with no gluing process, wormhole solution satisfying all requirements where the exotic matter can be made confined in a region around the throat not exceeding 1.4 times the radius of the latter.
Moreover, as Fig. \[Fig3\] depicts, the requirement ${\rho}+p_r\geq 0$ imposed by the NEC, WEC, and SEC and the requirement $p_r\in[-{\rho},{\rho}]$ imposed by the DEC , are violated only within a layer, adjacent to the throat, of outer and inner radii $r_{\text{out}}=1.019r_0$ and $r_0$, respectively, and all the other requirements imposed by the LEC’s are satisfied by the wormhole solution corresponding to $x=0.9$ and $c=0.098$. We have thus reached the conclusion that violations of the LEC’s occur partly in a narrow spherical layer \[of relative extent ${\epsilon}\equiv (r_{\text{out}}-r_0)/r_0=0.019$\] around the throat that might not be cumbersome for an extended object crossing the throat.
This relative extent of 0.019 can be improved, in that, reduced to much lower values on increasing $n$ and, most likely, $x$ too. In fact, for a generic value of $n$, we obtain using and ${\rho}=x/(8\pi r_0{}^2y^4)$ $$\label{r2-7}
{\rho}+p_r=\frac{xy^{n-3}+ 8\pi cy-8\pi cy-1}{8\pi r_0{}^{2} y^{n+1}}.$$ As is with the case $n=6$, for some values of ($c,x$) the equation ${\rho}+p_r=0$ has a root in the vicinity of, but larger than, 1. Taking $y=1+{\epsilon}$, we find for large $n$ $${\epsilon}\simeq \frac{1-x}{(x+8\pi c)(n-3)}.$$ Here ($c,x$) are chosen so that the corresponding expression of $p_t$ is positive for $r\geq r_0$. We see that the size of the layer where the LEC’s are violated shrinks to 0 as $n$ and $x$ increase.
The determination of solutions for $n>6$ proceeds the same way. The integrals leading to $A$ \[see Eq. \] are all elementary of the form $\int{{\rm d}}y/[y^s(y-x)]$, thus closed-form expressions for ($A,p_t$), however sizeable, are always obtainable. In fact, the general expression of $A'/A$ is brought to $$\label{r2-8}
\frac{A'}{A}=\frac{8\pi c+xy^{n-3}+S_{n-3}(y)}{r_0y^{n-2}(y-x)},$$ where $S_{n-3}(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-3}y^i$. Let us see the effect of large values of $n$ on traversability. The main constraint regarding traversibility is expressed in Eq. (49) of Ref. [@MT] which we re-write using our notation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{r2-9}
\Big|\Big(1-\frac{b}{r}\Big)\Big[-\frac{(A'/A)'}{2}+\frac{b'r-b}{2r(r-b)}\frac{(A'/A)}{2}-\frac{(A'/A)^2}{4}\Big]\Big|\\
\lesssim \frac{g_{_{\oplus}}}{(2\,\text{m})c_{\text{light}}^2}\cong \frac{1}{10^{10}\,\text{km}^2}.\end{gathered}$$ Here 2 m is the size of the crossing observer. Using and , the l.h.s. of reduces to $$\label{r2-10}
\frac{x(n-2+8\pi c+x)}{2(1-x)r_0{}^{2}},$$ on the throat. Here $g_{_{\oplus}}$ is the value of the acceleration due to Earth gravity. For $n=6$, $c=0.098$, and $x=0.9$ the saturation in results in $r_0\cong 5.7\times10^5$ km, which is a bit smaller than the radius of the Sun $R_{_{\bigodot}}=695,800$ km. Roughly speaking, if all other parameters are held constant, $n$ increases linearly with $r_0{}^{2}$ without modifying the value of the l.h.s. of . To design a wormhole, say of two times the Sun’s radius $r_0=2R_{_{\bigodot}}$, without violating the traversability condition and with maximum confinement of the negative radial pressure around the throat we need to take $n\cong 24$. The condition remains, however, satisfied for $n\lesssim 24$.
Here we have reached the same conclusion drawn in [@FR], in that, the geometry of the wormhole has very different length scales if the relative extent ${\epsilon}$ of the exotic matter (adjacent to the throat) assumes much smaller values. For the sake of example, compare the inverses of the relative rates of $b$ and $A$ on the throat to find $$\frac{b}{b'}\sim r_0,\quad \frac{A}{A'}\sim \frac{r_0}{n-2}.$$ This results in a discrepancy in the two scales if $n$ is large, which is the value ensuring maximum confinement. This discrepancy is obvious from Fig \[Fig3\] (b), and Fig \[Fig4\], where the graph intersects the vertical axis at the same point $-(1-x)/(8\pi)$ independently of $n$. Hence, increasing $n$ will shift to the left the point of intersection with the $r/r_0$ axis and thus reduces the scale of variation of ${\rho}+p_r$.
Type I wormholes for testing the nature of the SMBH candidates\[secsd\]
=======================================================================
We have seen that for large $n$, ${\epsilon}$ varies as $1/n$ to confine the violation of the NEC, and $r_0{}^2\sim M^2$ vary as $n$ to not harm the traversability condition. For SMWH this yields an inverse square law of ${\epsilon}$ versus $M$ $$\text{SMWH: }\quad {\epsilon}\propto 1/M^2$$ Notice that this statement does not depend on ($n,x$) and it may apply to all wormholes. For such large values of $r_0$ and $M$ the geometry of the SMWH, where ${\rho}\to\text{const.}$, $p_r\to 0$, and $p_t\to 0$, approaches that a SMBH, but the topology remains different. This has raised the question whether such two suppermassive objects (SMWH and SMBH) can be distinguished through astrophysical observations [@sh; @hs].
An instance of such a SMBH is the one located at Sgr A$^\star$. The calculation of the photon trajectories [@sh0]-[@sh3] yields the determination of the shape of the shadow of the emitting central object. For a static solution, this amounts to find the photon spheres which are unstable circular paths separating the absorbed paths (captured photons) and scattering ones. The apparent dividing line between black hole and sky is the apparent position of the photon sphere, which is the limiting value of the impact parameter $b_{\text{lim}}$ of the absorbed paths. It can be shown that $b_{\text{lim}}$ is related to the radius of the photon sphere $r_{\text{ps}}$ by (see, for instance[^4], [@sh]) $$\label{sm1}
b_{\text{lim}}=r_{\text{ps}}/\sqrt{A(r_{\text{ps}})}\,,\quad (\ln A)'=2/r_{\text{ps}}.$$
For , $r_{\text{ps}}=3M$ yielding $$\label{sm2}
b_{\text{lim}}/M=3\sqrt{3}\simeq 5.196.$$ For wormholes one usually takes $A=\exp(-2r_0/r)$ yielding $b_{\text{lim}}/r_0={{\rm e}}\simeq 2.718$ [@sh]. However, given the nature of wormholes whose existence demands some amount of exotic matter which violates the NEC, we show that $A=\exp(-2r_0/r)$ is not the appropriate expression to work with, for it does always lead to type III wormholes. Recall that type I \[respectively type III\] wormholes violate the least \[respectively the most\] the LEC’s. Substituting this expression of $A$ into the second line , we obtain $$\label{sm3}
p_r=\frac{2r_0-b}{8\pi r^3}-\frac{r_0b}{4\pi r^4}.$$ For massive wormholes, with finite mass parameter $M$, $b\sim 2M-k_1 r^{-{\sigma}}$ yielding, using the first line , ${\rho}\sim k_2 r^{-3-{\sigma}}$ , where (${\sigma},k_1,k_2$) are positive constants. Hence, if (a) $r_0\neq M$, $|p_r|\propto r^{-3}>{\rho}$ as $r\to\infty$ (type III), if (b) $r_0= M$ and $0<{\sigma}\leq 1$, $|p_r|\propto r^{-3-{\sigma}}\sim {\rho}$ as $r\to\infty$ (type III), and if (c) $r_0= M$ and ${\sigma}> 1$, $|p_r|\propto r^{-4}> {\rho}$ as $r\to\infty$ (type III).
At spatial infinity (here the Earth’s surface), where observations are performed in the absence of exotic matter, the wormhole solution selected to represent the SMWH, thought to inhabit the center of the Milky Way near Sgr A$^\star$, should be type I, which minimizes the use of exotic matter. In the previous section, we have developed enough tools to generate this class of massive solutions. We set $x=0.5$ and select the solution given by and , which we rewrite as $$\label{sm4}
\frac{A'}{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{\sum_{k=0}^{i}x^k}{ry^{i}}\Rightarrow A=\exp\Big(-\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{\sum_{k=0}^{i}x^k}{i\,y^{i}}\Big),$$ so that the second Eq. reads $$\label{sm5}
\sum_{i=1}^{n-3}\frac{\sum_{k=0}^{i}x^k}{y_{\text{ps}}{}^{i}}=2,$$ where $y_{\text{ps}}=r_{\text{ps}}/r_0$. Solving numerically for $y_{\text{ps}}$ for different values of $n$, then substituting these values in the first Eq. , we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sm6}
& n=6:& & r_{\text{ps}}=1.63549 r_0,& & b_{\text{lim}}/M=4.36317,{\nonumber}\\
& n=10:& & r_{\text{ps}}=1.82946 r_0,& & b_{\text{lim}}/M=4.57738,{\nonumber}\\
& n=14:& & r_{\text{ps}}=1.84194 r_0,& & b_{\text{lim}}/M=4.58553,\\
& n\to\infty:& & r_{\text{ps}}=1.84307 r_0,& & b_{\text{lim}}/M=4.58603,{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{\text{lim}}/M=2b_{\text{lim}}/[(1+x)r_0]$ by . In the limit $n\to\infty$, the graph of $p_r$ approaches that of the semi-step function .
The values of $b_{\text{lim}}/M$ given in , which have been derived using type I wormholes ($n\geq 6$) are much closer to the value than the value of $b_{\text{lim}}/M={{\rm e}}\simeq 2.7183$ derived with a type III wormhole. Since the ratio of the apparent diameters of the shadows is equal to the ratio of the $b_{\text{lim}}$’s, we have ${\theta}_{\text{S}}/{\theta}_{\text{W}}=5.196/4.58603=1.13301$ for the lowest ratio and $5.196/4.36317=1.19088$ for the highest one, where ${\theta}_{\text{S}}$ and ${\theta}_{\text{W}}$ are the diameters corresponding to the and the wormhole, respectively. Now, ${\theta}_{\text{S}}=56 \,\mu\text{as}$, we obtain $$\label{sm7}
{\theta}_{\text{W}} = 47\,\mu\text{as} \text{ --- } 49 \,\mu\text{as}.$$ Including the 14% absolute uncertainty on ${\theta}_{\text{S}}$ [@sh], which is $8\,\mu\text{as}$, we see that ${\theta}_{\text{S}}$ and ${\theta}_{\text{W}}$ overlap. The value ${\theta}_{\text{W}}$ also overlaps with the corresponding values of the Kerr solution as derived in [@sh2]. We have thus reached the conclusion that the observation of the shadow is inconclusive, in that, the distinction between a (or Kerr) and a wormhole, as harbored candidates at Sgr A$^\star$, is not possible within today’s limits of the VLBI facilities, very recently the director team of which has reported a value of the diameter $\sim 50\,\mu\text{as}$ [@Sgr].
The two bounds of ${\theta}_{\text{W}}$ for a type I wormhole in terms of $x$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab2\].
$\hspace{7mm}x\hspace{7mm}$ $\hspace{15mm}{\theta}_{\text{W}} (\mu\text{as})$
----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
0.1 50 54
0.5 47 49
0.97 46 48
1 46 48
: The two bounds of the apparent diameter ${\theta}_{\text{W}}$ of the shadow of a type I wormhole in terms of $x$. As we saw earlier, the case $x=1$ may not be considered a wormhole solution ; however, when evaluating the diameter of the shadow we can use it as a limit case. \[Tab2\]
If the observed value of the diameter were much lower than $46\,\mu\text{as}$, say $30\,\mu\text{as}$, this would be an indication that the Sgr A$^\star$ might harbor a type III SMWH as well as large amounts of exotic matter. If that were the case, the difference in the diameters could be used as a measure of the amount of exotic matter harbored at Sgr A$^\star$.
The results and have been derived using type I wormholes ($n\geq 6$). Had we used a type II (respectively, type III) wormhole having the same mass and energy density we would have obtained for $n=5$ or type II wormhole, $r_{\text{ps}}=1.38278 r_0$, $b_{\text{lim}}/M=3.98673$, and ${\theta}_{\text{W}}= 43\,\mu\text{as}$ (respectively, for $n=4$ or type III wormhole, $r_{\text{ps}}=3 r_0/4$, $b_{\text{lim}}/M={{\rm e}}\simeq 2.7183$, and ${\theta}_{\text{W}}= 29\,\mu\text{as}$). On comparing the shadows of the three types of wormholes having the same mass and energy density, we have achieved the main goal of this section consisting in showing that the Sgr A$^\star$ may harbor a type I SMWH instead of a SMBH.
The results of Table \[Tab2\] are specific to the class of wormhole solutions used for their derivation. The question remains open whether other classes of type I wormholes, different from those derived here, would yield similar results as those of Table \[Tab2\].
Since the external geometric properties of SMWH and SMBH are similar, this leaves open the question whether a SMWH may evolve to a SMBH.
Generalization\[secg\]
======================
There are two possible directions to generalize the method introduced in \[secr\]. One consists in generalizing the expression of $p_r$ to $$p_r=\frac{c_n}{r^n}+\frac{c_{n+1}}{r^{n+1}}+\frac{c_{n+2}}{r^{n+2}}\qquad (n=\eta+3>3),$$ which after imposing the constraint $N(r_0)\equiv 0$, generalizing , yields a solution with two free parameters ($c_n,c_{n+1}$) to confine the exotic matter. We will not pursue this program here.
The second possibility amounts to consider higher values of $m$ (or ${\sigma}$) and to use the same expression of $p_r$. We assume ${\sigma}>1$ and set $X=x/{\sigma}=8 \pi r_0{}^2 \rho _0/{\sigma}$ so that ${\rho}={\rho}_0r_0{}^{3+{\sigma}}/r^{3+{\sigma}}$ takes the form $${\rho}=\frac{{\sigma}X}{8 \pi r_0{}^2 y^{3+{\sigma}}}\qquad ({\sigma}>1),$$ yielding $$b=(1+X)r_0-\frac{Xr_0}{y^{{\sigma}}}.$$ The last condition leads to $X\leq 1/{\sigma}$ or, as before, $x\leq 1$. The second condition reads $$y^{1+{\sigma}}-(1+X)y^{{\sigma}}+X>0 \quad (y>1).$$ This is satisfied because the polynomial on the l.h.s. vanishes at $y=1$, has a critical point $y_c={\sigma}(1+X)/({\sigma}+1)\leq 1$, and increases for $y>y_c$. The remaining conditions are satisfied with $x\leq 1$. Eq. generalizes to $$\frac{r_0}{2}<M=\frac{x+{\sigma}}{2{\sigma}}\,r_0\leq \frac{1+{\sigma}}{2{\sigma}}\,r_0.$$ Thus, the mass of these wormholes does not exceed $r_0$, for $(1+{\sigma})/(2{\sigma})<1$.
If one wants to look for the lowest order type I wormhole one fixes $n=5+{\sigma}$ in $$p_r=\frac{C}{8 \pi r_0{}^2y^{5+{\sigma}}}-\frac{1+C}{8 \pi r_0{}^2y^{6+{\sigma}}}\quad (3+\eta=5+{\sigma}>6),$$ where we have already imposed the constraint eliminating the pole $y=1$ of $A'/A$ if $x<1$ \[compare with \]. If ${\sigma}$ is a positive integer, the remaining expression of $A'/A$ reads $$\frac{A'}{A}=\frac{S_{{\sigma}+2}(y)+Xy^3S_{{\sigma}-1}(y)+C}{r_0y^4[y^{{\sigma}}-XS_{{\sigma}-1}(y)]},$$ which yields a wormhole solution for $x<1$. This expression reduces to if we take ${\sigma}=1$ and $C=8\pi c$.
For ${\sigma}=2$, this reads $$\frac{A'}{A}=\frac{2S_{4}(y)+xy^3S_{1}(y)+2C}{r_0y^4[2y^{2}-xS_{1}(y)]}.$$ Notice that if $x<1$, we have $$2y^{2}-xS_{1}(y)=2y^2-xy-x>0$$ for all $r\geq r_0$ ($y\geq 1$): $A'/A$ has no more poles. The general expression of $A(x)$ is sizeable. For $x=8/15$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\ln A=\frac{285 (C+1)}{16 y}-\frac{15 C}{8 y^2}+\frac{5 (C+1)}{4 y^3}\\+\frac{209+510 C}{16} \ln y+\frac{5 (665+243 C)}{256} \ln \Big(\frac{3 y-2}{3}\Big)\\-\frac{3(2223+3125 C)}{256} \ln \Big(\frac{5 y+2}{5}\Big)\quad (x=8/15).\end{gathered}$$
For $x=1$, we have $$2y^{2}-xS_{1}(y)=(2y+1)(y-1).$$ We see that there is still a pole at $y=1$, which we need to impose a second constraint to eliminate it \[compare with \]. This constraint reads $2S_{4}(1)+S_{1}(1)+2C=10+2+2C=0$ implying $C=-6$. Finally, $$A=\Big(\frac{1+2 y}{2 y}\Big)^{57} \exp \Big(-\frac{30}{y}+\frac{6}{y^2}-\frac{10}{3 y^3}\Big)\quad (x=1).$$
The expressions of $p_t$ for $x=8/15$ and $x=1$ are derived from .
Conclusion \[secc\]
===================
We have classified finite mass wormholes into three types, have introduced novel and generalizable methods for deriving, with no cutoff in the stress-energy or gluing, a class of each of the three wormhole types, and have shown the importance of type I wormholes. We have also shown the importance of type III solutions whether they are red-shift free or not.
Finite mass red-shift free wormholes are all type III and those endowed with redshift effects are three types.
Supermassive type I and type III wormholes are needed for testing whether the SMBH candidates at the center of galaxies are truly SMBH’s and for computer simulations. We have shown that if the diameter of the SMBH candidate is far below the expected value, then the candidate might be a type III SMWH and that the galaxy harbor relatively large amounts of exotic matter.
The existing up-to-date VLBI facilities do not lead to differentiate the SMBH candidate at the center of the Milky Way from a possible type I SMWH, this, however, could be done in the future [@Sgr]. Other signals from the galaxy, as the motion of orbiting hot spots, may lead to draw a conclusion concerning the nature of the candidate. There are existing facilities for this purpose, as the instrument Gravity [@VLT] installed at the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, but due to the high similarity of the external geometries of a SMBH and a SMWH of the same mass, this duty may not perform well in the near future.
[99]{}
[MT]{}M.S. Morris and K.S. Thorne, *Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity*, Am. J. Phys. **56**, 395 (1988).
M. Visser, *Lorentzian Wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking* (AIP Press, Cambridge, 1995).
[Chet]{}L. Chetouani and G. Clément, *Geometrical optics in the Ellis geometry*, Gen. Relativ. Grav. **16**, 111 (1984).
[Az]{}M. Azreg-Aïnou and G. Clément, *The geodesics of the Kaluza-Klein wormhole soliton*, Gen. Relativ. Grav. **22**, 1119 (1990).
[gf]{}O. Sarbach and T. Zannias, *The propagation of particles and fields in wormhole geometries*, AIP Conf. Proc. **1473**, 223 (2012). arXiv:1204.3977 \[gr-qc\]. [sh]{}C. Bambi, *Can the supermassive objects at the centers of galaxies be traversable wormholes? The first test of strong gravity for mm/sub-mm VLBI facilities*, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 107501 (2013). arXiv:1304.5691 \[gr-qc\].
[gf2]{}P. Taylor, *Propagation of test particles and scalar fields on a class of wormhole space-times*, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 024057 (2014). arXiv:1404.7210 \[gr-qc\].
[hs]{}Z. Li and C. Bambi, *Distinguishing black holes and wormholes with orbiting hot spots*, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 024071 (2014). arXiv:1405.1883 \[gr-qc\].
[anec]{}D. Urban and K.D. Olum, *Spacetime averaged null energy condition*, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 124004 (2010). arXiv:1002.4689 \[gr-qc\].
[m1]{}M. Visser, *Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples*, Phys. Rev. D **39**, 3182(R) (1989). arXiv:0809.0907 \[gr-qc\].
[m2]{}M. Visser, S. Kar, and N. Dadhich, *Traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small energy condition violations*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 201102 (2003). arXiv:gr-qc/0301003.
[m3]{}P. Musgrave and K. Lake, *Junctions and thin shells in general relativity using computer algebra: I. The Darmois - Israel formalism*, Class. Quantum Grav. **13**, 1885 (1996). arXiv:gr-qc/9510052.
[m3b]{}S.H. Mazharimousavi and M. Halilsoy, *Thin-shell wormholes supported by total normal matter*, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 3067 (2014). arXiv:1311.6697 \[gr-qc\].
[m4]{}F. Rahaman, M. Kalam, K.A. Rahman, S. Chakraborti, *A theoretical construction of thin shell wormhole from tidal charged black hole*, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **39**, 945 (2007). arXiv:gr-qc/0703143.
[m5]{}J.P.S. Lemos and F.S.N. Lobo, *Plane symmetric thin-shell wormholes: Solutions and stability*, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 044030 (2008). arXiv:0806.4459 \[gr-qc\].
[m6]{}G.A.S. Dias and J.P.S. Lemos, *Thin-shell wormholes in d-dimensional general relativity: Solutions, properties, and stability*, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 084023 (2010). arXiv:1008.3376 \[gr-qc\].
[m7]{}F. Rahaman, P.K.F. Kuhfittig, M. Kalam, A.A. Usmani, and S. Ray, *A comparison of Horava-Lifshitz gravity and Einstein gravity through thin-shell wormhole construction*, Class. Quantum Grav. **28**, 155021 (2011). arXiv:1011.3600 \[gr-qc\].
[m8]{}M. Sharif and M. Azam, *Spherical thin-shell wormholes and modified chaplygin gas*, JCAP05 025 (2013). arXiv:1310.0326 \[gr-qc\].
[Sgr]{}V.L. Fish *et al.*, *Imaging an event horizon: Mitigation of scattering toward Sagittarius A\**, Astrophys. J. **795**, 134 (2014). arXiv:1409.4690 \[astro-ph.IM\].
[EHT]{}<http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/>.
[VLBI]{}V.L. Fish *et al.*, *High-angular-resolution and high-sensitivity science enabled by beamformed ALMA*, arXiv:1309.3519 \[astro-ph.IM\].
[LPR]{}F.S.N. Lobo, F. Parsaei, and N. Riazi, *New asymptotically flat phantom wormhole solutions*, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 084030 (2013). arXiv:1212.5806 \[gr-qc\].
[LPR1]{}Y. Heydarzade, N. Riazi, and H. Moradpour, *Asymptotically flat wormhole solutions in a generic cosmological constant background*, arXiv:1411.6294 \[gr-qc\].
[LPR2]{}M.R. Mehdizadeh, M.K. Zangeneh, and F.S.N. Lobo, *Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet traversable wormholes satisfying the weak energy condition*, arXiv:1501.04773 \[gr-qc\].
[MH]{}M.K. Mak and T. Harko, *Anisotropic stars in general relativity*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A **459**, 393 (2003). [V2]{}C. Cattoen, T. Faber and M. Visser, *Gravastars must have anisotropic pressures*, Class. Quantum Grav. **22**, 4189 (2005).
[Kalam]{}F. Rahaman, M. Kalam, M. Sarker, and S. Chakraborty, *Wormholes with varying equation of state parameter*, Acta Phys. Pol. B **40**, 25 (2009). arXiv:gr-qc/0701032.
M. Azreg-Aïnou, *From static to rotating to conformal static solutions: rotating imperfect fluid wormholes with(out) electric or magnetic field*, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 2865 (2014). arXiv:1401.4292 \[gr-qc\]
V.M. Khatsymovsky, *Rotating vacuum wormhole*, Phys. Lett. B **429**, 254 (1998). arXiv:gr-qc/9803027
E. Teo, *Rotating traversable wormholes*, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 024014 (1998). arXiv:gr-qc/9803098
P.K.F. Kuhfittig, *Axially symmetric rotating traversable wormholes*, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 064015 (2003). arXiv:gr-qc/0401028
T. Matos and D. Núnez, *Rotating scalar field wormhole*, Class. Quantum. Grav. **23**, 4485 (2006). arXiv:gr-qc/0508117
P.E. Kashargin and S.V. Sushkov, *Slowly rotating wormholes: the first order approximation*, Grav. Cosmol. **14**, 80 (2008). arXiv:0710.5656
R.N. Izmailov, N.G. Migranov, and K.K. Nandi, *Rotating wormholes*, Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, Number **8** (146), Physics, issue 4, pp. 62-66 (2009). <http://www.lib.csu.ru/vch/146/010.pdf> K. A. Bronnikov and S. V. Sushkov, *Trapped ghosts: a new class of wormholes* Class. Quantum Grav. **27**, 095022 (2010). arXiv:1001.3511 \[gr-qc\]
M. Azreg-Aïnou, *Rotation and twist regular modes for trapped ghosts*, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **44**, 2299 (2012). arXiv:1206.1408
K.A. Bronnikov, V.G. Krechet, and J.P.S. Lemos, *Rotating cylindrical wormholes*, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 084060 (2013). arXiv:1303.2993 \[gr-qc\]
B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, *Rotating Ellis wormholes in four dimensions*, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 121503(R) (2014). arXiv:1409.1503 \[gr-qc\]
N. Tsukamoto and C. Bambi, *High energy collision of two particles in wormhole spacetimes*, arXiv:1411.5778 \[gr-qc\]
[FR]{}L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman, *Quantum field theory constrains traversable wormhole geometries*, Phys. Rev. D **53**, 5496 (1996). arXiv:gr-qc/9510071.
[sh0]{}J.M. Bardeen, “Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric," in *Black holes – les astres occlus*, Edited by C. DeWitt and B.S. DeWitt (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1973), pp. 215-239.
[sh1]{}H. Falcke, F. Melia, and E. Agol, *Viewing the shadow of the black hole at the galactic center*, Astrophys. J. **528**, L13 (2000). arXiv:astro-ph/9912263.
[sh2]{}R. Takahashi, *Shapes and positions of black hole shadows in accretion disks and spin parameters of black holes*, Astrophys. J. **611**, 996 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0405099.
[sh3]{}F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, and B. Ahmedov, *Shadow of rotating non-Kerr black hole*, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 064004 (2013).
[light]{}M. Azreg-Aïnou, *Light paths of normal and phantom Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 024012 (2013). arXiv:1209.5232 \[gr-qc\].
[VLT]{}[http://www.eso.org/](http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/develop/instruments/gravity.html).
[^1]: When $b>0$ for all $r\geq r_0$, the two-dimensional sections of the wormhole can be entirely embedded in a three-dimensional Eucledian space since, in this case, the rhs of the embedding Eq. (27) of Ref. [@MT] is always real.
[^2]: Solutions of the form ${\alpha}=-1-k^2(r_0/r)^{\mu }$ with $\mu>0$ do not satisfy the third line .
[^3]: If $n$ is not an integer, the extension is still possible on introducing the two variable function $S(x,u)=(1-x^{u+1})/(1-x)$ if $x<1$ and $S(1,u)=u+1$ where $u$ is some positive reel number. This also leads to integrable expressions, but sometimes sizeable, for $A$ and the components of the SET. So, we will not consider this extension here.
[^4]: For a discussion using the Weierstrass elliptic functions see [@light].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we develop efficient exact and approximate algorithms for computing a maximum independent set in random graphs. In a random graph $G$, each pair of vertices are joined by an edge with a probability $p$, where $p$ is a constant between $0$ and $1$. We show that, a maximum independent set in a random graph that contains $n$ vertices can be computed in expected computation time $2^{O(\log_{2}^{2}{n})}$. Using techniques based on enumeration, we develop an algorithm that can find a largest common subgraph in two random graphs in $n$ and $m$ vertices ($m \leq n$) in expected computation time $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$. In addition, we show that, with high probability, the parameterized independent set problem is fixed parameter tractable in random graphs and the maximum independent set in a random graph in $n$ vertices can be approximated within a ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$ in expected polynomial time.'
author:
- |
Yinglei Song\
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology\
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212003, China\
[email protected]\
title: '**On the Independent Set and Common Subgraph Problems in Random Graphs**'
---
Introduction
============
In computer science, many optimization problems can be reduced to the optimization of objectives that are formulated and described in a graph. The development of efficient exact or approximate algorithms for graph optimization problems thus constitute an important part of the research in combinatorial optimization. However, a large number of graph optimization problems have been shown to be NP-hard [@garey], which suggests that it is unlikely to develop algorithms that can solve these problems in polynomial time. A well known example is the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem. Given a graph $G=(V,E)$, a vertex set $I
\subseteq V$ is an [*independent set*]{} if there is no edge between any pair of two vertices in $I$. The goal of the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem is to find an independent set of the largest size in a given graph $G$. The problem can be trivially solved in time $2^{O(n)}$ by enumerating and checking all possible vertex subsets in the graph. Although intensive research has been performed to improve the computation time needed to find an optimal solution [@balas; @carraghan; @fahle; @fomin; @tarjan; @jian; @konc; @ostergard; @pardalos; @regin; @robson; @robson1; @tomita; @tomita1], an algorithm that needs subexponential time is not yet available for this problem. Recently, it is proposed that this problem is unlikely to be solved in subexponential time [@chen; @chen2].
Due to the difficulty of developing efficient algorithms that can find optimal solutions for these problems, a large number of algorithms have been developed to generate approximate solutions that are close to optimal ones in polynomial time [@johnson]. Solutions provided by these algorithms are often guaranteed to be within a ratio of the optimal solution and thus can be useful in practice. For example, the [Minimum Vertex Cover]{} problem can be approximated by a simple polynomial time algorithm within a ratio of $2.0$. However, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to approximate this problem within a ratio of $1.362$ [@dinur]. A well known inapproximability result regarding the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem is that it is NP-hard to approximate the maximum independent set in a graph within a ratio of $n^{1-\epsilon}$, where $0 < \epsilon<1$ is a constant and $n$ is the number of vertices in the graph [@hastad]. This result suggests that an approximate solution with a guaranteed constant approximate ratio cannot be obtained in polynomial time for the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem unless NP=P. So far, the best known approximation ratio that has been achieved for this problem in general graphs is $O(\frac{n\log_{2}^{2}{\log_{2}{n}}}{\log_{2}^{3}{n}})$ [@fiege].
For those problems that cannot be even approximated within a good approximation ratio in polynomial time, such as the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem, heuristics that can efficiently generate approximate solutions are often employed in practice to solve them [@battiti; @katayama; @grosso]. However, solutions generated by heuristics are not guaranteed to be close to the optimal ones and their applications are thus restricted to scenarios where the accuracy of solutions is not a crucial issue.
Parameterized computation provides another potentially practical solution for some problems that are computationally intractable. In particular, one or a few parameters in some intractable problems can be identified and parameterized computation studies whether efficient algorithms exist for these problems while all parameters are small. A parameterized problem may contain a few parameters $k_1, k_2, \cdots, k_l$ and the problem is [*fixed parameter tractable*]{} if it can be solved in time $O(f(k_1, k_2, \cdots, k_l)n^{c})$, where $f$ is a function of $k_1, k_2, \cdots, k_l$, $n$ is the size of the problem and $c$ is a constant independent of all parameters. For example, the [Vertex Cover]{} problem is to determine whether a graph $G=(V,E)$ contains a vertex cover of size at most $k$ or not. The problem is NP-complete. However, a simple parameterized algorithm can solve the problem in time $O(2^{k}|V|)$ [@downey1]. In practice, this algorithm can be used to efficiently solve the [Vertex Cover]{} problem when the parameter $k$ is fixed and small. On the other hand, some problems do not have known efficient parameterized solutions and are therefore parameterized intractable. Similar to the conventional complexity theory, a hierarchy of complexity classes has been constructed to describe the parameterized complexity of these problems [@downey1]. For example, the [Independent Set]{} problem is to decide whether a graph contains an independent set of size $k$ or not and has been shown to be W\[1\]-complete [@downey2]. It cannot be solved with an efficient parameterized algorithm unless all problems in W\[1\] are fixed parameter tractable. A thorough investigation on these parameterized complexity classes are provided in [@downey].
In this paper, we develop exact and approximate algorithms for the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem where the underlying graph is a random graph generated based on the Erdős Rényi model [@erdos]. Such a random graph is generated by treating each pair of vertices independently and adding an edge to join them with a probability of $p$ ($0<p<1$), where $p$ is a constant. Recent research in molecular biology has shown that the protein side chain interaction network conforms remarkably well to random graphs generated by the Erdős Rényi model [@brinda]. Therefore, efficient algorithms for some NP-hard problems in random graphs, if exist, may significantly improve the computational efficiency for some important optimization problems related to protein structure prediction.
In [@grimmett; @karp], it has been shown that with high probability, the maximum independent set in a random graph is of size $O(\log_{2}{n})$. However, this result does not directly lead to an algorithm that can compute the maximum independent set in a random graph in expected subexponential time. In [@fiege2], a polynomial time algorithm that can compute a maximum independent set in a sparse random graph with high probability is developed. However, the algorithm is based on a large independent set that is embedded in the graph and thus cannot be used for all graphs. We show that the maximum independent set in a random graph can be computed in expected computation time $2^{O(\log_{2}^{2}{n})}$, where $n$ is the number of vertices in the graph. This result significantly improves the best known time complexity $O(2^{\frac{n}{4}})$ for finding a maximum independent set in general graphs [@robson1].
Using techniques based on enumeration, we develop an algorithm that can compute a largest common subgraph of two random graphs of $n$ and $m$ vertices ($n \geq m$) in expected computation time $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$. This result significantly improves on the best known time complexity $2^{O(m\log_{2}{n})}$ for this problem when $m=O(n)$. In addition, we show that, with high probability, the parameterized independent set problem is fixed parameter tractable in random graphs. For approximate algorithms, we develop an algorithm that can achieve an approximation ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$ in expected polynomial time, which is a significant improvement compared with the best known approximate ratio that can be achieved in general graphs [@abu; @suters].
Maximum Independent Set in Random Graphs
========================================
A [*random graph*]{} $G(V, p)$, where $0<p<1$, is a graph obtained by independently adding edges between each pair of vertices in $V$ with a probability $p$. Given a vertex $v \in V$, the [*degree*]{} of $v$ in $G$ is the number of vertices that are connected to $v$ by an edge in G. We use $deg_{G}(v)$ to denote the degree of vertex $v$ in graph $G$ and $N_G(v)$ to denote the set of vertices that are connected to $v$ by an edge in $G$. A vertex subset $I
\subseteq V$ is an independent set in $G$ if there is no edge between any pair of vertices in $I$. The goal of the [Maximum Independent Set]{} problem is to find an independent set of the largest size in a given graph.
In [@grimmett; @karp], it is shown that, with high probability, the size of a maximum independent set in a random graph $G(V,p)$ is $\frac{2\log_{2}{n}}{\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p}}}$, where $n$ is the number of vertices in $G$. A straightforward algorithm by exhaustively enumerating all vertex subsets of size $\frac{2\log_{2}{n}}{\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p}}}$ can thus compute a maximum independent set in most random graphs in time $n^{O(\log_{2}{n})}$. However, to compute a maximum independent set in all random graphs, the algorithm must be able to cope with the cases where the graph contains an independent set of size larger than $O(\log_{2}{n})$. The algorithm needs time $2^{O(n)}$ to compute a maximum independent set in these cases. The best known upper bound of the probability for a random graph to have a maximum independent set larger than $O(\log_{2}{n})$ is $\frac{1}{n^{O(1)}}$ [@grimmett; @karp], the expected time complexity of this enumeration based algorithm is thus $2^{O(n)}$.
We show that the maximum independent set in a random graph $G=(V, p)$ can be computed in expected subexponential time.
\[lm1\] Given a random graph $G=(V, p)$ where $n=|V|$ and a sufficiently small constant $\epsilon$ such that $\epsilon<p$, there exists a vertex $v \in V$ such that $deg_{G}(v) \geq (p-\epsilon)n$ with probability at least $1-2^{-\mu n^{2}}$, where $\mu$ is a positive constant that only depends on $\epsilon$ and $p$.
If such a vertex does not exist, the number of edges $n(E)$ in $G$ is at most $\frac{(p-\epsilon)n^{2}}{2}$ since the degree of each vertex is at most $(p-\epsilon)n$. However, from the construction of graph $G$, the expected number of edges in $G$ can be obtained as follows $$E(n(E))=\frac{pn(n-1)}{2}$$ From Chernoff bound, we can bound the probability for $n(E)<\frac{(p-\epsilon)n^{2}}{2}$ by $$Pr(n(E)<\frac{(p-\epsilon)n^2}{2})<\exp{(-\frac{pn(n-1)\delta^2}{4})}$$ where $\delta=\frac{n\epsilon-p}{p(n-1)}$. For sufficiently large $n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta & > & \frac{\epsilon}{2p} \\
n-1 & > & \frac{n}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ We can thus immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Pr(n(E)& < & \frac{(p-\epsilon)n^2}{2}) \\
& < & \exp{(-\frac{\epsilon^2n^2}{32p})} \\
& = & 2^{-\frac{\epsilon^2n^2}{32p\ln{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We then let $\mu=\frac{\epsilon^2}{32p\ln{2}}$ and we conclude that with probability at least $1-2^{-\mu
n^2}$, there exists vertex $v
\in V$ such that $deg_{G}(v) \geq (p-\epsilon)n$.
The proof of Lemma \[lm1\] relies on the fact that $p$ is a constant independent of $n$, the Lemma does not hold if the value of $p$ depends on $n$. A random graph $G=(V,p)$ in $n$ vertices is [*good*]{} if it contains at least one vertex whose degree is at least $(p-\epsilon)n$. Given a random graph, the algorithm starts by finding a vertex $v$ such that $deg_{G}(v)$ is at least $(p-\epsilon)n$. If such a vertex does not exist, the algorithm enumerates all subsets of $V$ and returns an independent set of the largest size. If $v$ exists, the algorithm branches on two possible cases on whether $v$ is contained in $I$ or not. In particular, if $v \in I$, $v$ and vertices in $N(v)$ are deleted from $G$ and the resulting graph is $G_1$; if $v \notin I$, $v$ is deleted from $G$ and the resulting graph is $G_2$. The algorithm is then recursively applied on both $G_1$ and $G_2$ to compute a maximum independent set in each of them. We use $I_1$ and $I_2$ to denote the maximum independent sets in $G_1$ and $G_2$ found by the algorithm respectively. $I_2$ is returned as a maximum independent set in $G$ if $|I_2| \geq |I_1|+1$ and $I_1 \cup \{v\}$ is returned otherwise. We show that this algorithm terminates in expected time $2^{O(\log_{2}^{2}{n})}$.
\[th1\] A maximum independent set in a random graph $G=(V,p)$ with $n$ vertices can be computed in expected computation time $2^{O(\log_{2}^{2}{n})}$.
We show that the algorithm described above terminates in expected time $2^{O(\log_{2}^{2}{n})}$. In particular, the algorithm is recursive and for each step of recursion, we have the following recursion relation for the computation time if the underlying graph is good and contains $m$ vertices $$T(m) \leq T((1-p+\epsilon)m)+T(m-1)+O(m^2)$$ where $T(m)$ is the computation time needed by the algorithm in a graph on $m$ vertices. The term $O(m^2)$ is the computation time needed to find a vertex whose degree is at least $(p-\epsilon)m$, since the time needed to compute the degree of a vertex is $O(m)$ and the algorithm may need to check $m$ vertices to find such a vertex. If the underlying graph is not good, the algorithm exhaustively enumerates all subsets in the graph and finds an independent set of the largest size. The computation time is $2^{O(m)}$.
We are now ready to establish the expected computation time for the algorithm. In particular, we use $ET(m)$ to denote the expected computation time of the algorithm on a graph that contains $m$ vertices. From Lemma \[lm1\], an underlying graph $G'$ in $m$ vertices is good with a probability of at least $1-2^{-\mu m^2}$. We thus can immediately obtain the following recursion for $ET(m)$. $$\begin{aligned}
ET(m) & \leq & ET((1-p+\epsilon)m)+ET(m-1)+O(m^2)+2^{O(m)-\mu m^2}
\\
& \leq & ET((1-p+\epsilon)m)+ET(m-1)+O(m^2)\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality is due to the fact that $2^{O(m)-\mu m^2}$ is bounded by a constant for all positive integers $m$.
We then show that $ET(m) \leq 2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}$, where $c$ is a positive constant. We show this by induction. First, for a sufficiently large positive integer $m_0$ whose value will be specified later, we let $c_0=\max_{1 \leq t \leq m_0}{\{\frac{\log_{2}{ET(t)}}{\log_{2}^{2}{t}}\}}$ and choose $c=\max{\{c_0,
\frac{2}{\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p+\epsilon}}}, 1\}}$. It is not difficult to see that $ET(l) \leq
2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{l}}$ if $1
\leq l \leq m_0$. We then assume this holds for all positive integers less than $m$. From the above recursion relation on $ET(m)$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
ET(m) & \leq & 2^{c\log_{2}^2{((1-p+\epsilon)m)}}+2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{(m-1)}}+Bm^2
\\
& \leq &
sm^{-l}2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+(2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{(m-1)}}-2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}})+Bm^2
\\
& \leq &
sm^{-l}2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m}2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+Bm^2\\
& \leq & 2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is a positive constant independent of $c, p, \epsilon$ and $s$, $q$, $l$ are some positive constants that depend on $c, p,
\epsilon$ only. The first inequality is obtained from the assumption for induction. The second one is due to the fact that $\log_{2}^2{((1-p+\epsilon)m)}=\log_{2}^2{(1-p+\epsilon)}+2\log_{2}{(1-p+\epsilon)}\log_{2}{m}+\log_{2}^{2}{m}$ and we can let $l=2c\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p+\epsilon}}$ , $s=2^{c\log_{2}^2{(1-p+\epsilon)}}$.
To establish the third inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log_{2}^{2}{(m-1)}-\log_{2}^{2}{m} & = & (\log_{2}{m}+\log_{2}{(1-\frac{1}{m})})^2-\log_{2}^{2}{m} \\
& \leq & (\log_{2}{m}-\frac{1}{6m})^2-\log_{2}^{2}{m} \\
& \leq & -\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{6m} \\
& \leq & -\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{6cm}\end{aligned}$$ when $m \geq 16$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{(m-1)}}-2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}} & = & 2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}(2^{c(\log_{2}^{2}{(m-1)}-\log_{2}^{2}{m})}-1) \\
& \leq & 2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}(2^{-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{6m}}-1) \\
& \leq & -\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m}2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}\end{aligned}$$ the third inequality thus follows.
From the fact that $c \geq
\frac{2}{\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p+\epsilon}}}$, we have $l \geq 4$. We let $$\begin{aligned}
c' & = & \frac{2}{\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p+\epsilon}}} \\
s' & = & 2^{c'\log_{2}^2{((1-p+\epsilon)m)}} \\
l' & = & 2c'\log_{2}{\frac{1}{1-p+\epsilon}}\end{aligned}$$ we now consider the function $F(m)=(s'{m}^{-l'}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m})2^{c'\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+B{m}^{2}$. Since $s'$, $l'$, $c'$, and $B$ are independent of $m$ and $l' \geq 4$, there exists a positive integer $m_1(p,\epsilon)$ such that $F(m) \leq 0$ when $m \geq m_{1}(p, \epsilon)$. $m_0$ can be determined as follows $$m_0=\max\{m_{1}(p, \epsilon), \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-p+\epsilon}}, 16\}$$
It is not difficult to see that when $c \geq c'$ and $m \geq m_0$, we have $s'm^{-l'}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m} \leq 0$. In addition, we can further verify that $$sm^{-l} = 2^{c\log_{2}{(1-p+\epsilon)}\log_{2}{(m^2(1-p+\epsilon))}}$$ since $c \geq c'$, $m \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-p+\epsilon}}$, and $ \log_{2}{(1-p+\epsilon)} \leq 0$, we can immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
sm^{-l} &=& 2^{c\log_{2}{(1-p+\epsilon)}\log_{2}{(m^2(1-p+\epsilon))}} \\
& \leq & 2^{c'\log_{2}{(1-p+\epsilon)}\log_{2}{(m^2(1-p+\epsilon))}} \\
& = & s'm^{-l'}\end{aligned}$$ the following thus holds $$\begin{aligned}
(sm^{-l}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m})2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+B{m}^{2} & \leq & (s'm^{-l'}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m})2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+B{m}^{2} \\
& \leq & (s'm^{-l'}-\frac{\log_{2}{m}}{24m})2^{c'\log_{2}^{2}{m}}+Bm^2 \\
& = & F(m) \\
& \leq & 0 \\\end{aligned}$$ the fourth inequality thus follows. From the principle of induction, the theorem has been proved.
Parameterized Algorithm for Independent Set Problem
===================================================
The parameterized independent set problem is to decide whether a given graph $G=(V,E)$ contains an independent set of size $k$ or not. The problem is known to be W\[1\]-hard [@downey; @downey1; @downey2] and cannot be solved in time $n^{o(k)}$ in general graphs unless W\[2\]=FPT [@chen; @chen2]. We show that if the underlying graph $G$ is a random graph, the problem can be solved in expected time $2^{O(k^2)}+O(n^3)$, where $n$ is the number of vertices in the graph. We need the following lemma to analyze the time complexity of the algorithm.
\[lm2\] Given a random graph $G=(V, p)$ where $n=|V|$ and a sufficiently small constant $\epsilon$ such that $p+\epsilon<1$, there exists vertex $u \in V$ such that $deg_{G}(u) \leq (p+\epsilon)n$ with a probability of at least $1-2^{-\mu n^{2}}$, where $\mu$ is a positive constant that only depends on $\epsilon$ and $p$,
The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \[lm1\]. If such a vertex does not exist, the degree of every vertex in $G$ is at least $(p+\epsilon)n$. The graph thus contains at least $\frac{(p+\epsilon)n^2}{2}$ edges. The expected number of edges in $G$ is $\frac{pn(n-1)}{2}$. We use $n(E)$ to denote the number of the edges in $G$. From Chernoff bound, we can bound the probability for $G$ to contain at least $\frac{(p+\epsilon)n^2}{2}$ edges. $$\begin{aligned}
Pr(n(E) & \geq & \frac{(p+\epsilon)n^2}{2}) \\
& < & \exp{(-\frac{\epsilon^{2} n^{2}}{64p})} \\
& = & 2^{-\frac{\epsilon^{2}n^{2}}{64p\ln{2}}}\end{aligned}$$ the lemma immediately follows by letting $\mu=\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{64p\ln{2}}$.
The proof of Lemma \[lm2\] relies on the fact that $p$ is a constant independent of $n$, the Lemma does not hold if the value of $p$ depends on $n$.
\[th2\] Given a random graph $G=(V, p)$, there exists an algorithm that can decide whether $G$ contains an independent set of size $k$ in expected time $2^{O(k^{2})}+O(n^3)$.
We start the proof by comparing the values of $k$ and $L(n)=\frac{1}{3}\log_{\frac{1}{1-p-\epsilon}}{n}$, if $k>L(n)$, we can enumerate all possible vertex subsets of size $k$ in $G$ and check whether one of them is an independent set of size $k$ or not. The enumeration and checking needs at most $O(k^{2}n^{k})$ time. However, since $k> L(n)$, we can obtain $n < (\frac{1}{1-p-\epsilon})^{3k}$, the computation time needed to determine whether $G$ contains an independent set of size $k$ or not is thus at most $O(k^{2}(\frac{1}{1-p-\epsilon})^{3k^2})=2^{O(k^2)}$ in this case.
We then consider the case where $k \leq L(n)$. We use the following procedure to generate an independent set $I$. We start with the vertex $u$ with the minimum degree in $G$, we include $u$ in $I$ and remove $u$ and all its neighbors in $G$ from $G$. We denote the resulting graph by $G_1$. The procedure can be repeatedly executed until there are at most $n^{\frac{2}{3}}$ vertices left in the graph. We use $G_0=G, G_1, G_2, G_3,
\cdots, G_l$ to denote the intermediate graphs generated during this iterative procedure. It is not difficult to see that vertices in $I$ form an independent set in $G$.
We show that the above procedure can generate an independent set $I$ of size at least $L(n)$ with high probability. We use $G_1, G_2, G_3, \cdots, G_l$ to denote the resulting graph in each iterative step and $n(G_i)$ to denote the number of vertices in graph $G_i$. From Lemma \[lm2\], the following holds with a probability of at least 1-$2^{-\mu n^{2}(G_i)}$ for each $i$ between $0$ and $l$. $$n(G_{i+1}) \geq (1-p-\epsilon)n(G_{i})$$ Since $n(G_i) > n^{\frac{2}{3}}$, the probability for this inequality to hold for all $i$’s between $0$ and $l$ is at least $1-n2^{-\mu n^{\frac{4}{3}}}$. If this inequality holds for all $i$’s between $0$ and $l$. We can immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
l & \geq &
\log_{\frac{1}{1-p-\epsilon}}{(\frac{n}{n^{\frac{2}{3}}})} \\
& = & \frac{1}{3}\log_{\frac{1}{1-p-\epsilon}}{n} \\
& = & L(n)\end{aligned}$$
$I$ thus contains at least $L(n)$ vertices. With a probability of at least $1-n2^{-\mu n^{\frac{4}{3}}}$, the above iterative procedure generates an independent set of size $L(n)$. Since $k<L(n)$, the algorithm returns “yes” if $I$ indeed contains $L(n)$ independent vertices, otherwise, the algorithm simply enumerates all vertex subsets in $G$ and checks whether one of them is an independent set of size at least $k$. Since the procedure for generating $I$ needs $O(n^3)$ time, the expected computation time needed for this is at most $$O(n^{3})(1- n2^{-\mu n^{\frac{4}{3}}})+2^{O(n)}n2^{-\mu n^{\frac{4}{3}}} = O(n^{3})$$ where the equality is due to the fact that the second term is bounded by a constant when $n$ is sufficiently large. The algorithm thus needs an expected time $2^{O(k^2)}+O(n^3)$, the theorem has been proved.
The Largest Common Subgraph Problem
===================================
Given two graphs $G$, $H$, a [*common subgraph*]{} of $G$ and $H$ is a third graph $K$ such that both $G$ and $H$ contain an induced subgraph that is isomorphic to $K$. The largest common subgraph problem is to compute a common subgraph that contains the largest number of vertices. The problem has important applications in computational biology. For example, it is often desirable to identify common subgraphs in the protein interaction networks of two homologous organisms since proteins in these common subgraphs often together play important roles for certain biological functions [@kuchaiev].
Unfortunately, the problem is NP hard when both of the underlying graphs are general graphs [@garey]. The asymptotically best known algorithm for this problem needs time $O^{*}((m+1)^{n})$ [@abu; @suters] and little progress has been made to improve the asymptotical time complexity of this problem. We show that, given two random graphs $G$ and $H$ in $n$ and $m$ vertices, where $n \geq m$, the largest common subgraph problem in $G$ and $H$ can be computed in expected time $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$.
\[lm3\] The largest common subgraph problem can be solved in computation time $O(m^{2}2^{m}n^{m}) \leq
2^{hm\log_{2}{n}}$, where $h$ is some positive constant that does not depend on $n$ or $m$.
We can solve the largest common subgraph problem with the following simple algorithm. For each positive integer $l$ not greater than $m$, we enumerate all vertex subsets that contain $l$ vertices in $G$. For each such vertex subset $S_1$, we enumerate all vertex subsets of size $l$ in graph $H$ and for each such vertex subset $S_2$, we enumerate all possible one to one mappings between vertices in $S_1$ and those in $S_2$. We then check whether there exists a one to one mapping that can establish the isomorphism between the subgraph induced by $S_1$ in $G$ and the subgraph induced by $S_2$ in $H$. The algorithm can find all common subgraphs and return one that is of the largest size.
The number of vertex subsets of size $l$ in $G$ is ${n
\choose l}$ and the number of vertex subsets of size $l$ in $H$ is ${m \choose l}$. The number of one to one mappings between $S_1$ and $S_2$ is $l!$ and the computation time needed to check whether the two subgraphs induced by $S_1$ and $S_2$ are isomorphic under a particular mapping is at most $O(l^2)$. The total computation time needed to find and return the largest common subgraph is thus at most $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=1}^{m}{C{n \choose l}{m \choose l}l!l^{2}} & \leq & \sum_{l=1}^{m}{Cn^{m}{m \choose l}m^{2}} \\
& \leq & C2^{m}n^{m}m^{2} \\
& \leq & 2^{hm\log_{2}{n}}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ and $h$ are some positive constants independent of $n$ and $m$. The first inequality is due to the fact that ${n \choose l}l!
\leq n^l$ and $l \leq m$; the second inequality is due to the fact that $\sum_{l=1}^{m}{m \choose l}=2^{m}-1$. The lemma thus has been proved.
\[lm4\] Given two random graphs $G=(V, p)$ and $H=(U, q)$, where $p$ and $q$ are positive constants between 0 and 1, $G$ contains $n$ vertices and $H$ contains $m$ vertices ($n \geq m$), the probability that $G$ and $H$ contain a common subgraph of size $n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$ is at most $2^{-\mu
n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}}$, where $\mu$ is a positive constant that only depends on $p$ and $q$.
We let $k=n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$ and consider two given subsets of size $k$ in graph $G$ and $H$ respectively. We use $S_1=\{g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_{k}\}$ and $S_2=\{h_1, h_2, \cdots, h_{k}\}$ to denote them and $G_1$, $H_1$ to denote the subgraphs induced by them in $G$ and $H$ respectively. We assume that $G_1$ is isomorphic to $H_1$ under a given one to one mapping $M$, where vertex $g_i$ in $S_1$ is mapped to $h_i$ in $S_2$ for $1 \leq i
\leq k$.
We then estimate the probability for $M$ to be such a mapping. If $G_1$ is isomorphic to $H_1$ under $M$, for any integer pair $(i, j)$, where $1 \leq i < j \leq k$, either both $(g_i, g_j)$ and $(h_i, h_j)$ are edges or neither of them are edges. The probability for the former case is $pq$ and the probability for the latter case is $(1-p)(1-q)$. Since there are in total $\frac{k(k-1)}{2}$ such pairs, the probability for $G_1$ and $H_1$ to be isomorphic under $M$ is thus $(pq+(1-p)(1-q))^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}}$.
We use $P(k)$ to denote the probability for $G$ and $H$ to contain a common subgraph of size $k$. Since the number of vertex subsets of size $k$ in $G$ is ${n \choose k}$ and the number of vertex subsets of size $k$ in $H$ is ${m \choose k}$, we can obtain an upper bound for $P(k)$ using the union bound. $$\begin{aligned}
P(k) & \leq & {n \choose k}{m \choose k}\sum_{M}{s^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}}} \\
& \leq & {n \choose k}{m \choose k}k!s^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}} \\
& \leq & n^{k}m^{k}s^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}} \\
& \leq & n^{2k}s^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}} \\
& \leq & 2^{2n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n}}s^{\frac{k^2}{4}} \\
& = &
2^{2n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n}-\frac{n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}\log_{2}{\frac{1}{s}}}{4}}
\\
& \leq & 2^{-\mu n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}}\end{aligned}$$ where $s=pq+(1-p)(1-q)$ and $\mu$ is some positive constant that depends on $p$ and $q$ only. The first inequality is due to the union bound. The second inequality follows from the fact that there are in total $k!$ one to one mappings between vertices in $S_1$ and $S_2$. The third inequality is due to the fact that ${n
\choose k}
\leq n^{k}$ and ${m \choose k} k! \leq m^{k}$. The fifth inequality follows from the fact that $k=n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$ and $\frac{k(k-1)}{2}
> \frac{k^2}{4}$ when $n$ is sufficiently large. The last inequality is due to the fact that $s<1$ and $2n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n} \leq
\frac{n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}\log_{2}{\frac{1}{s}}}{8}$ for sufficiently large $n$.
The proof of the Lemma \[lm4\] relies on the fact that $p$ and $q$ are both constants independent of $n$ and $m$, the Lemma does not hold if the values of $p$ and $q$ depend on $n$ or $m$.
\[th4\] Given two random graphs $G=(V, p)$ and $H=(U, q)$, where $p$ and $q$ are positive numbers between 0 and 1, $G$ contains $n$ vertices and $H$ contains $m$ vertices ($m \leq n$), a largest common graph of $G$ and $H$ can be computed in expected time $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$.
We only need to show that such an algorithm exists when $m > n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$. Since if $m \leq n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$, the algorithm in the proof of Lemma \[lm3\] can be directly used to find a largest common subgraph of $G$ and $H$ in time $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$.
Let $k=n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}{n}$, since $m > k$, we can use the following algorithm to compute a largest common subgraph in $G$ and $H$.
1. [Enumerate all vertex subsets of size $k$ in $G$. For each such vertex subset $S_1$, enumerate all vertex subsets of size $k$ in $H$;]{}
2. [for each such subset $S_2$ in $H$, we enumerate all possible one to one mappings between $S_1$ and $S_2$;]{}
3. [for each such mapping $M$, determine whether the subgraph induced by $S_1$ in $G$ is isomorphic to the subgraph induced by $S_2$ in $H$ under $M$ or not;]{}
4. [if there exists a mapping that can make the subgraph induced by $S_1$ in $G$ isomorphic to the subgraph induced by $S_2$ in $H$, call the algorithm in Lemma \[lm3\] to compute a largest common subgraph of $G$ and $H$ and return it;]{}
5. [otherwise, for each integer $i$ between $1$ and $k$, use the same approach as described in steps 1, 2, 3 to determine whether $G$ and $H$ contains a common subgraph of size $i$ or not;]{}
6. [Based on the result of the exhaustive search performed in step $5$, return a common subgraph of the largest size.]{}
We then show that the algorithm can compute the largest common subgraph of $G$ and $H$ in expected $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$ time. In particular, the computation time needed by the exhaustive search performed in steps 1, 2, and 3 is at most $$\begin{aligned}
C{n \choose k}{m \choose k}k!k^{2} & \leq & Cn^{k}m^{k} \\
& \leq & Cn^{2k} \\
& \leq & C2^{2k\log_{2}{n}} \\
& = & 2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is some positive constant. The first inequality is due to the fact that ${m \choose k}k! \leq m^{k}$ and ${n \choose k}k^{2} \leq n^{k}$ for sufficiently large $n$. From Lemma \[lm3\], step 4 of the algorithm, if executed, needs $2^{hm\log_{2}{n}}$ computation time, where $h$ is some positive constant independent of $n$ and $m$. The computation time needed by step 5 is at most $$\begin{aligned}
D\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}{{n \choose i}{m \choose i}i!i^{2}} & \leq & D\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}{n^{i}m^{i}i^{2}} \\
& \leq & Dkn^{2k}k^{2} \\
& = & D2^{3\log_{2}{k}+2k\log_{2}{n}} \\
& = & 2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is some positive constant. The first inequality is due to the fact that ${m \choose i} i! \leq
m^{i}$ and ${n \choose i} \leq n^{i}$. The second inequality follows from the fact that $1 \leq i < k$.
Only one of steps 4 and 5 is executed by the algorithm. From Lemma \[lm4\], the probability for step 4 to be executed is at most $2^{-\mu n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}}$, where $\mu$ is some constant that depends on $p$ and $q$ only. The expected computation time to execute steps 4 and 5 is thus at most $$2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}+2^{hm\log_{2}{n}}2^{-\mu n\log_{2}^{\frac{4}{3}}{n}}.$$ Since $m \leq n$, the second term is bounded by a constant for sufficiently large $n$. We thus can conclude that the expected computation time for steps 4 and 5 is $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$. Since steps 1, 2, 3 also need $2^{O(n^{\frac{1}{2}}\log_{2}^{\frac{5}{3}}{n})}$ computation time, the theorem has been proved.
Approximate Algorithm
=====================
As discussed in the introduction, the maximum independent set problem cannot be approximated within a ratio of $n^{1-\epsilon}$ in polynomial time unless P=NP, where $\epsilon$ is any positive constant. In [@boppana], it is shown that the maximum independent set in a graph can be approximated within a ratio of $O(\frac{n}{\log_{2}^{2}{n}})$. In [@fiege], the approximation ratio is improved to $O(\frac{n\log_{2}^{2}{\log_{2}{n}}}{\log_{2}^{3}{n}})$. The result so far remains the best known approximation ratio achieved for this problem in general graphs. In [@grimmett; @homer; @oghlan], a polynomial time algorithm that can approximate the maximum independent set in a random graph within a constant ratio with high probability is developed and analyzed. However, the approximation ratio of the algorithm is not guaranteed to be constant for all graphs. We show that, the maximum independent set in a random graph can be approximated within a ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$ in expected polynomial time, which is a significant improvement compared with the best known approximate ratio for this problem in general graphs.
Given a random graph $G=(V,p)$ in $n$ vertices where $p$ is a positive constant between $0$ and $1$, the maximum independent set in $G$ can be approximated within a ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$ in expected polynomial time.
We use the following simple algorithm to compute an independent set in $G$. We let $k=\lfloor
2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}} \rfloor$ and partition the vertices in $G$ into $l$ disjoint vertex subsets such that $l-1$ of them contains $k$ vertices and the remaining one contains at most $k$ vertices. We use $G_{1}, G_{2},
\cdots, G_{l}$ to denote the subgraph induced by vertices in these vertex subsets. It is not difficult to see that $l \leq \lfloor \frac{n}{k}
\rfloor +1$.
We then use the algorithm we have developed in Theorem \[th1\] to compute a maximum independent set in each of $G_1, G_2, \cdots, G_l$ and return the one that contains the largest number of vertices.
We first show that the algorithm returns an independent set in expected polynomial time. $G_1, G_2, \cdots,
G_l$ are disjoint and the expected time needed to compute a maximum independent set in each of them is at most $2^{c\log_{2}^{2}{k}}$, where $c$ is some positive constant that only depends on $p$. Since $k \leq
2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}$, the expected computation time needed to compute the maximum independent set in one subgraph is at most $2^{c\log_{2}{n}}=n^{c}$. The algorithm thus returns an independent set in expected time $n^{c+1}$.
We then show that the algorithm can achieve an approximate ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$. We use $APX(G)$ to denote the size of the independent set returned by the algorithm and $OPT(G)$ to denote the size of a maximum independent set in $G$. we assume that $I$ is a maximum independent set in $G$. Since we have partitioned the graph $G$ into $l$ disjoint subgraphs $G_0, G_1,
\cdots, G_l$, at least one of the $l$ subgraphs contains at least $\frac{OPT(G)}{l}$ vertices from $I$. These vertices form an independent set in the subgraph. Since the algorithm computes a maximum independent set in each subgraph and returns the one with the largest size, we immediately obtain $$APX(G) \geq \frac{OPT(G)}{l}$$ this suggests that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{OPT(G)}{APX(G)} & \leq & l \\
& \leq & \lfloor \frac{n}{k} \rfloor+1 \\
& \leq & \frac{n}{k}+1 \\
& \leq & \frac{n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}-1}+1 \\
& \leq & \frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The second inequality is due to the fact that $l \leq
\lfloor \frac{n}{k} \rfloor+1$. The fourth inequality is due to the fact that $k \geq 2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}-1$. The last inequality holds for sufficiently large $n$. The theorem thus has been proved.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we study the independent set problem in random graphs. We show that a maximum independent set in a random graph can be computed in expected subexponential time. We also show that the parameterized independent set problem is fixed parameter tractable with high probability for random graphs. Using techniques based on enumeration, we show that the largest common subgraph in two random graphs can be computed in expected subexponential time. Our work also suggests that the maximum independent set in a random graph can be approximated within a ratio of $\frac{2n}{2^{\sqrt{\log_{2}{n}}}}$ in expected polynomial time, which significantly improves on the best known approximate ratio for this problem in general graphs.
It remains unknown whether the maximum independent set in a random graph can be computed in expected polynomial time or not. One possible direction of future work is to study whether there exists such an algorithm. Another related open question is that if such an algorithm does not exist, whether it can be approximated within an improved ratio in expected polynomial time. Further investigations are needed to solve these problems.
[25]{}
F. N. Abu-Khzam, N. F. Samatova, M. A. Rizk, and M. A. Langston, “The Maximum Common Subgraph Problem: Faster Solutions via Vertex Cover”, [*Proceedings of 2007 IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA 2007)*]{}, pp. 367-373, 2007. E. Balas and C. S. Yu,“Finding a Maximum Clique in An Arbitrary Graph”, [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, 15(4):1054-1068, 1986. R. Battiti and M. Protasi, “Reactive Local Search for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Algorithmica*]{} 29(4): 610-637, 2001. R. Boppana and M. Halldórson,“Approximating Maximum Independent Sets by Excluding Subgraphs”, [*BIT Computer Science and Numerical Mathematics*]{},32(2):180-196, 1994. K. V. Brinda, S. Vishveshwara and S. Vishveshwara, “Random Network Behaviour of Protein Structures”, [*Molecular, BioSystems*]{}, 6:391-398, 2010. R. Carraghan and P. M. Pardalos, “An Exact Algorithm for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Operations Research Letters*]{}, 9(6): 375-382, 1990. J. Chen, X. Huang, I. A. Kanj, and G. Xia, “Linear FPT Reductions and Computational Lower Bounds”, [*Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2004)*]{}, pp.212-221, 2004. J. Chen, X. Huang, I. A. Kanj, and G. Xia, “Strong Computational Lower Bounds via Parameterized Complexity”, [*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*]{}, 72(8):1346-1367, 2006. I. Dinur and S. Safra, “The Importance of Being Biased”, [*Proceeding of the Thirty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2002)*]{}, pp. 33-42, 2002. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows, [*Parameterized Complexity*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1998. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows, “Fixed Parameter Tractability and Completeness i: Basic Theory”, [*SIAM Journal of Computing*]{}, 24:873-921, 1995. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows, “Fixed Parameter Tractability and Completeness ii: Completeness for W\[1\]”, [*Theoretical Computer Science A*]{}, 141:109-131, 1995. P. Erdős and A. Rényi, “On Random Graphs”, [*Publicationes Mathematicae*]{}, 6: 290-297, 1959. T. Fahle, “Simple and Fast: Improving a Branch-And-Bound Algorithm for Maximum Clique”, [*Proceedings of the Tenth European Symposium on Algorithms*]{} pp. 47-86, 2002. U. Fiege, “Approximating Maximum Clique by Removing Subgraphs”, [*SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics*]{}, 18(2):219-225, 2004. U. Fiege and E. Ofek,“Finding A Maximum Independent Set in A Sparse Random Graph”, [*SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics*]{}, 22(2):693-718, 2008. F. V. Fomin, F. Grandoni, and D. Kratsch, “Measure and Conquer: A simple $O(2^{0.288n})$ Independent Set Problem”, [*Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2006)*]{}, pp. 18-25, 2006. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, [*Computers and Intractability*]{}, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California, 1979. A guide to the theory of NP-completeness, A Series of Books in the Mathematical Sciences. G. R. Grimmett and C. J. H. Mcdiarmid, “On Colouring Random Graphs”, [*Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*]{}, 77(2):313-324, 1975. A. Grosso, M. Locatelli, F. D. Croce, “Combining Swaps and Node Weights in An Adaptive Greedy Approach for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Journal of Heuristics*]{} 10(2):135-152, 2004. J. Hstad, “Clique Is Hard to Approximate Within $n^{1-\epsilon}$”, [*Proceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (STOC 1996)*]{}, 627-636, 1996. S. Homer and M. Peinado, “On the performance of Polynomial-time CLIQUE Approximation Algorithms on Very Large Graphs”, [*In Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability: second DIMACS Implementation Challenge*]{}, pp. 103-124, 1993. T. Jian, “An $O(2^{0.308n})$ Algorithm for Solving Maximum Independent Set Problem”, [*IEEE Transactions on Computers*]{}, 35(9):847-851, 1986. D. S. Johnson, “Approximate Algorithms for Combinatorial Problems”, [*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*]{}, 9, 256-278, 1974. R. M. Karp, “The Probability Analysis of Some Combinatorial Search Problems”, [*Algorithms and Complexity: New Directions and Recent Results*]{}, 1-19, Academic Press, New York, 1976. K. Katayama, A. Hamamoto, and H. Narihisa, “An Effective Local Search for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Information Processing Letters*]{} 95(5):503-511, 2005. J. Konc and D. Janežič, “An Improved Branch and Bound Algorithm for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*MATCH Communications in Mathematical and in Computer Chemistry*]{} 58(3): 569-590, 2007. O. Kuchaiev, T. Milenković, V. Memišević, W. Hayes, and N. Pržulj, “Topological Network Alignment Uncovers Biological Function and Phylogeny”, [*Journal of Royal Society Interface*]{}, 7(50):1341-1354, 2010. A. Coja-Oghlan and C. Efthymiou, “On Independent Sets in Random Graphs”, [*Proceedings of the Twenty Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2011)*]{}, pp. 136-144, 2011. P. R. J. Östergrd, “A Fast Algorithm for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Discrete Applied Mathematics*]{} 120 (1–3):197-207,2002. P. M. Pardalos and G. P. Rogers, “A Branch and Bound Algorithm for the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Computers and Operations Research*]{} 19 (5): 363-375, 1992. J. C. Régin, “Using Constraint Programming to Solve the Maximum Clique Problem”, [*Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming*]{}, pp. 634-648, 2003. J. M. Robson, “Algorithms for Maximum Independent Sets”, [*Journal of Algorithms*]{}, 7(3):425-440, 1986. J. M. Robson, “Finding A Maximum Independent Set in Time $O(2^{\frac{n}{4}})$”, [*Technical Report 1251-01, LaBRI Université de Bordeaux I*]{}, 2001. W. H. Suters, F. N. Abu-Khzam, Y. Zhang, C. T. Symons, N. F. Samatova, and M. A. Langston, “A New Approach and Faster Exact Methods for the Maximum Common Subgraph Problem”,[*Proceedings of the Eleventh International Computing and Combinatorics Conference*]{}, pp. 717-727, 2005. R. E. Tarjan and A. E. Trojanowski, “Finding A Maximum Independent Set", [*Technical Report CS-TR-76-550*]{}, Stanford University, 1976. E. Tomita and T. Seki, “An Efficient Branch-and-bound Algorithm for Finding a Maximum Clique”, [*Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science*]{}, pp. 278-289, 2003. E. Tomita and T. Kameda, “An Efficient Branch-and-bound Algorithm for Finding A Maximum Clique with Computational Experiments”, [*Journal of Global Optimization*]{} 37(1): 95-111, 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the representation of the quantum group $SL_q$(2) by the Weyl operators of the canonical commutation relations in quantum mechanics, we construct and solve a new vertex model on a square lattice. Random variables on horizontal bonds are Ising variables, and those on the vertical bonds take half positive integer values. The vertices is subjected to a generalized form of the so-called “ice-rule”, its property are studied in details and its free energy calculated with the method of quantum inverse scattering. Remarkably in analogy with the usual six-vertex model, there exists a “Free-Fermion” limit with a novel rich operator structure. The existing algebraic structure suggests a possible connection with a lattice neutral plasma of charges, via the Fermion-Boson correspondence.'
author:
- |
L. SOW CIRE[^1] and T. T. TRUONG[^2]\
Laboratoire de Modèles de Physique Mathématique,\
Département de Physique, Université de Tours,\
Parc de Grandmont, F-37200 Tours, France.\
Groupe de Physique Statistique,\
Département de Physique, Université de Cergy-Pontoise,\
B.P 8428 F-95806 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex-France.
date: |
( to appear in Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (1995))\
PACS Numbers: 05.70.JK, 64.60.Fr, 75.40.-s.
title: 'Quantum Group Approach to a soluble vertex model with generalized ice-rule'
---
LMPM/95-15
hep-th/9510032
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Vertex systems which are originally introduced to two dimensional ferroelectrics models with the so called “ice-rule”, have rapidly evolved in the last quarter of century and have led to a tremendeous developement in the statistical physics of soluble models. New concepts and new mathematical structures have been discovered essentially due to the introduction of the method of quantum inverse scattering. Recently the solubility conditions known as the Yang-Baxter equations, which generalized the star-triangle relations for spin systems, for vertex systems are shown to have an expression in terms of quantum groups. These new objects introduced by Drinfield [@drinf] and Jimbo [@jimbo] , are essentially matrix groups with non commutative elements. In this paper we shall be concerned with the $SL_q$(2) group which is a $q$-deformation of the standard $SL$(2) group [@bm].\
Interestingly, when one seeks a representation of the $SL_q$(2) group by the Weyl operators associated with a quantum degree of freedom $Q$ and its canonical conjugate momentum $P$, one obtains a new soluble vertex system having on horizontal bonds random variables taking only two values ($\pm$1/2), and on vertical bonds random variables taking an infinite number of values ( a kind of infinite spin ). Physically one may view the system as a two-dimensional array of vertical quantized spring coupled to binary horizontal devices. Alternatively the discrete vertical variables are analogous to “heights” in face models ( or SOS models ) of statistical mechanics for which, there exists a Yang-Baxter Algebra and Bethe-Ansatz solutions [@hv], whereas the horizontal variables remain standard arrow variables of Lieb’s six-vertex model. In this respect, the new soluble model may be viewed as having a mixed face-vertex nature.\
Section 1 is devoted to the description of the system. We show how the construction of the vertex operator L is performed using $Q$ and $P$. We also indicated how a local vacuum may be chosen in order to be able to apply the method of quantum inverse scattering and to obtain the Bethe Ansatz equations.\
In section 2, we diagonalized the transfer matrix of the model, using this conventional technique and obtain the free enegy per site. In analogy to the six-vertex model, we derive the tensor representation of the $SL_q$(2) group, the generators of which have a remarquable structure which is parallel to that of the six-vertex model. At the value $q$ = $i$, there is also a “free fermion” limit, and fermion-like operators may be expressed in terms of the Bose degrees of freedom $Q_{j}$ and $P_{j}$ for $j = 1, 2, \cdots, N.$ The generators of the tensor representation of $SL_q$(2) in this model, are closed to the “screening” operators of Dotsenko and Fateev [@dotko] in their treatment of Conformal Field theory using the Coulomb gas picture. If a Hamiltonian operator for a chain with degrees of freedom $Q_{j}$ and $P_{j}$ can be found so that it commutes with the transfer matrix of the model, one may be able to establish a connection with a lattice Coulomb gas. Since the critical behavior of these models are the same, there is a strong evidence that such a connection may exist. We conclude by comparing our model with those arising from the lattice version of the quantum Sine-Gordon or the quantum Non-linear Schrödinger equation ( Faddeev , Korepin, Kulish, Sklyanin et al. [@fada], [@kul], [@kora], and those arising from the bosonisation of the six-vertex model using the Holstein-Primakoff transformation (Y. K. Zhou [@zhou] ). Finally we give some future directions of investigation.
The vertex system on a square lattice
=====================================
Formulation
-----------
The statistical system we consider is made up of elementary vertices consisting of a pair of Ising variables $ \sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ on horizontal bonds and other random variables on vertical bonds $\xi$ and $\xi^{\prime}$. For each set of values of the 4 random variables $\sigma$, $\sigma^{\prime}$ and $\xi$, $\xi^{'}$ a Boltzmann weight W$\xi,\xi^{'} ;\sigma ,\sigma^{'})$ is assigned (see fig.1).
In the 1970’s, R.J.Baxter [@baxa] showed that vertices that satify the triangle-relations (nowadays called the Yang-Baxter Equations) then their horizontal row transfer matrices form a commuting set of operators with respect to a “spectral parameter” introduced by the Russian school [@fada]. The triangle equations are the analog of the star-triangle relations for spin systems which yield then the same property of commuting horizontal row transfer matrices. The triangle-relations state that the partition function of the following two triangles are the same for every configuration of random variables on open external bonds (i.e. $\sigma_1$,$\sigma_2$,$\sigma_3$,$\sigma_4$,$\xi_1$,$\xi_2$) (see fig.2).\
(10,4.5) (0.8,3)[(5 $\sigma_4$ , -1)[4.5]{}]{} (0.75,2.5)[(5 $\sigma_3$ , 1)[4.5]{}]{} (4.7,4)[(0,-1)[2.5]{}]{} (4.5,4)[(0 ,-1)[2.5]{}]{} (7.5,3.3)[(5 $\sigma_4$ , -1)[4.5]{}]{} (8,2)[(5,1)[4.5]{}]{} (8.9,4)[(0,-1)[2.5]{}]{} (8.7,4)[(0,-1)[2.5]{}]{} (5.9,3.5) (7.5,2) (8.5,1.2) (4.55,1.2) (4.9,2.5) (8.2,2.5) (4.55,4.3) (8.5,4.3) (12.8,3) (6,2) (12.8,2.3) (6.6,2.6) (10,2) (10,3.1) (3.5,2) (3.5,3.1)
\[crossing\]
Here as it stands, we note the necessity of having a third vertex having only Ising variables on the left and right sides. The triangle-relations are the necessary conditions for the calculation of the partition function of the model by Bethe Ansatz techniques and consequently the thermodynamics of the system. Note that when $\xi=\sigma=\pm1$, we recover the standard triangle relations of the six or eight vertex solved by E. H. Lieb [@lieb] and R. J. Baxter [@baxa]. A particular system of vertex having unequal number of random variables on horizontal and vertical bonds but verifying the triangle relations was solved by R. Z. Bariev and Yu. V. Kozhinov [@bara], and a general discussion on such type of vertex is presented by H. J. de Vega [@vega]\
An appropriate way of handling the star triangle relations (or Yang-Baxter equations) consists of using an operator formulation. We associate to a vertex with Ising variables on horizontal bonds a 2$\times$2 matrix whose matrix elements $L_{\sigma\sigma^{'}}$ are labelled by $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ (see fig.1): $$L=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}L_{11} & = & \alpha & \hspace{1cm} & L_{1-1} & = &\beta^-\\
L_{-11} & = & \beta^{+} & \hspace{1cm} & L_{-1-1} & = & \delta
\end{array} \right)$$\
$\alpha$, $\beta^\pm$, $\delta$ are themselves operators in a “vertical” Hilbert space with matrix elements labelled by $\xi$ and $\xi^{'}$. Anticipating on the existence of a “spectral parameter” [@fadb], the triangle-relations take up the following compact form:\
$$R(\frac{u}{v})L(u)\otimes L(v)=L(v)\otimes L(u)R(\frac{u}{v}),$$\
where $R$ is associated with the standard vertex with only Ising variables on the bonds.\
Eq(1) is rather general, one may consider the set of all $L$ satisfying (1) with the same $R$; in particular one may choose $R$ to be that of a standard symmetric six-vertex model. In this case the matrix elements $\alpha$(u), $\delta$(u), $\beta^\pm$ of $L$ are shown to be expressible in terms of the generators of the quantum group $SL_q$(2): $L_z$, $L^{+}$, $L^{-}$ which obey the defining relations (see [@wieg]):\
$$[L_z,L^\pm ] = \pm L^\pm \hspace{0.5cm}{\mbox or}\hspace{0.5cm}
q^{L_{z}}L^{\pm} = q^{\pm1}L^{\pm}q^{L_{z}},$$ $$[ L^+ ,L^- ] = \frac{q^{2L_z} - q^{-2L_z}}{q - q^{-1}}.$$
Then one has the expressions ( see Wiegmann and Zabrodin [@wieg] ) $$\beta^{\pm} = L^{\pm} ,$$ $$\alpha(u) = \frac{uq^{L_z} - u^{-1}q^{-L_z}}{q - q^{-1}} ,$$ $$\delta(u) = \frac{uq^{-L_z} - u^{-1}q^{L_z}}{q - q^{-1}} .$$ Thus the problem is reduced to finding the appropriate representations of $SL_q(2)$ which corresponds to the definition of the vertex. We observe that the standard six vertex model is recovered if one considers the spin 1/2 representation of $SL_q(2)$ which is generated by the Pauli matrices, higher spin representations are possible (see Saleur and Pasquier [@sala], [@pas] ).\
But elaborating on Wiegmann and Zabrodin [@wieg] representation of $SL_q(2)$ by 2-dimensional magnetic translation operators, we shall consider next, the representation of $SL_q(2)$ by the Weyl operators of the canonical commutation relation of one degree of freedom in quantum mechanics.
Algebraic tools
---------------
In his treatement of quantum mechanics H. Weyl had proposed to replace the canonical commutator between a dynamical variable $Q$ and its conjugate $P$\
$$[Q,P]=iI ,$$\
by the commutation relation between $e^{ipQ}$ and $e^{ixP}$:\
$$e^{ixP}e^{ipQ} = e^{ixp}e^{ipQ}e^{ixP} .$$\
In this paper we shall concentrate on the case $q=e^{i\eta}$, which corresponds to a physical phase of the system. Using appropriate scaling, (6) may be rewritten under the form:\
$$\\
e^{iP}q^Q = qq^Qe^{iP} .$$\
This relation allows us to represent the generators of $SL_q(2)$ as:\
$$L_z = Q ,$$ $$L^+ = \frac{q^{Q-1/2}-q^{-Q+1/2}}{q-q^{-1}}e^{-iP} ,$$ $$L^- = -e^{iP}\frac{q^{Q-1/2}-q^{-Q+1/2}}{q-q^{-1}} .$$\
From (8), we recover in the limit q$\longrightarrow$1, the following representation of $SL(2)$ generators: $$S^+ = (Q-1/2)\exp(-iP),$$ $$S^- = -\exp(iP)(Q-1/2),$$ $$S^z = Q.$$ We observe that $L^{+}$ and $L^{-}$ are each other antihermitian when we require that the limit $q\longrightarrow 1$ of (8) obeys the commutators of $SL$(2).\
One may check that (8) fulfills automatically (2), using the shift property of $e^{ixP}$,\
$$e^{ixP}Qe^{-ixP} = Q+x .$$\
The new representation of the vertex operator $L$ is now: $$\beta^{+} = \frac{q^{Q-1/2}-q^{-Q+1/2}}{q-q^{-1}}e^{-iP} ,\hspace{1cm}
\beta^{-} = -e^{iP}\frac{q^{Q-1/2}-q^{-Q+1/2}}{q-q^{-1}} ,$$
$$\alpha = \frac{uq^{Q}-u^{-1}q^{-Q}}{q-q^{-1}},\hspace{1cm}
\delta = \frac{uq^{-Q}-u^{-1}q^{Q}}{q-q^{-1}} .$$
\
Physically we have a quantum mechanical degree of freedom on “vertical” space coupled to Ising spins on horizontal bonds. Such a system obeys the triangle-relations(Yang-Baxter equations) and may under specified conditions be solved by Bethe Ansatz techniques. Since it has the $R$-matrix of a six-vertex model, one expects its critical behavior to be the same as in the six-vertex case. The attractive point is that the critical universality class may be in fact defined by the choice of the $R$-matrix.\
For comparison let us recall the standard spin 1/2 representation of $SL_q(2)$, for which we have: $$\frac{q^{\sigma^z}-q^{-\sigma^z}}{q-q^{-1}} =\sigma^z .$$\
In this case with the standard Pauli matrices $\sigma^x$, $\sigma^y$, $\sigma^z$, one has:\
$$\beta^\pm = \sigma^\pm =1/2(\sigma^x \pm i\sigma^y) ,$$ $$\alpha = \frac{uq^{\sigma^{z}/2} - u^{-1}q^{-\sigma^{z}/2}}{q - q^{-1}} ,$$ $$\delta = \frac{uq^{-\sigma^{z}/2} - u^{-1}q^{\sigma^{z}/2}}{q - q^{-1}} .$$\
Here the vertical space is two-dimensional, whereas it is infinite dimensional when one uses $P$ and $Q$.\
Schrödinger representation and the local vacuum.
------------------------------------------------
In order to apply the method of quantum inverse scattering (Faddeev [@fadb]) to construct the explicit solution of the problem, one needs to construct a local vacuum. This is fairly evident in the case of the standard six-vertex model where one may choose for example, the state $\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)$ which is annihilated by the $\beta^-$ = $\sigma^-$ operator: $$\sigma^{-}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) = 0 .$$ Thus the local vacuum is nothing else as the “spin down” state on the vertical direction. Moreover\
$$\alpha\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) =
\frac{uq^{-1/2} - u^{-1}q^{1/2}}{q - q^{-1}}
\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) =
a \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) ,$$ $$\delta \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) =
\frac{uq^{1/2} - u^{-1}q^{-1/2}}{q - q^{-1}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) = b \left(
\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right) .$$\
Or in a more usual parametrization : $q = e^{i\eta } ,\; \; u = e^{\theta} ;$ we recognize: $$a = \frac{\sinh{(\theta - i\eta/2)}}{\sinh{i\eta}} ,
\hspace{2cm} b = \frac{\sinh{(\theta + i\eta/2)}}{\sinh{i\eta}} .$$ With the use of $Q$ and $P$ it is necessary to find a local vacuum. We shall do so in using the position Schrödinger representation, in which the $Q$ operator is diagonal and has continuous spectrum:\
$$Q \vert\xi\rangle = \xi\vert\xi\rangle ,$$ $$e^{ixP} \vert\xi\rangle = \vert\xi - x\rangle .$$ The local vacuum $|\omega\rangle$, in analogy with eq( 12 ), is defined by the annihilation property\
$$\beta^{-} \vert\omega\rangle = L^{-} \vert\omega\rangle = 0$$ $$e^{iP}\frac{q^{{\omega}-{1/2}} - q^{-{\omega}+1/2}}{q - q^{-1}} \vert\omega\rangle = 0 .$$ Hence one must choose $$\omega = 1/2 .$$ The existence of this local vacuum is directly related to the construction of the representation (see eq.(8)) with a proper limit $q\longrightarrow1$. Demanding from the start that $L^{+}$ and $L^{-}$ be each other hermitian, will not lead to the correct $q\longrightarrow1$limit, nor yield a local vacuum for one vertex operator $L$, as in the Sine-Gordon theory [@kora]. Application of $\beta^+ = L^{+}$ on the local vacuum $\vert \omega\rangle =
\vert1/2\rangle$ yields\
$$L^{+}\vert 1/2\rangle = \vert 3/2\rangle .$$\
More generally we have:\
$$(L^{+})^n \vert 1/2\rangle = \frac{q^n -q^{-n}}{q - q^{-1}} \times
\frac{q^{n-1} - q^{-n+1}}{q - q^{-1}} \times \ldots \times
\frac{q - q^{-1}}{q - q^{-1}} \vert n+1/2\rangle .$$\
The sequence of states $\vert n+1/2\rangle$ reminds us of the sequence of the harmonic oscillator with unit frequency. In this sense it is reasonnable to think of the vertices as vertical springs coupled to horizontal Ising variables.\
We may evaluate also, since $Q$ is diagonal, the action of $\alpha(u)$ and $\delta(u)$ on $\vert 1/2\rangle$\
$$\alpha ( u ) \vert 1/2\rangle =\frac{uq^{1/2} -
u^{-1}q^{-1/2}}{q - q^{-1}} \vert 1/2\rangle ,$$ $$\delta ( u ) \vert 1/2\rangle = \frac{uq^{-1/2} -
u^{-1}q^{1/2}}{q - q^{-1}} \vert 1/2\rangle .$$ This will be used later in constructing the solution.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is described why multiple refinements with each negative counterexample does not improve the complexity of the AFP Algorithm. Also Canonical normal formulas for Horn functions are discussed.'
author:
- |
Rooholah Majdodin\
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Informatik
bibliography:
- 'Horn.bib'
title: Horn functions and the AFP Algorithm
---
[Introduction]{} Please see [@angluin1992learning; @arias2011construction] for an introduction to Horn Functions. A learning algorithm for Horn Functions, that we call the AFP Algorithm, was first in [@angluin1992learning] presented (there it was called the Horn1 Algorithm). A normal form for Horn functions was presented in [@arias2011construction], and it was shown that it is *canonical*, that is every Horn function has only one formula in this normal form, up to the order of clauses. They also presented an algorithm that given a Horn Formula, outputs its canonical normal formula. Moreover they proved that the AFP Algorithm outputs the canonical normal form of the target function.
We have also independently discovered this canonical normal form and in section 2 we prove that the output of the AFP Algorithm is in this form. We believe that our presentation is briefer than [@arias2011construction].
It was presented in [@balcazar2005query section 7] as a frequently asked unanswered question, that whether it improves the time and query complexities of the AFP Algorithm, if we change the algorithm, so that, after every negative counterexample, it makes all (and not just the first) possible refinements. Interestingly, [@angluin1992learning] had already briefly answered this question, negatively. Here we provide a detailed proof for that.
[Notation]{} We follow the notation of [@arias2011construction]. Additionally we denote the variables with letters from the beginning of the alphabet, and the set of variables with $\sigma$. Logical False will be denoted by $F$. Subset and proper subset are denoted by $\subseteq$ and $\subset$ respectively. With function or formula we mean a Horn function or formula respectively. With $a^{n}$ where $a \in \cb{0,
1}$, we mean a string of $a$’s of length $n$.
[Canonical normal form]{} The AFP Algorithm [@angluin1992learning], learns a function via a learning protocol.
**AFP** $O \leftarrow \p{}$ $P \leftarrow \cb{}$ $H \leftarrow T$ output $H$
The following properties define a Normal Form for formulas.
\[canonical-normal-form\] A formula $H = \bigwedge_i \p{\alpha_i \rightarrow \beta_i}$ is in *normal form*, if
1. $\alpha_i \neq \alpha_j$ for $i \neq j$,
2. $\alpha_i \subset \beta_i$,
3. $\forall i,j \,\, \alpha_j \vDash \p{\alpha_i \rightarrow \beta_i}$\[consistency\].
Compare this Definition with [@arias2011construction], Section 3, Definition 4.
\[\] Each function has at least one representing formula in normal form.
By definition every function has a formula. We present a polynomial time algorithm that returns a normal form presentation of every input formula.
Repeat until no more changes are made:
1. Merge the clauses with the same antecedents.
2. For each clause $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$, if there is a clause $\kappa \rightarrow \gamma$ such that $\kappa \subset \alpha$, then replace $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$ with $\alpha \cup
\gamma\rightarrow \beta$
At the end,
c\) Delete all clauses $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$ that $\beta \subseteq \alpha $.
d\) Change all clauses $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$ to $\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \cup \beta$.
As there are finite variables, and at each iteration only some clauses are merged or the size of some antecedents increases, the iteration (and algorithm) end in polynomial time. Properties 1, 2, and 3 of the normal form will be fulfilled by a, (c and d) and b respectively.
\[negativ-ce-theorem\] Let $H^* = \bigwedge_i \p{\alpha_i \rightarrow \beta_i}$ be a normal form formula of the target function for the AFP Algorithm. While there are still antecedents of $H^*$ which are equal to no antecedent of $H$ (equivalently to no $s \in O$), there will be a negative counterexample.
Let $\alpha$ be such an antecedent, then $\alpha \nvDash H^*$. If there are no clauses $s \rightarrow
\gamma$ from $H$, that $s \subset \alpha$, then $\alpha \vDash H$ as a negative Counterexample. Else, on line \[alle\_konklusionen\], $\gamma \supseteq \bigcup_{i, \alpha_i \subseteq s}
\beta_i \setminus s$, and there are finite positive counterexamples until the equality for all such $s$ holds. And then, following the definition of normal form (definition \[canonical-normal-form\]-\[consistency\]), $\gamma \subset \alpha$, so $\alpha \vDash s
\rightarrow \gamma$ and $\alpha \vDash H$ will be the negative counterexample.
Let $H^* = \bigwedge_i \p{\alpha_i \rightarrow \beta_i}$ be a normal form formula for the target function. Then the list $O=\p{s_i}$ in the AFP Algorithm, has the *property* that
\[property-of-AFP\] The above property holds.
Compare this with [@arias2011construction], Lemma 16.
When an $s_i \in O$ is added or after it is refined, it holds that $s_i$ violates at least one clause $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$ from $H^*$, such that $\forall j<i \quad \alpha \nsubseteq s_j$. That holds at least untill the next time that $s_i$ is refined.
\[afp-funktioniert\] The AFP Algorithm returns a normal form formula for the target function.
Fix some normal formula $H^*$ of the target function. Via each negative counterexample, some members of a set in $O$ are removed (Line \[verfeinerung\]), or a new set is added to $O$ (Line \[neue\_menge\]). Theorem \[property-of-AFP\] implies that the size of $O$ is no more than the number of clauses of $H^*$. Following Theorem \[negativ-ce-theorem\], while there are antecedents of $H^*$ that are not identical with some set in $O$, negative counterexamples will be given. As it is all finite, $O$ will be equal to set of the antecedents of $H^*$ and the conclusions will corrected via positive counterexamples. So the algorithm ends, and it then holds that $H = H^*$.
Each function has exactly one normal form, up to the order of clauses.
It follows from the free choice of $H^*$ in proof of theorem \[afp-funktioniert\].
[More than one refinement with each negative counterexample]{} It seems an appealing question, that whether the AFP algorithm would be more efficient, in runtime and number of queries, had it tried to refine more that one set of $O$ with each negative counterexample, so far that [@balcazar2005query section 7] considers it as a frequently asked unanswered question. Interestingly [@angluin1992learning] had already briefly answered this question: “Overzealous refinement may result in several examples in $O$ violating the same clause of $H^*$. To avoid this, whenever a new negative counterexample could be used to refine several examples in the sequence $O$, only the first among these is refined.” Here we provide a proof for this answer.
Besides the AFP algorithm (Horn1), [@angluin1992learning] presents an improvement for it, Horn2, which is more efficient in determining the conclusions, but makes the same as Horn1 in finding the antecedents. We will show that the answer is negative for both versions of the algorithm (for worst-case runtime). Let AFP\* be the same as AFP algorithm, but “the first” in line \[bestandteil\_anfrage\] be replaced by “for all”.
Throughout this section, let $H^* = \bigwedge_i \p{\alpha_i \rightarrow \beta_i}$ be the canonical normal form of the target function, such that antecedents with smaller size, have smaller index. We say that the sequence of counterexamples in a run of the AFP Algorithm is *ordered* (relative to $H^*$) if it is as follows.
The sequence of counterexamples is a succession of $m$ subsequences[^1], where $m$ is the number of clauses of $H^*$. Let $\p{z_j}$ be the $i$th subsequence. Then each $z_j$ is a superset of $\alpha_i$ but not a superset of $\beta_i$ and not a superset of any $\alpha_k$ such that $\alpha_k\nsubset \alpha_i$; Moreover $z_{j+1} \cap z_{j} \subset z_j $, and the last element of $\p{z_j}$ is $\alpha_i$. Note that in this definition there is no restriction on positive counterexamples or their order relative to negative counterexamples.
It is straightforward to show that for every target function, there exists at least one ordered sequence of couterexaples. An example will be given in the proof of theorem \[AFP\*-nobetterthan-AFP\].
\[AFP\*-AFP-least-helpful\] For any Horn Formula, if the (negative) counterexamples are ordered, then the AFP and AFP\* algorithms perform exactly the same operations.
By induction we show that after round $i$, $s_i = \alpha_i$ and will not be changed. So at round $i+1$, for any of the negative counterexamples $z_k$ if the test of line \[bestandteil\_anfrage\] is true for $s_j = \alpha_j,\; j<i$, then it should be refined, but then as the index of clauses of $H^*$ is ordered by the size of antecedents, Property of $O$ (theorem \[property-of-AFP\]) cannot be satisfied.
Therefore during round $i$ only $s_i$ can be added or refined and as the last negative counterexample in round $i$ is $\alpha_i$, with a similar argument, $s_i$ will be refined to $\alpha_i$.
\[AFP\*-nobetterthan-AFP\] The worst-case time, equivalence and membership query complexities of the AFP\* algorithm is not better than that of the AFP algorithm.
For the target functions from the class $\cb{f_n}$ defined below, if the counterexamples are given as described below, by lemma \[AFP\*-AFP-least-helpful\] the AFP\* Algorithm and AFP algorithm perform exactly the same operations, because the (negative) counterexamples are ordered. But the AFP algorithm with this setting will reach its worst-case time, equivalence and membership query complexities on general input (Compare with [@angluin1992learning] theorem 2, we do not repeat that argument here). The result follows.
The function $f_n$, is defined over the set of $2n+1$ variables $\sigma=\cb{a_1, \ldots, a_{2n+1}}$, and its canonical normal form has $m=n$ clauses: $$f_n = \bigwedge_{1 \le i \le n} \p{a_i \rightarrow a_{2n+1}}$$ The $i$th subsequence of negative counterexamples are After any $y_j$ a sequence of positive counterexamples $\p{w_k}$ will be given: where $d_k$ is the $k$th variable such that $d_k \notin y_j$ and $d_k \ne a_{2n+1}$.
It is straightforward to give classes of functions and counterexamples for which the AFP has its general worse-case runtime and query complexities while the AFP\* makes substantially worse (roughly speaking, because property of $O$ (theorem \[property-of-AFP\]) no more holds). But we find theorem \[AFP\*-nobetterthan-AFP\] enough and more interesting. By a similar argument one can get similar results for the Horn2 Algorithm.
[^1]: Here each subsequence simply consists of consecutive parts of the sequence.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show the role played by QCD evolution and skewedness effects in the DVCS cross section at large $Q^2$ within the color dipole description of the process at photon level. The dipole cross section is given by the saturation model, which can be improved by DGLAP evolution at high photon virtualities. We investigate both possibilities as well as the off-forward effect through a simple phenomenological parametrisation. The results are compared to the recent ZEUS DVCS data.'
author:
- 'L. Favart $^{1,a}$ and M.V.T. Machado $^{2,b,c,d}$'
title: QCD evolution and skewedness effects in color dipole description of DVCS
---
Introduction
============
An important clean process allowing us to access off-diagonal (skewed) parton distributions, which carry new information on the nucleon’s dynamical degrees of freedom, is the Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) [@Adloff:2001cn; @Favart:2003kw; @Chekanov:2003ya]. This is due to the real photon in the final state being an elementary (point-like) particle rather than a bound state like a meson or more complicated configurations. The skewed parton distributions are generally defined via the Fourier transform of matrix elements of renormalized, non-local twist-two operators (for a pedagogical view, see Refs. [@Freund:2002ff; @Diehl:2003ny]). These composite operators contain only two elementary fields of the theory, which are placed at different positions becoming then non-local and operating in unequal momentum nucleon states.
Hence skewedness takes into account dynamical correlations between partons with different momenta. The high energy situation at HERA gives the important opportunity to constrain them as well as to study the evolution with virtuality of the resulting quark and gluon distributions. There are several representations for skewed parton distributions [@SKREP1; @SKREP2; @SKREP3; @SKREP4; @SKREP5], which can be used to compute the relevant observables in DVCS (or other exclusive processes) through a factorization theorem [@dvcsfact]. They are input in numerical solutions of the renormalization group or evolution equations (see e.g. [@RGEs]), producing very reliable predictions up to NLO level [@FreundMcDermott]
On the other hand, the color dipole models have also been successful in describing DVCS observables [@Donnachie:2000px; @McDermott:2001pt; @Favart:2003cu]. There, the main degrees of freedom are the color dipoles, which interact with the nucleon target via gluonic exchange. This interaction is modeled through the dipole-nucleon cross section, which can include QCD dynamical effects given by DGLAP, BFKL or non-linear high energy evolution equations (parton saturation). Skewedness effects are not considered in the current dipole models and this is one of the goals of the present analysis, making use of a simple phenomenological parametrisation to estimate them. Moreover, the QCD DGLAP evolution can be introduced, which improves the data description in the large $Q^2$ kinematic region accessible in the recent ZEUS DVCS measurements [@Chekanov:2003ya].
This note is organized as follows. In the next section, we recall the main formulas for the color dipole formalism applied to DVCS. For the dipole cross section we have considered the saturation model [@Golec-Biernat:1998js], which produces a unified and intuitive description of DIS [@Golec-Biernat:1998js], diffractive DIS [@Golec-Biernat:1999qd], vector meson production [@Caldwell:2001ky], Drell-Yan [@Betemps:2001he; @Betemps:2003je] and DVCS [@Favart:2003cu]. In particular, the restriction to the transverse part of the photon wave function, due to the real final state photon in DVCS, enhances the contribution of larger dipole configurations and therefore the sensitivity to soft content and to the transition between hard/soft regimes. Such a feature provides a particularly relevant test of saturation models. Moreover, the approach includes all twist resummation, in contrast with the leading twist approximations. In the Sec. 3, we discuss the role played by the QCD evolution and skewedness in the high virtuality kinematic region. We also perform a systematic analysis in order to investigate to what extent the distinct models improve the data description. These issues have implications in the correct determination of the $t$ slope parameter $B$, whose value has never been measured for DVCS. Finally, the last section summarizes our main results.
DVCS cross section in dipole picture
====================================
In the proton rest frame, the DVCS process can be seen as a succession in time of three factorisable subprocesses: i) the photon fluctuates in a quark-antiquark pair, ii) this color dipole interacts with the proton target, iii) the quark pair annihilates in a real photon. The usual kinematic variables are the $\gamma^* p$ c.m.s. energy squared $s=W^2=(p+q)^2$, where $p$ and $q$ are the proton and the photon momenta respectively, the photon virtuality squared $Q^2=-q^2$ and the Bjorken scale $x_{\mathrm{Bj}}=Q^2/(W^2+Q^2)$.
The imaginary part of the DVCS amplitude at zero momentum transfer in the color dipole formalism is expressed in the simple way [@Favart:2003cu], $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\cal I}m\, {\cal A}\,(s,t=0) = \int \limits_0^1 dz \int\limits_{0}^ {\infty} d^2{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}\,
H(z,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},Q^2)\,\sigma_{dip}(\tilde{x},{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2)\label{dvcsdip}\\
& & H = \frac{6\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}{4\,\pi^2} \sum_f e_f^2 \, \left\{[z^2 +
(1-z)^2]\, \varepsilon_1 \,K_1 (\varepsilon_1 \,{\mbox{$r$}}) \,\varepsilon_2
\,K_1 (\varepsilon_2 \,{\mbox{$r$}}) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \,\,\,\,\,\, \, + \,\, \,\,\left. m_f^2 \, \,K_0(\varepsilon_1\,
{\mbox{$r$}})\,K_0(\varepsilon_2\, {\mbox{$r$}}) \right\}\,,\label{wdvcstrans}\end{aligned}$$ where $H(z,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},Q_{1,2}^2)=\Psi_T^*(z,\,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},\,Q_1^2=Q^2)\,
\Psi_T(z,\,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},\,Q_2^2=0)$, with $\Psi_T$ being the light cone photon wave function for transverse photons . Here, $Q_1=Q$ is the virtuality of the incoming photon, whereas $Q_2$ is the virtuality of the outgoing real photon. The longitudinal piece does not contribute at $Q_2^2=0$. The relative transverse separation of the pair (dipole) is labeled by ${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}$ and $z$, $(1-z)$, are the longitudinal momentum fractions of the quark (antiquark). The auxiliary variables $\varepsilon^2_{1,\,2}= z(1-z)\,Q_{1,\,2}^2 +
m_f^2$ depend on the quark mass, $m_f$. The $K_{0,1}$ are the McDonald functions and summation is taken over the quark flavors.
Let us summarize the main features and expressions from the saturation model, which will be used here to estimate the DVCS cross section. A previous analysis compared to H1 data can be found in Ref. [@Favart:2003cu]. The saturation model reproduces color transparency behavior, $\sigma_{dip}\sim {\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2$, for small dipoles, whereas it gives a constant behavior for large ones. This is rendered by a dipole cross section having an eikonal-like form, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma_{dip} (\tilde{x}, \,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2) = \sigma_0 \,
\left[\, 1- \exp \left(-\frac{\,Q_{\mathrm{sat}}^2(\tilde{x})\,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2}{4}
\right) \, \right]\,,
\label{gbwdip}\\
&Q_{\mathrm{sat}}^2(\tilde{x}) = \left(\frac{x_0}{\tilde{x}}
\right)^{\lambda} \,\mathrm{GeV}^2,\,\,\, \tilde{x}= x_{\mathrm{Bj}}
\!\left( \, 1+ \frac{4\,m_f^2}{Q^2} \,\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the saturation scale $Q_{\mathrm{sat}}(x)$ (energy dependent) defines the onset of the saturation phenomenon and sets the interface between soft/hard domains. The parameters were obtained from a fit to the HERA data producing $\sigma_0=23.03 \,(29.12)$ mb, $\lambda= 0.288 \,
(0.277)$ and $x_0=3.04 \cdot 10^{-4} \, (0.41 \cdot 10^{-4})$ for a 3-flavor (4-flavor) analysis [@Golec-Biernat:1998js]. An additional parameter is the effective light quark mass, $m_f=0.14$ GeV. For the 4-flavor analysis, the charm quark mass is considered to be $m_c=1.5$ GeV.
The QCD evolution to the original saturation model was implemented recently [@Bartels:2002cj] (BGBK), where the dipole cross section now depends on the gluon distribution in a Glauber-Gribov inspired way, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{dip}\, (\tilde{x}, {\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2) = \sigma_0 \! \left[ 1- \exp
\left(-\frac{\,\pi^2\,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2\,\alpha_s(\mu^2)\,\tilde{x}\,G(\tilde{x},\mu^2)}{3\,\sigma_0} \right) \right],
\label{bgkdip} \end{aligned}$$ where the energy scale is defined as $\mu^2=C/{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}^2 + \mu_0^2$. The parameters are determined from a fit to DIS data, with the following initial condition for LO DGLAP evolution, $x\,G(x,\mu^2=1\,
\mbox{GeV}^2)=A_g\,x^{-\lambda_g}\,(1-x)^{5.6}$. The flavor number is taken to be equal to 3. The overall normalization $\sigma_0=23.03$ mb is kept fixed (labeled fit 1 in Ref. [@Bartels:2002cj]). The DGLAP evolution improves the data description in large $Q^2$ regime and brings the model close to the theoretical high energy non-linear QCD approaches.
Having a suitable model for the dipole cross section, as in Eq. (\[gbwdip\]) or Eq. (\[bgkdip\]), we can use Eq. (\[dvcsdip\]) and then compute the final expression for the DVCS cross section as, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(\gamma^*\,p\rightarrow \gamma \,p) & = &
\frac{1}{B}\,\frac{[\,{\cal I}m\,{\cal A}(s,0)\,]^2}{16\,\pi} \,
\left(1+\rho^2 \right) \label{dvcssigma}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is the $t$ slope parameter (the behavior in $|t|$ is supposed to obey a simple exponential parametrisation).
In our further calculations, the real part is included via the usual estimate $\rho=\tan (\pi\lambda /2)$, where $\lambda=\lambda (Q^2)$ is the effective power of the imaginary part of the amplitude. We have fitted it for $1\leq Q^2\leq 100$ GeV$^2$ in the form $\lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}(Q^2)=0.2 +
0.0107\ln^2(Q^2/2.48)$. It can be verified that when it rises to $\sim
0.3$ at high virtualities the contribution of the real part can reach 20% of the total cross section. In the next section we compute the cross section above using the two versions for the saturation model and contrast them with the recent DVCS ZEUS data, which includes data points with larger $Q^2$ values than the previous H1 data. Moreover, we present a simple way to introduce skewedness effects into the calculation.
Results and discussions
========================
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
In Fig. \[fig:1\] is shown the result for the saturation model, Eq. (\[gbwdip\]), confronted to the experimental data on DVCS of recent ZEUS measurements as a function of the c.m.s. energy, $W_{\gamma p}$ (at fixed virtuality $Q^2=9.6$ GeV$^2$). The parameters of the 4-flavor fit have been used, producing good agreement with a fixed value for the slope, $B=4$ GeV$^{-2}$.
In Fig. \[fig:2\]-a, we show the result of the saturation model for the behavior with $Q^2$ at fixed energy, $W_{\gamma p}=89$ GeV. In order to illustrate the sensitivity on the slope value, both values $B=4$ GeV$^{-2}$ (solid line) and $B=6.5$ GeV$^{-2}$ (dot-dashed line) are shown$^1$. Although the statistical errors are large, it seems that for $Q^2{\raisebox{-0.5mm}{$\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle{\sim}}$}}40 $ GeV$^2$, the model underestimates the experimental data. This can indicate two things: (a) the slope diminishes as the virtuality increases or, (b) some additional effect appears at higher $Q^2$. In order to investigate the first hypothesis, we compute the cross section using a $Q^2$ dependent slope, proposed in Ref. [@Freund:2002qf]. That is, $B(Q^2)= B_0\,[1-0.15\ln(Q^2/2)]$ GeV$^{-2}$ which is based on the diffractive electroproduction of $\rho$. Such a slope dependence allows a good description of the $Q^2$ dependence of the cross section up to the highest measured values and gives a good normalisation for $B_0=5$ GeV$^{-2}$.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
In order to investigate whether a QCD evolution improves the description, we show in Fig. \[fig:2\]-b the estimate using the BGBK dipole cross section, Eq. (\[bgkdip\]) as a function of $Q^2$ using fixed slope values. There is an effect in the overall normalization and a slower decrease at large $Q^2$ in contrast with the model without QCD evolution reproducing well the ZEUS measurement for all $Q^2$. This suggests that DGLAP evolution starts to be important for the large $Q^2$ points measured by ZEUS. A comparison of the different $Q^2$ behavior independently of the normalisation question is presented at the end of this section.
Furthermore, we are motivated to investigate the importance of the skewedness effects in the DVCS process using the previous results. Here, we follow the approximation proposed in Ref. [@Shuvaev:1999ce], where the ratio of off-forward to forward parton distributions are obtained relying on simple arguments. The behavior of those ratios are given explicitly by [@Shuvaev:1999ce], $$\begin{aligned}
R_{q,g}\,(Q^2)=\frac{2^{2\lambda + 3}}
{\sqrt{\pi}}\,\frac{\Gamma\,\left(\lambda+
\frac{5}{2}\right)}{\Gamma \,\left(\lambda+3+p \right)}\,,
\label{skew}\end{aligned}$$ where $p=0$ for quarks and $p=1$ for gluons, and where $\lambda$ is the exponent of the $x^{-\lambda}$ behavior of the input diagonal parton distribution. It should be noticed that the skewed effect is much larger for singlet quarks than gluons. In the following, it will be assumed that the DVCS cross section is lead by a two gluon exchange. In our further computations, we use $\lambda=\lambda(Q^2)$ as discussed in the previous section and the skewedness effect is given by multiplying the total cross section by the factor $R_g^2(Q^2)$. Once the effective power increases as a function of $Q^2$, the skewedness effects could enhance the cross section by a factor two if values of $\lambda_{eff}\simeq 0.4$ are reached at larger virtualities. In Fig. \[fig:3\]-a we show the result using the saturation model (4-flavor) and the skewedness correction, Eq. (\[skew\]). The same analysis is shown for the BGBK model in Fig. \[fig:3\]-b. The main effect is to increase the overall normalization of the cross section by about 40% and only slightly modify the large $Q^2$ behaviour. Again, this will be shown more clearly and independently of the normalisation at the end of this section.
For completeness, we have investigated two additional versions of the implementation of the skewedness correction factor. They are shown in Fig. \[compskews\] for fixed $B=4$ GeV$^{-2}$. First, we have imposed skewedness correction only for small dipoles by introducing $R_g(\lambda_{GBW}=0.277)$ in the exponent of Eq. (\[gbwdip\]) (dotted line). This is to prevent correction to the nonperturbative (large dipoles) piece of the dipole cross section. Further, we also test the rough approximation $\tilde{x}=0.41\,x_{\mathrm{Bj}}$ (dashed line), which comes from a simplified hypothesis $\sigma_{dip}\sim R_g(\lambda)\,\left(x_{\mathrm{Bj}}\right)^{-\lambda}$. The conclusion is that these two different implementation of the skewedness correction do not make sensible changes w.r.t.the first skewedness correction neither in normalisation nor in $Q^2$ dependence for the presently covered kinematic range and precision of the measurement.
At this stage, some comments are probably needed. The estimate for skewedness taken into account above is an approximation as currently we have no accurate theoretical arguments how to compute it from first principles within the color dipole formalism. A consistent approach would be to compute the scattering amplitude in the non-forward case (the non-forward photon wave function has been recently obtained in Ref. [@Bartels:2003yj]). In this case, the dipole cross section, $\sigma_{dip}(x_1,x_2,{\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},
\vec{\Delta})$, depends on the light cone momenta $x_1$ and $x_2$ carried by the exchanged gluons, respectively, and on the total transverse momentum transfer $\vec{\Delta}$ ( additional information about the behavior on $\vec{\Delta}$ is needed for the QCD Pomeron and proton impact factor). The forward dipole cross section is recovered at $x_1=x_2$ and $\vec{\Delta}=0$. In the future, an experimental constraint for the nonforward dipole cross section should be feasible with increasing statistics on DVCS and exclusive (diffractive) vector meson production.\
---- -----
a) (b)
---- -----
To close this section, as the slope parameter $B$ has never been measured for DVCS, we compare the different estimates presented in a systematic way separately for the effect on the $Q^2$ dependence and the effect on the overall normalisation. To compare the $Q^2$ dependences, we normalize all models to describe the ZEUS data point at the lowest $Q^2$ value, i.e. $Q^2=7.5$ GeV$^2$. Further, we plot the ratio of each model to our baseline model SAT-MOD as a function of $Q^2$. Such a procedure allows a $Q^2$ dependence comparison independently of the normalization effect. These ratios are shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]-a, where the points (triangles-up) are the ratio of the ZEUS data to SAT-MOD including the error bars for the statistical (inner) and sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic (outer) uncertainties.
On the other hand, to compare the effect on the normalisation we show the slope value needed to describe the lowest $Q^2$ value of the ZEUS data points $B_0=B(Q^2=7.5$ GeV$^2$). They are shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]-b. For completeness, we also present the measured slope values for vector meson production at that virtuality, both for $\rho^0$ and $J/\Psi$ mesons as indications of typical values for respectively light and heavy mesons using the simple parametrisation: $$\begin{aligned}
B = 0.60\,\left(\frac{14}{\left(Q^2+M_V^2\right)^{0.26}} + 1 \right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_V$ is the meson mass.
From these comparisons, we conclude that several models can account for the measured $Q^2$ dependence (SAT-MOD+B(Q$^2$), SAT-MOD+SKEW and BGBK, as well as combination of several of those effects) which are not distinguishable with the present experimental precision. The difference between the models is much more pronounced in the prediction of the cross section value, or in other terms, in the $B$ value needed to describe the integrated cross section over the available $Q^2$ range. If the change in normalisation is small for the inclusion of a $Q^2$ dependence in $B$, the effect is of the order of 12% for BGBK with respect to the basic SAT-MOD and of 40% for the skewedness effect (SKEW) and still larger when the different effect are combined (60% for BGBK+SKEW).
In summary, these issues show clearly the importance of a measurement of the $t$ slope parameter $B$.
Summary
=======
It has been shown that the DVCS cross section at HERA can be described by the simple picture rendered by the color dipoles formalism. In particular, the saturation model does an excellent job in the current experimental kinematic domain. To achieve a good description of the data up the the highest $Q^2$, the original saturation model can be supplemented by QCD evolution, an additional dependence of B on $Q^2$ and skewedness effects. These effects modify in a sensitive way the absolute cross section (10-60%). Measurement of the $t$ slope parameter $B$ would already allow to discriminate among the different theoretical predictions with an amount of data comparable to the present ZEUS measurement.
M.V.T.M. thanks the CERN Theory Division, where part of this work was performed, for the hospitality and financial support. The work of L. Favart is supported by the FNRS of Belgium (convention IISN 4.4502.01) and M. Machado was partially financed by the Brazilian funding agency CNPq.
[99]{}
C. Adloff [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**517**]{}, 47 (2001).
L. Favart, [*Studies of DVCS and photoproduction of photons at high t with the H1 detector*]{}, In: International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS03), July 17-23, Aachen (2003), \[hep-ex/0312013\].
S. Chekanov [*et al.*]{} \[ZEUS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**573**]{}, 46 (2003).
A. Freund, Eur. Phys. J. C [**31**]{}, 203 (2003).
M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. [**388**]{}, 41 (2003).
D. Müller [*et al.*]{}, Fortschr. Phys. [**42**]{}, 101 (1994).
X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 7114 (1997).
A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 5524 (1997).
K. J. Golec-Biernat and A. D. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 014029 (1999).
L. Frankfurt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**418**]{}, 345 (1998), Erratum-ibid. [**429**]{}, 414 (1998); A. Freund and V. Guzey, Phys. Lett. B [**462**]{} 178 (1999).
J. C. Collins and A. Freund, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 074009 (1999).
A. Freund and M. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 074008 (2002). A. Freund and M. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 056012 (2002); Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 079903 (2002); Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 091901(2002); Eur. Phys. J. C [**23**]{}, 651 (2002).
A. Donnachie and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. B [**502**]{}, 74 (2001).
M. McDermott, R. Sandapen and G. Shaw, Eur. Phys. J. C [**22**]{}, 655 (2002).
L. Favart and M. V. Machado, Eur. Phys. J. C [**29**]{}, 365 (2003).
K. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 014017 (1999).
K. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} 114023 (1999).
A. C. Caldwell and M. S. Soares, Nucl. Phys. A [**696**]{}, 125 (2001).
M. A. Betemps, M. B. Gay Ducati and M. V. Machado, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 014018 (2002).
M. A. Betemps, M. B. Ducati, M. V. Machado and J. Raufeisen, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 114008 (2003).
J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 014001 (2002).
A. Freund, M. McDermott and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 036001 (2003).
A. G. Shuvaev, K. J. Golec-Biernat, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 014015 (1999).
J. Bartels, K. Golec-Biernat and K. Peters, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{}, 3051 (2003)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Recently a new Random Access technique based on Aloha and using Interference Cancellation (IC) named Sliding Window Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha (SW-CRDSA) has been introduced. Differently from classic CRDSA that operates grouping slots in frames, this technique operates in an unframed manner yielding to better throughput results and smaller average packet delay with respect to frame-based CRDSA. However as classic CRDSA also SW-CRDSA relies on multiple transmission of the same packet. While this can be acceptable in systems where the only limit resides in the peak transmission power, it could represent a problem when constraints on the average power (e.g. at the transponder of a satellite system) are present. In this paper, a comparison in terms of normalized efficiency is carried out between Slotted Aloha and the two CRDSA techniques.\
author:
-
title: Average Power Limitations in Sliding Window Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha
---
Random Access, Slotted Aloha, Interference Cancellation, Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha, Sliding Window, Power Limitations, Satellite Communications.
Introduction
============
Random Access techniques such as Slotted Aloha (SA) [@SWCRDSA:RobertsALOHA] [@SWCRDSA:AbramsonALOHA] and Diversity Slotted Aloha (DSA) [@SWCRDSA:DiversityALOHA] have been largely used especially in satellite communications both for initial terminal login and when small amounts of data need to be sent. Their almost 40 years long success resides, among the others, in their capability to work nicely in peculiar conditions such as long propagation delay and directional transmissions that do not allow transmitting terminals to have an immediate feedback either about the state of the channel in terms of occupancy or about the outcome of their transmission. This is true especially in the case of Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites with bent pipe repeaters, for which the Round Trip Time (RTT) between terminals and the gateway is approximately $500\ ms$. However, the absence of coordination among users introduces the possibility of collision among bursts sent from different users and the subsequent loss of the transmitted content. For this reason, ALOHA-based techniques have been generally used when the expected load on the channel is small enough to ensure a sufficiently low packet loss probability.
Recently, Aloha-based techniques have gained increasingly new attention. This is due to the introduction of the concept of Interference Cancellation (IC) as a mean to exploit the diversity advantages brought by DSA. In particular this new technique, called Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted ALOHA (CRDSA), was first introduced in [@SWCRDSA:CRDSA1] and allows to restore the content of colliding packets based on the fact that if two identical copies of the same packet are sent and each one contains a pointer to the position of the other one, the interference contribution due to one copy can be removed in case the other copy is correctly decoded. Subsequently, the same concept has been extended to more than two copies per packet [@SWCRDSA:CRDSA2] [@SWCRDSA:CRDSA3] and to the case of variable burst degree, known as Irregular Repetition Slotted Aloha (IRSA) [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1], in which for each packet a certain number of copies are sent according to a given probability distribution. Let us define $G$ as the normalized MAC channel load, i.e. the average number of different packet contents sent per frame normalized over the frame size and $T=G (1-PLR)$ as the throughput, with PLR standing for Packet Loss Ratio. While for SA the maximum throughput value is $T\simeq 0.37 [pkt/slot]$ (obtained for $G=1$) and DSA ensures smaller packet loss probability up to moderate loads, CRDSA and its evolutions can reach throughput values even close to $1 [pkt/slot]$. As a matter of fact, original CRDSA with 2 copies per packet can get to $T\simeq 0.55 [pkt/slot]$, for CRDSA with more than 2 copies $T\simeq 0.7 [pkt/slot]$ and CRDSA with Variable Burst Degree can achieve $T\simeq 0.938 [pkt/slot]$ if the maximum allowed packet repetition is equal to 8.[^1]
However, in CRDSA all the replicas of the same packet are placed within the $N_S$ slots of a frame. This implies that each user has to wait the beginning of a new frame to start sending its content. Therefore, a new and undesirable component of delay is introduced with respect to SA in which a packet is typically sent in the next slot as soon as the content is ready for transmission. Also the throughput performance is limited by frames since packets sent in the same frame share the same set of eligible slots to place their copies and this increases, from a probabilistic point of view, the occurrence of unsolvable collisions. For this reason, in [@SW] a new technique exploiting the advantages of CRDSA in an unframed manner has been introduced. This technique (named Sliding Window - Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha) further boosts the throughput performance up to 13% with respect to CRDSA and at the same time reduces the average packet delay at destination. Nevertheless, also Sliding Window - CRDSA (in short SW-CRDSA) similarly to classic CRDSA (from now on indicated as FB-CRDSA standing for Frame-Based CRDSA) relies on the transmission of multiple copies of the same packet per attempt. While this can be acceptable in systems where the only limit resides in the peak transmission power, it could represent an issue when a constraint on the average power is present as for example at the satellite transponder relaying terminals data to a remote gateway. For this reason in the following paper, similarly to what has been done in [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1] for FB-CRDSA, an analysis and comparison in terms of normalized efficiency is carried out for SW-CRDSA and obtained results are compared with the normalized efficiency in case of SA and FB-CRDSA.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II an overview of the considered access scheme is presented. In Section III the reasoning behind the computation of the normalized efficiency as well as the formulas used for the analysis are given. Section IV illustrates simulation results. Section V deals with remarks on the energy efficiency aspects when retransmissions are taken into account. Section VI concludes the paper.
Access scheme overview {#OW}
======================
Transmitter side
----------------
Consider a scenario in which a certain number of terminals communicate to a remote gateway via satellite using SC-TDMA and have no immediate knowledge either about the outcome of their transmission or about the status of the other terminals (transmitting or not). Figure \[AxSchemes\] shows an example of how FB-CRDSA and SW-CRDSA differently behave when a certain number of new packets are ready for transmission. The instant in which packets are ready for transmission is indicated as a vertical line. In this example the slot time has been assumed as time unit so that packet arrivals always occur at slot starts. Although this approximates the real case, this approximation does not substantially conditions our results since the slot time $T_S$ is much smaller than the frame interval $N_S\cdot T_S$ and the only change regards delay results.
![Example of access to the channel for FB-CRDSA and SW-CRDSA.[]{data-label="AxSchemes"}](AxScheme){width="\columnwidth"}
As done in [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1], let us define the burst degree distribution (i.e. the probability of having a certain number of copies per packet) through the following polynomial representation\
$$\Lambda(x) = \sum_l \Lambda_l x^l$$\
where $\Lambda_l$ is the probability that a given packet will have burst degree $l$. While in FB-CRDSA each packet copy is placed within the $N_S$ slots of the next starting frame (with equal probability for a slot to contain a copy of a given packet), in SW-CRDSA the first copy is sent immediately in the next starting slot while the other $l-1$ copies for the same packet are placed in the next $N_{sw}-1$ slots with equally distributed probability. The set of $N_{sw}$ slots (called Sliding Window[^2]) represents the number of successive slots, comprehensive of the one with the first packet copy, in which a certain user places all the replicas of a given packet and in this sense it can be considered as counterpart of the FB-CRDSA frame. Therefore, in FB-CRDSA packets have an additional delay component that varies from $0$ to $N_S\cdot T_S$ depending on the moment they are ready for transmission. In Figure \[AxSchemes\], this waiting interval is indicated with a dotted arrow that lasts from the time the packet was ready for transmission until the moment in which the related terminal is actually allowed to access the channel to send that packet.
Receiver side
-------------
At the receiver, assuming perfect channel estimation and interference cancellation, one of three possible situations can occur for each slot:
- [no burst copies are received;]{}
- [only 1 burst is received, thus the packet can be correctly decoded and the content of the other copies belonging to the same packet can be removed from the other slots in order to unlock other packet contents;]{}
- [more than 1 burst is received in the same slot, thus interference occurred and all the contents belonging to different terminals that are present in that slot cannot be decoded at the receiver side.]{}
Based on the rules listed above, an iterative IC process is started at the receiver so that at each iteration the copies belonging to successfully decoded packets are removed from the other slots. Doing that, previously undecodable packets gain the possibility to be decoded if all the other bursts colliding in the same slot have been correctly decoded. Therefore the IC process allows recovery of further packets than those having at least one copy received without interference as in DSA. This process goes on until all possible packets have been decoded or until the maximum number of iterations $I_{max}$ is reached. Figure \[TOTHRP\] shows throughput results for various burst degree distributions both in the case of FB-CRDSA and in the case of SW-CRDSA assuming same maximum number of iterations for the IC process and same size for the sliding window and the frame ($N_{sw}=N_f$). Displayed results assume Poisson Arrivals for packets transmitted and $G$ represents the mean of the corresponding Poisson distribution[^3].
![Throughput for FB-CRDSA and SW-CRDSA with $I_{max}=50$ and $N_{sw}=N_s=200\ slots$.[]{data-label="TOTHRP"}](TOTHRP){width="\columnwidth"}
As claimed in the introduction and demonstrated in [@SW], the throughput for SW-CRDSA is generally higher than the one for FB-CRDSA if the same load for the two is considered. This can be explained with the fact that each packet’s sliding window is different from the others unless more than one packet was ready for transmission within the same slot interval. Therefore the probability of unsolvable collisions depends on the moment in which packets are ready for transmission (differently from FB-CRDSA) and in particular, if the number of simultaneous packet transmission starts is sufficiently low, the probability of unsolvable collisions is smaller with respect to FB-CRDSA. This comes at the cost of the need to keep a bigger number of slots in memory at the receiver for the iterative IC process. In fact, in FB-CRDSA all the solvable collisions are bounded within one frame. Therefore, after the decoding process for a given frame is finished and decoded packets have been passed to the upper layers, memorized slots are not anymore useful and can thus been removed if needed. In SW-CRDSA instead, also bursts received more than $N_{sw}$ slots before have the possibility to still be correctly decoded due to the fact that interaction among packet copies can not be a-priori bounded within a certain number of slots. For this reason, the need to keep in memory a number of slots greater than $N_{sw}$ arises. While this fact would theoretically require an infinite memory, it has been demonstrated in [@SW] that keeping in memory at the receiver $(5\cdot N_{sw})\ slots$ it is sufficient to avoid almost any loss of potentially decodable packets.
Finally a comparison in terms of Packet Loss Ratio is shown in Figure \[PLR\_TOTAL\]. As we can see, also in this case SW-CRDSA outperforms FB-CRDSA thus justifying the advantage of its use also for small loads. To be noticed also that while for the peak throughput the best results are obtained for Variable Burst Repetition, in this case the communication better benefits from the use of a regular number of replicas.
![Packet Loss Ratio for FB-CRDSA and SW-CRDSA with $I_{max}=50$ and $N_{sw}=N_s=200\ slots$.[]{data-label="PLR_TOTAL"}](PLR_TOTAL){width="\columnwidth"}
Normalized efficiency
=====================
The comparison presented in the previous section assumes the same peak transmitting power for all schemes. As already pointed out in [@SWCRDSA:AbramsonALOHA] and [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1], this assumption is correct for many applications in which the only limit resides on the peak power available and the main interest regards the effect of the interference due to multiple access. However there are cases in which a limit on the average power is present. For example, in satellite systems the average power available at the transponder represents a fundamental limitation for transmission in the downlink path (i.e. from the satellite to the earth receiver). For this reason, it is of interest to analyze the throughput of this new medium access scheme assuming the same average signal power received at the earth station.
To do so, we consider the normalized efficiency $\eta$, defined similarly to [@SWCRDSA:AbramsonALOHA] as the ratio of the capacity $C_i$ (with $i$ indicating the considered Random Access Scheme) to the Gaussian capacity $C_{ref}$ (i.e. the capacity of the satellite channel under the assumption that the transponder transmits continuously):
$$\eta=\frac{C_i}{C_{ref}}$$
The Gaussian channel capacity $C_{ref}$ is expressed as
$$C_{ref}=W\cdot log\Bigg(1+\frac{P}{N}\Bigg)$$
where $W$ is the channel bandwidth, $P$ is the average aggregate signal power at the receiver and $N$ is the noise power. Moreover, from [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1] the capacity of the considered RA scheme can be evaluated as
$$C_{i}=W\cdot T_i(G)\cdot log\Bigg(1+\frac{P}{N\cdot D_i}\Bigg)$$
where $G$ is the normalized MAC channel load, $T_i(G)$ the related throughput and $D_i$ is the ratio between the average transmitted power and the power used for the transmission of a packet copy. Therefore in SA $D_{SA}=G$, in CRDSA with a regular number $l$ of replicas $D_{CRDSA}=(l\cdot G)$ and in the more general case of irregular repetitions $D_{IRSA}=(\Lambda'(1)\cdot G)$ where $\Lambda'(1)$ is the average burst degree as defined in [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1].
Simulation Results
==================
Based on the access scheme overview given in Section II and on the definition of normalized efficiency given in Section III, in this section simulation results in terms of normalized efficiency depending on the normalized MAC channel load (i.e. logical channel load regardless of the actual physical number of bursts per packet content) are shown for various $SNR$ values and under the constraint of equal average power at the receiver. The following simulations have been obtained through implementation in a numerical computing environment, assuming for each point of the resulting curve that the total arrivals of packets to be transmitted are Poisson distributed with aggregate channel load value per each point equal to the mean value of the corresponding Poisson distribution. As already outlined in Section II, a typical scenario where these simulations could be applied is the case of a certain number of terminals that send bursty and infrequent data to a remote gateway via satellite using SC-TDMA. Figures \[nef0\] - \[nef18\] show that the obtained results are highly dependent on the utilized burst degree distribution as well as on the SNR. While from a general point of view we can immediately state the convenience in using SW-CRDSA instead of FB-CRDSA, a more in-depth analysis on the best burst degree distribution needs a discussion of the presented figures.
![Normalized Efficiency for SA and various Frame Based and Sliding Window packet replicas distributions with $N_f=N_{sw}=200$ slots, $I_{max}=50$ and $SNR=0\ dB$.[]{data-label="nef0"}](Neff_0){width="\columnwidth"}
![Normalized Efficiency for SA and various Frame Based and Sliding Window packet replicas distributions with $N_f=N_{sw}=200$ slots, $I_{max}=50$ and $SNR=6\ dB$.[]{data-label="nef6"}](Neff_6){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[nef0\] shows that for $SNR=0\ dB$, FB-CRDSA with 2 replicas gets worse results than SA and only equals it in terms of normalized efficiency for $G=0.55$. SW-CRDSA with 2 replicas instead, outperforms SA both in terms of normalized efficiency in the range between $G=[0.45,0.6]$ and in terms of normalized efficiency peak. The nice thing about SW-CRDSA outperforming SA precisely in this range comes from the fact that this is the region around the throughput peak, i.e. the area in which we want our communication system using CRDSA as Random Access method to operate from a throughput maximization perspective. The use of other burst degree distributions than $\Lambda(x)=x^2$ yields to bad results over the entire range of load values, compared to Slotted Aloha.
For $SNR=6\ dB$, the convenience of using CRDSA($x^2$) becomes more and more evident while also the choice of a greater number of replicas is found to be a better choice with respect to SA if the operating point is around the throughput peak. However, at $SNR=6\ dB$ the use of more than 2 replicas per packet still does not appear to be the best choice with respect to CRDSA($x^2$).
![Normalized Efficiency for SA and various Frame Based and Sliding Window packet replicas distributions with $N_f=N_{sw}=200$ slots, $I_{max}=50$ and $SNR=12\ dB$.[]{data-label="nef12"}](Neff_12){width="\columnwidth"}
![Normalized Efficiency for SA and various Frame Based and Sliding Window packet replicas distributions with $N_f=N_{sw}=200$ slots, $I_{max}=50$ and $SNR=18\ dB$.[]{data-label="nef18"}](Neff_18){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally for $SNR=12\ dB$ using SW-CRDSA($x^3$) becomes the best choice while from $SNR=18\ dB$ SW-IRSA with maximum burst degree equal to 8 begins to outperform the normalized efficiency of CRDSA with regular burst distribution.
Remarks on normalized efficiency in the case of retransmissions
===============================================================
The analysis carried out so far assumes energy fairness in an open loop scenario, i.e. in the case in which only a single transmission attempt per packet content takes place. However, there are a number of other scenarios in which retransmission of failing packets is required. The presented analysis can be extended to those systems under the constraint that the ongoing communication is stable in terms of overall channel load generated by terminals. In the followings a generalization of the definition of stability given in [@CRDSA_stab1] is presented and the rationale for stating the validity of the analysis in case of retransmissions is given.
Consider a certain population of users $M$ that participate in a communication scenario using one of the techniques described so far. Users can be either in non-backlogged or in backlogged state. Assuming that users can handle no more than one packet at the time, in non-backlogged state users are idle because they do not have any packet to transmit or they are awake and waiting for starting a new transmission according to a certain transmission policy $p^{tx}$; in backlogged state, users want to retransmit a packet that has not been correctly received and attempt a retransmission according to a given policy $p^{retx}$. Therefore, the total load present in the channel depends on the load due to new transmissions $G_{tx}$ (determined by the number of non-backlogged users and the transmission policy $p^{tx}$) and on the load due to retransmissions $G_{retx}$ (determined by the number of backlogged users and the retransmission policy $p^{retx}$). The sum of these two quantities $G=G_{tx}+G_{retx}$ constitutes the normalized MAC channel load $G$. The requirement needed in order to consider the open loop analysis still valid is that the expected channel load remains the same over time. Considering $p^{tx}$ and $p^{retx}$ to be stationary policies, the expected channel load will be the same over time if the expected number of backlogged users remains the same[^4]. This corresponds to the requirement that for a certain number of users switching to backlogged state, an equal number of users in backlogged state switches back to non-backlogged state so that $G_{tx}(N_B^*)=T(N_B^*)$ and the communication can be considered to be in a point of equilibrium for $N_B^*$ backlogged users. In particular, considering an arbitrarily small positive quantity $\epsilon$, the equilibrium point is of stable equilibrium if the neighborhoods of the equilibrium point are such that $$G_{tx}(N_B^*-\epsilon)>T(N_B^*-\epsilon)$$ and $$G_{tx}(N_B^*+\epsilon)<T(N_B^*+\epsilon)$$ i.e. the point of equilibrium acts as a sink. On the other hand, if $$G_{tx}(N_B^*-\epsilon)<T(N_B^*-\epsilon)$$ and $$G_{tx}(N_B^*+\epsilon)>T(N_B^*+\epsilon)$$ the point is of unstable equilibrium since it acts as a source. If the former case is verified and the point of equilibrium is also the only one, it can be claimed that the point of stability is global and the communication will always have the same value of expected load.
As an example consider Figure \[EC\] representing two curves. The solid one represents the expected throughput as a function of the number of backlogged users $N_B$ under the constraint $G_{tx}(N_B)=T(N_B)$. The dashed curve represents the actual load due to new transmissions depending on $N_B$. The points of intersection represent points of equilibrium and according to the definition above, the two intersections close to the axis are of stable equilibrium while the remaining one is unstable. Depending on the number of users and on the policies $p^{tx}$ and $p^{retx}$, it is possible to design a communication channel that has a single globally stable equilibrium point for the maximum achievable throughput. Under these considerations it results clear that even though SW-CRDSA overcomes SA in a narrow interval of channel load values, this can be sufficient to justify its use in a stable channel having its globally stable equilibrium point into that interval.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper an analysis in terms of normalized efficiency for the recently introduced Sliding Window - CRDSA technique has been presented. The need for such an analysis finds its reason in the use of Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted Aloha as Random Access communication technique for transmission in scenarios with limits on the average power (e.g. transponder’s energy limitations in satellite communications). For this reason, a comparison that takes into account fairness in the use of available energy (in this case at the relay) is needed. Found results clearly show that the use of an unframed access to the channel is more convenient than a division of the channel in frames since Sliding Window - CRDSA outperforms Frame Based - CRDSA regardless of the actual burst degree distribution chosen. Moreover while with Frame Based techniques SNR greater than $6\ dB$ is needed in order to get better results than SA in terms of normalized efficiency, with the use of Sliding Window - CRDSA better results around the throughput peak are already found for $SNR=0\ dB$. The obtained results find application in open loop scenarios as well as in the case of retransmission of unresolvable packets, under the assumption that the channel is globally stable.\
[1]{}
L.G. Roberts, “ALOHA packet systems with and without slots and capture”, ARPANET System Note 8 (NIC11290), June 1972.
N. Abramson, “The throughput of packet broadcasting channels”, *IEEE Trans.Comm.*, vol.25, pp.117-128, Jan. 1977.
G.L. Choudhury and S. S. Rappaport, “Diversity ALOHA - A random access scheme for satellite communications”, *IEEE Trans.Comm.*, vol.31, pp.450-457, Mar. 1983.
Casini, E.; De Gaudenzi, R.; Herrero, Od.R.; , “Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted ALOHA (CRDSA): An Enhanced Random Access Schemefor Satellite Access Packet Networks,” Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on , vol.6, no.4, pp.1408-1419, April 2007
O. del Rio Herrero and R. De Gaudenzi, “A High-Performance MAC Protocol For Consumer Broadband Satellite Systems”, Proceedings of the 27th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC), June 1st-4th, 2009, Edinburgh, Scotland.
De Gaudenzi, R.; del Rio Herrero, O.; , “Advances in Random Access protocols for satellite networks,” Satellite and Space Communications, 2009. IWSSC 2009. International Workshop on , vol., no., pp.331-336, 9-11 Sept. 2009
Liva, G.; , “Graph-Based Analysis and Optimization of Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted ALOHA,” Communications, IEEE Transactions on , vol.59, no.2, pp.477-487, February 2011
Meloni, A. and Murroni M. ; Kissling, C. and Berioli, M.; , ”Sliding Window-Based Contention Resolution Diversity Slotted ALOHA”, Proceedings of the Global Communications Conference, GLOBECOM 2011, 3-7 December 2012, Anaheim, California, USA.
Meloni, A.; Murroni, M.; , “CRDSA, CRDSA++ and IRSA: Stability and performance evaluation”, Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference (ASMS) and 12th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop (SPSC), 2012 6th , vol., no., pp.220-225, 5-7 Sept. 2012
[^1]: This values are upper bounds that can be reached only with an asymptotic setting as claimed in [@SWCRDSA:IRSA1]. Peak values obtained for a realistic frame size will be shown in Section \[OW\].
[^2]: The name Sliding Window comes from the fact that depending on the moment packet copies have begun to be sent, the set of slots to be considered is gradually sliding in time.
[^3]: The assumption of Poisson Arrivals is necessary in order to obtain comparable results for FB-CRDSA and SW-CRDSA as thoroughly explained in [@SW].
[^4]: By reflection this means that also the number of non-backlogged users remains equal since the number of non-backlogged users is by definition the total population $M$ minus the number of backlogged users $N_B$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Liquid-crystal networks consist of weakly crosslinked polymers that are coupled to liquid-crystal molecules. The resultant hybrid system has rich elastic properties. We develop a phase field model to describe mechanical properties of a hexagonal liquid-crystal network. The hexagonal liquid-crystal network is found to have soft shear deformations. The elastic properties are predicted analytically and confirmed with numerical simulations. In addition the model naturally incorporates non-linear elasticity and dislocations or disclinations.'
author:
- 'Simiso K. Mkhonta,$^1$ Dan Vernon,$^1$ K. R. Elder,$^2$ and Martin Grant$^1$'
title: 'Soft Elasticity in Nematic Liquid-Crystal Networks.'
---
Soft elasticity is an exotic elastic phenomenon found in liquid-crystal networks which incorporates liquid-crystalline order and rubber elasticity [@Warner06]. The simplest liquid-crystal network (LCN) consists of weakly crosslinked polymers with the constituent rodlike liquid-crystal molecules in the nematic phase. A nematic LCN can relieve a shear stress via the additional degrees of freedom that arise from the constituent nematic molecules. In addition to exhibiting rich elastic behavior, LCNs are being considered in new technological applications that include artificial muscles [@Shenoy02], opto-mechanical actuators [@Camacho04], and tunable mirror-less lasers [@Finkelmann01].
Ideally, the nematic molecules are free to wiggle about their anisotropic axes. As a consequence, when a shear deformation is applied to a nematic LCN in a plane that involves the nematic director, the nematic molecules can tilt locally such that the system retains its equilibrium configuration. This phenomena is referred to as soft elasticity [@Warner06] and is in the same spirit as the prediction of Golubovic-Lubensky that an anisotropic glass that breaks spontaneously a continuous symmetry must have a vanishing shear modulus [@Golubovic89].
In this article we show that the phenomenon of soft elasticity is not limited to nematic gels [@Lubensky02] and smectic gels [@Stenull05] but can also be realized in networks with more translational order. Our system is distinct from the “soft crystal" phases of a liquid crystal fluid [@deGennes95] due to the topological constraints offered by the network. Our hybrid system thus shrinks or elongates spontaneously depending on the orientational distribution of the nematic molecules. Our model could be tested experimentally in a block copolymer system that can self-assemble in a liquid-crystalline environment into an ordered network. For example, a *ABA* triblock copolymer solution has been shown to physically crosslink when the *A*-type monomers are phobic to the liquid crystal solvent [@Kornfield04].
To capture the properties of a LCN we couple the network molecular shape to the orientational order of the background nematic molecules. The coupling is such that in the nematic phase, the network is elongated in a direction determined by the average orientation of the nematic molecules. In this state the network density field $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is anisotropic. We assume that the network molecular lengthscale that is obtained from its characteristic wavenumber $q_0$ is much larger than the dimension of the nematic molecules $a$. This assumption holds in the case of the $\emph{ABA}$ triblock network system where the radius of gyration of the polymers $R_g \cong 1/q_0 >> a$. This allows us to utilise the nematic director field $\theta(\mathbf{r})$ to describe the nematic molecules.
Under these conditions we propose the phenomenological free energy functional $$\begin{aligned}
F &=& \int d^2\mathbf{r}\,\{K\left(\nabla \theta \right)^2/2
+ \tau\psi^2/2 +\lambda\psi^3/3+ \psi^4/4 +\nonumber\\
&& \left[q^2_0\psi+A\partial
_{xx}\psi+B\partial_{yy}\psi +C\partial_{xy}\psi\right]^2/2\},
\label{eqn:energyd}\end{aligned}$$ where $A(\theta) = \cos^2 \theta + \kappa^2 \sin^2 \theta$, $B(\theta)= \sin^2 \theta + \kappa^2 \cos^2 \theta$, and $C(\theta) = (\kappa^2-1)\sin {2\theta}$ and where $K$ is the Frank elastic constant for liquid crystals, $\kappa$ is the anisotropy ratio of the density fluctuations in the nematic state, $\tau$ is a control parameter and $\lambda < 0$ is a phenomenological constant. In the limit $\kappa =1$, the network fluctuations are isotropic regardless of the nematic order and thus the two fields are uncoupled.
The dynamics of the model are driven by the minimization of the free energy, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \psi(\mathbf{r},t)/\partial t
& =&\nabla^2 \left[\delta F/\delta \psi(\mathbf{r})\right], \nonumber\\
\partial \theta(\mathbf{r},t)/\partial t
&=&-\left[\delta F/\delta \theta(\mathbf{r})\right] +
\mu\,\eta(\mathbf{r},t),
\label{eqn:dynamics}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta(\mathbf{r},t)$ is a noise field and $\mu$ is the intensity of the noise. For simplicity, the thermal fluctuations are only incorporated in the orientational field such that $\eta$ is assumed to be a Gaussian random function, with a mean variance $\langle\eta(\mathbf{r},t),\eta(\mathbf{r'},t')\rangle = \delta
(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})\delta (t-t')$. The square of the intensity of the noise is linearly proportional to temperature.
The equilibrium states for Eq. (\[eqn:energyd\]) can be determined in mean field theory by considering the minima of $F$. We can assume that the average molecular orientation is along the y-axis \[i.e., $\langle
\theta(\mathbf{r})\rangle = 0$\]. In this instance the free energy functional simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
F^{m} & \approx &\int d^2\mathbf{r}\,\{(r^2_{\perp}\partial_{xx}\psi
+r_{\parallel}^2\partial_{yy}\psi+q^2_0\psi)^2/2\nonumber\\
&&+\tau\psi^2/2 + \lambda\psi^3/3+ \psi^4/4 \},
\label{eqn:APFC}\end{aligned}$$ where $r^2_{\parallel} \equiv \langle B(\theta)\rangle$, $r^2_{\perp} \equiv \langle A(\theta)\rangle$ and the brackets imply an average over the liquid crystal orientational distribution. Since the nematic director is assumed to be along the $y-$coordinate, from Eq. (\[eqn:APFC\]) we obtain that $r_{\parallel}$ and $ r_{\perp}$ define the periodicity of the network parallel and perpendicular to the nematic director respectively.
The averaged free energy $F^{m}$ is in the form of the Landau-Brazovskii (LB) phenomenological theory [@Brazovskii75] that describes phase transitions of a uniform system to a periodic state. The only difference is the scaling factor between the two coordinates. The mean field phase diagram of this model is well known [@Wickham03; @Elder04]. The approximate equilibrium solutions of the density fluctuations are then similar to the crystalline solutions of the LB theory. For example the hexagonal phase is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,y) &=& A_t \Big\{\cos\left[\sqrt{3} q_0x/
(2r_{\perp})\right]\cos\left[q_0y/(2r_{\parallel})\right]
\nonumber \\
&& +\cos \left({q_0y}/{r_{\parallel}}\right)/2\Big\},
\label{eqn:opA}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_t=4(-\lambda+\sqrt{-15\tau +\lambda^2})/15$ is the amplitude of the local density fluctuations. The sinusoidal solution Eq. (\[eqn:opA\]) is the leading term approximation of a Fourier series and is only valid for $0>\tau >> -1$.
At low temperatures, the nematic molecules have a preferred direction \[$\theta(\mathbf{r})$ =0, in our case\] and thus we have $r^{nem}_{\parallel}=\kappa $ and $r^{nem}_{\perp} = 1 .
\label{eqn:nem}$ In the high-temperature isotropic phase, the nematic molecules have no preferred direction, i.e., $\theta(\mathbf{r})$ is a random field. Thus we have $r^{iso}_{\parallel}=r^{iso}_{\perp} =\sqrt {(\kappa^2 +1)/2}$. The change of $ r_{\parallel}$ and $ r_{\perp}$ with temperature highlights elongations of the network lattice due to nematic ordering. An example of the network lattice distortion is presented in Fig.\[fig:ucrystal\]. Spontaneous elongation of the network during a isotropic-nematic transition is a hallmark of LCNs [@Warner06].
The continuum elastic free energy of our elongated hexagonal LCN is constructed from the lattice symmetry of the network and the coupling of its rotational deformation to the nematic director orientation. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{el} &=& \left[C_{11}(u_{xx}^2 +u_{yy}^2)
+2C_{12}u_{xx}u_{yy} +4C_{66}u_{xy}^2\right]/2\nonumber\\
&+& D_1 \left(\theta-\omega_{xy}\right)^2/2
+D_2\left(\theta-\omega_{xy}\right)u_{xy}\nonumber\\
&+& K\left(\nabla\theta \right)^2/2,
\label{eqn:elastic}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{\alpha\beta}=(\partial_\beta u_\alpha
+\partial_\alpha u_\beta)/2$ is the symmetric strain tensor and $\omega_{\alpha\beta}=(\partial_\beta u_\alpha
-\partial_\alpha u_\beta)/2$ is the antisymmetric strain tensor. $u_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ describe respectively the relative translations and rotations of the network due to an applied deformation. The first line in Eq. (\[eqn:elastic\]) is the elastic free energy of a two dimensional hexagonal crystal [@Landau86] and the second line is the de Gennes elastic energy [@deGennes82], which describes the coupling of the nematic molecules to local fluctuations of the network strands.
We will determine the elastic moduli from our molecular free energy. We will assume that the distortions are small, so changes of the density amplitude $\psi(x,y)$ are negligible. We will choose the molecular axis and nematic director to be along the y-axis, where $\theta(\mathbf{r}) =0$, and thus employ Eq. (\[eqn:APFC\]) as the effective free energy density.
A pure shear distortion is described by the density $\psi= \psi(x+\zeta y, y+\zeta x)$, where $\zeta$ is the elastic strain. In this state the shear free elastic energy per unit area ($f_{shear}\equiv [F^m(\zeta)-F^m(\zeta=0)]/{\rm area}$) can be calculated by substituting a one mode approximation for $\psi$ \[i.e., Eq. (\[eqn:opA\])\] into Eq. (\[eqn:APFC\]) to obtain $$f_{shear}= \frac{3}{32}\left(\frac{r_{\parallel}}{r_{\perp}}
+ \frac{r_{\perp}}{r_{\parallel}}\right)^2q^4_0A_t^2\zeta^2
+{\cal O}(\zeta^4).
\label{eqn:pureshear}$$ Eq. (\[eqn:elastic\]) can now be used to calculate $C_{66}$ recalling that for a pure shear $u_{\alpha\beta}=0$, except for $u_{xy}=\zeta$. This gives $$C_{66} =\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial ^2f_{shear}}{\partial \zeta
^2}=\frac{3}{64}\left(\frac{r_{\parallel}}{r_{\perp}}
+ \frac{r_{\perp}}{r_{\parallel}}\right)^2A_t^2q^4_0 .
\label{eqn:C66}$$ At low temperatures we have $r^{nem}_{\parallel}/r^{nem}_{\perp}=\kappa$, which means the shear modulus is strongly dependent on the network molecular anisotropy. Under a similar procedure, other physical elastic moduli such as the bulk modulus $B_u =3A_t^2q^4_0/32$ and the deviatoric modulus $C_{d}= 3A_t^2q^4_0/16$ are obtained. These do not depend on the molecular aspect ratio [@Elder04] and note that when $r_{\parallel} = r_{\perp}$ then $C_{d}=C_{66}$ as expected for a hexagonal lattice.
A pure rotational deformation is described by the strain tensor $\omega_{xy} = \zeta$ and $ u_{\alpha\beta} =0$. The elastic energy terms in Eq. (\[eqn:elastic\]) all vanish except the term with coefficient $D_1$. In this state, $\psi = \psi(x+\zeta y,y-\zeta x)$. The evaluated free-energy density of the deformed state gives $$D_1 =\frac{3}{16} \left( \frac{r_{\parallel}}{r_{\perp}}
-\frac{r_{\perp}}{r_{\parallel}}\right)^2 A_t^2 q^4_0.
\label{eqn:D1}$$ From the difference between two simple shears along each coordinate we can determine $D_2$: $$D_2 =\frac{\partial ^2f^y_{shear}}{\partial \zeta
^2} -\frac{\partial ^2 f^x_{shear}}{\partial \zeta
^2} = \frac{3}{16}\left( \frac{r^2_{\perp}}{r^2_{\parallel}}
-\frac{r_{\parallel}^2}{r^2_{\perp }} \right)A_t^2q^4_0.
\label{eqn:D2}$$ The coupling moduli $D_1$ and $D_2$ vanish when the network density fluctuations are isotropic (where $r_{\perp} =r_{\parallel}$), i.e, in the isotropic liquid-crystal phase or when $\kappa = 1$. It is interesting to note that these calculations for the molecular moduli $C_{66}$, $D_1$ and $D_2$ are consistent with the theoretical result of Warner and Terentjev [@Warner06] for nematic elastomers derived from classical rubber elasticity.
When the nematic director is allowed to relax to an optimum state, then $\partial E_{el}/\partial \theta =0$ and thus Eq. (\[eqn:elastic\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
E^R_{el} &=& C_{11}\left(u_{xx}^2+
u_{yy}^2\right)/2+C_{12}u_{xx}u_{yy}
+2\widetilde{C}_{66}u_{xy}^2\nonumber\\
& +& KD_2^2\left(\nabla
u_{xy}\right)^2/(2D^2_1)
+ K\left(\nabla \omega_{xy}\right)^2/2,
\label{eqn:soft}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{C}_{66} = C_{66} -D_2^2/(4D_1)$ is the renormalized shear modulus.
From Eqs. (\[eqn:C66\]), (\[eqn:D1\]), and (\[eqn:D2\]) we obtain the remarkable result that $\widetilde{C}_{66} =0$. This means the nematic director relaxes to cancel out the elastic energy cost for a shear deformation. In this limit, the nematic molecules “wiggle” until the deformed structure is compatible with the boundary conditions. The stability of the crystalline state at zero shear modulus requires higher orders terms, like ${\cal O}(\zeta^4)$, in the elastic free energy.
To confirm these approximate analytic calculations, we numerically solve Eq (\[eqn:dynamics\]). To examine soft elasticity, we impose a steady shear deformation by adding an advective term on the dynamics, i.e., $\partial/\partial t \rightarrow \partial/\partial t + V_x \partial_x$, where the velocity, $V_x = \gamma y$, has a gradient in the y-axis. We set the initial nematic director orientation such that it is along the shear flow direction and we also shift our periodic boundaries to be consistent to the shear flow using the Lees-Edwards method [@Lees72]. We choose the following numerical parameters: $\tau =-0.03$, $\lambda=-0.9$, and $K=1$, such that the network forms a hexagonal lattice.
The influence of the shear on the total free energy density $F_s$ is displayed in Fig. \[fig:soft1\] for three values of the thermal noise strength, $\mu$. At the lowest temperature the free energy is flat at small strains up to $\gamma t \approx 0.25$. Thus the system has the same free energy as the undeformed state at small strains.
However at higher temperatures, $F_s$ increases for all shears as it is expected for a conventional network. These results are consistent with Eq. (\[eqn:soft\]), since the coupling constants $D_1$ and $D_2$ vanish with increasing temperature. Thus soft elasticity vanishes with increasing temperature. We also examined the influence of the network anisotropy on the shear deformation and the results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:soft2\]. When $\kappa =1$ the two fields are decoupled, and the elastic response is that of classical solid. When $\kappa=1.7$ a soft regime is observed up to $\gamma t \approx 0.3$ as indicated by the flat free-energy density.
Finally it is interesting to consider the configuration of the network density $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ and the spatial average orientation of the nematic molecules $\langle \theta(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ as the system is being sheared. The snapshots in Fig. \[fig:soft3\] show that the network structure changes with increasing shear strain even in the elastic soft regime. A uniaxial hexagonal lattice has a continuous set of structures [@Campbell88] which within our mean field theory have the same free energy. The switching of $\langle \theta(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ is different from the rotational component of the shear which is given by $\omega_{xy} =\gamma t/2$. The initial dependence of $\langle \theta(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ on the shear can be calculated by minimizing the elastic energy $E_{el}$ for a simple shear deformation applied along the nematic director. This gives $$\theta_{soft}(t) = (D_1+D_2)\zeta(t)/(2D_1) = \zeta(t)/(1-\kappa^2)
\label{eqn:thetasoft}$$ in the long wavelength limit. As shown in Fig. \[fig:soft3\] this prediction works quite well. After this soft regime the strain energy increases until a yield occurs, e.g., for $\kappa=2$ at $\gamma t\approx 0.75$. Interestingly this first yield occurs without the nucleation of mobile dislocations as would occur in a normal crystalline material. Of course at higher strain dislocations do eventually appear as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:soft3\]. We have also made numerical calculations in the case of a static strain. For small strains $\langle \theta(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ relaxes to the value determined by Eq. (\[eqn:thetasoft\]) and the total free energy decays to the value of the undeformed state in agreement with our mean field predictions. We tested our numerical computations for $-0.03 \leq \tau \leq -0.3$ where the hexagonal phase is stable, and these simulations indicate that the analytic results are exact as $\tau \rightarrow 0_-$, with small corrections at larger $|\tau|$. The limit $\tau \rightarrow 0_-$ is also where our sinusoidal density approximation is valid.
In summary, a model of liquid crystal networks was presented and shown by analytical and numerical methods to reproduce soft elasticity as a function of temperature and molecular shape. In addition the numerical simulations provide evidence of unusual non-linear yielding mechanisms which provide avenues of future research.
K.R.E. acknowledges the support from NSF under Grant No. DMR-0413062. M.G. was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the le Fonds Québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies.
-.5cm
[99]{}
-.9cm
M. Warner and E. M. Terentjev, *Liquid Crystal Elastomers*, (Clarendon, Oxford, 2006). D. K. Shenoy, D. L. Thomson, A. Srinivasan, P. Keller and B. R. Ratna, Sensor Actuators A [**96**]{}, 184 (2002). M. Camacho-Lopez, H. Finkelmann, P. Palffy-Muhoray and M. Shelley, Nat. Mater. [**3**]{}, 307 (2004). H. Finkelmann, S. T. Kim, A. Munoz, P. Palffy-Muhoray and B. Taheri, Adv. Mater. [**13**]{}, 1069 (2001). L. Golubovic and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1082 (1989). T. C. Lubensky, R. Mukhopadhyay, L. Radzihovsky, and X. Xing, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 011702 (2002). O. Stenull and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 018304 (2005). P. G. de Gennes and J. Prost, *Physics of Liquid Crystals* (Oxford Univerisity Press, Oxford, 1995). M. D. Kempe, N. R. Scruggs, R. Verduzco, J. Lal, and J. A. Kornfield, Nat. Mater. [**3**]{}, 177 (2004). S. A. Brazovskii, Sov. Phys. JETP, [**41**]{}, 85 (1975). R. A. Wickham and A. Shi, J. Chem. Phys. [**118**]{}, 10293 (2003). K. R. Elder and M. Grant, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 051605 (2004). L.D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,\
*Theory of Elasticity*,(Pergamon, New York, 1986). P.G. de Gennes, *Polymer Liquid Crystals*, edited by C. W. Krigbaum and R. Meyer (Academic Press,New York, 1982). A. Lees and S. Edwards, J. Phys. C [**5**]{}, 1921 (1972) L. J. Campbell, M. M. Doria, V. G. Kogan, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 2439 (1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The low temperature dependence of the spin and charge susceptibilities of an anisotropic electron system in two dimensions is analyzed. It is shown that the presence of inflection points at the Fermi surface leads, generically, to a $ T \log T $ dependence, and a more singular behavior, $\chi \sim T ^{3/4} \log T$, is also possible. Applications to quasi two-dimensional materials are discussed.'
author:
- 'S. Fratini'
- 'F. Guinea'
title: Electronic susceptibilities in systems with anisotropic Fermi surfaces
---
Introduction
============
The possible existence of quantum critical points in the phase diagrams of many materials has led to a detailed study of the low temperature behavior of the susceptibilities of electron systems. The critical properties of the system are determined by the energy and momentum dependence of the response function of the electron system associated to the order parameter in the ordered phase[@H76; @M85; @M93]. It has been shown that the low temperature spin susceptibility of the isotropic electron liquid has an unexpected non analytic dependence on temperature, when high order perturbative corrections are considered[@BKV97]. These corrections are irrelevant in the Renormalization Group sense[@S94; @P92; @MCC98], and do not modify the basic properties of the electron liquid, as described by Landau’s theory. However, they can lead to unexpected power law dependences in many physical quantities at low temperatures, or change the order of the phase transitions[@BKV99]. The origin of these non analiticities in homogeneous response functions has been traced back to the special properties of $2 k_F$ scattering in the isotropic electron liquid[@CM01].
It is well known that anisotropic Fermi surfaces can have regions where scattering becomes more singular than in the isotropic electron liquid, the so called “ hot spots ". When two portions of the Fermi surface are flat and parallel, nesting occurs, and the susceptibilities diverge logarithmically, ${\rm Re} \chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega ) \propto \log ( \Lambda / \omega )$, where ${\bf \vec{Q}}$ is the nesting vector. A saddle point in the density of states leads also to logarithmic divergences in two dimensions. The hot spots at the Fermi surface can be characterized by the frequency dependence of ${\rm Im}
\chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega )$, where ${\bf \vec{Q}}$ spans the hot spots. The usual behavior in a Fermi liquid is ${\rm Im} \chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega )
\propto | \omega |$, in any dimension $D$. For an isotropic Fermi surface, if $| {\bf \vec{Q}} | = 2 k_F$, one has ${\rm Im} \chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega )
\propto | \omega |^{(D-1)/2}$. For $D=1$ the imaginary part of the $2 k_F$ susceptibility approaches a constant at low frequencies. By a Kramers Kronig transformation, it can be shown that the real part should diverge logarithmically, leading to the deviations from Landau’s theory which characterize a Luttinger liquid.
It is also possible to show that, when ${\bf \vec{Q}}$ connects two saddle points in an anisotropic Fermi surface, ${\rm Im} \chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega )
\propto | \omega |^{(D-2)/2}$. This result implies the existence of logarithmic divergences for $D=2$, which have been extensively studied in relation to high T$_{\rm c}$ superconductors[@VH], and lead to deviations from Landau’s theory[@GGV96]. In addition to saddle points, a generic anisotropic Fermi surface can show inflection points (see Fig.\[fig:FS-ex\]). The existence of these points at the Fermi surface, which do not require any special fine tuning of the chemical potential, leads to[@GGV97] ${\rm Im} \chi ( {\bf \vec{Q}} , \omega )
\propto | \omega |^{(D-2)/2 + 1/4}$. For $D = 2$, scattering between these points is more singular than the $2 k_F$ scattering considered previously.
In the present work, we analyze scattering at inflection points in a two dimensional anisotropic Fermi surface. In the next section, we present the main features of the two loop calculation, extending the method used in reference[@CM01]. The main results are obtained in section III, while the finer details of the calculation are deferred to the appendices. Applications to Fermi surfaces of different shapes are given in section IV, and section V discusses the main results of our work.
The method
==========
We consider a system of two-dimensional (2D) fermions interacting through a generic short-ranged effective potential $U(q)$. For the sake of simplicity, we shall also assume that the interaction only affects electrons of opposite spins, which is a reasonable approximation when the momentum dependence of $U(q)$ is weak. It was shown in refs.[@BKV97; @CM01] that while the lowest order ($\propto U$) perturbative corrections are well behaved, higher order corrections can lead to an anomalous behaviour in the low-energy properties of the Fermi liquid. To be more precise, the uniform spin susceptibility of a 2D electron system shows a linear $T$ dependence, which contradicts the usual Sommerfeld expansion in powers of $(T/E_F)^2$. Such anomalous behaviour was traced back to the peculiarities of $2k_F$ scattering, i.e. the occurrence of particle-hole pairs lying on opposite sides of the Fermi surface (FS). This special wavevector plays a key role in the $q$-dependent susceptibility of electronic systems already in the non-interacting case, with the appearance of a square-root singularity around $2k_F$ which is directly related to the jump in the occupation number. If one considers the *uniform* susceptibility, though, the singularities associated with $2k_F$ scattering can only show up indirectly through the excitation of a *virtual* particle-hole pair, which explains the absence of anomalous corrections at lowest order in the interaction strength. In the general (non circular) case, among all the wavevectors connecting opposite sides of the FS, the inflection points play a special role, due to the flatness of the Fermi surface (the extreme case being the one of a perfectly flat FS, or perfect nesting, which leads to strong instabilities). According to the previous discussion, the second-order diagrams which lead to non-standard behavior are the ones containing a particle-hole bubble whose transferred momentum can match the special value $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$. Such diagrams are depicted in figure \[fig:susc\].
Diagrams a) and b) are vertex corrections. They have opposite signs and cancel in the case of a perfectly $q$-independent interaction potential: the fermion propagators involved are the same in both diagrams, the only difference being in the momentum carried by the interaction. To be specific, with the notations of figure \[fig:susc\], diagram a) is proportional to $U(\tilde{\mathbf{Q}})^2$, while diagram b) involves some momentum average of the interaction, and there is no reason for a perfect cancellation in the general case. Diagram c) is a self-energy correction, and will be considered separately.
Uniform susceptibilities
========================
After integration over Matsubara frequencies, the vertex correction a) of figure \[fig:susc\] in the zero-frequency, zero-momentum limit reads: $$\chi(T) =\int\! \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{d^2Q}{(2\pi)^2} U(\mathbf{Q})^2
\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{p}})\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{p+Q}})
L(\xi_{\mathbf{p+Q}}-\xi_{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{Q})
\label{eq:susc}$$ where the Lindhard function in 2 space dimensions is defined as $$L(i\Omega,Q)= \int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{n(\xi_\mathbf{k})-n(\xi_\mathbf{k+Q})}
{i\Omega+\xi_\mathbf{k}-\xi_\mathbf{k+Q}}
\label{eq:Lind}$$ and [^1] $\Delta(\xi)=\beta/4\cosh^2(\beta\xi/2)$. Such $\Delta$-functions, which constrain momenta to lie within a shell of thickness $\sim T$ from the Fermi surface, are strongly temperature dependent, and they are responsible for the leading temperature dependence of the susceptibility. Indeed, in (\[eq:susc\]) we have omitted terms proportional to $\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{p+Q}}) n(\xi_{\mathbf{p}})$ coming from the poles of the Lindhard function, which are less $T$-dependent since they receive contributions mainly from regions far from the Fermi surface. Taking advantage of time-reversal symmetry ($\xi_\mathbf{k}=\xi_{-\mathbf{k}}$), we can write $$L(\Delta\xi_p,Q)=\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}n(\xi_\mathbf{k})\left\lbrack
\frac{1}{\Delta\xi_\mathbf{p}-\Delta\xi_\mathbf{k}}-
\frac{1}{\Delta\xi_\mathbf{p}+\Delta\xi_\mathbf{k}} \right\rbrack
\label{eq:Lind-sep}$$ where we have defined $\Delta\xi_{\mathbf{k}}=
\xi_{\mathbf{k+Q}}-\xi_{\mathbf{k}}$. As was pointed out in the previous section, the most singular contributions to (\[eq:susc\]) come from regions where the momentum $\mathbf{Q}$ flowing through the Lindhard function $L$ connects parts of the FS which are almost parallel, since this makes the denominators in eq. (\[eq:Lind-sep\]) small on large regions of $k$-space. Otherwise stated, the scattering processes taking place within a particle-hole pair are enhanced around special wavevectors $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$ due to the peculiar geometry of the FS. In the case of a spherically symmetric FS, any momentum $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$ of modulus $2k_F$ is a source of enhanced scattering, but the deviation from parallelicity is *quadratic* as we move in the direction tangent to the surface (see fig. \[fig:FS-ex\], left). More singular is the case of inflection points occurring when the curvature of the FS vanishes, leading to a *cubic*, or even *quartic* dispersion (see figure \[fig:FS-ex\], right), which is a quite generic phenomenon when dealing with electrons on a lattice.
In the next subsections, we shall present the calculation of the leading $T$-dependence of the diagram a) in the simplest circular case as well as for more complex FS shapes. The result for diagram b) can obtained by replacing $ U(\mathbf{Q})\rightarrow U(\mathbf{p-k})$ in eq. (\[eq:susc\]). This can only lead to a change in the prefactors, but will not alter the leading temperature dependence of the susceptibility. The self-energy diagram c) has a different structure, and will be analysed at the end of the section.
Isotropic Fermi surface
-----------------------
By choosing an appropriate coordinate system, the dispersion relation around any point on a spherical FS (and, generically, about non-special points of an anisotropic FS) can be expanded as: $$\xi_{\mathbf{k}}/v=k_y+ak_x^2$$ $v$ being the Fermi velocity at that particular point (that we shall identify as $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}/2$), and $a>0$ being related to the FS curvature. The above expression is assumed to be valid up to a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ which is larger than the one imposed by the finite temperature $\Delta$-functions [^2]. Introducing $\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{Q}-\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$, we can write $$\xi_{\mathbf{k+Q}}/v
=-(k_y+q_y)+a(k_x+q_x)^2$$ were we have used the property $\xi_{\mathbf{k+\tilde{Q}}}=\xi_{\mathbf{-k}}$ (reflection symmetry). We now change variables to $$\begin{aligned}
k_\perp&=&k_y+ak_x^2\label{eq:chvar} \\
k_\parallel&=&k_x+q_x/2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ such that $\xi_{\mathbf{k}}= vk_\perp$ and $$\xi_{\mathbf{k+Q}}/v=-k_\perp-q_\perp+2ak_\parallel^2 +(3/2)aq_\parallel^2
\label{eq:en-shift}$$ Apart from the constant shift $q_x/2$ introduced for later convenience, this new coordinate system is locally equivalent to polar coordinates, which would be the natural choice when dealing with a perfectly symmetric FS. We shall focus on the first term in (\[eq:Lind-sep\]), which is independent of $q_\perp$, and therefore turns out to be the most singular. Omitting unimportant multiplicative factors, we have for the real part of $L$: $$\begin{aligned}
L&=&\frac{-1}{v}\int dk_\perp n(vk_\perp) \;
\int_{-\Lambda}^{\Lambda} dk_\parallel
\frac{1}{A-2k_\perp+Bk_\parallel^2} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{-1}{v\sqrt{B}} \int dk_\perp n(vk_\perp)
\frac{\theta(A-2k_\perp)}{\sqrt{A-2k_\perp}}
\label{eq:Lind-parab}\end{aligned}$$ with $A=2p_\perp-2ap_\parallel^2$ and $B=2a$ (the $\theta$-function ensures that the integral is real). In the second term of eq. (\[eq:Lind-parab\]) we have performed the $k_\parallel$ integration by pushing the momentum cutoff to infinity. The main point is that the former expression can now be integrated by parts to give a further $\Delta$ constraint on $k_\perp$ [@CM01]: $$L=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{B}}\int^{A/2}_{-\Lambda} dk_\perp \sqrt{A-2k_\perp} \Delta(vk_\perp)
+\ldots
\label{eq:part-parab}$$ where the ellipsis stands for terms which are not confined to the region near the FS. By inspection of the results for $A\gg T/v$, $A\ll
-T/v$ and $A\approx 0$ respectively, we see that the $\Delta(vk_\perp)$ function behaves qualitatively as a $\delta(vk_\perp+T)$. Therefore, to study the temperature dependence of the susceptibility we can replace the previous expression by $$L \sim \frac{\sqrt{A/2+T/v}}{v\sqrt{a}}
\label{eq:part-parab-result}$$ where there is an implicit $\theta$-function of the argument of the square root. We are left with a tractable expression for the real part of the Lindhard function, that we shall use to evaluate the 2-loop diagram of figure \[fig:susc\].a.
We now perform the remaining integrals in (\[eq:susc\]) in the following order: $dq_\perp,dp_\perp$ then $dp_\parallel$ and $dq_\parallel$. The first integral is trivial, since $q_\perp$ only enters in $\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{p+Q}})$. Moreover, $\xi_\mathbf{p+Q}$ is linear in $q_\perp$ (cf. eq. (\[eq:en-shift\])) so that the integration just gives $1/v$. The $p_\perp$ integral can also be performed straightforwardly, and we are left with an expression of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\chi &\sim & \frac{\tilde{U}^2}{v^3\sqrt{a}} \int dq_\parallel\int dp_\parallel
\sqrt{T/v-ap_\parallel^2} \\
&\sim& \frac{\Lambda\tilde{U}^2}{v^3\sqrt{a}} \int dp_\parallel
\sqrt{T/v-ap_\parallel^2}
\sim \frac{\Lambda\tilde{U}^2}{v^4a} T \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where again we have neglected unimportant multiplicative factors and we have defined $\tilde{U}=U(\tilde{\mathbf{Q}})$. Within our treatment, we have recovered the result that the spin susceptibility of an isotropic 2D Fermi liquid is intrinsically linear in temperature[@CM01]. For a circular FS, this can be written as $$\chi(T) = \chi_0+ \chi_1 T
\label{eq:chi-parabolic}$$ Incidentally, our calculation suggests that the low-temperature correction to the susceptibility is positive, in agreement with refs. [@M99; @HT98; @CM01].
Anisotropic FS with inflection points
-------------------------------------
In the vicinity of an inflection point, the dispersion relation can be written as $$\xi_k/v=k_y-b k_x^3+g k_x^4
\label{dispersion}$$ where $b$ and $g$ can be chosen to be positive. A change of variables similar to eq. (\[eq:chvar\]) of the previous section leads to $$L=\frac{-1}{v}\int dk_\perp n(vk_\perp)\; \int dk_\parallel
\frac{1}{A-2k_\perp+Bk_\parallel^2+Ck_\parallel^4}
\label{eq:Lind-infl}$$ with $A=2p_\perp-3bq_\parallel p_\parallel^2-2gp_\parallel^4$, $B=3bq_\parallel$ and $C=2g$. The $k_\parallel$ integral can be rewritten in the form $$I=\frac{1}{C^{1/4}(A-2k_\perp)^{3/4}}\int \frac{dx}{1+\alpha
x^2+x^4}
\label{eq:I-integral}$$ with $\alpha=(B/\sqrt{C})/\sqrt{A-2k_\perp}$. We shall be interested in the region close to the edge ($k_\perp\simeq A/2$), where $\alpha$ is large and positive. We can then drop the quadratic term and perform the integration: $$I=\frac{1}
{[bq_\parallel(A-2k_\perp)]^{1/2}}
\label{eq:sqrt-edge}$$ This can be integrated by parts in $dk_\perp$ to give $$L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{bq_\parallel}}
\int^{A/2}_{A/2-b^2q_\parallel^2/g} dk_\perp \sqrt{A-2k_\perp}
\Delta(vk_\perp)
+\ldots
\label{eq:parts}$$ where the ellipsis stands for a term which is not confined close to the FS (the limits of integration account for the condition $\alpha\gtrsim 1$). Provided that the $\Delta$ function lies entirely inside the domain of integration, i.e. $$q_\parallel>q_{min}=\sqrt{\frac{gT}{b^2v}}
\label{eq:cond}$$ the result takes the form $$L\sim \frac{\sqrt{A/2+T/v}}{v\sqrt{bq_\parallel}}$$ The region of phase space we have just identified is the one which gives the leading temperature dependence in the susceptibility. Indeed, for $k_\perp$ outside the range of integration considered above (implying $\alpha \lesssim 1$), the result of the integral (\[eq:I-integral\]) is $I\sim (A-2k_\perp)^{-3/4}$ instead of eq. (\[eq:sqrt-edge\]), leading to a weaker (linear) temperature dependence in the final result. The same holds if we consider a negative $q_\parallel$ ($\alpha<0$).
The calculation now follows the same lines as in the previous case. The $q_\perp$ integration yields a factor $1/v$, and the $p_\perp$ integration can be performed by replacing $\Delta(vp_\perp)\sim \delta(p_\perp- T/v)/v$, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\chi&\sim &\tilde{U}^2 \int_{q_{min}}^\Lambda dq_\parallel
\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda dp_\parallel
\frac{\sqrt{T/v-bq_\parallel
p_\parallel^2-gp_\parallel^4}}{v^3\sqrt{bq_\parallel}}\nonumber \\
&\sim& \frac{\tilde{U}^2T}{bv^4} \int_{q_{min}}^\Lambda
\frac{dq_\parallel}{q_\parallel} =
-\frac{\tilde{U}^2}{bv^4}T \log \left(\frac{gT}{vb^2\Lambda^2}\right)
\label{eq:chi-infl-interm}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the scattering from the regions of the FS far from the inflection points, whose behavior is given by eq. (\[eq:chi-parabolic\]), the susceptibility reads $$\chi(T) = \chi_0 + \chi_1 T - \chi_1^\prime T \log T
\label{eq:chi-infl}$$ Once again, the sign of the correction is such that the susceptibility increases with temperature. However, the contribution coming from the other diagram b) has opposite sign. As a rule of thumb, one can argue that the overall vertex-correction is positive if the effective interaction is peaked around $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$ and negative otherwise (it vanishes when the momentum dependence of $U(q)$ is flat, since in that case the two diagrams perfectly cancel).
Special inflection points
-------------------------
The previous analysis assumes the existence of a generic inflection point along the Fermi surface. This is a situation which can be achieved, in an anisotropic system, for a finite range of values of the filling or the chemical potential. These points are characterized by the absence of a quadratic term in the expansion of the dispersion relation around the Fermi surface presented in eq. (\[dispersion\]). For certain values of the parameters, however, which require a fine tuning of the filling or the chemical potential, the cubic coefficient, $b$, or the quartic one, $g$, in eq. (\[dispersion\]) can be zero as well. Two such situations are schematically shown in Fig.\[special\].
We first consider the case when the cubic term in the dispersion relation parallel to the Fermi surface vanishes ($b=0$), which is realized in the $t-t'$ Hubbard model in a square lattice (see point $G$ in the top panel of figure \[special\]), or in simple tight binding models on the triangular lattice, for instance. The susceptibility becomes more anomalous than in the generic case discussed previously, as can be seen by letting $b\rightarrow 0$ in eq. (\[eq:chi-infl-interm\]). One has respectively $A=2p_\perp-3gq_\parallel^2p_\parallel^2-2gp_\parallel^4$ and $B=3gq_\parallel^2$. The condition $\alpha\gtrsim 1$ now corresponds to $A-2k_\perp\lesssim gq_\parallel^4$, which modifies the limits of integration in eq. (\[eq:parts\]). Repeating the same arguments as before with $q_{min}=(T/gv)^{1/4}$, we obtain $$\label{eq:Lind-quartic}
L= \frac{\sqrt{A/2+T/v}}{v\sqrt{g}q_\parallel}$$ leading to $$\chi =- \frac{\tilde{U}^2}{v^3} \left( \frac{T}{vg}\right)^{3/4}\log
\left( \frac{T}{g v \Lambda^4}\right)
\label{eq:chi-g0}$$
The other possibility is that the quartic term vanishes ($g=0$), which can occur in a tight-binding model with orthorombic symmetry, considering two different hopping parameters $t_a \neq t_b$ (see point $D$ in the bottom panel of figure \[special\]). In that case, however, not only $g$ but all the even coefficients in the dispersion relation vanish. This leads to perfect nesting between opposite branches of the Fermi surface, giving rise to a much more singular behavior $\chi(T)\sim \log T$.
Self-energy correction
----------------------
After integration over Matsubara frequencies, which now requires some more attention due to the presence of two fermion lines of equal argument (a double pole in the complex-plane integrals), the anomalous part of the self-energy correction c) of figure \[fig:susc\] can be reduced to the form $$\chi \sim \tilde{U}^2 T \int\! d^2Q d^2p d^2k
\frac{\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{k}})\Delta(\xi_{\mathbf{p}})}
{(\Delta\xi_{\mathbf{p}}-\Delta\xi_{\mathbf{k}})^2}
\label{eq:susc-se}$$ with $\Delta\xi_{\mathbf{k}}=
\xi_{\mathbf{k+Q}}-\xi_{\mathbf{k}}$. The $Q$-integration is now restricted to the region close to (within $T/v$ of) $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$. We shall not go through all the calculations of the self-energy diagram, which can be performed following the same lines of the previous sections. The results for the temperature dependence are analogous to those given by equations (\[eq:chi-parabolic\]), (\[eq:chi-infl\]) and (\[eq:chi-g0\]). This can be understood by noting that although the denominator in eq. (\[eq:susc-se\]) is more singular than the one of eq. (\[eq:Lind-sep\]), the additional anomalies that it carries with it are cancelled by the explicit $T$ factor in front of eq. (\[eq:susc-se\]), leading to the same temperature dependence as the vertex corerction. Its sign is also the same as the vertex diagram a).
The results of this section are summarized in table \[tab:results\].
Fermi surface geometry $\chi(T)$
----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
circular $ \chi_0+\chi_1 T$
inflection points (generic) $\chi_0+\chi_1 T- \chi_1^\prime T \log T$
special inflection ($b=0$) $\chi_0+\chi_1 T- \chi_{3/4} T^{3/4}\log T$
nesting, saddle points $\chi_0 +\chi_0^\prime \log T$
: Temperature dependence of the uniform susceptibility of an anisotropic 2D Fermi liquid \[tab:results\]. The linear contribution is always present, and is due to the portions of the Fermi surface away from the inflection points. The relative magnitude of the regular and anomalous contributions depends on the degree of flatness of the Fermi surface. The special case $b=0$ corresponds to inflection points falling on particular symmetry lines of the Brillouin zone, and requires a fine tuning of the chemical potential (see text).
Examples
========
Superconducting cuprates
------------------------
It is often assumed that a tight-binding model on a square lattice with nearest neighbor ($t$) and next-nearest neighbor ($t^\prime$) hopping reproduces well the band structure of the layered cuprates: $$\varepsilon(\mathbf{k})=-2t (\cos k_x+\cos k_y )- 4t^\prime \cos k_x
\cos k_y
\label{square}$$ where $t^\prime / t \approx -0.25$. This case corresponds roughly to the top set of Fermi surfaces in fig.\[special\]. The dispersion relation above has a saddle point at a doping $\delta_{VHS}$ corresponding to a chemical potential is $E_{VHS} = - 4 |t^\prime|$. The curvature of the Fermi surface along the diagonals becomes negative at a higher doping $\delta_c$, where the chemical potential is $E_c = -8 | t^\prime | + 16 \frac{|{t^\prime}|^3}{t^2}$. For fillings such that $E_c \le E_F \le E_{VHS}$, the Fermi surface has 8 inflection points. From these values, and the previous analysis, one can obtain a qualitative picture of the temperature dependence of the susceptibilities, when the electron density is in this range:
i ) For $T \gtrsim | t^\prime |$, the susceptibility is determined by $t$ only. As the doping is close to half filling, we expect $\chi ( T ) \propto | T |^0$, the result for perfect nesting.
ii\) For $T \lesssim | t^\prime |$ and $T \gtrsim | E_F - E_{VHS} |$, the same behavior as in i) should be observed.
iii\) For $T \lesssim | t^\prime |$ and $T \gtrsim | E_F - E_c |$, the susceptibility is dominated by contribution from the area near the special point discussed in section IIIC. Hence, $\chi ( T ) \propto | T |^{3/4} \log T$.
iv\) For $T \lesssim | t^\prime |$ and $T\lesssim | E_F - E_c |$, and $T \lesssim | E_F - E_{VHS} |$, the contributions from the saddle point and from the special point in the previous paragraph are absent. Thus, $\chi ( T ) \propto | T |
\log ( T )$, because of the presence of the inflection points. We can make the estimates of the crossover region in the $T-$doping plane more precise from the doping dependence of the coefficient of the cubic term $b$ in eq.(\[dispersion\]). Expanding around the saddle point, we obtain $b \propto | E_F - E_{VHS} |$. Hence, the crossover between regions ii) and iv) takes place at a temperature $T^* \propto | E_F - E_{VHS} |$. Performing a similar calculation around the situation $E_F = E_c$, we have $b \propto \sqrt{| E_F - E_c |}$, so that the crossover temperature is $T^* \propto ( E_c - E_F )^2$. For fillings $E_F \sim E_c$ but with no inflection points in the Fermi surface, we obtain a crossover to the $\chi ( T ) \propto | T |$ behavior due to $2 k_F$ scattering, with a crossover temperature $T^* \propto | E_F - E_c |$. The different regimes are schematically shown in Fig.\[VHS\].
Taking realistic numbers for the dispersion relation, our analysis predicts anomalous low temperature behavior in all the region between $\delta_{VHS}$ and $\delta_c$, corresponding to the strongly overdoped region which is experimentally accessible. This shows that non-standard behaviour of the physical properties should be expected even in a regime which is usually believed to be well described by normal Fermi liquid theory.
Quasi-1D organic compounds
--------------------------
Organic conductors are often very anisotropic due to the planar structure of their molecules. For example, the salts of the family (TM)$_2$X (TM=TMTTF,TMTSF and X=inorganic anion) are all isostructural and can be viewed as two-dimensional arrays of weakly coupled 1D chains, since the electronic overlaps in the transverse direction are 10 times smaller than in the chain direction (the transfer integrals in the third direction are 500 times smaller, and can be neglected, see for instance ref.[@BJ99]). The band structure is well represented as: $$\varepsilon(\mathbf{k})=-2t_a \cos(k_a a )-2t_b \cos(k_b b )
\label{1d}$$ assuming an orthorombic structure with lattice parameters $b\approx 2a$. This case corresponds to the bottom set of Fermi surfaces in fig. \[special\]. The parameter $t_b\sim 10-30meV$ sets the scale below which the FS is modulated in the $b$ direction, so that the predicted enhancement of susceptibilities due to inflection points should be observable at and below room temperature. The value of the anisotropy ratio $\tau=t_b/t_a$ is large enough to ensure that the system is well described by a Fermi liquid picture down to very low temperatures. The filling factor $\rho$ is fixed by charge transfer and varies from compound to compound, ranging from $1/2$ to $1$ hole per TM site. The Fermi surface has two Van Hove singularities at $E_F=\pm E_{VHS}=\pm
2t(1-\tau)$, and 4 inflection points in all the interval $0<|E_F|<E_{VHS}$ Taking $\tau= 0.1$, this corresponds to the region of fillings $0.3<\rho<1.7$. In the absence of higher harmonics in eq.(\[1d\]), $E_F=0$ corresponds to half-filling ($\rho=1$), and the Fermi surface has perfect nesting, as $\varepsilon(\mathbf{k}) =
\varepsilon(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{Q} )$, where $\mathbf{Q} =
( \pi , \pi )$ (hopping between more distant neighbors will suppress this effect). The points in the phase diagram where the topology of the Fermi surface changes, leading to different behaviors of the electronic susceptibility, are sketched in figure \[fig:org\].
In the (TM)$_2$X compounds, the spin susceptibility shows a sizeable increase in the metallic phase up to room temperature (see e.g. fig. 8 of reference [@BJ99]), which cannot be explained by “standard” Fermi liquid theory (the latter predicts variations on the scale of the Fermi temperature). On the other hand, the presence of enhanced scattering close to inflection points could well be the underlying mechanism of this anomalous temperature dependence, and should be taken into account when studying the low temperature phase transitions of such compounds.
Following the same procedure used in the previous subsection, the electron susceptibility will undergo a succession of crossovers upon varying the filling, which can be achieved either by anion substitution or by applying pressure to the samples.
Conclusions
===========
We have analyzed the corrections to Fermi liquid behavior in anisotropic interacting electronic systems in two dimensions, which arise from the existence of points in the Fermi surface where scattering is enhanced. Besides the extensively studied case of a saddle point, we have analyzed in detail the influence of inflection points, which do not require any special fine tuning of the chemical potential or the filling. The presence of these points enhance the anomalous dependence on temperature which arise from $2 k_F$ scattering in isotropic Fermi surfaces[@CM01]. We find that the corrections which were linear in $|T| $ change into $ |T| \log |T|$. The absence of symmetries also implies the lack of cancellation between different diagrams, so that these anomalies should be observed in both the spin and charge susceptibilities.
For special fillings, more singular behavior is expected. In the case of systems with tetragonal or hexagonal symmetry, when the Fermi surface is close to these fillings, the corrections to the susceptibilities go as $ |T|^{3/4} \log |T| $, showing that the existence of non integer $T$ dependences does not need to violate Landau’s model for the low energy excitations of a Fermi liquid.
We have also discussed the possible crossovers between the different regimes analyzed, and the experimental consequences that they may lead to. In the case of the superconducting cuprates, anomalous susceptibilities should appear in the strongly overdoped region, above the doping $\delta_{VHS}$ characterized by Van Hove singularities in the density of states. On the other hand, all of the organic conductors of the family (TM)$_2$X should fall in the region of fillings where anomalous corrections to the susceptibility are important. Of course, the analysis presented here should also apply to other classes of quasi two-dimensional systems (heavy fermion materials, Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, electrically doped 2D organic films, other organic conductors …).
Finally, let us point out that the breakdown of the Sommerfeld expansion for the spin susceptibility suggests that the free energy ${\cal F}$ itself has a non analytic dependence on $T$, once that high order interactions ($2k_F$ scattering) are taken into account. If, as was proposeded in[@M88; @M99; @M01], and numerically verified in [@HK99], the role of temperature and magnetic field is interchangeable in the functional form of ${\cal F}(T,H)$, one can conclude that the anomalous $T$-dependences calculated here for the susceptibility are also expected in the specific-heat coefficient $\gamma=C/T$.
Acknowledgements
================
We are thankful to R. Markiewicz and M. A. H. Vozmediano for helpful discussions. This work was financially supported by MEC (Spain) through grant PB96-0875, and the European Union through grant FMRXCT980183.
Inflection points in the $t-t^\prime$ model
===========================================
We shall determine here the parameters of the dispersion relation (\[dispersion\]) in the case of a tight-binding model on a square lattice with nearest ($t$) and next-nearest ($t^\prime$) neighbor hopping. Let us focus to the doping levels close to $\delta_c$, the point where the inflection points of the Fermi surface merge in pairs on the diagonals of the BZ, leading to the most singular corrections to the susceptibility. It is then natural to rewrite the dispersion relation in a basis rotated by $45^o$: $$\xi=-4t (\cos p \cos q )+4t^\prime (\cos^2 p-\sin^2 q)-E_F$$ where $p=(k_x+k_y)/2$ and $q=(k_x-k_y)/2$. The Fermi surface crosses the diagonal ($q=0$) at a momentum $p_F$ given by $ E_F=-4t \cos p_F+4t^\prime \cos^2 p_F$. The dispersion relation can then be expanded as $$\label{eq:disp-exp}
\xi = A (p-p_F) +Bq^2+Cq^4$$ with $A=4[t \sin p_F - t^\prime \sin 2p_F]$, $B=2t\cos p_F -4 t^\prime$ and $C= (4/3) [t^\prime - (t/8)\cos p_F]$. The topology of the Fermi surface changes at two well-defined doping levels:
- the curvature changes sign at a doping $\delta=\delta_c$ given by the condition $B=0$. The corresponding Fermi energy is $E_c=-8 t^\prime +16 (t^\prime)^3/t^2$ and the coordinates of the inflection point are $(p_c,q_c)=(\arccos 2t^\prime/t,0)$, corresponding to the point $G$ of figure \[special\];
- Van Hove singularities arise at a doping $\delta_{VHS}$ given by $E_{VHS}=-4 t^\prime$ (M-points in figure \[special\]).
Inflection points appear in all the region of dopings $\delta_{VHS}<\delta<\delta_c$, following the dashed curve of figure \[special\] (top panel). The consequences on the physical properties of the system are summarized in figure \[VHS\].
#### Dispersion around inflection points. {#dispersion-around-inflection-points. .unnumbered}
The equation of the Fermi surface is $\xi=0$, which implicitly defines a function $p=p(q)$. Putting the second derivative $p^{\prime\prime}(q)=0$ yields the coordinates $(p_0,q_0)$ of the inflection points. For $\delta\approx\delta_c$, setting $u=1-4 (t^\prime/t)^2$, we can write $$p_0=p_c+\frac{E_F-E_c}{4tu^{3/2}}\;\; ; \;\;
q_0=\left(\frac{E_F-E_c}{12 u t^\prime}\right)^{1/2}$$ so that the trajectory of the inflection points is parabolic around $G$. By expanding around $(p_0,q_0)$, we obtain an equation of the form (\[dispersion\]) with $$v=4 t u^{3/2}\; ; \;
b=\frac{t^\prime}{t}\left(\frac{E_F-E_c}{12
t^\prime}\right)^{1/2}\; ;\;
g=\frac{t^\prime}{4 t u^{3/2}}$$
Inflection points in the $t_a-t_b$ model
========================================
We shall now derive the parameters of eq. (\[dispersion\]) for a tight binding model on an orthorombic lattice, with anisotropic hopping ($\tau=t_b/t_a\ll 1$). Let us rewrite for simplicity the dispersion relation (\[1d\]) as $$\xi=-2t_a [\cos k +\tau \cos p +\nu]
\label{1dbis}$$ with $k=k_a a$, $p=k_b b$ and $\nu=E_F/2t$. The equation of the Fermi surface is $k=\arccos(-\nu-\tau \cos p)$. The number of electrons per site is approximately given by $\rho=2\pi^{-1}\arccos(-\nu)$. The Fermi surface has 2 Van Hove singularities at $E_{VHS}=\pm 2t (1-\tau)$, and 4 inflection points for any $0<|E_F|<E_{VHS}$. At half filling ($E_F=0$), the two branches of the open Fermi surface are perfectly nested. The physical consequences of the changes in the Fermi surface topology occurring at those special fillings are sketched in figure \[fig:org\].
#### Dispersion around inflection points. {#dispersion-around-inflection-points.-1 .unnumbered}
By setting $k^{\prime\prime}(p)=0$ we find that the inflection points are located at $$p_0=\arccos\left( \frac{\tau\nu}{1-\nu^2}\right) \;\; ; \;\;
k_0=\arccos\left( -\nu- \frac{\tau^2\nu}{1-\nu^2}\right)$$ For filling levels close to $\nu=0$ (half filling), the location of the inflection points describes a straight line of slope $-\tau/\sqrt{1-\nu^2}$ in the $(k,p)$ plane (see bottom panel of figure \[special\]). After a rotation of the coordinate axes, we obtain an equation of the form (\[dispersion\]) with $$v=2 t \sqrt{1-\nu^2}\; ; \; b=\frac{\tau}{6\sqrt{1-\nu^2}}\; ; \;
g=-\frac{\nu\tau^2}{24(1-\nu^2)^{3/2}}$$ The approach to the perfect nesting situation at half filling is signalled by a vanishing $g$, the coefficient of the quartic term in the dispersion relation.
J. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 1165 (1976). T. Moriya, [**Spin fluctuations in itinerant electron magnetism**]{} Springer, Berlin (1985). A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 7183 (1993). D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick, and T. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 9452 (1997). R. Shankar, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{} (1994) 129. J. Polchinski, in [**Proceedings of the 1992 TASI in Elementary Particle Physics**]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**485**]{}, 694 (1997). W. Metzner, C. Castellani, and C. Di Castro, Adv. Phys. [**47**]{}, 317 (1998). D. Belitz, T. R. Kirkpatrick, and T. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4707 (1999). G. Y. Chitov and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5337 (2001); [*ibid*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 054414 (2001). J. González, F. Guinea, and M.A.H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3514 (1997); [*ibid.*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**B13**]{} (1999) 2545. J. Labbé and J. Bok, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**3**]{} (1987) 1225. J. Friedel, [*J. Phys.*]{} (Paris) [**48**]{} (1987) 1787; [**49**]{} (1988) 1435. H. J. Schulz, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**4**]{}, 609 (1987). R. S. Markiewicz and B. G. Giessen, [*Physica*]{} (Amsterdam) [**160C**]{} (1989) 497. R. S. Markiewicz, [*J. Phys. Condens. Matter*]{} [**2**]{} (1990) 665. D. M. Newns, H. R. Krishnamurthy, P. C. Pattnaik, C. C. Tsuei, and C. L. Kane, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{}, 1264 (1992). J. González, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Europhys. Lett., [**34**]{}, 711 (1996); [*ibid*]{}, Nuclear Physics B [**485**]{}, 694 (1997); [*ibid*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4930 (2000). C. Bourbonnais and D. Jérome, “Advances in Synthetic Metals, Twenty years of Progress in Science and Technology”, ed. P. Bernier, S. Lefrant, and G. Bidan (Elsevier, New York, 1999), pp. 206-301 S. Misawa, Physica B [**149**]{}, 162 (1988). S. Misawa, Journ. Phys. Soc. Japan [**68**]{}, 2172 (1999). S. Misawa, T. Tanaka, and K. Tsuru, Europhys. Lett. [**14**]{}, 377 (1991). D. S. Hirashima, and H. Takahashi, Journ. Phys. Soc. Japan [**67**]{}, 3816 (1998). S. Misawa, Physica B [**294-295**]{}, 10 (2001). D.S. Hirashima and K. Kubo, Journ. Phys. Soc. Japan [**68**]{}, 2174 (1999).
[^1]: This is the finite temperature generalization, within our perturbative treatment, of the well-known Fermi Liquid formula expressing the singularity of $G(k)G(k+q)$ lines in the vertex function, see e.g. A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov and I.E. Dzyaloshinski, *Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics* (Dover, New York, 1975).
[^2]: The momentum cutoff should in principle be different in the $x$ and $y$ directions, but this is of no practical relevance here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Covariational reasoning—reasoning about how changes in one quantity relate to changes in another quantity—has been examined extensively in mathematics education research. Little research has been done, however, on covariational reasoning in introductory physics contexts. We explore one aspect of covariational reasoning: “goes like” reasoning. “Goes like” reasoning refers to ways physicists relate two quantities through a simplified function. For example, physicists often say that “the electric field goes like one over r squared.” While this reasoning mode is used regularly by physicists and physics instructors, how students make sense of and use it remains unclear. We present evidence from reasoning inventory items which indicate that many students are sense making with tools from prior math instruction, that could be developed into expert “goes like” thinking with direct instruction. Recommendations for further work in characterizing student sense making as a foundation for future development of instruction are made.'
author:
- Charlotte Zimmerman
- Alexis Olsho
- Andrew Boudreaux
- Trevor Smith
- Philip Eaton
- Suzanne White Brahmia
title: 'Exploring student facility with “goes like” reasoning in introductory physics'
---
Introduction
============
A perhaps unexpected byproduct of the COVID-19 pandemic is renewed clarity on how challenging it is for many to conceptualize the exponential function. This is certainly not novel; Albert Bartlett famously stated “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”[@Bartlett1969ArithmeticEnergy]. This has become a public issue in the face of the coronavirus epidemic. Headlines such as “What Does Exponential Growth Mean in the Context of COVID-19?,”[@washpost] “The Exponential Power of Now,”[@nytimes] and “Is Poor Math Literacy Making It Harder For People To Understand COVID-19 Coronavirus?”[@forbes] have put conceptualization of function on the national stage.
It is evident that quantitative literacy—the set of skills that support the use of mathematics to describe and understand the world—is important, and lacking, in the United States today. Quantitative literacy has many facets, including reasoning about signed quantities, proportional reasoning and *covariational reasoning*—conceptualizing change in one quantity with respect to change in another quantity [@brahmia2016a; @Carlson2002; @White2020neg]. Introductory physics, a broadly-required college course with a focus on quantifying and modeling nature, is an excellent place to address this need.
Proportional reasoning—reasoning about ratio as a quantity—has been identified as critical for success in physics by physics educators and in Physics Education Research (PER). Early PER, confounded by student difficulties using elementary mathematics in physics contexts, focused on identifying specific reasoning difficulties such as the tendency to use additive, rather than multiplicative, strategies and the tendency of physics students to manipulate mathematical formalism without understanding the physical meaning of the associated quantities and operations [@Karplus1970IntellecturalSurvey; @Arons1976CultivatingCourse; @Arons1990ATeaching]. By the early 1980’s, studies in PER had begun to systematically document and extend this body of work by using individual demonstration interviews to explore student understanding of velocity as the ratio $\Delta x / \Delta t$ and acceleration as the ratio $\Delta v / \Delta t$ [@Trowbridge1980InvestigationDimension; @Trowbridge1981InvestigationDimension; @Karplus1983EarlyProblems]. More recent work has examined the relationship between basic reasoning ability, including proportional reasoning, and the learning of physics content [@Coletta2005InterpretingAbility].
Work on the role and challenge of proportional reasoning in physics contexts has included attention to scaling and functional reasoning. Arons points out, for example, that few students “have formed any conception of the basic function relation between area and linear dimensions,” and that consequently, most students are “unaware that all areas vary as the square of the length factor” [@Arons1990ATeaching]. We build on this body of work by integrating the language of covariational reasoning established by Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (RUME) community [@Thompson1994rate; @saldanha1998; @moore2013; @Carlson2002; @oehrtman2008; @Carlson2010precalculus]. Covariation encompasses all functions that relate two or more quantities and considers multiple ways that one can think about those relationships. For example, one can consider discrete covariation (if the radius is doubled, what happens to the electric field at a point?), or continuous covariation (how does the field change smoothly as the radius is increased?) [@Carlson2002]. We suggest that proportional reasoning is a subset of covariational reasoning, focused specifically on linear relationships and using ratios that have meaning as a single entity (such as velocity and acceleration).
Physics educators regularly identify “thinking like a physicist” as a goal of introductory physics. In a 2019 study of the ways in which experts use covariational reasoning to solve introductory physics problems by Zimmerman, Olsho, Boudreaux, Loverude, and White Brahmia, it was noted that physics experts use functional reasoning by employing the “$\propto$” symbol or phrases like “goes like” to illustrate relationships in statements like $\text{Area} \propto r^2$, Force goes like $1/r^2$, etc. [@ZImmerman2019perc] This kind of “goes like” expert thinking is used to represent a wide variety of simplified relationships between quantities, and is a desired outcome of introductory physics instruction. In his work on proportional reasoning, Arons asserts that the capacity for scaling and functional reasoning will not necessarily develop spontaneously [@Arons1990ATeaching]. Indeed, the need for curricular intervention is evident from the current literature. What is less clear is what resources and emergent abilities students *do have* regarding quantitative literacy prior to physics instruction, and what educators can do to build upon these skills to develop quantitative reasoning in their students.
This paper describes a study of students’ covariational reasoning in physics contexts. It contributes to the work in mathematics education, as well as to closing a gap in PER, where it has been shown that reasoning in physics contexts is different from reasoning in purely mathematical ones [@redishkuo; @Pollock2007]. We focus on one expert-like facet of physics covariational reasoning: “goes like” reasoning [@ZImmerman2019perc]. We will present some of the ways an expert might use this kind of thinking, and some preliminary results that suggest while introductory students do not have strong facility with physics “goes like” reasoning, and their conceptualization of “goes like” is not improving over a year long sequence in introductory physics, they do have some productive resources and emergent abilities from prior math courses that can be met and built upon with direct instruction to develop physics covariational reasoning skills. Recommendations for future work and curricular interventions are made.
Expert Reasoning About “Goes Like”
==================================
“Goes like” reasoning refers to the simplified relationship between two changing quantities that illustrates the behavior of an evolving system. For example, consider a classic introductory physics problem: a ball thrown from a cliff. An expert might reason that if the ball’s initial height is increased, the final speed of the ball will also increase. They might reason further that the final speed of the ball “goes like” the the square root of the height. Here, “goes like” reasoning allows the expert to focus on the functional form of the relationship between two changing quantities, and to ignore any constants or pre-factors. This focus on co-varying quantities in turn allows for efficient problem solving, as the expected behavior of the system can be quickly and clearly illustrated.
We note that expert use of [“goes like”]{} reasoning relies on facility with the mathematical functions involved, as well as the experience and physics content knowledge that enable experts to relate physical phenomena to those functions. Zimmerman et. al found that physics graduate students have strong associations between certain routinely used physics quantities that allow them to make inferences about relationships between quantities in a given problem. This simplifies problems to those they can solve more efficiently, or to which they may already know the answer from experience [@ZImmerman2019perc]. Unlike novices, someone with substantial experience with physics is able to make claims such as “This problem involves a potential, which goes like $1/r$” or “This looks like scattering, so I expect it to be an exponential.”
We don’t claim that novices do not have some ”compiled relationships” between mathematical functions and physical contexts. To the contrary, in our experience many students have strong associations between functions that model real world contexts, and we consider these to be resources for physics learning. Many of these associations evolve from prior math instruction and so are more suited to math contexts than to a physics course—for example, where experts may associate circular motion with sinusoidal curves, introductory physics students may more readily associate trigonometric functions with right triangles.
This led us to wonder what resources students in an introductory physics course are using to relate two quantities, and whether they include “goes like” reasoning. In particular, we asked: do students enter introductory physics with this skill already formed and ready to be applied from math courses? In addition, do their “goes like” reasoning skills improve after instruction in a physics class, where instruction typically takes the form of experts modeling their reasoning and discussing it in lecture? To answer these questions, we probed students’ covariational reasoning using items from an inventory currently in development: the Physics Inventory for Quantitative Reasoning (PIQL) [@Smith2019rume; @White2020neg].
Assessing “Goes Like” Reasoning
===============================
The PIQL measures fundamental aspects of mathematical reasoning that are ubiquitous in physics modeling, i.e. *physics quantitative literacy (PQL)*. Development of this instrument began with items targeting proportional reasoning and reasoning about sign and signed quantities, and has since grown to include additional items related to covariational reasoning more broadly. During its development, the PIQL has been administered over several years at a large research university in the Pacific Northwest. The test is given at the start of each of the three quarter-long courses that form a year-long introductory physics sequence. Here we focus on student responses to two PIQL items that we believe would illicit “goes like” reasoning in experts: the Flag of Bhutan and Ferris Wheel [@boudreaux2015; @Hobson2017]. Other aspects of quantification and PQL are also involved in these responses, but will not be discussed in this paper.
Flag of Bhutan
--------------
In the Flag of Bhutan question, students are asked to determine what aspects of the flag would be larger by a factor of 1.5 if the length and the width were both increased by a factor of 1.5 (see Fig. \[fig:bhutan\]). This item was originally designed as a scaling assessment to measure student facility with both linear and non-linear relationships, as some answer choices depend linearly on length and width (such as the length of the dragon’s backbone, or the distance around the edge of the flag) and the answer choice “the amount of cloth needed to make the flag” depends on length times width [@boudreaux2015]. While scaling was considered a facet of proportional reasoning at the time, it was understood by the researchers that scaling with non-linear functions is notably different than scaling with linear relationships. We believe that this question can be re-examined in the context of discrete covariation and “goes like” thinking.
![The Flag of Bhutan. The prompt associated with this image asks students to **select all of the following quantities** that are larger by a factor of 1.5 when the length and width of the flag are both increased by a factor of 1.5: (a) The distance around the edge of the flag, (b) the amount of cloth needed to make the flag, (c) the length of the curve forming the dragon’s backbone, (d) the diagonal of the flag, and (e) none of these. Students are prompted to choose all answer choices that apply. We believe the correct answers to be (a), (c) and (d).[]{data-label="fig:bhutan"}](bhutanflag.pdf){width="0.55\linewidth"}
One of the challenges of the Flag of Bhutan item is that it is a multiple-choice/multiple-response (MCMR) question. Thereby, its score is low compared to other items on the PIQL because these items are scored dichotomously for comparison with other multiple-choice/single-response items [@Smith2019a]. However, the nature of the item does not fully account for the significantly low number of completely correct responses. Results suggest a majority of introductory students struggle to reason without a linear equation as only 26% of students answer completely correctly, in contrast to instructors’ expectations. Moreover, the percentage of students who answer this question completely correctly does not change significantly throughout the introductory sequence (25% in the first quarter, 25% in the second quarter, and 31% in the third quarter) suggesting that this kind of reasoning does not improve.
One of the benefits of an MCMR item is that we can learn more about student thinking by examining the partially correct answers that students chose. The most common reasons a student does not get the item completely correct are by not selecting either (c) or (d) in Figure \[fig:bhutan\]. These were not chosen by 55% and 43% of students respectively. Only 24% of students do not choose (a). These results suggest that students do have facility with directly linear relationships, such as perimeter to length and width, but have difficulty with more complex functional relationships, such as $\sqrt{l^2 + w^2}$, or those that do not have a known functional relationship, such as the dragon’s backbone, even if the result is linear. Using tetrachoric correlation analysis, we found that students considered (c) and (d) together (either choosing both or declining to choose both) 66% of the time. This suggests that even while the diagonal of the flag can be described by a geometric function and the backbone cannot, the majority of students are able to realize that they have the same dependence on length and width. However, these results do not improve over the course of instruction, suggesting that these early signs of “goes like” reasoning might not be nurtured over the course of instruction to develop students’ discrete covariational reasoning in the context of scaling.
Ferris Wheel
------------
Ferris Wheel asks students to choose an equation that represents how the height of a Ferris wheel cart changes as a function of the total distance it has traveled (see Fig. \[fig:ferris\]). This question was inspired by a Hobson and Moore study, and the distractors were developed based on results from the Zimmerman et al. study, and introductory student interviews [@Hobson2017; @ZImmerman2019perc]. Experts were given an animated version of the image in Figure \[fig:ferris\] in which the cart rotates with the Ferris wheel, and asked to produce a graph that relates the total distance traveled by the cart and the height of the cart [@Hobson2017; @ZImmerman2019perc]. It was observed that the experts used time as a proxy for total distance, noticing that both quantities described the evolution of the system. They then demonstrated “goes like” reasoning by making strong associations between the circular motion presented in the animation and trigonometric functions: “the height goes like a trig function.” The authors refer to these connections between quantities as *compiled relationships* [@ZImmerman2019perc]. In developing Ferris Wheel for the PIQL, we were interested to see if students also held compiled relationships, and if they were able to use “goes like” reasoning to solve the problem. When reformating the item as multiple choice, we tried to choose distractors that represented other potential compiled relationships based on geometric shapes including the Pythagorean theorem, which students associate with triangles in interviews and in open-ended versions of other PIQL items, and an expression containing the circumference, which students associate with circles.
Ferris Wheel was administered as part of the PIQL, and validation interviews were performed at another public university in the Pacific Northwest. We do not claim that these two institutions represent identical populations; they often have slightly different average scores on PIQL assessment items. Indeed, while a majority of students that took the PIQL at the large research university answered the question correctly (58%), fewer than half of those interviewed chose the correct answer. However, the interviews do provide a broad look into how some students are making sense of the problem. Based on the percentage of students who get the assessment items completely correct, this item appears to be considerably less challenging than Flag of Bhutan. However, it is not an MCMR question, so it cannot be compared directly [@Smith2019a].
![Ferris Wheel. The prompt associated with this image asks students to identify which expression correctly identifies how $h$, the height of the cart, directly changes with $s$, the distance traveled by the rider, where the radius of the Ferris wheel is given by $R_0$: (a) $h(s) = \sqrt{s^2 + R_0^2}$, (b) $h(s) = R_0 \exp(s/R_0)$, (c) $h(s) = R_0 - R_0 \cos(s/R_0)$, (d) $h(s) = s^2 / (2\pi R_0)$[]{data-label="fig:ferris"}](SimpleFerrisWheel.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
As before, we can explore what students may be thinking by examining their incorrect answer choices. The most common incorrect choices were (d) and (a) from Figure \[fig:ferris\], with an answer rate 24.5% and 14.7% respectively that does not change significantly across the three courses. These results suggest that the “circumference-like” distractor and the “Pythagorean-like” distractor are appealing to a significant fraction of the entire student population. We interpret these answer choices as unrefined “goes like” tendencies—these are functions that are familiar to students from recent math classes, and have been fruitful in past experiences reasoning about circles and triangles. Some students may not have readily accessible resources of “goes like” reasoning in physics contexts, or a compiled relationship between circular-motion and trigonometry as demonstrated by physics experts, even though they are making sense with the tools they have.
Validation interviews can provide some details into what compiled relationships students have formed, and how they might be using them along with “goes like” reasoning to solve the problem. It was found that nearly all students interviewed were highly invested in answer choice (d), citing it as familiar. They often noted that it contains the expression for circumference of a circle, which most of those interviewed readily associated with the total distance traveled: “I’d say (d) because its the only one that has $2\pi R$ in there, which is the, essentially, the circumference formula.” Indeed, nearly all students interviewed began by defining the total distance traveled by the circumference, and many returned to this definition throughout their problem solving process. While experts may realize that focusing on circumference is not a productive method of solving this problem, we recognize this as a form of quantitative reasoning—students demonstrate a strong compiled relationship between distance and circumference. The key difference is that experts are able to use distance as a quantity that describes the evolution of the system, while students are connecting total distance traveled (a quantity that changes in time) with the circumference of one revolution (a quantity that is fixed in this problem). Because the students interviewed didn’t spontaneously consider the total distance *as it is changing*, they didn’t demonstrate facility with expert-like “goes like” reasoning. They did not reach the point in the problem where they could choose an expression for the height as a function of total distance with confidence. There was only one student who articulated that the total distance is a changing quantity stating it represented “how much of the circumference \[the rider\] has traveled,” but in this student’s case that line of reasoning was still used to support his selection of answer choice (d).
Interest in answer choice (a) was centered around reasoning with triangles, and although none of the students interviewed chose (a) as their final answer, many grappled with its meaning. Every student interviewed verbally labelled option (a) as “Pythagorean,” and many students drew an accompanying triangle, demonstrating a strong compiled relationship with the expression itself and triangular geometry. Some recognized right away that the Pythagorean approach would not work, one stating, “(A) is the Pythagorean theorem, but that doesn’t make sense because that’s linear distance.” Here, we interpret this as the student recognizing that Pythagorean theorem uses linear distances, and the total distance traveled is not linear. Another student interviewed debated about the correctness of (a), stating, “This is like the Pythagorean theorem…if we do it like this, \[the student draws a triangle with the hypotenuse representing total distance\] I guess you could estimate \[the total distance\] as being a straight line.” Both of these students did not draw the triangle a physics expert might expect (with the radius as the hypotenuse), and most were uncertain about the expression presented because they had difficulty making sense of which quantities the sides of the triangle they drew were representing. However, their statements demonstrate sense making about the expression and its connection to right triangles, which we consider to be productive.
When evaluating answer choice (c) that uses a trigonometric expression, students continued to puzzle over how to draw the appropriate triangle: “cosine gives me $s$ over $R_0$…so they’re saying the radius is the hypotenuse. How can that be?” Only one student interviewed made direct reference to the unit circle and was able to quickly recognize that “$\theta$ is equal to arc length over the radius,” and that “the radius should be the hypotenuse because the radius is the one thing that is measured throughout the circle,” but then this student was drawn to the familiarity of (d) and eventually uses point by point analysis to choose her answer. These patterns suggest that the students interviewed have strong procedural facility with a geometric approach to Pythagorean theorem, but not conceptual understanding about how it connects to circles. This gap in understanding between trigonometry learned and how it is applied in physics was typical in the interviews. It is notable that while students may comfortably reason about trigonometry in the contexts of triangles and circles, many students may not understand how that reasoning is used in physics contexts.
Those that answered correctly in interviews often determined their answer by plugging in points. Uniformly this strategy was approached as a last effort, suggesting that students don’t rely on other ways of making sense of the answer choices and may consider plugging in numbers to be an expert problem solving strategy. Typically, students using this method were choosing between option (c) and (d), however in one case the student tried all possible answer choices. In particular, students that did pick points to solve the problem choose physically significant points, for example, the bottom and top of the Ferris Wheel where the height is at a minimum or maximum. This kind of problem solving—specifically choosing physically relevant points to better understand the behavior of the system—has been identified as an expert-like behavior in previous studies [@ZImmerman2019perc].
Conclusions
===========
Ferris Wheel and Flag of Bhutan demonstrate that while students have difficulty with physics “goes like” reasoning, they illustrate skills that could be used to develop physics covariational reasoning with direct instruction. Responses to Flag of Bhutan show that students have strong “goes like” reasoning about linear relationships that could be developed into “goes like” reasoning about non-linear relationships. Responses to Ferris Wheel demonstrate that students have strong compiled relationships regarding right triangles and the Pythagorean theorem, and circles and circumference, that could be developed into compiled relationships between circular motion and trigonometric functions. As covariational reasoning is integral to conceptualizing physics models, we recommend instructors consider including direct and explicit instruction on relating quantities beyond demonstration in their own teaching. Additional studies are needed to better understand what kinds of covariational reasoning and compiled relationships students have coming into introductory physics and are forming over the course of instruction. Currently, appropriate curricular materials do not exist and need to be developed.
[99]{}
A. Bartlett, Arithmetic, Population and Energy (1969). M. Cappucci, What does exponential growth mean in the context of covid-19?, The Washington Post (March 27, 2020). S. Roberts, The Exponential Power of Now, The New York Times (March 13, 2020). M. Sheperd, Is Poor Math Literacy Making It Harder for People to Understand COVID-19 Coronavirus?, Forbes (March 23, 2020). S. Brahmia, A. Boudreaux, and S. E. Kanim, Obstacles to Mathematization in Introductory Physics, ArXiv e-prints (2016). M. Carlson, S. Jacobs, E. Coe, S. Larson, and E. Hsu, Applying Covariational Reasoning While Modeling Dynamic Events: A Framework and a Study, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education **33**, 352 (2002). S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, T. I. Smith, and A. Boudreaux, Framework for the natures of negativity in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. **16** 010120 (2020). R. Karplus and R. W. Peterson, Intellectural development beyond elementary school II: Ratio, a survey, School Sci. Math. **70**, 813 (1970). A. B. Arons, Cultivating the capactiy for formal reasoning: Objects and procedures in an introductory physical science course, American Journal of Physics **44**, 834 (1976). A. B. Arons, *A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching* (Wiley, New York, NY, 1990) p. 342. D. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, American Journal of Physics **49**, 1020 (1980). D. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension, American Journal of Physics **48**, 242 (1981). R. Karplus, E. K. Stage, and S. Pulos, Early adolescents’ proportional reasoning on ‘rate’ problems, Educational Studies in Mathematics **13**, 219 (1983). V. Coletta and J. Philips, Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability, American Journal of Physics **73**, 1172 (2005). P. W. Thompson, Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus, Educational Studies in Mathematics 10.1007/BF01273664 (1994). L. A. Saldanha and P. W. Thompson, Re-thinking co-variation from a quantitative perspective: Simultaneous continuous variation, in *Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education — North America*, Vol. 1, edited by S. B. Berenson and W. N. Coulombe (North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1998) pp. 298-304. K. C. Moore, T. Paoletti, and S. Musgrave, Covariational reasoning and invariance among coordinate systems, Journal of Mathematical Behavior **32**, 461 (2013). M. Oehrtman, M. Carlson, and P. W. Thompson, Foundational Reasoning Abilities that Promote Coherence in Students’ Function Understanding, in *Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics Education*, Vol. 73 (Mathematical Association of America, 2008) 1st ed., pp. 27-42. M. Carlson, M. Oehrtman, and N. Engelke, The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students’ reasoning abilities and understandings, Cognition and Instruction **28**, 113 (2010). C. Zimmerman, A. Olsho, S. White Brahmia, M. Loverude, A. Boudreaux, and T. I. Smith, Toward understanding and characterizeing expert physics covariational reasoning, in *Physics Education Research Conference 2019*, PER Conference (Provo, UT, 2019). E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Science & Education **24**, 561 (2015). E. B. Pollock, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, Student understanding of the physics and mathematics of process variables in P-V diagrams in *2007 Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Conference Proceedings*, Vol. 951, edited by L. Hsu, C. Henderson, and L. McCullough, American Association of Physics Teachers (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY 2007) pp. 168-171. T. I. Smith, S. White Brahmia, A. Olsho, and A. Boudreaux, Developing a reasoning inventory for measuring physics quantitative literacy, in *Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education*, edited by A. Weinberg, D. Moore-Russo, H. Soto, and M. Wawro (Oklahoma City, OK, 2019) pp. 1181-1182. A. Boudreaux, S. Kanim and S. Brahmia, Student facility with ratio and proportion: Mapping the reasoning space in introductory physics, arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08960 (2015). N. L. F. Hobson and K. C. Moore, Exploring experts’ covariational reasoning, in *20th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education* (Moore & Thompson, 2017) pp. 664-672. T. I. Smith, K. J. Louis, B. J. Ricci, and N. Bendjilali, Quantitatively ranking incorrect responses to multiple-choice questions using item response theory, (under review) preprint available arXiv:1906.00521 (2019).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct brane solutions in 6-dimensional Einstein-Skyrme systems. A class of baby skyrmion solutions realizes warped compactification of the extra dimensions and gravity localization on the brane for negative bulk cosmological constant. Coupling of the fermions with the brane skyrmions lead to the brane localized fermions. In terms of the level crossing picture, emergence of the massive localized modes are observed. Nonlinear nature of the skyrmions brings richer information for the fermions level structure. It comprises doubly degenerate lowest plus single excited modes. The three generation of the fundamental fermions is associated with this distinctive structure. The mass hierarchy of quarks or leptons is appeared in terms of a slightly deformed baby-skyrmions with topological charge three.'
author:
- Yuta Kodama
- Kento Kokubu
- Nobuyuki Sawado
title: 'Localization of massive fermions on the baby-skyrmion branes in 6-dimensions'
---
Introduction
============
Theories with extradimensions have been expected to solve the hierarchy problem and cosmological constant problem. Experimentally unobserved extradimensions indicate that the standard model particles and forces are confined to a 3-brane [@ArkaniHamed:1998rs; @ArkaniHamed:1998nn; @Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf]. Intensive study has been performed for the Randall-Sundram (RS) brane model in 5 space-time dimensions [@Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf]. In this framework, the exponential warp factor in the metric can generate a large hierarchy of scales. This model, however, requires unstable negative tension branes and the fine-tuning between brane tensions and bulk cosmological constant.
There is hope that higher dimensional brane models more than five could evade those problems appeared in 5-dimensions. In fact brane theories in 6-dimensions show a very distinct feature towards the fine-tuning and negative tension brane problems. In Refs. [@Carroll:2003db; @Navarro:2003vw], it was shown that the brane tension merely produces deficit angles in the bulk and hence it can take an arbitrary value without affecting the brane geometry. The model is based on the spontaneous compactification by the bulk magnetic flux. If the compactification manifold is a sphere, two branes have to be introduced with equal tensions. If it is a disk, no second 3-brane is needed. But still the fine-tuning between magnetic flux and the bulk cosmological constant cannot be avoided although non-static solutions could be free of any fine-tuning [@Kanti:2001vb].
Alternatively to the flux compactification in 6-dimensions, the nonlinear sigma model has been used for compactifications of the extra space dimensions [@GellMann:1984sj; @Kehagias:2004fb; @RandjbarDaemi:2004ni; @Lee:2004vn]. As in the flux compactification, no second 3-brane is needed if the parameters in the sigma model and bulk space-time are tuned.
Warped compactifications are also possible in 6 space-time dimensions in the model of topological objects such as defects and solitons. In this context strings [@Cohen:1999ia; @Gregory:1999gv; @Gherghetta:2000qi; @Giovannini:2001hh; @Peter:2003zg] were investigated, showing that they can realize localization of gravity. Interestingly, if the brane is modeled in such a field theory language, the fine-tuning between bulk and brane parameters required in the case of delta-like branes turns to a tuning of the model parameters [@Peter:2003zg].
The Skyrme model is known to possess soliton solutions called baby skyrmions in 2-dimensional space [@Piette:1994ug; @Kudryavtsev:1996er]. In this paper we therefore consider the warped compactification of the 2-dimensional extra space by the baby skyrmions. We find that in the 6-dimensional Einstein-Skyrme systems, static solutions which realize warped compactification exist for negative bulk cosmological constant. Since the solution is regular except at the conical singularity, it has only single 3-brane. Thus no fine-tuning between brane tensions is required. The Skyrme model possess a rich class of stable multi soliton solutions. We find various brane solutions by such multi-solitons.
It should be noted that general considerations in the 6-dimensional brane model with bulk scalar fields suggest that the mechanism of regular warped compactification with single positive tension brane is not possible [@Chen:2000at]. However, the model under consideration is restricted to the bulk scalar field depending only on the radial coordinate in the extra space. The scalar field in the Skyrme model depend not only the radial coordinate but also the angular coordinate to exhibit nontrivial topological structure, which makes possible to realize regular warped compactification.
Study of localization of fermions and gauge fields on topological defects have been extensively studied with co-dimension one [@Kehagias:2000au; @Melfo:2006hh; @Ringeval:2001cq; @Koley:2008dh; @Hosotani:2006qp] and two [@RandjbarDaemi:2000cr; @Libanov:2000uf; @Neronov:2001qv; @RandjbarDaemi:2003qd; @Parameswaran:2006db; @Aguilar:2006sz; @Zhao:2007aw; @Guo:2008ia]. Many years ago, particle localization on a domain wall in higher dimensional space time was already addressed [@Rubakov:1983bz; @Akama:1982jy]. The authors suggested the possibility of localized massless fermions on the 1-dimensional kink background in 4+1 space-time with Yukawa-type coupling manner. Later, localization of chiral fermions on RS scenario was discussed in Ref.[@Kehagias:2000au]. Analysis for the massive fermionic modes was done by Ringeval [*et.al.*]{}, in Ref.[@Ringeval:2001cq]. For co-dimension two, the localization on higher dimensional generalizations of the RS model was studied within the coupling of real scalar fields [@RandjbarDaemi:2000cr]. Many studies have been followed and most of them are based on the Abelian Higgs, or Higgs mediated models with the chiral fermions.
Problem of fermion mass hierarchy has been discussed in many articles [@ArkaniHamed:1999dc; @RandjbarDaemi:2000cr; @Dvali:2000ha; @Libanov:2000uf; @Neronov:2001qv; @Hung:2001hw; @Aguilar:2006sz; @Hosotani:2006qp; @Guo:2008ia] within the different mechanisms. They are based on the Yukawa coupling of the fermions and the Higgs (scalar) field. In Ref.[@Dvali:2000ha], the authors set up multiple branes and considered localization of fermions on different branes in terms of Yukawa couplings to the Higgs field. In Ref.[@Neronov:2001qv], the fermions have quantum numbers of the rotational momenta which are origin of the generation of fermions. The authors of Ref.[@Aguilar:2006sz] deal with this problem with somewhat different approach. Conical singularity of the background branes and the orbital angular momentum of the fermions around the branes are the key role for the generation. In Ref.[@Libanov:2000uf] hierarchy between the fermionic generations are explained in terms of multi-winding number solutions of the complex scalar fields. They observed three chiral fermionic zero modes on a topological defect with winding number three and finite masses appear the mixing of these zero modes. Although any brane localization mechanism is absent in their discussion, the idea is promising. In Ref.[@Hung:2001hw], the authors have taken into account more realistic standard model charges. Ref.[@Guo:2008ia] is about discussion of the fermion families from two layer warped 6-dimensions. The authors obtained Kaluza-Klein particles in 5 dimensions at first; those are finally regarded as light, standard model fermions in 4 dimensions.
Starting point of our approach is conventional and has somewhat similarity to Ref.[@Libanov:2000uf]. We shall consider the localization of the fermions on the baby skyrmion branes with topological charge three. The localized modes of fermions are confirmed through the analysis of spectral flow of the one particle state [@Kahana:1984be]. According to the Index theorem a nonzero topological charge implies the zero modes of the Dirac operator [@Atiyah:1980jh]. The zero crossing modes are found to be the localized fermions on the brane. So the generation of the fermions is defined in terms of the topological charge of the skyrmions with a special quantum number called grandspin $K_3$. There are different profiles of the zero crossing behavior for different $K_3$, and it is the origin of the finite mass in our point of view. Nonlinear nature of the skyrmion fields has richer information than the case of Abelian string; the level comprises lowest doubly degenerate as well as single excited modes, which can partially explains generation puzzle of the fermions. In order to manifest more realistic mass structure, breaking of the rotational symmetry and the shape deformation of the background skyrmions is taken into account.
The crucial difference of our approach from the other attempts is the representation of the fermions. It is based on our knowledge that even in the first generation of the fermions, they have small but finite masses. It means that the fermions are not pure chiral eigenstates. Therefore, in this article we employ the standard representation of the higher dimensional gamma matrices instead of the chiral one.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the Einstein-Skyrme system in 6-dimensions and derives the coupled equations for the Skyrme and gravitational fields. We derive a class of multi-winding number solutions. Some typical numerical brane solutions are shown. Formulation of the fermions in higher dimensional curved space-time is discussed in Sec.III. Coupling of the fermions and the skyrmions is introduced in this section. Conclusion and discussion are given in Sec.IV.
\[sec:2\] Construction of the baby-skyrmion branes
==================================================
\[subsec:level11\]Model
-----------------------
We introduce a model of the 6-dimensional Einstein-Skyrme system with a bulk cosmological constant coupled to fermions [@Kodama:2008zza]. The action comprises $$\begin{aligned}
S=S_{\rm gravity}+S_{\rm brane}+S_{\rm fermion}\label{action}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $S_{\rm gravity}$ is the 6-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm gravity}&=&\int d^{6}x \sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa^2}R-\Lambda_{b}\right]\,.
\label{grav_action} \end{aligned}$$ In the parameter $\kappa^2=1/M_{6}^{4}$, $M_{6}$ is the 6-dimensional Planck mass, denoted the fundamental gravity scale, and $\Lambda_{b}$ is the bulk cosmological constant.
For $S_{\rm brane}$ we use the action of baby-Skyrme model [@Piette:1994ug; @Kudryavtsev:1996er] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm brane}&=&\int d^{6}x {\cal L}_{\rm brane}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{\rm brane}=\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[\frac{F^2}{2}\partial_{M}
{\vec \phi}\cdot \partial^{M}{\vec \phi}
+\frac{1}{4e^2}\bigl(\partial_{M}{\vec \phi}\times\partial_{N}
{\vec \phi}\bigr)^{2} \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5cm}+\mu^2 (1+{\vec n}\cdot{\vec \phi})\Bigr]\,,
\label{skyrme_action}\end{aligned}$$ where $M,N$ run over $0,\cdots ,5$ and ${\vec n}=(0,0,1)$. ${\vec \phi}=(\phi^{1},\phi^{2},\phi^{3})$ denotes a triplet of scalar real fields with the constraint ${\vec \phi}\cdot{\vec \phi}=1$. The constants $F,e,\mu$ are the Skyrme model parameters with the dimension of $(energy)^{2}$, $(energy)^{-1}$, $(energy)^{3}$, respectively. The first term in Eq.(\[skyrme\_action\]) is nothing but a nonlinear $\sigma-$model. The second term is the analogue of the Skyrme fourth order term in the standard Skyrme model (the Skyrme model in 3+1 dimensions) which works as a stabilizer for obtaining the soliton solution. The last term is referred to as a potential term which guarantee the stability of a baby-skyrmion.
The solutions of the model would be characterized by following topological charge in curved space-time $$\begin{aligned}
Q=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^2x{\vec \phi}\cdot (\nabla_1{\vec \phi}\times \nabla_2{\vec \phi})
\label{windingnumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_\mu$ means the space-time covariant derivative. Let us assume that the matter Skyrme fields depend only on the extra coordinates and impose the hedgehog ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
{\vec \phi}=(\sin f(r)\cos n\theta,\, \sin f(r)\sin n\theta,\, \cos f(r))\,.
\label{hedgehog}\end{aligned}$$ The function $f(r)$ which is often called as the profile function, has following boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
f(0)=-(m-1)\pi,~~\lim_{r\to \infty}f(r)=\pi\end{aligned}$$ where $(m,n)$ is arbitrary integer. This ansatz ensures the topological charge $$\begin{aligned}
Q=n(1-(-1)^m)/2.
\label{windingnumber2}\end{aligned}$$
We consider the maximally symmetric metric with vanishing 4D cosmological constant, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^{2}=B^{2}(r)\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} + dr^{2}
+ C^{2}(r)d\theta^{2} \label{metric}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the Minkowski metric with the signature $(-,+,+,+)$ in our convention and $0\le r < \infty$ and $0\le \theta \le 2\pi$. This ansatz has been proved to realize warped compactification of the extra dimension in models where branes are represented by global defects [@Olasagasti:2000gx].
$S_{\rm fermion}$ is the action for fermions coupled with the skyrmions and the gravity; we shall describe it in Sec.\[sec:level3\].
![\[profilef\] Typical results of the profile functions $f$ (straight line), the warp metrices $B,\tilde{C}$ (dashed,dotted line,respectively), as a function of $y$. ](Fig1.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
The general forms of the coupled system of Einstein equations and the equation of motion of the Skyrme model are $$\begin{aligned}
&&G_{MN}=\kappa^2 (-\Lambda_{b} g_{MN} +T_{MN})\,, \\
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_N\Bigl(\sqrt{-g}F^2{\vec \phi}\times \partial^N{\vec \phi} \nonumber \\
&&+\sqrt{-g}\frac{1}{e^2}\partial_M{\vec \phi}\bigl(\partial^M{\vec \phi}\cdot({\vec \phi}\times \partial^N{\vec \phi})\bigr)\Bigr)
+\mu^2{\vec \phi}\times{\vec n}=0\,,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where the stress-energy tensor $T_{MN}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&T_{MN}=-2\frac{\delta {\cal L}_{\rm brane}}{\delta g^{MN}}+g_{MN}{\cal L}_{\rm brane} \nonumber \\
&&=F^2\partial_{M}{\vec \phi}\cdot \partial_{N}{\vec \phi}
+\frac{1}{e^2}g^{AB}\bigl(\partial_{A}{\vec \phi}\times\partial_{M}{\vec \phi}\bigr)
\cdot\bigl(\partial_{B}{\vec \phi}\times\partial_{N}{\vec \phi}\bigr)\nonumber \\
&&+g_{MN}{\cal L}_{\rm brane}\,.
\label{stress_tensor}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[hedgehog\]) into Eq. (\[skyrme\_action\]), one obtains the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\rm brane}=-B^4{\tilde C}F^4e^2\left[uf'^{2}+\frac{n^2\sin^{2}f}{{\tilde C^{2}}}
+2{\tilde \mu}(1+\cos f)\right] \nonumber \\
\label{skyrme-lag}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the dimensionless quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{x}_\mu=eFx_\mu,~y=eFr,~{\tilde C}=eFC,~
{\tilde \mu}=\frac{1}{eF^2}\mu \label{}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
u=1+\frac{n^2\sin^{2}f}{{\tilde C}^{2}}\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ The prime denotes derivative with respect to the radial component $y$ of the two extra space. The Skyrme field equation is thus $$\begin{aligned}
&&f''+\left(\frac{4B'}{B}+\frac{{\tilde C}'}{{\tilde C}}+\frac{u'}{u}
\right)f' \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{2u}\left[\frac{n^2\sin 2f}{{\tilde C}^{2}}
(1+f'^{2})+2{\tilde \mu}^2\sin f\right]=0 \label{skyrme}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{u'}{u}=\frac{n^2}{{\tilde C}^{2}+n^2\sin^{2}f}\left[f'\sin 2f
-2\frac{{\tilde C}'}{{\tilde C}}\sin^{2}f\right]\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ Within this ansatz, the components of the stress-energy tensor (\[stress\_tensor\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&T_{\mu\nu}=-F^4e^2B^2\eta_{\mu\nu}\tau_0(y)\,,~~\nonumber \\
&&~~~~\tau_0(y)\equiv \frac{u}{2}f'^2+\frac{n^2\sin^2f}{2\tilde{C}^2}+\tilde{\mu}^2(1+\cos f)
\label{estensor0}\\
&&T_{rr}=-F^4e^2\tau_r(y)\,,~~\nonumber \\
&&~~~~\tau_r(y)\equiv -\frac{u}{2}f'^2+\frac{n^2\sin^2f}{2\tilde{C}^2}+\tilde{\mu}^2(1+\cos f)
\label{estensorr}\\
&&T_{\theta\theta}=-F^4\tilde{C}^2\tau_\theta(y)\,,\nonumber \\
&&~~~~\tau_\theta(y)\equiv \frac{\hat{u}}{2}f'^2-\frac{n^2\sin^2f}{2\hat{C}^2}+\tilde{\mu}^2(1+\cos f)
\label{estensort}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{u}=1-\frac{n^2\sin^{2}f}{{\tilde C}^{2}}\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ The Einstein equations with bulk cosmological constant are written down in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
&& 3{\hat b}'+6{\hat b}^{2}+3{\hat b}\,{\hat c}+{\hat c}'+{\hat c}^2
=-\alpha({\tilde \Lambda}_{b}+\tau_0(y)) \label{einstein1}\\
&& 6{\hat b}^{2}+4{\hat b}\,{\hat c}=-\alpha
({\tilde \Lambda}_{b}+\tau_r(y)) \label{einstein2}\\
&& 4{\hat b}'+10{\hat b}^{2}=-\alpha({\tilde \Lambda}_{b}
+\tau_\theta(y))\label{einstein3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\kappa^2 F^2$ is a dimensionless coupling constant and ${\tilde \Lambda}_{b}=\Lambda_{b} /e^2F^{4}$ is a dimensionless bulk cosmological constant. Also, we introduce ${\hat b}\equiv B'/B,{\hat c}\equiv C'/C$ for convenience.
![\[stensor\] Typical results of the stress-energy tensors $\tau_0,\tau_r,\tau_\theta$ (dashed,dotted,and dot-dashed line, respectively) and the topological charge density $q$ (straight line).](Fig2.EPS){height="7.0cm" width="9cm"}
Boundary conditions
-------------------
At infinity, all components of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes and the Einstein equations (\[einstein1\])-(\[einstein3\]) are then reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
&&3{\hat b}'+6{\hat b}^{2}+3{\hat b}\,{\hat c}+{\hat c}'+{\hat c}^2
=-\alpha {\tilde \Lambda}_{b} \\
&&6{\hat b}^{2}+4{\hat b}\,{\hat c}=-\alpha
{\tilde \Lambda}_{b} \\
&&4{\hat b}'+10{\hat b}^{2}=-\alpha {\tilde \Lambda}_{b}\,.\label{}\end{aligned}$$ The general solution has been obtained in Refs. [@Giovannini:2001hh; @Peter:2003zg] which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat b}=p\,\frac{Ae^{\frac{5}{2}py}-e^{-\frac{5}{2}py}}
{Ae^{\frac{5}{2}py}+e^{-\frac{5}{2}py}}\;,\;\;\;\;\;
{\hat c}=\frac{5p^{2}}{2{\hat b}}
-\frac{3}{2}{\hat b} \label{}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is an arbitrary constant and $$\begin{aligned}
p=\sqrt{\frac{-\alpha {\tilde \Lambda}_{b}}{10}}\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ Since we are interested in regular solutions with warped compactification of the extra-space, the functions $B$ and ${\tilde C}$ must converge at infinity. This is achieved only when ${\tilde \Lambda}_{b}<0$ and $A=0$ with the solution $$\begin{aligned}
B \rightarrow \epsilon_{1}\,e^{-py}
\;,\;\;\;\;
{\tilde C} \rightarrow \epsilon_{2}\,e^{-py} \label{bound-inf1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ are arbitrary constants. Then, the asymptotic form of the metric which realizes warped compactification is given by $$\begin{aligned}
ds_{\infty}^{2}&=&\epsilon_{1}e^{-2\sqrt{\frac{-\alpha {\tilde \Lambda}_{b}}{10}}y}
\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} \nonumber \\
&+&dy^{2}+\epsilon_{2}e^{-2\sqrt{\frac{-\alpha {\tilde \Lambda}_{b}}{10}}y}
d\theta^{2}\,.
\label{asym-met}\end{aligned}$$
![\[curvature\] Typical results of the curvature invariants $R$, $R_{AB}R^{AB}$, $R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}$ and $C_{ABCD}C^{ABCD}$ (straight,dashed,dotted and dot-dashed line, respectively).](Fig3.EPS){height="7.0cm" width="9cm"}
The 4-dimensional reduced Planck mass $M_{pl}$ is derived by the coefficient of the 4 dimensional Ricci scalar, which can be calculated inserting the metric (\[metric\]) into the action (\[grav\_action\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{M_{pl}^{2}}{2}\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g^{(4)}}R^{(4)}
=\frac{M_{6}^{4}}{2}\int d^{6}x \sqrt{-g}B^{-2}(r)R^{(4)} \\
&&=\frac{M_{6}^{4}}{2}\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g^{(4)}}R^{(4)}
\int dr d\theta B^{2}(r)C(r) \\
&&= \frac{2\pi M_{6}^{4}}{2}\int dr \, B^{2}(r)C(r)
\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g^{(4)}}R^{(4)} \label{}\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $(4)$ represents a tensor defined on the 4 dimensional submanifold. Thus, we find the relation between $M_{pl}$ and $M_{6}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
M_{pl}^{2}=2\pi M_{6}^{4}\int_{0}^{\infty}dr \,B^{2}(r) C(r) \,. \end{aligned}$$ The requirement of gravity localization is equivalent to the finiteness of the 4-dimensional Planck mass. For the asymptotic solution (\[asym-met\]), the localization is attained.
Let us consider the asymptotic solutions for skyrmions. we can write $$\begin{aligned}
f(y)=\bar{f}+\delta f(y)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where for $y\gg 1$, $\bar{f}\sim 0$. The linearized field equations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta f''-5p\delta f' -{\tilde \mu}\delta f=0\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $f$ falls off exponentially, one obtains for $y\gg 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\delta f(y) \rightarrow f_{c}e^{-qy}~~~~{\rm with}~~~~
q=\frac{\sqrt{25p^{2}+4{\tilde \mu}}-5p}{2}\;\;\;
\label{bound-inf2}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{c}$ is an arbitrary constant.
Following regularity of the geometry at the center of the defect is imposed $$\begin{aligned}
B'(0)=0,~~C(0)=0,~~C'(0)=1\end{aligned}$$ and we can arbitrarily fix $B(0)=1$. Boundary conditions for the warp factors and the profile function at the origin are determined by expanding them around the origin. For the different topological sectors, the first few terms are schematically written down as $$\begin{aligned}
&&f(y)=-(m-1)\pi+f^{(n)}(0)y^n+O(y^{n+1}) \label{expf}\\
&&b(y)={\cal B}y+O(y^3) \label{expb}\\
&&\tilde{C}(y)=y+{\cal C}y^3+O(y^5) \label{expc}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&(m,n)=(1,1) \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal B}=-\frac{\alpha}{4}\Bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}f'(0)^4\Bigr)\,,\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal C}=\frac{\alpha}{12}\Bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu}-2f'(0)^2
-\frac{5}{2}f'(0)^4\Bigr) \\
&&(m,n)=(1,2) \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal B}=-\frac{\alpha}{4}\bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu}),~~
{\cal C}=\frac{\alpha}{12}\bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu}) \\
&&(m,n)=(2,1) \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal B}=-\frac{\alpha}{4}\Bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b-\frac{1}{2}f'(0)^4\Bigr),\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal C}=\frac{\alpha}{12}\Bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b
-2f'(0)^2-\frac{5}{2}f'(0)^4\Bigr) \\
&&(m,n)=(2,2) \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~{\cal B}=-\frac{\alpha}{4}\tilde{\Lambda}_b,~~
{\cal C}=\frac{\alpha}{12}\tilde{\Lambda}_b\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus one finds that the only $f'(0)$ or $f''(0)$ is the free parameter vicinity of the origin.
Consider linear combinations of Eqs.(\[einstein1\])-(\[einstein3\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat b}'+4{\hat b}^2+{\hat b}\,{\hat c}=
-\frac{1}{2}\alpha \tilde{\Lambda}_b
+\frac{\alpha}{4}(\tau_r+\tau_\theta)\,, \label{einstein5} \\
&&4{\hat b}\,{\hat c}+{\hat c}'+{\hat c}^2=
-\frac{1}{2}\alpha \tilde{\Lambda}_b+\frac{\alpha}{4}(4\tau_0+\tau_r-3\tau_\theta)\,. \label{einstein6}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating Eqs.(\[einstein5\]),(\[einstein6\]) from zero to $y_c$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&B^3(y_c)B'(y_c)\tilde{C}(y_c) \nonumber \\
&&=-\frac{\alpha}{2}\tilde{\Lambda}_b\int^{y_c}_0 B^4 \tilde{C} dy
-\frac{\alpha}{4}(\mu_r+\mu_\theta)\,,
\label{einstein7}\\
&&B^4(y_c)\tilde{C}'(y_c) \nonumber \\
&&=1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\tilde{\Lambda}_b\int^{y_c}_0 B^4 \tilde{C} dy
-\frac{\alpha}{4}(4\mu_0+\mu_r-\mu_\theta)\,.
\label{einstein8} \end{aligned}$$ (\[einstein7\]) is the 6-dimensional analogue of the relation determining the Tolman mass whereas Eq.(\[einstein8\]) is the generalization of the relation giving the angular deficit. Combining these the following relations are obtained in the $y_c\to \infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\int^{\infty}_0 B^4 \frac{n^2\sin^2 f}{\tilde{C}}(1+f'^2)dy=1 \end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\int^{\infty}_0 B^4\Bigl[\frac{n^2\sin^2 f}{\tilde{C}}+2\tilde{\Lambda}_b\tilde{C}
+2\tilde{\mu}\tilde{C}(1-\cos f)\Bigr]dy=1.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ These conditions are used for checking the numerical accuracy of our calculations.
In order to study the singularity structure of the bulk solutions, the several curvature invariants are computed [@Giovannini:2001hh]. The explicit form for the metric (\[metric\]) are given in Ref.[@Giovannini:2000cq] and they are $$\begin{aligned}
&&R:=20\hat{b}^2+8\hat{b}'+2\hat{c}'+2\hat{c}^2+8\hat{b}\hat{c} \nonumber \\
&&R_{AB}R^{AB}:= \nonumber \\
&&~~80\hat{b}^4+20\hat{b}'^2+2\hat{c}'^2+2\hat{c}^4+64\hat{b}'\hat{b}^2+4\hat{c}^2\hat{c}'
+28\hat{b}^2\hat{c}^2 \nonumber \\
&&~~+32\hat{b}^3\hat{c}+8\hat{b}\hat{b}'\hat{c}+8\hat{b}'\hat{c}'+8\hat{b}'\hat{c}^2+8\hat{b}^2\hat{c}'
+8\hat{b}\hat{c}\hat{c}'+8\hat{b}\hat{c}^3 \nonumber \\
&&R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}:= \nonumber \\
&&~~4\hat{c}^4+40\hat{b}^4+16\hat{b}^2\hat{c}^2
+8\hat{c}^2\hat{c}'+4\hat{c}'^2+32\hat{b}^2\hat{b}'+16\hat{b}'^2
\nonumber \\
&&C_{ABCD}C^{ABCD}:=\frac{12}{5}(\hat{b}'-\hat{c}'+\hat{b}\hat{c}-\hat{c}^2)^2\,. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
![\[parameter\] Parameter space for typical solutions which exhibit gravity localization around the skyrmions with $Q=3$.](Fig4b.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
![\[volc\]The effective potential $V_{11}$ defined by Eq.(\[V11\]) with the parameter,$\tilde{w}=1.1$,$l=0$ for $(m,n)=(1,1)$ is shown. The figure clearly exhibits [*Volcano*]{} shape.](Fig5.EPS){height="6cm" width="8cm"}
![\[fdensity1\] Fermion number density for the background skyrmion with $(m,n)=(1,1)$ with the model parameters: $\alpha=0.5,~\tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.1,~\tilde{\mu}=0.220525915$ and $f'(0)=0.7292182131078184$. The results for the coupling constant $\tilde{M}=0$ (decoupled) and $\tilde{M}=0.86$ are plotted. If the fermions couple to the skyrmions, only the state $K_3=0$ is localized on the brane core. The other states are not observed because they are strongly delocalized.](Fig6.EPS){height="11cm" width="9cm"}
Numerical analysis
------------------
The equations (\[skyrme\]),(\[einstein1\])-(\[einstein3\]) should be solved numerically since they are highly nonlinear. The simple technique to solve the Einstein-Skyrme equations is the shooting method combined with the 4th order Runge-Kutta forward integration [@Shiiki:2005xn]. However, a unique set of boundary conditions at $y=0$ produces 2 distinct solutions, one of which grows exponentially and another decays exponentially as $y\rightarrow \infty$. This causes instability of solutions when the forward integration is performed. Instead, we employ a backward integration which is used in Ref. [@Giovannini:2001hh] where the 6-dimensional vortex-like regular brane solutions were constructed. The backward integration method requires a set of boundary conditions at infinity. We, however, truncate and take the distance $y_{\rm max}$ far enough from the origin so that the Skyrme profile would fall off before it reaches $y_{\rm max}$. The set of boundary conditions at $y=y_{\rm max}$ produces a unique solution which satisfies the boundary conditions at $y=0$ and hence it is numerically stable. We present our typical numerical results in Figs.\[\[profilef\],\[stensor\],\[curvature\]\]. Fig.\[\[parameter\]\] shows the fine-tuning surface in the model parameter space $(\alpha,\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\Lambda}_b)$ corresponding to the gravity localization condition. We should stress that once the desired solutions are obtained, the parameters are no longer arbitrary, $i.e.$, a constraint $h(\alpha,\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\Lambda}_b)=0$ is emerged.
\[sec:level3\]Fermions
======================
\[subsec:level31\]Basic formalism
---------------------------------
The action of the fermions coupled with the Skyrme field in a Yukawa coupling manner can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm fermion}=\int d^6x {\cal L}_{\rm fermion}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\rm fermion}=\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[\bar{\Psi}(i\Gamma^AD_A-M\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi})\Psi\Bigr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ The 6-dimensional gamma matrices $\Gamma^A$ are defined with the help the [*vielbein*]{} $e^A_{\hat{a}}$ and those of the flat-space $\gamma^{\hat{a}}$,[*i.e.*]{}, $\Gamma^A:=e^A_{\hat{a}}\gamma^{\hat{a}}$. The covariant derivative is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
D_A:=\frac{1}{2}\overleftrightarrow{\partial}_A+\frac{1}{2}\omega_A^{\hat{a}\hat{b}}\sigma_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_A^{\hat{a}\hat{b}}:=\frac{1}{2}e^{\hat{a}B}\nabla_Ae^{\hat{b}}_B$ are the spin connection with generators $\sigma_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}:=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma_{\hat{a}},\gamma_{\hat{b}}]$. The simbol $\overleftrightarrow{\partial}$ implies that $\psi\overleftrightarrow{\partial}\phi\equiv \psi\partial \phi-(\partial \psi) \phi$. Here $A,B=0,\cdots,5$ are the 6-dimensional space-time index and $\hat{a},\hat{b}=0,\cdots,5$ corresponds to the flat tangent 6-dimensional Minkowski space. The vielbein is defined through $g_{AB}=e^{\hat{a}}_Ae_{\hat{a}B}=\eta_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}e^{\hat{a}}_Ae^{\hat{b}}_B$. We introduce the form of vielbein which was used, $e.g.$, at Ref.[@Zhao:2007aw] $$\begin{aligned}
&&e^{\hat{a}}_\mu=B(r) \delta^{\hat{a}}_\mu,~~\mu=0,\cdots,3, \nonumber \\
&&e^{\hat{4}}_r=\cos \theta,~~e^{\hat{5}}_r=\sin \theta,~~\nonumber \\
&&e^{\hat{4}}_\theta=C(r)\sin\theta,~~e^{\hat{5}}_\theta=C(r)\cos\theta\,.\end{aligned}$$ Straightforward calculation shows that the nonvanishing components of the corresponding spin connections are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\omega^{\hat{\mu}\hat{4}}_\mu=\delta^{\hat{\mu}}_{\mu}B'(r)\cos\theta,~~
\omega^{\hat{\mu}\hat{5}}_\mu=\delta^{\hat{\mu}}_{\mu}B'(r)\sin\theta,~~\nonumber \\
&&\omega^{\hat{4}\hat{5}}_\theta=1-C'(r).\end{aligned}$$ The Dirac equation is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Bigl[i\frac{1}{B}\delta^{\mu}_{\hat{\mu}}\gamma^{\hat{\mu}}\partial_\mu
+i(\cos\theta\gamma^{\hat{4}}+\sin\theta\gamma^{\hat{5}})
(\partial_r+\frac{2B'}{B}-\frac{1-C'}{2C}) \nonumber \\
&&-i(\sin\theta\gamma^{\hat{4}}-\cos\theta\gamma^{\hat{5}})
\frac{1}{C}\partial_\theta
-M\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi}\Bigr]\Psi=0\,.
\label{diraceq8_s}\end{aligned}$$
![\[sflow1\] Spectral flow of the fermion energy of $(m,n)=(1,1)$. The zero crossing spectrum (bold line) has the quantum number $K_3=0$, which corresponds to the localizing zero mode. Exchange between a heavy (dotted line) and a light level (straight line) , which has been discussed in Ref.[@Burnier:2006za] in somewhat different context, is also found. ](Fig7.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
{height="5.0cm" width="6.2cm"} {height="5.0cm" width="6.2cm"} {height="5.0cm" width="6.2cm"}
The Dirac gamma matrices should satisfy the anti-commutation relations $\{\gamma^{\hat{A}},\gamma^{\hat{B}}\}=2\eta^{\hat{A}\hat{B}}$ and there are the possible candidates preserving such Clifford algebra. In most of previous studies in the 6-dimensions, they are based on the localization of the chiral fermions on the Abelian vortex. In the chiral representation, the spinors are expanded into the right- and the left-handed components and the zero mode appears as a eigenstate of the right or the left. The massive modes emerge as their mixing states. Our approach, however, is somewhat different for treatment of the masses of the fermions. Actually, even in the first generation the fermions have intrinsic, finite masses. So, treating the massive fermionic modes directly, we employ the standard representation of the higher dimensional gamma matrices instead of the chiral one. The eigenvalues of the Dirac hamiltonian are estimated for background brane solutions with large parameter space, and the zero modes appear as the zero crossing points. The standard representation of the gamma matrices in 6-dimensional can be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma^{\hat{\mu}}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\bar{\gamma}^{\hat{\mu}}& 0 \\
0 & -\bar{\gamma}^{\hat{\mu}} \\
\end{array}
\right),~
\bar{\gamma}^{\hat{\mu}}:= \biggl\{
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_2 & 0 \\
0 & -I_2 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \vec{\sigma} \\
-\vec{\sigma} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\biggr\} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~\gamma^{\hat{4}}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -iI_4 \\
-iI_4 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\gamma^{\hat{5}}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -I_4 \\
I_4 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $I_n$ means the identity matrix of the dimension $n$. The 6-dimensional spinor $\Psi$ can be decomposed into the 4 dimensional and the extra space-time components $\Psi(x^\mu,r,\theta)=\psi(x^\mu)\otimes U(r,\theta)$. Here the 4-dimensional part $\psi(x^\mu)$ is the solution of the corresponding Dirac equation on the brane $$\begin{aligned}
i\bar{\gamma}^\mu\partial_\mu\psi=w\psi
\label{diraceq4}\end{aligned}$$ in which the eigenvalues $w$ correspond to the 4-dimensional masses of the fermions. The Dirac equation in 6-dimensions is transformed as the 2-dimensional eigenproblem with the eigenvalue $w$. The following replacement of the eigenfuncations greatly simplifies the equation of motion [@RandjbarDaemi:2003qd] $$\begin{aligned}
&&u(y,\theta):= \nonumber \\
&&~~~~\exp\biggl[2\ln B(y)+\frac{1}{2}\ln \tilde{C}(y)-\frac{1}{2}\int^y \frac{dy'}{\tilde{C}(y')}\biggr]
U(y,\theta)
\,. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The eigenproblem becomes $$\begin{aligned}
H_2 u=\tilde{w}u
\label{eigenproblem8}\end{aligned}$$ where the hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}H_2:=
B\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{M}\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi} &
-e^{-i\theta}(\partial_y-\frac{i\partial_\theta}{\tilde{C}})
\\
e^{i\theta}(\partial_y+\frac{i\partial_\theta}{\tilde{C}})
&
-\tilde{M}\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi}
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{hamiltonian8}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have introduced the dimensionless coupling constant and the eigenvalue $\tilde{M}:=M/eF$ and $\tilde{\omega}:=\omega/eF$. One easily confirms that $H_2$ commutes with “grandspin” $$\begin{aligned}
K_3:=l_3+\frac{\gamma^{\hat{6}}}{2}+n\frac{\tau^3}{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $l_3:= -i\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$ is the orbital angular momentum in the extra space and for convenience, we introduce $\gamma^{\hat{6}}:=I\otimes \sigma^3$. Thus the eigenstates are specified by the magnitude of the grandspin, $i.e.$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&K_3=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3\cdots,~~{\rm for~odd~} n \nonumber \\
&&K_3=\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{3}{2},\pm\frac{5}{2},\cdots,~~{\rm for~even~} n\,.\end{aligned}$$ If we consider “time dependent” Dirac equation $$\begin{aligned}
i\partial_\tau \bar{u}(\tau,r,\theta)=H_2 \bar{u}(\tau,r,\theta),\end{aligned}$$ the equation is invariant under “time-reversal” transformation ${\cal T}$, $i.e.,\tau\to -\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}H_2{\cal T}^{-1}=H_2,~~{\cal T}:=i\gamma^{\hat{5}}\otimes\tau^2 C,\end{aligned}$$ Here $C$ is the charge conjugation operator. Since the hamiltonian is invariant under time reverse, the states of $\pm K_3$ are degenerate in energy.
Once the desired eigenfunctions are obtained, angular averaged fermion densities on the brane can be estimated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle \rho \rangle :=\int \tilde{C} d\theta U^\dagger U
=N(y)\rho (y) \\
&&\rho (y):=\int d\theta u^\dagger(y,\theta) u(y,\theta)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
N(y)=\exp\biggl[-4\ln B(y)+\int^y \frac{dy'}{\tilde{C}(y')}\biggr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ By using the asymptotics of the warp factors (\[bound-inf1\]), we easily find out the behaviour $N(y)$ at zero and infinity [@RandjbarDaemi:2003qd] $$\begin{aligned}
&&N(y\to 0)\to y \nonumber \\
&&N(y\to \infty)\to \frac{1}{\epsilon_1^4}\exp(4py+\frac{1}{p\epsilon_2}e^{py})\,. \end{aligned}$$ At far from the core, the densities of the excited modes are more enhanced than the localized mode.
The eigenequation (\[eigenproblem8\]) can be recast into a (Schrödinger like) second order differential equation. We assume a form of eigenfuntion $$\begin{aligned}
u(y,\theta):=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta_1(y)e^{il\theta} \\
\eta_2(y)e^{i(l+n)\theta} \\
\xi_1(y)e^{i(l+1)\theta} \\
\xi_2(y)e^{i(l+n+1)\theta}
\end{array}
\right) \label{eigenspinor}\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ is an arbitrary integer. In order to eliminate $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ from Eq.(\[eigenproblem8\]), we write $$\begin{aligned}
&&\xi_1=\beta(G_- D_-^l\eta_1-\tilde{M}\sin{f}D_-^{l+n}\eta_2)\\
&&\xi_2=-\beta(\tilde{M}\sin{f}D_-^l\eta_1-G_+ D_-^{l+n}\eta_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\beta:=\Bigl(\frac{\tilde{\omega}^2}{B^2}-\tilde{M}^2\Bigr)^{-1} \\
&&G_\pm:=\frac{\tilde{\omega}}{B}\pm \tilde{M}\cos{f} \\
&&D_\pm^l:=\partial_y\pm \frac{l}{\tilde{C}}\end{aligned}$$ and then, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\biggl\{\beta G_-\partial_y^2+(\delta^1G_-+\beta G'_-)\partial_y
+\biggl(G_--\delta^{l+1}G_-\frac{l}{\tilde{C}}
-\beta\frac{G'_-\tilde{C}-G_-\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2}l\biggr)\biggl\}\eta_1
+\biggl\{ -\beta \tilde{M}\sin{f}\partial_y^2\nonumber\\
&&-(\delta^{1-n}\tilde{M}\sin{f}+\beta \tilde{M}\cos{f}f')\partial_y
-\biggl(\tilde{M}\sin{f}-\delta^{l+1}\tilde{M}\sin{f}\frac{l+n}{\tilde{C}}
-\beta\frac{\cos{f}f'\tilde{C}-\sin{f}\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2}\tilde{M}(l+n)\biggr) \biggl\} \eta_2=0
\label{p1}\\
&&\biggl\{\beta \tilde{M}\sin{f}\partial_y^2
+(\delta^{n+1}\tilde{M}\sin{f}+\beta \tilde{M}\cos{f}f')\partial_y
+\biggl(\tilde{M}\sin{f}-\delta^{l+n+1}\tilde{M}\sin{f}\frac{l}{\tilde{C}}
-\beta \tilde{M}\cos{f}f'\frac{l}{\tilde{C}}
+\beta \tilde{M}\sin{f}\frac{l\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2}\biggr)\biggl\}\eta_1\nonumber\\
&&-\biggl\{\beta G_+\partial_y^2+(\delta^{1}G_++\beta G'_+)\partial_y
+(G_+-\delta^{l+n+1}G_+\frac{l+n}{\tilde{C}}-\beta G'_+\frac{l+n}{\tilde{C}}
+\beta G_+\frac{(l+n)\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2})\biggl\}\eta_2=0\label{p2}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta^l:=\beta'+\frac{l}{\tilde{C}}\beta$. Furthermore the following replacement simplifies Eqs.(\[p1\]),(\[p2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\zeta (y):= \exp \Bigl[-\int^y \frac{{\cal R}-{\cal A}_1}{2}d\tilde{y}\Bigr] \eta_1(y),\\
&&\chi(y):=\exp \Bigl[-\int^y \frac{{\cal R}-\tilde{{\cal A}}_2}{2}d\tilde{y}\Bigr] \eta_2(y),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal R}:=\frac{4B'}{B}+\frac{\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}}$. We finally obtain the equation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\partial_y^2 -{\cal R}\partial_y+V_{11} & -{\cal A}_2\partial_y +V_{12} \\
-\tilde{\cal A}_1\partial_y +V_{21} & \hspace{-5mm}-\partial_y^2-{\cal R}\partial_y+V_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\zeta \\
\chi \\
\end{array}
\right)=0\,.
\label{eigeneq2}
\end{aligned}$$ The explicit forms of ${\cal A}_i,\tilde{\cal{A}}_i,V_{ij}~(i,j=1,2)$ are given in appendix \[ap:potential\]. Here we show the typical example of the effective potential $V_{11}$ in Fig.\[volc\]. The shape of the potential is like famous [*Volcano type*]{}. So we expect the existence of localized mode of the fermions.
![\[fdensity3\] Fermion number density for the background $(m,n)=(1,3)$ skyrmion with the model parameters: $\alpha=0.11,~\tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.35,~\tilde{\mu}=0.957648$. The case of the coupling constant $\tilde{M}=1.0$. The states $K_3=0,\pm 1$ are localized on the brane core. Doubly degenerate $K_3=\pm 1$ states are more localized (they exhibit the non-zero value at the origin).](Fig9.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
![\[sflow3\] Spectral flow of the fermion energy for the background $(m,n)=(1,3)$ skyrmion with the model parameters: $\alpha=0.11,~\tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.35,~\tilde{\mu}=0.957648$. Two zero crossing spectra have the quantum number $K_3=0$ (straight line), and $K_3=\pm 1$ (dotted line), respectively.](Fig10.EPS){height="6cm" width="8cm"}
\[subsec:level32\]The numerical method
--------------------------------------
Instead of solving the second order differential equation (\[eigeneq2\]), we study the eigenproblem (\[eigenproblem8\]) directly. We employ the method which was originally proposed by Kahana-Ripka [@Kahana:1984be] for solving the Dirac equation with non-linear chiral background. According to the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method [@bransden], the upper bound of the spectrum can be obtained from the secular equation; $$\begin{aligned}
\rm{det}\left(\bf{A}-\epsilon \bf{B}\right) = 0
\label{secular_equation}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}=
\int d^{3}x \varphi_i^\dagger H
\varphi_j,
~~B_{ij}=
\int d^{3}x \varphi_i^\dagger \varphi_j\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\varphi_i\}~(i=1,\cdots,N)$ is some complete set of the plane-wave spinor basis. For $N \rightarrow \infty$, the spectrum $\epsilon$ becomes exact. Eq.(\[secular\_equation\]) can be solved numerically. For simplicity, we construct a plane-wave basis in large circular box with radius $D$ as a set of eigenstates of the flat, unperturbed ($B=1,B'=0,C=r,f=\pi$) Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_0=-\gamma^{\hat{6}}\gamma^{\hat{4}}\partial_4-\gamma^{\hat{6}}\gamma^{\hat{5}}\partial_5
-\gamma^{\hat{6}}\tilde{M}\tau^3\,.\end{aligned}$$ The solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\phi^{\rm up}_i
~=
M_{k_i}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\omega^{+}_{\epsilon_{k_i}}J_{p-1}(k_iy)e^{i(p-1)\theta} \\
\omega^{-}_{\epsilon_{k_i}}J_{p}(k_iy)e^{ip\theta}
\end{array}
\right)
\otimes
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
&&
\phi^{\rm down}_i
=
N_{l_i}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\omega^{-}_{\epsilon_{l_i}}J_{q}(l_iy)e^{iq\theta} \\
\omega^{+}_{\epsilon_{l_i}}J_{q+1}(l_iy)e^{i(q+1)\theta}
\end{array}
\right)
\otimes
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
\label{kahana_ripka}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
M_{k_i}=\biggl[\frac{2\pi D^2\epsilon_{k_i}}{\epsilon_{k_i}+\tilde{M}}
\Bigl(J_{p-1}(k_iD)\Bigr)^2\biggr]^{-1/2} \nonumber \\
N_{l_i}=\biggl[\frac{2\pi D^2\epsilon_{l_i}}{\epsilon_{l_i}+\tilde{M}}
\Bigl(J_{q+1}(l_iD)\Bigr)^2\biggr]^{-1/2}\,. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here $\omega^{+}_{\epsilon_k<0},\omega^{-}_{\epsilon_k>0}=1,
\omega^{-}_{\epsilon_k<0},\omega^{+}_{\epsilon_k>0}=-{\rm sgn}(\epsilon_k)k/(\epsilon_k+\tilde{M})$ and $\epsilon_k=\pm \sqrt{k^2+\tilde{M}^2}$. The momenta $k_i,l_i~(i=1,\cdots,m_{\rm max})$ are discretized by the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
J_{p}(k_iD)=0,~~J_{q}(l_iD)=0\end{aligned}$$ where $p:=K_3+\dfrac{1}{2}-\dfrac{n}{2}, q:=K_3-\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{n}{2}$. The orthogonality of the basis is then satisfied by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int^D_0 dr r J_\nu(k_i r)J_\nu(k_j r)
=\int^D_0 dr r J_{\nu\pm 1}(k_i r)J_{\nu\pm 1}(k_j r) \nonumber \\
&&=\delta_{ij}\frac{D^2}{2} [J_{\nu\pm 1}(k_i D)]^2,~~
\nu:=K_3\pm\frac{1}{2}\mp\frac{n}{2}\,.
\label{orthogonality}\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the eigenstates of Eq.(\[eigenproblem8\]) in terms of the plane-wave basis, the eigenproblem reduces to the symmetric matrix diagonalization problem. A special care is taken for the estimation of the matrix element of the hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian8\]). In order to hold the Hermiticity of the matrix, the following differential rule is imposed $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi |\overleftrightarrow{\partial_y}|\phi\rangle =\int dyd\theta \tilde{C}(y)
\frac{1}{2}\Bigl[\psi^{\dagger}\partial_y\phi-(\partial_y\psi^{\dagger}) \phi\Bigr]\,.\end{aligned}$$
![\[fdensity31\] Fermion number densities for the background $(m,n)=(1,3)$ skyrmion about four regions depicted in Fig,\[sflow3\].](Fig11.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
{height="5cm" width="6cm"} {height="5cm" width="6cm"} {height="5cm" width="6cm"}
Size of the radius $D$ is chosen so as to wrap the whole branes. Apparently the typical value $D=10.0$ is sufficient because one easily observe that the brane profile functions, the stress energy tensors, and the curvature invariants are flat at $y>8$ (see Figs.\[\[profilef\],\[stensor\],\[curvature\]\]).
Fig.\[fdensity1\] shows the densities $\rho(y)$ for the background skyrmion of $(m,n)=(1,1)$. We display a tower of the massive modes together with the ground state. As one easily observe that only the lowest mode is peaked on the brane while all other modes escape from the core; therefore the massive modes cannot be observed on the brane core. In Fig.\[sflow1\], we plot the fermion spectra as varying the coupling constant $\tilde{M}$. Only the lowest isolated mode decays from positive continuum to the negative. We will confirm that the spectrum corresponds to the brane localized mode.
Libanov,Troitsky have discussed relation between the topological charge and the fermionic generation [@Libanov:2000uf]. 4-dimensional fermions appear as zero-modes trapped in the core of the global vortex with winding number three. We shall investigate this speculation with our solution for $(m,n)=(1,3)$. The results of the expansion at the origin (\[expf\])-(\[expc\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal B}=-\frac{\alpha}{4}\bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu}),~~
{\cal C}=\frac{\alpha}{12}\bigl(\tilde{\Lambda}_b+2\tilde{\mu})\end{aligned}$$ and $f^{(3)}(0)$ is the shooting parameter. The typical example of solution of the brane is shown in Fig.\[profilef3\]. As is expected, we observe three localized solutions (Fig.\[fdensity3\]) which can be regarded as the generations of the fermions. A main difference from the previous studies is that we use non-linear type of soliton solutions for constructing the branes. They have richer information of the topology and the spectra exhibit doubly degenerate ground states and a higher excited state. On the other hand, the linear type of solitons like Abelian vortex have the spectra with double degeneracy only. The mass spectra of the fermions in our universe comprises doubly degenerate plus single level with very high energy; it suggests the underlying topology that we employs.
\[subsec:level33\]Fermion level crossing picture
------------------------------------------------
In Fig.[\[sflow1\]]{}, we show that only one isolated mode dives from positive energy to negative. This behavior is called as spectral flow or level crossing picture [@Kahana:1984be]. Spectral flow is defined as the number of eigenvalues of Dirac Hamiltonian that cross zero from below minus the number of eigenvalues that cross zero from above for varying the properties of the background fields. According to the Index theorem a nonzero topological charge implies the zero modes of the Dirac operator [@Atiyah:1980jh]. The number of flow coincides with the topological charge and the zero modes are emerged when they cross the zero. The level crossing picture extensively studied in the Dirac equation with non-linear chiral background [@Kahana:1984be; @Sawado:2004pm], with the Higgs field of the Abelian-Higgs model [@Bezrukov:2005rw; @Burnier:2006za] and with the non-trivial gauge fields ($e.g.$,instanton,meron) [@Christ:1979zm; @Nielsen:1983rb; @Kiskis:1978tb]. In a electroweak theory, one level crossing of the fermion in the background of the spphaleron barrier is observed [@Kunz:1993ir]. Sometimes the mechanism can be thought of as a quantum mechanical description of fermion creation/annihilation. Interestingly, we can observe the mixing of some levels, $i.e.$, the energy levels cannot cross and the excited particle changes with the light one (see Fig.\[sflow1\]). This behavior indicates that these fermions interact with each other via some potential. This has been thoroughly discussed in Ref.[@Burnier:2006za] with somewhat different models. In this subsection, we shall examine the level crossing behavior of the fermion in the brane-skyrmion background.
![\[sflow31\] Spectral flow of the fermion energy of $(m,n)=(1,3)$ for $\tilde{M}=0.72, \tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.2$ and the different values of $\tilde{\mu}$ ($\alpha$ is the function of $\tilde{\mu},i.e., \alpha(\tilde{\mu})$). Every dot corresponds to the different background brane solutions. Especially, the bullet ($\bullet$) is the lowest, doubly degenerate states and the square ($\blacksquare$) is the single mode, respectively.](Fig13.EPS){height="7.0cm" width="9cm"}
![\[sflow32\] Spectral flow of the fermion energy of $(m,n)=(1,3)$ for $\tilde{M}=0.72, \tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.2$ and the different values of $\alpha$. The bullet ($\bullet$) is the lowest, doubly degenerate states and the square ($\blacksquare$) is the single mode.](Fig14.EPS){height="7.0cm" width="9cm"}
Studying the spectral flow argument, the authors always investigate evolution of the spectrum by one parameter, $e.g.$, time (which characterize the size or the strength of the background field). Our model, however, has many parameters which define the basic property of the branes. Therefore, we explore the fermion level behavior for the brane solutions with large parameter space. Fig.\[sflow3\] shows the result of the spectral flow of the solutions with $(m,n)=(1,3)$ as a function of the coupling constant $\tilde{M}$. Fig.\[fdensity31\] is the corresponding fermion densities. One easily observes that the density exhibits various localization behaviors in every domain. In order to examine more thorough parameter dependence of the spectral flow, first we prepare several varieties of the brane solutions with large parameter space (see Fig.\[profilefb\]). Once the brane solutions are obtained, the model parameters $(\alpha,\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\Lambda}_b)$ are no longer arbitrary, $i.e.$, a constraint $h(\alpha,\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\Lambda}_b)=0$ exists. So if we fix $\tilde{\Lambda}_b,\tilde{M}$, either $\alpha$ or $\tilde{\mu}$ is identified as a evolution parameter. We display in Figs.\[\[sflow31\],\[sflow32\]\], the spectral flow corresponding to these parameters. Fig.\[sflowb\] shows more general spectral flow “cascade”,$i.e.$, the flow as functions of $(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{M})$.
\[subsec:level34\]Mass splitting of the generations
---------------------------------------------------
Because of the time-reversal symmetry, the spectra contain doubly degenerate states and, the first two generations of the fundamental fermions should be observed as the degenerate states within our framework. Some effects can split the degenerate states. For example, in order to manifest the symmetry breaking, we introduce the explicit mass term for the fermions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
H_m:=B\gamma^{\hat 6} {\hat m},~~
{\hat m}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_1 & 0 \\
0 & m_2
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ $H_m$ commutes with the grandspin operator and then the eigenstate of the hamiltonian with this term still are labeled by $K_3$. On the other hand, it breaks the time-reversal symmetry, thus, this additional term successfully splits the degeneracy. Without loss of generality, we can set $m_1=0,m_2=\Delta m$, which is treated as a free parameter.
Another trial is based on a fine structure of the background solitons. In Ref.[@Hen:2007in], the authors extensively studied the structure of the multisolitons with charge $1\le Q\le 5$ in the baby Skyrme model. They use one parameter family of the potentials $U=\mu^2(1-\phi_3)^s$. For the $Q=3$, the soliton has spherical symmetry below some critical value $s$ (our calculation is the case of $s=1$). The symmetry is broken above the critical value, and the solution exhibits only $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. So, we expect that our branes slightly deform and the degenerate spectra split.
For the $3+1$ Skyrme model, construction of the ansatz for the multisolitons with spherical coordinates $(r,\theta,\phi)$ called [*Rational map ansatz*]{} has been proposed by Houghton, Manton and Sutcliffe [@Houghton:1997kg]. Although the solitons exhibit the complex platonic symmetries, they become tractable by using this ansatz. Coupling of the fermions to the Rational map skyrmions was already studied in Refs.[@Sawado:2002zm; @Sawado:2004pm]. In the baby Skyrme model, however, no analytical form of ansatz for such non-continuous symmetry exists, then we treat the effects as a small perturbation.
![\[sflowb\] Spectral flow “cascade” of one of the zero crossing mode in $(m,n)=(1,3)$, for fixed $\tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.2$. ](Fig15b.EPS){height="7.0cm" width="9cm"}
In general, for the solution with non spherical symmetry, the profile function is modified $f(r)\to F(r,\theta)$. In the case of $\mathbb{Z}_2$, if the deformation is small, $F(r,\theta)$ can be expanded $$\begin{aligned}
F(r,\theta)\sim f(r)+\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}}{2}f_1(r)(e^{2i\theta}+e^{-2i\theta}) \end{aligned}$$ where the first term of the right hand side $f(r)$ corresponds to the profile function with spherical symmetry. One can easily confirm that the solution has $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry, $i.e.$, $F(r,\theta+\pi)=F(r,\theta)$. Substituting into Eq.(\[hedgehog\]), the term $\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi}\to \vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\phi}+V_\epsilon$ thus hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian8\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_2\to \bar{H}_2(\epsilon)\equiv H_2+B\gamma^{\tilde{6}}\tilde{M}V_\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ where the potential $V_\epsilon$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&&V_\epsilon(r,\theta;\epsilon) := \nonumber \\
&&\epsilon\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\sin f(r)(e^{2i\theta}+e^{-2i\theta}) & \cos f(r)(e^{-i\theta}+e^{-5i\theta}) \\
\cos f(r)(e^{i\theta}+e^{5i\theta}) & \sin f(r)(e^{2i\theta}+e^{-2i\theta})
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ for the charge three ($n=3$). Since we have no detailed information about the deformation, we suppose $\epsilon:=\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}}{2}f_1(r)$ as a constant parameter describing measure of the deformation. The potential breaks both the time-reversal and the grand spin symmetry, then the coupling between states with different grandspin $K_3$ occur. Mixing of states $(K_3,K'_3)$ with large $\Delta K_3:=|K_3-K'_3|$ can be negligible for small deformation. Here we compute the eigenproblem $\bar{H}_2(\epsilon) u=\bar{w} u$, taking into account only the coupling with $\Delta K_3\leqq 2$.
At present status of our model, we admit that it is a toy model for understanding the level structure of the realistic standard model fermions because we have no explicit realistic charges. We are able to fit just one quark/lepton sector in terms of a set of model parameters. First we evaluate the mass of the “down sector” of quarks $(d,s,b)$. Fig.\[masssplit1\] shows the spectra. We employ a brane solution with the parameters $\alpha=0.08, \tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.21, \tilde{\mu}=1.4029$, and the coupling constant $\tilde{M}=0.94$. For obtaining the dimensionful values, we tentatively choose the parameters of the Skyrme model, $Fe=27800$ MeV. We obtain masses of the down, the strange, and the bottom quark $m_d=5.1$ MeV, $m_s=98$ MeV, $m_b=4200$ MeV, for $\epsilon=0.012$. For the lepton sector, we have to employ a different solution which is characterized by the set of parameters $\alpha=0.07,\tilde{\Lambda}_b=-0.21, \tilde{\mu}=1.8838$ and $\tilde{M}=1.03$. The Skyrme model parameter $Fe=10506$ MeV and when the deformation parameter is $\epsilon=0.03383$, we obtain the masses $m_e=0.5$ MeV, $m_\mu=107$ MeV, $m_\tau=1779$ MeV (Fig.\[masssplit2\]). These are in quite good agreement with the corresponding experimental observations.
Here, it is worth mentioning the physical implications of our parameter choice. In Sec.\[sec:2\], we have computed the brane solutions with wide range of the parameters $(\alpha,\tilde{\Lambda}_b,\tilde{\mu})$, which are physically equivalent. The coupling constant $\tilde{M}$ has been chosen in order that the lowest energy levels cross zero. The splitting of the first two generations and the third can be adjusted in terms of the choice of $(\alpha,\tilde{\Lambda}_b,\tilde{\mu})$. Essentially, the deformation parameter $\epsilon$ is not a free parameter; it should be determined uniquely in terms of a consistent calculation of the Einstein-Skyrme systems. Thus, one can say that the splitting of the first two generations is also controlled by the brane parameter choice. Finally, the skyrmion parameter $Fe\sim 10^4$ MeV guarantees the size of the branes as $r\sim 10^{-1}$ fm, which is consistent with our observation; it is sufficiently small so as not to observe any evidence of the extra dimension.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we have proposed new brane solutions in 6-dimensional space-time and have discussed about localization of the fermions on them. The brane have constructed by a baby-skyrmion, a generalization of a O(3) non-linear $\sigma$ model, and have realized the regular warped compactification in 6-dimensional anti-de Sitter space-time. The metric is non-factorizable with the warp factors either exponentially diverging or decaying in static solutions. But only exponentially decaying warp factors can allow gravity localization near the brane in the sense that the 6-dimensional Planck mass takes a finite value. Such solutions could be obtained numerically if we impose suitable boundary conditions at the distance far from the brane and integrate in backward. On the other hand, the forward integration method is unstable for any boundary conditions at the origin.
After the solutions of the skyrmion branes were successfully found, we have studied the fermion localization on them. The Dirac equation in 6-dimensional curved space-time has been constructed in terms of introducing the vielbein and 6-dimensional generalization of the gamma matrices. To treat the massive modes, we have used the standard representation of the gamma matrices. In order to solve the eigenproblem, we have introduced the plane wave basis in a large circular box with radius $D$. Studying identification of the charge of the background skyrmions and the generation number of the standard model fermions in our universe, we have investigated the skrymions of the topological charge $Q=3$. This conjecture has been confirmed through the discussion of the fermion spectral flow. It embodies the localized modes where the number equals to the background topological charge. As a result, we have found localized fermion modes on the skyrmion branes corresponding to their topological charge. For $(m,n)=(1,1)$, we have observed the solutions with some parameter ranges, which means the existence of the massive modes as well as the massless one. For $(m,n)=(1,3)$, three solutions localized on the brane have been found. They comprise doubly degenerate lowest modes of plus single excited state. This level structure well describes the experimental measurements of fermion masses. On the other hand, in the Higgs mediated models, the spectra exhibit only double degeneracy.
![\[masssplit1\] Mass splitting of the down series of quarks $(d,s,b)$ in terms of effect of the deformation of the background baby skyrmions as function of the parameter $\epsilon$ which determines the strength of the deformation (in MeV). The experimental values are quoted from Ref.[@Amsler:2008zz].](Fig16.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
![\[masssplit2\] Mass splitting of the leptons $(e,\mu,\tau)$ in terms of effect of the deformation of the background baby skyrmions as function of the parameter $\epsilon$ which determines the strength of the deformation (in MeV). The experimental values are also from Ref.[@Amsler:2008zz].](Fig17.EPS){height="7cm" width="9cm"}
As was found in Ref.[@Hen:2007in], the minimal energy configuration of the baby skyrmion with charge three has no spherical symmetry, rather, it exhibits $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. The small shape deformation has an effect on the lowest degenerate state and splits them. We have successfully obtained the tower of the “down”sector of quark generation within one parameter family of the deformation. We have treated the deformation of the skyrmion in a perturbative way and have neglected the effect for the gravity. In order to address the deformation of the brane solutions from spherical geometry, we need to examine full simulation of the Einstein-Skyrme system without imposing any symmetrical ansatz for the geometry. We believe that the solution will clarify the origin of the level structure of the standard model fermions.
In Ref.[@Ringeval:2001cq], the authors had an elaborate analysis for the massive modes in a 5-dimensional anti-de Sitter space-time. They set a domain that is defined by the effective potential, and then solved the Dirac equation with inside and out. By imposing the boundary conditions at the surface, they obtained several massive modes. In our case, we also introduce a domain particularly for the numerical reason. We have confirmed that even if the radius of the domain goes to its infinity, there is no notable effect to the zero mode.
Our model is a simple toy model for understanding the level structure of the realistic standard model fermions. We observed generation of masses of the down sector $(d,s,b)$ or the lepton sector $(e,\mu,\tau)$ with good agreement of experimental observations. Perhaps most serious drawback of our approach is that we have much number of free parameters and need the independent parameter sets to fit each of the quark/lepton sectors. However, this may be justified if one considers that the quarks and leptons are localized on different branes but share the 4-dimensional spacetime. Another defect of our model is of course lack of the explicit spin and charge of the fermions. Taking into account the effects of the breaking of the flavor symmetry and assigning the realistic charges for all quark/lepton sectors to our solutions will be a great advance toward full understanding of the generation mechanism of our universe.
Our choice of the representation in this article might need more thorough consideration. Although there are several advantages to treat the massive modes, mechanism of localization of left-chiral fermions on the brane is not clear. Estimation of the asymmetry of the chirality on the brane is undoubtedly important subject, at least, about the lowest zero crossing level. The result implementing this will be reported in the forthcoming paper.
Acknowledgement
===============
We appreciate to Noriko Shiiki for giving us many useful advices and comments.
The effective potential {#ap:potential}
=======================
The explicit form of $V_{ij}$ In Eq.(\[eigeneq2\]) are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{11}&=&-\beta^{-1}+\biggl(\delta^{l+1}\beta^{-1}-\beta\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}\tilde{M}^2\sin^2{f}
+\beta G_+G'_--\frac{1}{2}\beta \tilde{M}^2 \sin 2ff'\biggr)\frac{l}{\tilde{C}}-\frac{l\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{{\cal R}'-{\cal A}_1'}{2}
-\left(\frac{{\cal R}-{\cal A}_1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{{\cal R}+{\cal A}_1}{2}\right)\\
\label{V11}
V_{12}&=&-\beta\tilde{M}\frac{l+n}{\tilde{C}}\sin f\left(G_+\cot ff'-G'_+-\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}G_+\right)-{\cal A}_2\frac{{\cal R}-\tilde{\cal A}_2}{2}\\
V_{21}&=&-\beta\tilde{M}\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}\sin f\left(G_-\cot ff'-G'_-+G_-\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}\right)-\tilde{\cal A}_1\frac{{\cal R}-{\cal A}_1}{2}\\
\label{V12}
V_{22}&=&-\beta^{-1}+\left(\delta^{l+1}\beta^{-1}+\beta\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}G_+G_-+\beta G_-G'_+
-\frac{1}{2}\beta\tilde{M}^2\sin 2ff'\right)\frac{l+n}{\tilde{C}}-\frac{(l+n)\tilde{C}'}{\tilde{C}^2}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{{\cal R}'-\tilde{{\cal A}}_2'}{2}
-\left(\frac{{\cal R}-\tilde{{\cal A}}_2}{2}\right)\left(\frac{{\cal R}+\tilde{{\cal A}}_2}{2}\right)
\label{V22}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal A}_1:=\delta^1\beta^{-1}
+\beta\left(G_+ G'_-- \tilde{M}^2\sin^2 f\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{M}^2\sin 2f f'\right)~~~~
\label{A1} \\
&&{\cal A}_2:=\beta\tilde{M}\sin f\left(\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}G_+-G_+\cot ff'+G'_+\right)
\label{A2} \\
&&\tilde{{\cal A}}_1:=\beta\tilde{M}\sin f\left(\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}G_--G_-\cot ff'+G'_-\right)
\label{AA1} \\
&&\tilde{{\cal A}}_2:=\delta^1\beta^{-1}
+\beta\left(G_- G'_++ \tilde{M}^2\sin^2 f\frac{n}{\tilde{C}}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{M}^2\sin 2ff'\right).
\label{AA2}\end{aligned}$$
[qq]{}
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{}, 263 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9803315\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 086004 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9807344\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9906064\]. S. M. Carroll and M. M. Guica, arXiv:hep-th/0302067. I. Navarro, JCAP [**0309**]{}, 004 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0302129\]. P. Kanti, R. Madden and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 044021 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104177\]. M. Gell-Mann and B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B [**141**]{}, 333 (1984). A. Kehagias, Phys. Lett. B [**600**]{}, 133 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0406025\]. S. Randjbar-Daemi and V. A. Rubakov, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 054 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0407176\]. H. M. Lee and A. Papazoglou, Nucl. Phys. B [**705**]{}, 152 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0407208\]. A. G. Cohen and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B [**470**]{}, 52 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9910132\]. R. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2564 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9911015\]. T. Gherghetta and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 240 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0004014\]. M. Giovannini, H. Meyer and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B [**619**]{}, 615 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104118\]. C. Ringeval, P. Peter and J. P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 104018 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0301172\]. B. M. A. Piette, B. J. Schroers and W. J. Zakrzewski, Z. Phys. C [**65**]{}, 165 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9406160\]. A. E. Kudryavtsev, B. Piette and W. J. Zakrzewski, Eur. Phys. J. C [**1**]{}, 333 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9611217\]. J. W. Chen, M. A. Luty and E. Ponton, JHEP [**0009**]{}, 012 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003067\]. A. Kehagias and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{}, 38 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010112\]. C. Ringeval, P. Peter and J. P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044016 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0109194\]. A. Melfo, N. Pantoja and J. D. Tempo, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 044033 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0601161\]. R. Koley, J. Mitra and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 045005 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.1019 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Hosotani, S. Noda, Y. Sakamura and S. Shimasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 096006 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0601241\]. S. Randjbar-Daemi and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**492**]{}, 361 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0008079\]. M. V. Libanov and S. V. Troitsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**599**]{}, 319 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0011095\]. A. Neronov, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044004 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0106092\]. S. Randjbar-Daemi and M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP [**0304**]{}, 016 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303247\]. S. Aguilar and D. Singleton, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 085007 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0602218\]. S. L. Parameswaran, S. Randjbar-Daemi and A. Salvio, Nucl. Phys. B [**767**]{}, 54 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0608074\]. L. Zhao, Y. X. Liu and Y. S. Duan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**23**]{}, 1129 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.1520 \[hep-th\]\]. Z. q. Guo and B. Q. Ma, JHEP [**0808**]{}, 065 (2008) \[arXiv:0808.2136 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{}, 139 (1983). K. Akama, Lect. Notes Phys. [**176**]{}, 267 (1983) \[arXiv:hep-th/0001113\]. N. Arkani-Hamed and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 033005 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9903417\]. G. R. Dvali and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Lett. B [**475**]{}, 295 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0001072\]. P. Q. Hung and M. Seco, Nucl. Phys. B [**653**]{}, 123 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0111013\]. S. Kahana and G. Ripka, Nucl. Phys. A [**429**]{} (1984) 462. M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi and I. M. Singer, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. [**79**]{}, 71 (1976). Y. Kodama, K. Kokubu, N. Sawado and N. Shiiki, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**22**]{} 5670 (2007). I. Olasagasti and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 044014 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003300\]. M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064011 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0011153\]. N. Shiiki and N. Sawado, Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 3561 (2005) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0503123\]. B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, [*Introduction to Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Longman Scientific Technical, New York, 1989).
N. Sawado and N. Shiiki, Nucl. Phys. A [**739**]{}, 89 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402084\]. Y. Burnier, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 105013 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609028\]. F. L. Bezrukov, Y. Burnier and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 045008 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0512143\].
N. H. Christ, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 1591 (1980). H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Phys. Lett. B [**130**]{}, 389 (1983). J. E. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 3690 (1978). J. Kunz and Y. Brihaye, Phys. Lett. B [**304**]{}, 141 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9302313\]. I. Hen and M. Karliner, Nonlinearity [**21**]{}, 399 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.3939 \[hep-th\]\]. C. J. Houghton, N. S. Manton and P. M. Sutcliffe, Nucl. Phys. B [**510**]{}, 507 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9705151\]. N. Sawado and N. Shiiki, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 011501(R) (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204198\]. C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Lett. B [**667**]{}, 1 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In ultrasound (US) imaging, various types of adaptive beamforming techniques have been investigated to improve the resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio of the delay and sum (DAS) beamformers. Unfortunately, the performance of these adaptive beamforming approaches degrade when the underlying model is not sufficiently accurate and the number of channels decreases. To address this problem, here we propose a deep learning-based beamformer to generate significantly improved images over widely varying measurement conditions and channel subsampling patterns. In particular, our deep neural network is designed to directly process full or sub-sampled radio-frequency (RF) data acquired at various subsampling rates and detector configurations so that it can generate high quality ultrasound images using a single beamformer. The origin of such input-dependent adaptivity is also theoretically analyzed. Experimental results using B-mode focused ultrasound confirm the efficacy of the proposed methods.'
author:
- 'Shujaat Khan, Jaeyoung Huh, and Jong Chul Ye, [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'Final\_Version.bib'
title: Adaptive and Compressive Beamforming Using Deep Learning for Medical Ultrasound
---
Ultrasound imaging, B-mode, beamforming, adaptive beamformer, Capon beamformer
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Excellent temporal resolution with reasonable image quality makes the ultrasound (US) modality a first choice for variety of clinical applications. Moreover, due to its non-invasive nature, US is an indispensable tool for some clinical applications such as cardiac, fetal imaging, etc. In US, an image reconstruction is usually done by back-propagating the preprocessed measurement data and adding all the contributions. For example, in focused B-mode US imaging, the return echoes from individual scan lines are recorded by the receiver channels (Rx), after which a delay and sum (DAS) beamformer applies appropriate time-delays to the channel measurements and additively combines them for each depth to form an image at each scan line. Despite the simplicity, large number of receiver elements are often necessary in DAS beamformer to improve the image quality by reducing the side lobes. Moreover, to calculate accurate time delay, sufficiently large bandwidth transducers are required.
To deal with unfavorable acquisition conditions, various adaptive beamforming techniques have been developed over the several decades [@AdaptiveBF1; @CaponBF; @CaponBF2; @MVBF1; @MVBF2; @BSBF1; @FastRobustBF; @MultiBeamBF1; @IterativeBF1]. The main idea of adaptive beamforming is to change the receive aperture weights based on the received data statistics to improve the resolution and enhance the contrast. One of the most extensively studied adaptive beamforming techniques is Capon beamforming, also known as the minimum variance (MV) beamforming [@CaponBF; @CaponBF2; @MVBF1]. The aperture weight of Capon beamfomer is derived by minimizing the side lobe while maintaining the gain in the look-ahead direction. Unfortunately, Capon beamforming is computationally heavy for practical use due to the calculation of the spatial covariance matrix of channel data and its inverse [@MVBF2]. Moreover, the performance of Capon beamformer is dependent upon the accuracy of the covariance matrix estimate. To address these problems, many improved versions of MV beamformers have been proposed [@MVBF1; @MVBF2; @BSBF1; @FastRobustBF]. Some of the notable examples include the beamspace adaptive beamformer [@BSBF1], multi-beam Capon based on multibeam covariance matrices[@MultiBeamBF1], etc. In addition, a parametric form of iterative update covariance matrix calculation has been proposed instead of calculating the empirical covariance matrix [@IterativeBF1].
On the other hand, compressive beamforming method have been also extensively investigated to reduce the data rate [@jin2016compressive]. Specifically, high-quality ultrasound imaging demands for significantly high sampling rates, which eventually increases the volume of data transmitted from the system’s front end. Moreover, in 3-D ultrasound imaging, 2-D transducer arrays are used and more scan lines are needed, which leads to vastly increased amount of sampled data with respect to 2-D imaging. To achieve the aforementioned data rate reduction, random RF sub-sampling has been employed in various ultrasound imaging researches, e.g. [@schretter2017ultrasound], etc. Many researches also suggested the buffered probe sampling which can reduce the number of scan lines at the cost of complexity in probe design. Then specially designed compressive beamforming techniques were used to exploit the redundancy in the image to compensate for the reduced measurement data [@7420721; @jin2016compressive]. Unfortunately, most of the existing compressive beamformers require either hardware changes [@wagner2011xampling] or computationally expensive optimization methods [@jin2016compressive].
Recently, inspired by the tremendous success of deep learning, many researchers have investigated deep learning approaches for various inverse problems [@kang2017deep; @kang2018deep; @chen2017lowBOE; @adler2018learned; @wolterink2017generative; @jin2017deep; @han2017framing; @wang2016accelerating; @hammernik2018learning; @schlemper2018deep; @zhu2018image; @lee2018deep]. In US literature, the works in [@Allman_reviewer; @luchies2018deep] were among the first to apply deep learning approaches to US image reconstruction. In particular, Allman *et al* [@Allman_reviewer] proposed a machine learning method to identify and remove reflection artifacts in photo-acoustic channel data. Luchies and Byram [@luchies2018deep] proposed a frequency domain deep learning method for suppressing off-axis scattering in ultrasound channel data. In [@feigin2018deep], a deep neural network is designed to estimate the attenuation characteristics of sound in human body. In [@perdios2017deep; @zhou2018high], ultrasound image denoising method is proposed for the B-mode and single angle plane wave imaging. Rather than using deep neural network as a post processing method, the authors in [@yoon2018efficient; @gasse2017high; @MICCAI1; @MICCAI2] employed deep neural networks for the reconstruction of high-quality US images from limited number of received RF data. For example, the work in [@gasse2017high] uses deep neural network for coherent compound imaging from small number of plane wave illumination. In focused B-mode ultrasound imaging, [@yoon2018efficient] employs the deep neural network to interpolate the missing RF-channel data with multiline aquisition for accelerated scanning. While these recent deep neural network approaches provide impressive reconstruction performance, the designed neural network cannot completely replace a DAS beamformer, since they are designed as pre- or post- processing steps for specific acquisition scenarios and many of the works employ the standard DAS beamformer. Therefore, one of the most important contributions of this paper is to replace the DAS, adaptive, or compressive beamformers with a deep learning-based data-driven adaptive deep beamformer (DeepBF) so that a [ single]{} DeepBF can generate high quality images robustly for various detector channel configurations. Moreover, unlike the MV beamformer that can be used only for uniform array, our DeepBF is designed for various detectors and RF subsampling schemes, in spite of significantly reduced run-time computational complexity. In contrast to [@yoon2018efficient], where the deep learning approach was developed to interpolate missing RF data to be used as input to the standard beamformer, the proposed method is a CNN-based beamforming pipeline, without requiring additional beamformer. Consequently, this approach is much simpler and can be easily incorporated to replace the standard beamforming pipeline. Despite the simplicity, our experiments show that direct reconstruction using the proposed DeepBF produces better results compared to [@yoon2018efficient].
The consistent performance improvement over widely varying subsampling rates using a single CNN may appear mysterious. Inspired by the recent theoretical understanding of deep convolutional framelets [@ye2017deep; @ye2019understanding], another important contribution of this paper is a detailed theoretical analysis to identify the origin of the input adaptivity and the performance improvement of DeepBF. Our theoretical analysis suggests that the deep learning-based beamformer may be the right direction for medical ultrasound.
After the initial work of this paper became available on Arxiv [@khan2019universal], a related work on deep learning based adaptive beamformer appeared [@8683478]. In contrast to the proposed method, [@8683478] is interested in estimating the adaptive beamformer weights using a deep neural network. Moreover, the results are only available for simple phantom data, the application of compressive beamforming was not considered, and the theoretical analysis to unveil why the deep learning beamformer works was not provided. Therefore, our work is more general and provides a systematic understanding in designing deep learning based beamformer.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:review\], a brief survey of the existing adaptive beamforming methods are provided, which is followed by the detailed explanation of the proposed deep beamformer in Section \[sec:theory\]. Section \[sec:methods\] then describes the data set and experimental setup. Experimental results are provided in Section \[sec:results\], which is followed by Discussion and Conclusions in Section \[sec:discussion\] and Section \[sec:conclusion\], respectively.
Mathematical Preliminaries {#sec:review}
==========================
Notation
--------
In this paper, the uppercase boldface letter such as $\Xb,\Yb_n$ are used to refer matrices [and]{} tensors, whereas the lowercase boldface letters such as $\xb,\yb_{l,n}$ represent the [vectors]{}. Non-bold letters such as $x,v_{l,n}$ denote scalars.
Measured RF data is a three-dimensional cube $\Xb \in \Rd^{L\times N\times E}$ from the B-mode ultrasound as shown in Fig. \[fig:system\_block\_diagram\] (a), where $L, N,$ and $E$ denote the number of scan lines (or transmit events (TE)), depth planes, and the number of probe elements, respectively. The RF data cube $\Xb$ is often represented as $\Xb:=[\xb_{l,n}]_{l,n}$, where $\xb_{l,n}\in \Rd^{E}$ is the $(l,n)$-th element of the data cube, representing the RF data measured by the receiver channels from the the $l$-th scan line at the depth index $n$. The time-delay corrected data cube $\Yb \in \Rd^{L\times N\times E}$ is similarly denoted by $\Yb=[\yb_{l,n}]_{l,n}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\yb_{l,n}=\begin{bmatrix} y_{l,n}[0] & y_{l,n}[1] & \cdots &y_{l,n}[E-1]\end{bmatrix}^\top \in \Rd^{E}
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{ y_{l,n}[i]:=x_{l,n-\tau_{l,n}[i]}[i]}\end{aligned}$$ where [$^\top$ denotes the transpose,]{} $\tau_{l,n}[i]$ is the time delay for the $i$-th receiver elements to obtain the $l$-th scan line at the depth $n$.
In many US imaging, only a subset of receiver channels are used to process return echoes to save power consumption and/or data rate. Usually, the aperture, which refers to the span of the active receiver, varies depending on the scan lines, so that symmetric set of receivers along the scan lines are used. In this case, the received RF data can be explicitly modeled as $\Zb=[\zb_{l,n}]_{l,n}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\zb_{l,n}=\begin{bmatrix} z_{l,n}[0] & z_{l,n}[1] & \cdots &z_{l,n}[{C}-1]\end{bmatrix}^\top \in \Rd^{C}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:z}
z_{l,n}[i]= y_{l,n}[i+d_l]
\end{aligned}$$ where $d_l$ denotes the specific detector offset to indicate the active channel elements, which is determined for each scan line index $l$, [and $C$ is the aperture size.]{} See Fig. \[fig:system\_block\_diagram\](a) for the conversion between the data cube $\Xb$ and $\Zb$, where the dark triangular regions in $\Xb$, which correspond to inactive receiver elements, are removed in constructing $\Zb$.
Classical Beamforming
---------------------
### DAS beamforming
The standard delay and sum (DAS) beamformer for the $l$-th scanline at the depth sample $n$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:DAS}
{u}_{l,n}
=\frac{1}{J}\mathbf{1}^\top\zb_{l,n} %, \quad l=0,\cdots, L-1,$$ where $\mathbf{1}$ denotes a $C$-dimensional column-vector of ones, and $J$ is the number of active [channels]{}.
### Adaptive beamforming
The DAS beamformer is designed to extract the low-frequency spatial content that corresponds to the energy within the main lobe; thus, it is difficult to control side lobe leakage. Reduced side lobe leakage can be achieved by replacing the uniform weights by tapered weights: $$\label{BF2}
u_{l,n} = \wb_{l,n}^\top \zb_{l,n},$$ where $\wb_{l,n} \in \Rd^C.$ Specifically, in adaptive beamforming the objective is to find the $\wb_{l,n}$ that minimizes the variance of ${u}_{l,n}$, subject to the constraint that the gain in the desired beam direction equals unity. For example, the minimum variance (MV) estimation task can be formulated as [@CaponBF; @CaponBF2; @MVBF1]
$$\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\wb_{l,n}}{\text{minimize}}
& & E[|u_{l,n}]|^2]=\min_{\wb_{l,n}}\wb_{l,n}^{\top}\Rb_{l,n}\wb_{l,n} \\
& \text{subject to}
& & \mathbf{1}^\top \wb_{l,n} =1,
\end{aligned}$$
where $E[\cdot]$ is the expectation operator over RF data distribution, and $\Rb_{l,n}$ is a spatial covariance matrix given by: $$\Rb_{l,n}=E\left[\zb_{l,n} \zb_{l,n}^{\top}\right] .$$ Then, $\wb_{l,n}$ can be obtained by Lagrange multiplier method [@LagrangeBF] and expressed as $$\label{eq:wb}
\wb_{l,n}=\frac{\Rb_{l,n}^{-1} \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}^{\top} \Rb_{l,n}^{-1} \mathbf{1}} \quad .$$
Deconvolution Ultrasound
------------------------
One of the main limitations of the aforementioned beamforming methods is that they are based on the ray approximation of the wave propagation, whereas the real sound propagations exhibits many wave phenomenon such as scattering, [diffraction,]{} etc. Moreover, the precision of the time delay $\tau_{l,n}[i]$ calculation is determined by bandwidth of the transducers, which limits the accuracy of delayed signal $y_{l,n}[i]:=x_{l,n}\left[i-\tau_{l,n}[i]\right] $. These modeling [inaccuracies]{} may affect the spatial resolution and the contrast of standard US images.
In order to overcome these issues, many researchers have explored the deconvolution of US images [@chen2015compressive; @jensen1992deconvolution]. Specifically, the deconvolution US tries to find the filter kernel $h_{l,n}$ such that the filtered signal $v_{l,n}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
v_{l,n} &=& (h\ast u)_{l,n}% \notag\\
%&=& \sum_{p=-P}^P \sum_{q=-Q}^Q h_{l-p,n-q}u_{p,q}
\label{eq:deconv}\end{aligned}$$ produces high resolution images.
Imposing Causality Condition
----------------------------
Another important step after the beamforming is to convert the processed data to a causal signal using Kramers–Kronig relation [@o1981kramers]. This step is necessary to detect the signal envelope. More specifically, this process is performed by$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kramer}
v_{l,n}^a= v_{l,n}+ \iota (\kappa \ast v)_{l,n} = \left((\delta +\iota\kappa) \ast v\right)_{l,n} ,%\end{aligned}$$where $\iota = \sqrt{-1}$, and $\delta$ is a discrete Dirac delta function, and $\kappa$ denotes the filter kernel for Hilbert transform. The filter kernel for Hilbert transform is in principle one-dimensional since it is applied along the depth direction. Here, $v_l^a[n]$ is often referred to as the in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) representation.
Putting Together
----------------
By using , and , we can obtain the following representation: $$\begin{aligned}
v_{l,n}^a &=& \left((h+\iota \kappa \ast h )\ast u\right)_{l,n} %\notag\\
%&=& \sum_{p=-P}^P \sum_{q=-Q}^Q (\delta_{l-p,n-q}+h_{l-p,n-q})u_{p,q} \label{eq:v}\end{aligned}$$ If we define$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vba}
\vb^a = \begin{bmatrix} \vb_0^a \\ \vdots \\ \vb_{N-1}^a \end{bmatrix},&\quad \mbox{where}\quad \vb_n^a = \begin{bmatrix} v_{0,n}^a \\ \vdots \\ v_{L-1,n}^a \end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:zb}
\zb = \begin{bmatrix} \zb_0 \\ \vdots \\ \zb_{N-1} \end{bmatrix},&\quad \mbox{where}\quad \zb_n = \begin{bmatrix} z_{0,n} \\ \vdots \\ z_{L-1,n} \end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ then the following matrix representation can be obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
\vb^a = \tilde\Bb \ub \label{eq:v}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde\Bb$ is a 2-D convolution matrix composed of the filter kernel $h+\iota \kappa \ast h$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\ub :=\Bb(\zb)\zb,& \quad\mbox{where}\quad \Bb(\zb) = \Ib \otimes \Wb(\zb)^\top \end{aligned}$$ where $\otimes$ is a Kronecker product and $\Wb(\zb)$ is the input-dependent beamformer adaptive weight matrix given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Wb(\zb)&:= \begin{bmatrix} \wb_{0,0} & \cdots & \wb_{L-1,0} & \cdots & \wb_{L-1,N-1} \end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, Eq. can be equivalently represented as a nonlinear mapping: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BB}
\vb^a &=& \Tc(\zb)\zb %= \widetilde\Bb \Bb(\zb) \zb % = \sum_i \langle \bb_i, \ub[n] \rangle \tilde{\bb}_i \end{aligned}$$ where $\Tc(\zb):=\widetilde\Bb \Bb(\zb).$ Then, the goal of the US reconstruction is to find the nonlinear mapping $\Tc(\zb)$ so that the processed image has a high resolution with good contrast and better signal-to-noise ratio.
Main Contribution {#sec:theory}
=================
Piecewise linear approximation using CNN
----------------------------------------
In practice, the estimation of $\Tc(\zb)$ in is technically challenging. This is because the beamformer weights are dependent on each RF data $\zb$. Moreover, the deconvolution filter matrix could be also spatially varying. Therefore, the exact calculation is usually computationally expensive. A quick remedy to overcome this would be precalculating nonlinear mapping $\Tc(\zb)$. Unfortunately, it requires huge memory to store $\Tc(\zb)$ for all $\zb$. In this regard, a convolutional neural network (CNN) using ReLU nonlinearities provides an ingenious way of addressing this issue. Specifically, in our recent theoretical work [@ye2019understanding], we have shown that an encoder-decoder CNN with ReLU nonlinearity generates large number of distinct linear mappings depending on inputs. More specifically, the input space is partitioned into non-overlapping regions where input for each region share a common linear representation or mapping. [@ye2019understanding].
Specifically, consider an encoder-decoder CNN with the output $\vb^a$ with respect to input $\z$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\], where there exists skipped connection for every four convolution operations. As shown in Appendix, the output $\vb^a$ of the encoder-decoder CNN with respect to input $\z$ can be represented by the following nonlinear mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basis0}
\vb^a %&=& \Dc_L \cdots \Dc_{\kappa+1}\Ec_{\kappa}\cdots \Ec_1 x \notag\\
~= \Tc_\Thetab(\zb)\zb = \sum_{i} \left\langle {\blmath b}_i(\z), \z \right\rangle \tilde {\blmath b}_i(\z)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Thetab$ refers to all the convolution filter parameters, and $ {\blmath b}_i(\z)$ and $\tilde {\blmath b}_i(\z)$ denote the $i$-th column of the matrices and , respectively.
The expression reveals many important aspects of neural networks. First, the CNN representation in has explicit dependency on the input $\z$ in , due to the input dependent ReLU activation pattern. Accordingly, even from the same filter set, the input-dependent ReLU activation pattern makes the resulting mapping vary depending on the input signals. Furthermore, the number of distinct linear representation increases exponentially with the number of neurons determined by network depth and width [@ye2019understanding], since the distinct ReLU activation pattern is in principle combinatorially many up to $2^{\text{\# of neurons}}$. Second, the number of blocks in $\B(\z)$ and $\tilde \B(\z)$ in and are determined by the number of skipped connections, so the skipped branch makes the representation more redundant, which again makes the neural network have more piecewise linear regions [@ye2019understanding].
Note that the piecewise linear representation using is useful for approximating our nonlinear mapping $\Tc(\zb)$ in . Specifically, the piecewise linear representation by the DeepBF can be obtained by learning the filters $\Thetab$ from the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:train_org}
\min_{\Thetab} \sum_{t=1}^T\|\vb^{a(t)} - \Tc_\Thetab \zb^{(t)} \|_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{(\zb^{(t)},\vb^{a(t)})\}_{t=1}^T$ denotes the training data set composed of RF data and the target IQ data, which are collected across all subjects and subsampling patterns. Although the piecewise linear property of CNN may appear as a limitation to approximate arbitrary nonlinear functions, it also provides good architectural prior known as [*inductive bias,*]{} which results in inherent regularization effects. As will be shown in experimental results, we found that this inductive bias works [favorably]{} for US reconstruction.
Proposed Deep Beamformer Pipeline
---------------------------------
One of the limitations of the original training framework in is that the RF data input $\zb$ and the target $\vb^a$ requires too big memory to store using GPU memory. Therefore, rather than training a neural network to learn the mapping between all RF data, we implemented a separable form of a neural network such that the neural network is trained to estimate one depth at a time. Specifically, with a slight abuse of notation, our neural network is designed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:our}
\vb_n^a
~= \Tc_\Thetab\left(\sb_n\right)\sb_n,&&\end{aligned}$$ where $\sb_n$ is a sub-set of input RF data $\zb$ collected from three depth planes around the depth $n$: $$\sb_n = \begin{bmatrix}\zb_{n-1}^\top & \zb_n^\top & \zb_{n+1}^\top \end{bmatrix}^\top$$ where $\vb_n^a$ and $\zb_n$ are defined in and , respectively. Then, the resulting neural network training is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:train_new}
\min_{\Thetab} \sum_{t=1}^T\sum_{n=1}^N\|\vb_n^{a(t)} - \Tc_\Thetab \sb_n^{(t)} \|_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{(\sb_n^{(t)},\vb_n^{a(t)})\}_{n,t=1}^{N,T}$ denotes the training data set collected across all depth planes.
One of the potential limitations of using the restricted architecture is the reduction of the depth-dependent adaptivity of the neural network, since all the depth information is used together as a target data. This issue will be revisited in experimental section.
Fig. \[fig:system\_block\_diagram\] illustrates the proposed DeepBF pipleline using the reflected sound waves in the medium measured by the transducer elements. [ As a preprocessing for DeepBF pipeline, each measured RF signal $\Xb$ is time-delayed to generate focused RF data cube $\Zb$ based on the traveled distance. Then, our DeepBF generates IQ data $\vb^a$ directly from the time delayed RF data.]{} Compared to the standard DAS beamformer, this corresponds to the replacement of the deconvolution, beamforming and Hilbert transform parts with a deep neural network. Then, the signal envelope is generated by calculating the sum of squares of the in-phase and quadrature phase signals generated from the Hilbert transform. Finally, log compression is applied to generate the B-mode images.
Method {#sec:methods}
======
Dataset
-------
For experimental verification, we used an E-CUBE 12R US system (Alpinion Co., Korea). For data acquisition, we used a linear array transducer (L3-12H), whose configuration is given in Table \[probe\_config\]. Specifically, using the linear probe with a center frequency of $8.5$ MHz, we acquired RF data from the carotid/thyroid area of $10$ volunteers [using focused B-mode US imaging]{}. The *in vivo* data consist of $40$ temporal frames per subject, providing $400$ sets of TE-Depth-Rx data cube [$\Xb$]{}. In addition, we acquired $218$ frames of RF data from the ATS-539 multipurpose tissue mimicking phantom using $8.5$ MHz center frequency. [The phantom dataset was only used for test purposes and no additional training of CNN was performed on it.]{} [In addition to the carotid/thyroid and phantom datasets we also acquired [datasets]{} from forearm and calf muscles. In particular, they were acquired using $10$ MHz carrier frequency and consist of $100$ frames $50$ from each body part. [These]{} data set were used to further validate the generalization power of our trained model,]{} [and no additional training of CNN was performed on it.]{}
[For all scans the axial depth was in the range of 20$\sim$80 mm, while lateral length was 38.4mm. Depending on the object of interest, the focal depth is [adjusted]{} accordingly, in particular it varies in the range of 10$\sim$40 mm. ]{}
Network specification
---------------------
Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\] illustrates the schematic diagram of our deep beamformer. One minor improvement is the channel augmentation at the skipped branch of the decoder rather than simple addition. [Moreover, to make the neural network process only real-valued data, the real and image components of $\vb^a$ are separately processed to generate two channel IQ output.]{}
[The proposed CNN consists of $37$ convolution layers (i.e. $\kappa=4$) composed of a contracting path with concatenation, batch normalization, and ReLUs except for the last convolution layer. The first $36$ convolution layers as shown in Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\] use $3\times3$ convolutional filters (i.e., the 2-D filter has a dimension of $3\times 3$), and the last convolution layer uses a $3\times1$ filter followed by an average pooling to contract the $3\times 96\times 64$ data-cube from Depth-TE-Rx sub-space to $1\times96\times2$ Depth-TE-IQ plane. The number of CNN filter channel for each layer is $q_l=64$ and the dimension of the signal is $m_l=64\times 96$ up to the last layer which shrinks it to $1\times96\times2$ Depth-TE-IQ data.]{}
RF data sampling scheme {#sec:RFsamScon}
-----------------------
[The input and output data configurations are shown in [Fig]{}. \[fig:system\_block\_diagram\] (a) and (b) respectively. The time-delayed RF data cube [$\Zb$]{} is a three-dimensional data cube composed of total $1280\sim 4608$ depths of $96\times64$ data in TE-Rx direction.]{} We trained our neural network using multiple input/output pairs, where an input consists of $3\times 96\times 64$ data-cube in the Depth-TE-Rx volume and the output is composed of $96$ pairs of I/Q data in the Depth-TE plane. Each target IQ pair corresponds to two output channels, each representing real and imaginary parts. [Using carotid/thyroid]{} dataset, a set of $30,000$ Depth-TE-Rx cubes of size $3\times 96\times 64$ were randomly selected from [$10$ frames of]{} four different subject’s datasets, which are divided into $25,000$ [samples]{} for training and $5,000$ [samples]{} for validation. The remaining dataset of $360$ [carotid/thyroid, $218$ phantom were used as a test data]{}. [In addition, to see the generalization capability of the algorithm, $100$ frame data from totally different anatomical regions (forearm/calf muscles) were]{} used as a test dataset.
For [compressive beamforming]{} experiments, in addition to the full RF data with $64$ RF-channels, we generated five sets of sub-sampled RF data at different down-sampling rates. More specifically, the subsampling cases included $32$, $24$, $16$, $8$ and $4$ Rx-channels at [two subsampling schemes, such as variable down-sampling patterns across the depth and fixed down-sampling patterns across the depth. ]{} [Since the active receivers at the center of the scan line get RF data from direct reflection, the two channels in the center were always included, the remaining channels are randomly selected from the other $62$ active receiving channels and unselected Rx channels are zero-padded.]{} [In variable sampling scheme, different sampling pattern (mask) is used for each depth plane, whereas in fixed sampling we used same sampling pattern (mask) for all depth planes. The network was trained for variable sampling scheme only and both sampling schemes were used in test phase. The variable sub-sampling patterns can be implemented using a software changes by randomly selecting the A/D converter, of which procedure is similar to various compressive US researches, e.g. [@schretter2017ultrasound].]{}
Network training
----------------
As for the target IQ data, we mainly used the IQ data from DAS beamforming results from the full RF data. [We also use IQ data from an adaptive beamformer and deconvolution beamformer [@7565583] to demonstrate that the proposed beamformer can be trained to mimic various types of beamformers.]{}
The network was implemented with MatConvNet [@vedaldi2015matconvnet] in the MATLAB 2015b environment. Specifically, for network training, the parameters were estimated by minimizing the $l_2$ norm loss function using a stochastic gradient descent with a [$l_2$]{} regularization parameter of $10^{-4}$. The learning rate started from $10^{-4}$ and [exponentially]{} decreased to $10^{-7}$ in $200$ epochs. The weights were initialized using Gaussian random distribution with the Xavier method [@glorot2010understanding].
It is noteworthy to highlight this important aspect of our DeepBF model that [for each target beamformer e.g., DAS, MVBF or deconvolution]{}, a single (one time trained) CNN model is used for all data types and sub-sampling rates.
Comparison methods
------------------
For the evaluation purpose, we compared our proposed DeepBF method with standard DAS and MV beamformers. In DAS, the beamforming step is a simple [weighted]{} sum. Specifically, for DAS formulation in , $J$ is varied from 64 to 4 depending on the sub-sampling ratios so that data from $J$ active receivers is added to generate beamformed output. [ For the adaptive beamforming case, $\Rb_{l,n}$ must be estimated with a limited amount of data. A widely used method for the estimation of $\Rb_{l,n}$ is spatial smoothing (or subaperture averaging) [@AdaptiveBFMUS], in which the sample sub-aperture covariance matrix is calculated by averaging covariance matrices of $K$ consecutive channels in the $J$ receiving channels. Here we use $K=16$. Then, the weight for the minimum variance beamformer is calculated using the sub-aperture covariance estimate, after which the final beamforming result is obtained by averaging the contribution from the adaptive beamforming results from each subaperture array. ]{}
Performance metrics
-------------------
To quantitatively show the advantages of the proposed deep learning method, we used the [contrast-recovery]{} (CR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) [@BiomedicalImageAnalysis], generalized CNR (GCNR) [@GCNR_Paper], peak-signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), structure similarity (SSIM) [@1284395] and the reconstruction time.
The contrast is measured for the background ($B$) and anechoic structure ($aS$) in the image, and quantified in terms of CR and CNR: $${\hbox{CR}}(B,aS) = |\mu_{B}-\mu_{aS}|$$ $${\hbox{CNR}}(B,aS) = \frac{|\mu_{B}-\mu_{aS}|}{\sqrt{\sigma^2_{B} + \sigma^2_{aS}}},$$ where $\mu_{B}$, $\mu_{aS}$, and $\sigma_{B}$, $\sigma_{aS}$ are the local means, and the standard deviations of the background ($B$) and anechoic structure ($aS$) [@BiomedicalImageAnalysis], respectively. Another improved measure for the contrast-to-noise-ratio called generalized-CNR (GCNR) was recently proposed [@GCNR_Paper]. The GCNR compare the overlap between the intensity distributions of two regions. The GCNR is defined as $${\hbox{GCNR}}(B,aS) = 1- \int \min \{p_{B} (x), p_{aS} (x) \} dx,$$ where $x$ is the pixel intensity, and $p_{B}$ and $p_{aS}$ are the probability distributions of the background ($B$) and anechoic structure ($aS$), respectively. If both distribution are completely independent, then GCNR will be equals to one, whereas, if they completely overlap then GCNR will be zero [@GCNR_Paper]. The GCNR measure is difficult to tweak, so we believe that GCNR is an objective performance metric. For CNR and GCNR calculations, we generated separate ROI masks for each image.
The PSNR and SSIM index are calculated on reference ($v$) and Rx sub-sampled ($\tilde v$) images of common size $n_1\times n_2$ as
$${\hbox{PSNR}}(v,\tilde v) = 10 \ensuremath{\log_{10}} \left(\frac{R_{\max}^2}{\|v-\tilde v\|_F^2}\right),$$
where $\|\cdot\|_F$ denotes the Frobenius norm and $R_{\max}=2^{(\#bits\ per\ pixel)}-1$ is the dynamic range of pixel values (in our experiments this is equal to $255$), and $${\hbox{SSIM}}(v,\tilde v) = \frac{(2\mu_{v}\mu_{\tilde v}+c_{1})(2\sigma_{v,\tilde v} +c_{2})}{(\mu^{2}_{v}+\mu^{2}_{\tilde v}+c_{1})(\sigma^{2}_{v}+\sigma^{2}_{\tilde v} +c_{2})},$$ where $\mu_{v}$, $\mu_{\tilde v}$, $\sigma_{v}$, $\sigma_{\tilde v}$, and $\sigma_{v,\tilde v}$ are the local means, standard deviations, and across-covariance for images $v$ and $\tilde v$ calculated for a radius of $50$ units. The default values of $c_{1}=(k_{1}R_{max})^{2}$, $c_{2}=(k_{2}R_{max})^{2}$, $k_{1}=0.01$ and $k_{1}=0.03$.
![Quantitative comparison using phantom data with respect to different subsampling [rates]{}: ([first row]{}) CR value distribution, ([second row]{}) CNR value distribution, ([third row]{}) GCNR value distribution, ([fourth row]{}) PSNR value distribution, ([fifth row]{}) SSIM value distribution []{data-label="fig:results_STATS_phantom"}](vphantom_cr.png){width="7.cm"}
![Quantitative comparison using phantom data with respect to different subsampling [rates]{}: ([first row]{}) CR value distribution, ([second row]{}) CNR value distribution, ([third row]{}) GCNR value distribution, ([fourth row]{}) PSNR value distribution, ([fifth row]{}) SSIM value distribution []{data-label="fig:results_STATS_phantom"}](vphantom_cnr.png){width="7.cm"}
![Quantitative comparison using phantom data with respect to different subsampling [rates]{}: ([first row]{}) CR value distribution, ([second row]{}) CNR value distribution, ([third row]{}) GCNR value distribution, ([fourth row]{}) PSNR value distribution, ([fifth row]{}) SSIM value distribution []{data-label="fig:results_STATS_phantom"}](vphantom_gcnr.png){width="7.cm"}
![Quantitative comparison using phantom data with respect to different subsampling [rates]{}: ([first row]{}) CR value distribution, ([second row]{}) CNR value distribution, ([third row]{}) GCNR value distribution, ([fourth row]{}) PSNR value distribution, ([fifth row]{}) SSIM value distribution []{data-label="fig:results_STATS_phantom"}](vphantom_psnr.png){width="7.cm"}
![Quantitative comparison using phantom data with respect to different subsampling [rates]{}: ([first row]{}) CR value distribution, ([second row]{}) CNR value distribution, ([third row]{}) GCNR value distribution, ([fourth row]{}) PSNR value distribution, ([fifth row]{}) SSIM value distribution []{data-label="fig:results_STATS_phantom"}](vphantom_ssim.png){width="7.cm"}
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
In this section we present extensive comparison results of our method with DAS and the minimum variance beamformer (MVBF) for various acquisition scenarios. [Our DeepBF was first trained with DAS data obtained from full RF data, and we compare our results with those by DAS and the minimum variance beamformer (MVBF). We also trained our neural network using the MVBF from full RF data. With a slight abuse of terminology, this is often referred to as DeepMVBF, although we use the term DeepBF to refer general deep neural network-based beamformers regardless of specific target data for training. ]{}
Quantitative comparison
-----------------------
We compared the CR, CNR, GCNR, PSNR, and SSIM distributions of reconstructed B-mode images of *in vivo* and phantom test datasets. Table \[tbl:results\_vSTATS\_invivo\] shows the comparison of DAS, MVBF, proposed DeepBF, [and DeepMVBF methods]{} on $360$ *in vivo* test frames for random sub-sampling scheme. In terms of CR, CNR and GCNR, the overall performance of DAS and MVBF were relatively similar. However, the results by the proposed methods are significantly superior to those of DAS and MVBF at various subsampling factors. To investigate the performance degradation with respect to the subsampling, in Table \[tbl:results\_vSTATS\_invivo\] we also show the PSNR and SSIM values with respect to the results of the full scan. Again, the performance degradation in terms of PSNR and SSIM was much less by the proposed DeepBF [and DeepMVBF]{}.
In Fig. \[fig:results\_STATS\_phantom\], we provide distribution plots for various performance measures for phantom test dataset. In fully sampled case, our DeepBF shows overall gain of around $1.23$ dB in CR, and $0.07$ units improvement in CNR compared to DAS. In sub-sampling cases, unlike DAS and MVBF in which the performance is highly sensitive to the rate of sub-sampling, the proposed DeepBF shows consistent GCNR performance even at $4\times$ reduced sampling rate. This can be easily seen in Fig. \[fig:results\_STATS\_phantom\] (third row), where the average value of GCNR remain constant at $0.90$ units for $1\times$ to $4\times$ sampling factors and only drop by $0.03$ and $0.04$ units at $8\times$ and $16\times$ sampling factors respectively. [The performance of DeepBF and DeepMVBF were similar, although DeepMVBF has slight better CR values.]{}
The CR, CNR, and GCNR are measure for local regions, whereas the PSNR and SSIM are global metric. [To calculate the PSNR and SSIM, images generated using $64$ Rx-channels were considered as reference images for all algorithms.]{} As shown in Fig. \[fig:results\_STATS\_phantom\] the proposed methods show significantly higher PSNR and SSIM values, confirming that the proposed methods successfully recover actual structural detail in sub-sampled images.
Qualitative Comparison
----------------------
[To verify the performance improvement in terms of visual quality, here we provide representative reconstruction results. Due to the similarity between the DeepBF and DeepMVBF, we only provide the results by DeepBF in this section.]{}
### Full RF data cases
In [Fig]{}. \[fig:results\_view\_phantom\_full\] we compared two phantom examples scanned using $8.5$ MHz center frequency. In phantom test dataset, the proposed DeepBF achieves comparable or even better performance compared to DAS and MVBF methods. From the figures we found that the visual quality of DeepBF reconstruction, especially around anechoic regions, is comparable or better than that of MVBF method, which is better than DAS beamformer. Quantitatively, CR, CNR, and GCNR values of Deep BF were slightly improved compared to the existing methods. [It is also noteworthy to point-out that even though the proposed DeepBF was only trained on *in vivo* carotid/thyroid data scanned with $8.5$MHz operating frequency, its performance in very diverse test scenarios is still remarkable, which clearly shows the generalization power of the proposed method. ]{}
To further validate the performance gain on fully-sampled data, in Fig. \[fig:results\_view\_invivo\_full\] we showed the results of two *in vivo* examples for fully-sampled data. The images are generated using standard DAS, MVBF and the proposed DeepBF method. In [Fig]{}. \[fig:results\_view\_invivo\_full\], it can be easily seen that our method provides visual quality comparable to DAS and MVBF methods. Interestingly, it is remarkable that the CR, CNR and GCNR values are improved by the DeepBF. To investigate the origin of the quantitative improvement, we showed the magnified views as inset in [Fig]{}. \[fig:results\_view\_invivo\_full\]. With a careful look, we can see that there are several artifacts around the wall of anechoic regions in DAS and MVBF methods, which can be confused with structure. On the other hand, those artifacts are not visible in DeepBF, which [makes]{} the the visual quality of the US images and quantitative values higher compared to DAS and MVBF methods.
### Compressive beamforming
Fig. \[fig:random\_phantom\] show the results of a phantom example for $32$, $16$, and $4$ Rx-channels down-sampling schemes on random sampling scheme. Since 64 channels are used as a full sampled data, this corresponds to the full data as well as subsampled data with $2\times, 4\times$ and $16\times$ sub-sampling factors. The images are generated using the proposed DeepBF, MVBF and the standard DAS beamformer methods. Our method significantly improves the visual quality of the US images by estimating the correct structural details and eliminating artifacts caused by sub-sampling. The residual of fully-sampled and sub-sampled images are shown in pseudo colors on normalized scale. From the normalized difference images it can be easily seen that DeepBF produces uniformly distributed noise-like errors across various subsampling ratios, whereas DAS and MVBF produce structure-dependent errors that can reduce the image contrast. Note that the training data consist of only *in vivo* [carotid/thyroid]{} scans; but relative improvement in diverse test scenarios is nearly the same for both *in vivo* and phantom cases. This further confirms the generalization power of the proposed method.
[Fig]{}. \[fig:random\_invivo\] illustrates representative examples of *in vivo* data at $2\sim 16$x acceleration. By harnessing the spatio-temporal (multi-depth and multi-line) learning, the proposed CNN-based beam-former successfully reconstructs the images with good quality in all down-sampling schemes. From residual images it can be seen that in contrast to DAS and MVBF, the proposed DeepBF maintains good visual quality at even at highest sub-sampling rate. Unlike DAS and MVBF, DeepBF preserves the original structural details as well as the contrast of the sub-sampled data much closer to the fully-sampled image.
Computational time
------------------
One big advantage of ultrasound image modality is [its]{} run-time imaging capability, [which allows for fast reconstruction times]{}. Although training required $40$ hours for $200$ epochs using MATLAB, once training was completed, the reconstruction time for the proposed deep learning method is not very long. The average reconstruction time for each depth planes is around $4.8$ (milliseconds), which could be easily reduced by optimized implementation and reconstruction of multiple depth [plane]{} in parallel.
![Comparison of DAS, deconvolution of DAS, and proposed DeepBF with deconvoluted DAS as label using phantom anechoic cyst of $15$ mm diameter at $40$ mm depth on fully sampled RF-data.[]{data-label="fig:results_Deconv"}](Deconv_Compare.png){width="9cm"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Expressivity and Generalization
-------------------------------
[To confirm that the proposed neural network learns various target data, we also trained our model using deconvolution of DAS results. The training was performed using fine-tuning method using target data generated by a deconvolution method using sparse representation as described in [@7565583]. In Fig \[fig:results\_Deconv\], we compared the reconstruction results by DAS, deconvolution of DAS, and the proposed DeepBF trained with deconvoluted DAS as target, using phantom anechoic cyst of $15$ mm diameter at $40$ mm depth on fully sampled RF-data. From the results it can be easily seen that the proposed method can successfully learn to mimic the deconvolution method.]{}
![Reconstruction results of standard DAS beam-former, Deep RF Interpolation [@yoon2018efficient] and the proposed DeepBF for 4$\times$ sub-sampled in vivo data. The window levels are same for all images ($0\sim -60$dB).[]{data-label="fig:results_Othermethods"}](Efficient_Comparison.png){width="9cm"}
{width="18cm"}
To further compare the effect of various choices of target data and its generalization power, we evaluated the network trained with different label data by testing on completely different datasets. Specifically, [we trained our neural network models using fully sampled carotid/thyroid]{} DAS images, MVBF images, and deconvolution results. Then, new test dataset were acquired from forearm and calf muscles using $10$MHz carrier frequency. In Fig \[fig:Different\_Body\_Parts\], it is evident that the proposed DeepBF method can successfully process RF-data from different anatomical region and operating frequencies. Among the various choices of the target data, the performance using the deconvoluted DAS target was best with less clutters, which was followed by DeepBF trained using MVBF targets and DAS targets. It is also noteworthy to point out that neural network trained with DAS targets still provides better results than the standard DAS and MVBF for x8 subsampling cases. In particular, on average DAS and MVBF showed $21.11$ dB and $21.38$ dB CR which is $2.06$ dB and $1.79$ dB less than the DeepBF respectively. Moreover, the performance of DeepBF and DeepMVBF were again somewhat similar.
Dependency on the Sampling Patterns
-----------------------------------
[So far we showed that a considerable reduction in data rate can be achieved by applying DeepBF method, leading to a sub-Nyquist sampling rate, which uses only a portion of the bandwidth of the ultrasound signals to reconstruct the high quality image. Another application of sub-sampled US is the reduction of active Rx elements. For this purpose we also evaluated our model using uniform sub-sampling scheme to confirm whether relative performance gain with uniform sub-sampling is also similar to the random sub-sampling. In Table \[tbl:results\_sSTATS\_invivo\] we compared the performance of proposed DeepBF method with DAS and MVBF on *in-vivo* data for uniform sub-sampling pattern. We can see in uniform sub-sampling case DeepBF achieves relatively similar performance gain as in the case of random sub-sampling. In Fig \[fig:uniform\_invivo\] two visual examples are shown for *in-vivo* and phantom [data]{}, and we found that the proposed method successfully [reconstructs]{} the uniformly sub-sampled RF-data in both cases with equal error rates. ]{}
Ablation Studies
----------------
We also compared our method with Deep RF interpolation method [@yoon2018efficient]. Again, the proposed method also outperform the Deep RF interpolation method [@yoon2018efficient]. Fig \[fig:results\_Othermethods\] shows reconstruction results of various methods at 4$\times$ subsampling rate, which is compared with the full data reconstruction. The contrast of the DeepBF, especially at anechoic regions, are very close to the full sampled case, whereas the other methods generates artifacts like patterns. Quantitatively, for 4$\times$ sub-sampled in vivo test dataset, the Deep RF interpolation [@yoon2018efficient] achieves CNR, GCNR, PSNR, and SSIM values of $1.31$, $0.63$ units, $22.15$ dB and $0.82$ units, which are $0.07$, $0.02$ units, $1.4$ dB and $0.05$ units inferior to the proposed method respectively. Here we would like to point out that, in [@yoon2018efficient], deep learning approach was designed for interpolating missing RF data, which are later used as input for standard beamformer. On the other hand, the proposed method is a CNN-based beamforming pipeline, without requiring additional beamformer. Consequently, this approach is much simpler and can be easily incorporated to replace the standard beamforming pipeline.
The proposed multi-line, multi-depth method is also compared with different design strategies which include (1) reconstruction of RF sum without Hilbert transform (RF-sum only), (2) reconstruction of IQ data after training on fixed sub-sampling ratios (fixed sampling), and reconstruction of IQ data using only single depth plane (single-depth). Specifically, Table \[tbl:results\_selfcomp\_phantom\] compares the performance of different design choices on phantom data for random sub-sampling case. The results clearly show that the proposed methods of data-driven learning to generate IQ data using training data from multiple sub-sampling rates and multiple depths provides the best quantitative values. [Especially at higher sampling rates the multi-depth method show high PSNR and SSIM measures. Although we just used 3 depth planes in this experiment, for further improvements the idea can be generalized to different number of depth planes.]{}
Improved Lateral Resolution
---------------------------
In Fig \[fig:results\_SP\_vLin\], we compared lateral and axis profiles through the center of a phantom anechoic cyst using DAS, MVBF and proposed methods. In particular, an anechoic cysts of $6$mm diameter scanned from the depth of $52$mm and B-mode images were obtained for full data as well as random sampling with [$2\times$]{} and $16\times$ sub-sampling factors using DAS, MVBF and proposed DeepBF methods. From the figures it can be seen that under all sampling schemes, on the boundary of cysts the proposed method show sharp changes in the pixel intensity with respect to the lateral position in the image. Although the axial profile shows similar trend to DAS for all subsampling rates, there are [considerable]{} [gains]{} in lateral resolution by the proposed DeepBF compared to its DAS, MVBF counterparts. [Again, similar qualitative performance improvement was seen using DeepBF and DeepMVBF, but the contrast enhancement was noticeable using the proposed methods with deconvoluted targets (DeepDeconv).]{} This phenomenon was consistently observed for all sub-sampling factors. [We believe that this may be originated from the inherent synthetic aperture that are originated from our training that uses multiple scanlines, Rx, and depths as shown in . Recall that the input data $\sb_n$ is composed of $\zb_{n-1},\zb_n,\zb_{n+1}$ which are composed of multiple scan line data as defined in . On the other hand, the resolution improvement along the axial directions was not significant, which may be due to depth-independent training scheme in , which may lose the depth-dependent adaptivity. The original training scheme in may be a solution for this, but requires huge memory. The way to overcome this technical limitation is important, and will be investigated in other publications.]{}
[In spite of the memory reduction using , it still requires larger memory compared to the standard DAS, since it should store multiple scan line data. In our future work we will explore the possible solutions to design an end-to-end beamformer method using a single-scanline data, which can learn the time delay but still provides better performance that the classical beamformers. In addition, although the performance of the proposed deep learning approach is better than the classical beamformer, after $2.7\times$ sub-sampling factor, the proposed method still degrades the image quality. Additional strategy to improve the performance of the proposed method is still required, which is the another important research direction. Finally, the average reconstruction time of $4.8$ (milliseconds) per depth is still slow for real time implementation. This is believed to be an engineering issue where optimized software implementation other than Matlab in addition to use of multiple GPUs may address the problem. ]{}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we presented a novel deep learning-based adaptive and compressive beamformer to generate high-quality B-mode ultrasound image. The proposed method is purely a data-driven method which exploits the spatio-temporal redundancies in the raw RF data, which help in generating improved quality B-mode images using various transducer numbers. [The proposed method can be trained using various targets, such as DAS, MVBF, and deconvoluted beamforming results from full RF data to satisfy the desired IQ for each application.]{} The proposed method improved the contrast of B-modes images by preserving the dynamic range and structural details of the RF signal in both the [phantom]{} and *in vivo* scans. Therefore, this method can be an important platform for ultrasound imaging.
[Although this part is basically a summary of [@ye2019understanding], we have included it to make the paper self-contained.]{}
[Consider encoder-decoder networks in Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\]. The network has symmetric [configuration]{} so that both encoder and decoder have the same number of layers, say $\kappa$; the input and output dimensions for the encoder layer $\Ec^l$ and the decoder layer $\Dc^l$ are symmetric: $$\begin{aligned}
\Ec^l:\Rd^{d_{l-1}} \mapsto \Rd^{d_l}, \quad
\Dc^l:\Rd^{d_{l}} \mapsto \Rd^{d_{l-1}}, \quad l\in[\kappa]\end{aligned}$$ where $[n]$ denoting the set $\{1,\cdots, n\}$. At the $l$-th layer, $m_l$ and $q_l$ denote the dimension of the signal, and the number of filter channel, respectively. The length of filter is assumed to be $r$.]{}
We now define the $l$-th layer input signal for the encoder layer from $q_{l-1}$ number of input channels $$\zb^{l-1}:=\begin{bmatrix} \zb_1^{l-1\top} & \cdots & \zb^{l-1\top}_{q_{l-1}} \end{bmatrix}^\top \in \Rd^{d_{l-1}}, \quad$$ where $^\top$ denotes the transpose, and $\zb_j^{l-1} \in \Rd^{m_{l-1}}$ refers to the $j$-th channel input with the dimension $m_{l-1}$. The $l$-th layer output signal $\zb^l$ is similarly defined. Then, we have the following representation of the convolution and pooling operation at the $l$-th encoder layer [@ye2019understanding]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Enc}
\z^l = \sigma\left(\Eb^{l\top} \z^{l-1}\right) $$ where $\sigma(\cdot)$ is defined as an element-by-element ReLU operation $\sigma(x)=\max\{x,0\}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:El}
\E^l= \begin{bmatrix}
\Phib^l\circledast \psib^l_{1,1} & \cdots & \Phib^l\circledast \psib^l_{q_l,1} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\Phib^l\circledast \psib^l_{1,q_{l-1}} & \cdots &\Phib^l\circledast \psib^l_{q_{l},q_{l-1}}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phib^l$ denotes the $m_l\times m_l$ matrix that represents the pooling operation at the $l$-th layer, and $\psib_{i,j}^l\in\Rd^C$ represents the $l$-th layer encoder filter to generate the $i$-th channel output from the contribution of the $j$-th channel input, and $\circledast$ represents a multi-channel convolution [@ye2019understanding].
Similarly, the $l$-th decoder layer can be represented by [@ye2019understanding]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dec}
\tilde \z^{l-1}=\sigma\left(\Db^l \tilde\z^{l} \right) $$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Db^l= \begin{bmatrix}
\tilde\Phib^l\circledast \tilde\psib^l_{1,1} & \cdots & \tilde\Phib^l \circledast \tilde\psib^l_{1,q_l} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\tilde\Phib^l\circledast \tilde\psib^l_{q_{l-1},1} & \cdots & \tilde\Phib^l\circledast \tilde\psib^l_{q_{l-1},q_{l}}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde\Phib^l$ denotes the $m_l\times m_l$ matrix that represents the unpooling operation at the $l$-th layer, and $\tilde\psib_{i,j}^l\in \Rd^r$ represents the $l$-th layer decoder filter to generate the $i$-th channel output from the contribution of the $j$-th channel input.
Next, consider the skipped branch signal $\chib^l$ by concatenating the output for each skipped branch as shown in Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\]. Then, the $l$-th encoder layer with the skipped connection can be represented by [@ye2019understanding]: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}\z^l\\ \chib^l \end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix} \sigma\left(\Eb^{l\top} \z^{l-1}\right)\\ \z^{l-1}\end{bmatrix} \label{eq:skip_enc}\\
\tilde \z^{l-1} &=\sigma\left(\Db^l \tilde\z^{l} +\Db^l \chib^l\right) \ . \label{eq:skip_dec}\end{aligned}$$
With these definition, by following the derivation [in]{} [@ye2019understanding], it is straightforward to show that the neural network output $\vb$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basis}
\vb &=& \tilde\Bb(\zb)\Bb(\zb)\zb = \sum_{i} \left\langle {\blmath b}_i(\z), \z \right\rangle \tilde {\blmath b}_i(\z)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Thetab$ refers to all the convolution filter parameters, and $ {\blmath b}_i(\z)$ and $\tilde {\blmath b}_i(\z)$ denote the $i$-th column of the matrices and , respectively, which are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\B(\z) &=& \left[ \Eb^1\Lambdab^1(\z)\Eb^2 \cdots \Lambdab^{\kappa-1}(\z) \Eb^{\kappa}, \cdots \right. \label{eq:Bz} \\
&& \left. \cdots, \Eb^1\Lambdab^1(\z)\cdots\Eb^6,~ \Eb^1\Lambdab^1(\z)\cdots\Eb^3 \right] \notag\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\B(\z) &=& \left[ \Db^1\tilde\Lambdab^1(\z)\Db^2 \cdots \tilde\Lambdab^{\kappa-1}(\z) \Db^{\kappa}, \cdots \right. \label{eq:tBz}\\
&& \left. \cdots, \Db^1\tilde\Lambdab^1(\z)\cdots\Db^6,~ \Db^1\tilde\Lambdab^1(\z)\cdots\Db^3 \right] \notag\end{aligned}$$
where $\Lambdab^l(\z)$ and $\tilde\Lambdab^l(\z)$ denote the diagonal matrix with 0 and 1 values that are determined by the ReLU output in the previous convolution steps. Note that there are skipped connections at every third convolution operations in Fig. \[fig:CNN\_block\_diagram\], so that the last blocks in and are indexed accordingly.
[^1]: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea grant NRF-2016R1A2B3008104.The authors are with the Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea (e-mail:{shujaat,woori93,jong.ye}@kaist.ac.kr).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The application of effective field theory (EFT) methods to nuclear systems provides the opportunity to rigorously estimate the uncertainties originating in the nuclear Hamiltonian. Yet this is just one source of uncertainty in the observables predicted by calculations based on nuclear EFTs. We discuss the goals of uncertainty quantification in such calculations and outline a recipe to obtain statistically meaningful error bars for their predictions. We argue that the different sources of theory error can be accounted for within a Bayesian framework, as we illustrate using a toy model.'
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA'
- '$^{2}$ Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA'
author:
- 'R. J. Furnstahl$^{1}$, D. R. Phillips$^{2}$, and S. Wesolowski$^{1}$'
bibliography:
- 'bayesian\_refs.bib'
title: |
A recipe for EFT uncertainty quantification\
in nuclear physics
---
Overview {#sec:introduction}
========
Ingredients {#sec:ingredients}
===========
The basic ingredients in our recipe are: (*i*) the Hamiltonian and associated operators; (*ii*) the method to solve for the observables of interest; and (*iii*) the LECs. A similar list would exist for a non-EFT approach to nuclear physics. But in an EFT approach each ingredient is associated with special considerations regarding uncertainty quantification.
The Hamiltonian {#sec:Hamiltonian}
---------------
Methods for calculating {#sec:Methods}
-----------------------
Low-energy constants {#sec:LECs}
--------------------
Tools {#sec:Tools}
=====
In this section we give brief descriptions of some tools we will use in our recipe for EFT uncertainty quantification. Some of the details are illustrated by the example in Sec. \[sec:procedures\].
Bayesian methods {#sec:Bayesian}
----------------
Analysis of systematic residuals {#sec:Lepage}
--------------------------------
Sample tasting: a toy example of fitting procedures and error analysis {#sec:procedures}
======================================================================
Summary and Outlook {#sec:summary}
===================
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank H. Grie[ß]{}hammer, D. Higdon, A. Steiner, A. Thapaliya, and K. Wendt for useful discussions. We are grateful to H. Grie[ß]{}hammer and J. A. McGovern for preparing figures for this article, and to M. Schindler for sharing the MATHEMATICA package BayesEFTfit with us. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY–1306250, the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-93ER40756, and the NUCLEI SciDAC Collaboration under DOE Grant DE-SC0008533.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new framework for studying ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, that are arbitrarily many times differentiable words over the alphabet $\Sigma=\{1,2\}$. After introducing an equivalence relation on ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, whose classes are called *minimal classes* and represent all the ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, we define a vertical coding of these words based on a three-letter alphabet, and a set of functions operating over this representation. We show that the minimal classes of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words can be represented on an infinite directed acyclic graph, which, as well as all the functions introduced for the vertical coding, can be defined recursively with no explicit reference to ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. This new representation adequately expresses the combinatorial structure of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, and brings new perspectives in the study of the Kolakoski word and its factors.'
address: |
Laboratoire d’Informatique, Signaux et Systèmes de Sophia-Antipolis\
CNRS & Université Nice Sophia Antipolis\
2000, Route des Lucioles - 06903 Sophia Antipolis cedex, France
author:
- 'Jean-Marc Fédou'
- Gabriele Fici
bibliography:
- 'differentiable2.bib'
title: 'Vertical Representation of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words'
---
Kolakoski word, ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, directed acyclic graph, recursive function.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Kolakoski word [@Ko65] is the unique right infinite word ${\mathcal{K}}$ over the alphabet $\Sigma=\{1,2\}$ starting with $2$ and coinciding with its run-length encoding[^1]:
$${\mathcal{K}}= \underbrace{2\ 2}_{2} \underbrace{1\ 1}_{2} \underbrace{2}_{1} \underbrace{1}_{1} \underbrace{2\ 2}_{2} \underbrace{1}_{1} \underbrace{2\ 2}_{2} \underbrace{1\ 1}_{2} \underbrace{2}_{1} \underbrace{1\ 1}_{2} \underbrace{2\ 2}_{2} \underbrace{1}_{1} \underbrace{2}_{1} \underbrace{1\ 1}_{2} \underbrace{2}_{1} \underbrace{1\ \cdots}_{\ldots}$$ This mysterious self-generating word is far to be well understood, and several longstanding conjectures on its structure remain unproved. Kimberling [@Ki79] asked whether the Kolakoski word is recurrent and whether the set of its factors is closed under complement (swapping of $1$’s and $2$’s). Dekking [@De80] observed that the latter condition implies the former, and introduced an operator on finite words, called *the derivative*, that consists in discarding the first and/or the last run if these have length $1$ and then applying the run-length encoding. For example, the derivative of $2122$ is $12$. The set of words that are derivable arbitrarily many times over $\Sigma$, denoted by ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$, is then closed under complement and reversal, and contains the set of factors of the Kolakoski word. Therefore, one of the most important open problems about the Kolakoski word is to decide whether all the words in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ occur as factors in the Kolakoski word:
\[conj:kola\] ${\textit{Fact}}({\mathcal{K}})={\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$.
Actually, the set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ contains the set of factors of any right-infinite word over $\Sigma$ having the property that an arbitrary number of applications of the run-length encoding still produces a word over $\Sigma$. Such words are called *smooth words* [@BrLa03; @BeBrCho05]. Nevertheless, the existence of a smooth word such that the set of its factors is equal to the whole set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ is still an open question.
Another renowned open problem is to decide whether the Kolakoski word (or any other smooth word) is recurrent (every factor appears infinitely often) or even uniformly recurrent (consecutive occurrences of the same factor appear with bounded gap). Should Conjecture \[conj:kola\] be true, the Kolakoski word would be recurrent [@De80].
In addition to the aforementioned problems, there is a conjecture of Keane [@Ke91] stating that the frequencies of $1$’s and $2$’s in the Kolakoski sequence exist and are equal to $1/2$. Chvátal [@Ch93] showed that if these limits exist, they are very close to $1/2$ (actually, between $0.499162$ and $0.500838$).
Up to now, only few combinatorial properties of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words have been established. Weakley [@We89] started a classification of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words and obtained significant results on their complexity function. Carpi [@Ca94] proved that the set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ contains only a finite number of squares, and does not contain cubes (see also [@Le94] and [@BrduLaVu06]). This result generalizes to repetitions with gap, i.e., to the words in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ of the form $uzu$, for a non-empty $z$. Indeed, Carpi [@Ca94] proved that for every $k>0$, only finitely many ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words of the form $uzu$ exist with $z$ not longer than $k$. In a recent paper [@FeFi10a], we proved that for any $u\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$, there exists a $z$ such that $uzu\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$, and $|uzu|\leq C|u|^{2.72}$, for a suitable constant $C$. In the same paper, we proposed the following conjecture:
\[conj:univ\] For any $u,v\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$, there exists $z$ such that $uzv\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$.
Despite the Universal Glueing Conjecture being a weaker assumption than Conjecture \[conj:kola\], it remains an open question. Its validity would imply, among other things, that for any integer $n>0$, there exists a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word containing as factors all the ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words of length $n$.
Let $w$ be a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word. Recall that any word $v$ such that $w$ is the derivative of $v$ is called a *primitive* of $w$. For example, the primitives of the word $21$ are $2212$, $1121$, $12212$ and $21121$. The ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words having the property that each derivative is obtained from the *shortest* primitive are called *minimal words*. Analogously, ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words having the property that each derivative is obtained from the *longest* primitive are called *maximal words*. Moreover, a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word is *single-rooted* if its last non-empty derivative is a word of length one (that is, $1$ or $2$), or *double-rooted* if its last non-empty derivative is a word of length two (that is, $12$ or $21$).
In this paper, we mostly focus on *single-rooted minimal words*. Indeed, we show in Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\] that every ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$ of height $k>0$ (the height of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$ is defined as the least integer $k$ such that the $k$-th derivative of $w$ is the empty word) contains exactly one single-rooted minimal factor of height $k$ (if $w$ is single-rooted) or two single-rooted minimal factors of height $k$ (if $w$ is double-rooted). The first single-rooted minimal factor of height $k$ appearing in a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$ is called the *minimal part* of $w$. Thus, every ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word is an extension of its minimal part preserving the height. This allows us to consider classes of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words having the same minimal part (that we call *minimal classes*).
We recall a framework for dealing with ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words that we introduced in a recent paper [@FeFi10a], based on a three-letter alphabet. We define, for every ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$, two words $U_{0}$ and $V_{0}$ over the alphabet $\Sigma_{0}=\{0,1,2\}$, called respectively *the left frontier* and *the right frontier* of $w$, which code respectively the sequences of the first and the last symbols of the derivatives of $w$. The pair $(U_{0},V_{0})$ uniquely determines $w$, and is called the *vertical representation* of $w$ (Theorem \[teor:vertical\]).
Minimal words do not have $0$’s in their vertical representation, that is, are coded by left and right frontiers over the alphabet $\Sigma=\{1,2\}$. As a consequence, single-rooted minimal words (and hence minimal classes) are in bijection with $\Sigma^{*}$.
We then define the functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, which map the left frontier of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word into its right frontier. More precisely, for any $U\in \Sigma^{*}$, ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)$ is the word $V\in \Sigma^{*}$ such that $(U,V)$ is the vertical representation of the *single-rooted minimal word* having $U$ as left frontier, whereas ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)$ is the word $V'\in \Sigma^{*}$ such that $(U,V')$ is the vertical representation of the *double-rooted minimal word* having $U$ as left frontier. The functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$ are idempotent and therefore establish bijections of $\Sigma^{*}$. We also define the compositions $\Theta={\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}$ and $\Pi={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! s}}$, for which we are able to find a very compact recursive form (Corollary \[cor:piteta\]), that can be defined independently from the context of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words (Theorem \[theor:comprec\]). The functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, and therefore $\Theta$ and $\Pi$, can be naturally extended to words with $0$’s, that is, words coding the frontiers of any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word.
We then show that any single-rooted minimal word $u$ having left frontier $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ and height $k>0$ has three extensions to the right of minimal length having height $k+1$: the two single-rooted minimal words having left frontier $U1$ and $U2$ respectively, and the word having left frontier $U0$. We show that the minimal part of this latter word is the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $\Theta(U)2$ (Theorem \[theor:rightext\]).
This allows us to define the *graph of minimal classes* $G$, whose set of nodes is $\Sigma^{*}$ and every node has three outgoing edges, labeled respectively by $1$, $2$ and $0$. For every non-empty $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ there is an edge from $U$ to $U1$ labeled by $1$, an edge from $U$ to $U2$ labeled by $2$, and an edge from $U$ to $\Theta(U)2$ labeled by $0$.
In [@FeFi10a], we introduced an infinite state automaton for representing the (classes of) ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. In fact, $G$ is the graph of this automaton. As a consequence of the recursive formulae given for $\Theta$ and $\Pi$, we have that the graph $G$ can be defined recursively with no explicit reference to [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words.
We end the paper by formulating conjectures on the graph $G$ that imply conjectures on ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words and on the Kolakoski word. As a consequence of our approach, these conjectures can be stated in the context of directed acyclic graphs or even in that of recursive functions, that is, independently from the context of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:nota\] we gather the background on [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words and we fix the notation. In Sec. \[sec:vertical\] we introduce the frontiers of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words and the vertical representation, whereas in Sec. \[sec:operators\] we define the functions on the frontiers of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word and derive recursive formulae for them. In Sec. \[sec:extensions\] we show how a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word can be extended to the right into another ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word from the point of view of the vertical representation, and present the graph $G$ of minimal classes of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:final\], we discuss conclusion and open problems.
[$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words {#sec:nota}
===============================
We fix the two-letter alphabet $\Sigma=\{1,2\}$. A *word* over $\Sigma$ is a finite sequence of letters from $\Sigma$. The *length* of a word $w$ is denoted by $|w|$. The *empty word* has length zero and is denoted by ${\varepsilon}$. The set of all words over $\Sigma$ is denoted by $\Sigma^*$. The set of all finite words over $\Sigma$ having length $n$ is denoted by $\Sigma^n$. The $i+1$-th symbol of a word $w$ is denoted by $w[i]$. So, we write a word $w$ of length $n>0$ as $w = w[0]w[1]\cdots w[n-1]$.
Let $w\in \Sigma^{*}$. If $w=uv$ for some $u,v\in\Sigma^{*}$, we say that $u$ is a *prefix* of $w$ and $v$ is a *suffix* of $w$. A *factor* of $w$ is a prefix of a suffix of $w$ (or, equivalently, a suffix of a prefix). The *reversal* of $w$ is the word $\widetilde{w}$ obtained by writing the letters of $w$ in the reverse order. For example, the reversal of $w=11212$ is $\widetilde{w}=21211$. The *complement* of $w$ is the word $\overline{w}$ obtained by swapping the letters of $w$, i.e., by changing the $1$’s in $2$’s and the $2$’s in $1$’s. For example, the complement of $w=11212$ is $\overline{w}=22121$.
A right-infinite word over $\Sigma$ is a non-ending sequence of letters from $\Sigma$. The set of all right-infinite words over $\Sigma$ is denoted by $\Sigma^{\omega}$.
Let $w$ be a word over $\Sigma$. Then $w$ can be uniquely written as a concatenation of maximal blocks of identical symbols (called *runs*), i.e., $w=x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}\cdots x_n^{i_n}$, with $x_{j}\in \Sigma$, $x_{j}\neq x_{j+1}$, and $i_{j}>0$. The *run-length encoding* of $w$, noted $\Delta(w)$, is the sequence of exponents $i_{j}$, i.e., one has $\Delta(w)=i_1i_2\cdots i_n$. The run-length encoding extends naturally to right-infinite words.
[@BrLa03] A right infinite word ${\mathcal{W}}\in \Sigma^{\omega}$ is called a *smooth word over $\Sigma$* if for every integer $k> 0$ one has that $\Delta^k({\mathcal{W}})$ is still a word over $\Sigma$.
The operator $\Delta$ on right infinite words over $\Sigma$ has two fixed points, namely the Kolakoski word $${\mathcal{K}}=221121221221121122121121221121121221221121221211211221221121\cdots$$ and the word $1{\mathcal{K}}$.
In this paper, we focus on the set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ of factors of smooth words. We start by recalling some definitions.
[@De80] A word $w\in \Sigma^{*}$ is *differentiable* if $\Delta(w)$ is still a word over $\Sigma$.
\[rem:xxx\] Since $\Sigma=\{1,2\}$ we have that $w$ is differentiable if and only if neither $111$ nor $222$ appear in $w$.
[@De80] The *derivative* is the function $D:\Sigma^*\rightarrow \Sigma^*$ defined on the differentiable words by: $$D(w) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lllll}
{\varepsilon}& \mbox{if $\Delta(w)=1$ or $w={\varepsilon}$,}\\
\Delta(w) & \mbox{if $\Delta(w)=2x2$ or $\Delta(w)=2$,}\\
x2 & \mbox{if $\Delta(w)=1x2$,}\\
2x & \mbox{if $\Delta(w)=2x1$,}\\
x & \mbox{if $\Delta(w)=1x1$.}
\end{array} \right.$$
In other words, the derivative $D(w)$ is obtained from $\Delta(w)$ by erasing the first and/or the last symbol if they are equal to 1.
Let $k\geq 0$. A word $w$ is *$k$-differentiable* on $\Sigma$ if $D^k(w)$ is defined. By Remark \[rem:xxx\], a word $w$ is $k$-differentiable if and only if for every $0\leq j<k$ the word $D^{j}(w)$ does not contain $111$ nor $222$ as factor. We use the convention that $D^0(w)=w$. Clearly, if a word is $k$-differentiable, then it is also $j$-differentiable for every $0\leq j \leq k$.
We denote by ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{k}}}$ the set of $k$-differentiable words, and by ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ the set of words which are differentiable arbitrarily many times. Therefore, ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}=\bigcap_{k\geq 0}{\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{k}}}$. A word in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ is also called a [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-word [@De80].
As a direct consequence of the definition, we have that the set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ and, for any $k\geq 0$, the set ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{k}}}$, are closed under reversal and complement.
[@We89] The *height* of a [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-word is the least integer $k$ such that $D^{k}(w)={\varepsilon}$.
[@FeFi10a] Let $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ of height $k>0$. The *root* of $w$ is $D^{k-1}(w)$. Therefore, the root of $w$ belongs to $\{1,2,12,21\}$. Consequently, $w$ is *single-rooted* if its root has length one or *double-rooted* if its root has length two.
[@De80] A *primitive* of a word $w$ is any word $w'$ such that $D(w')=w$.
It is easy to see that any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word has two, four or eight distinct primitives (actually, it has two primitives if it starts and ends with 1, eight primitives if it starts and ends with 2, and four primitive else). For example, the word $w=22$ has eight primitives ($1122$, $21122$, $11221$, $211221$, $2211$, $12211$, $22112$, $122112$), whereas the word $w=121$ has only two primitives ($121121$, $212212$).
However, every ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words admits exactly two primitives of minimal (maximal) length, one being the complement of the other.
[@FeFi10a] Let $w$ be a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k>1$. We say that $w$ is *minimal* (resp. *maximal*) if for every $0\leq j\leq k-2$, $D^{j}(w)$ is a primitive of $D^{j+1}(w)$ of minimal (resp. maximal) length. The words of height $k=1$ are assumed to be at the same time minimal and maximal.
We can define minimal and maximal words on one side only, in the following way.
[@FeFi10a] A word $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ is *left minimal* (resp. *left maximal*) if it is a prefix of a minimal (resp. maximal) word. Analogously, $w$ is *right minimal* (resp. *right maximal*) if it is a suffix of a minimal (resp. maximal) word.
Clearly, a word is minimal (resp. maximal) if and only if it is both left minimal and right minimal (resp. left maximal and right maximal).
\[ex:minimal\] The word $2211$ is minimal, since $2211$ is a primitive of $22$ of minimal length and $22$ is a primitive of $2$ of minimal length; the word $21221121$ is maximal, since $21221121$ is a primitive of $1221$ of maximal length and $1221$ is a primitive of $2$ of maximal length; the word $2122112$ is left maximal but not right maximal. Note that $2211$ is a proper factor of $21221121$ and that the two words have the same height and the same root.
$$\begin{tabular}{p{15mm}p{15mm}p{20mm}p{20mm}}
\hline \rule[-6pt]{0pt}{18pt} $w$ & $2211$ & $2122112$ & $21221121$ \\
\rule[-6pt]{0pt}{13pt}$D(w)$ & $22$ & $122$ & $1221$ \\
\rule[-6pt]{0pt}{15pt}$D^{2}(w)$ & $2$ & $2$ &$2$ \\
\hline \rule[-1pt]{0pt}{1pt}
\end{tabular}$$
Weakley started a classifications of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words based on the extendability. Indeed, any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word has arbitrary long left and right extensions in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$. Indeed, for any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$ at least one between $1w$ and $2w$ is a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word. Analogously, at least one between $w1$ and $w2$ is a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word.
[@We89] A word $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ is *left doubly extendable* (resp. *right doubly extendable*) if $1w$ and $2w$ (resp. $w1$ and $w2$) are both in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$. Otherwise, $w$ is *left simply extendable* (resp. *right simply extendable*).
A word $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ is *fully extendable* if $1w1$, $1w2$, $2w1$ and $2w2$ are all in [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}.
It is worth noticing that a word can be at the same time left doubly extendable and right doubly extendable but not fully extendable. This is the case, for example, for the word $w=1$.
Note that, by definition, any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$ can be extended to the left and to the right with simple extensions in a unique way, up to a left-and-right doubly extendable (but not necessarily fully extendable) word $w'$.
Based on the previous definitions and on a result of Weakley ([@We89], Proposition 3) one can establish the following structural result.
[@FeFi10a]\[theor:Weakley\] Let $w\in{\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. $w$ is fully extendable (resp. $w$ is left doubly extendable, resp. $w$ is right doubly extendable).
2. $w$ is double-rooted maximal (resp. $w$ is left maximal, resp. $w$ is right maximal).
3. $w$ and all its derivatives (resp. $w$ and all its derivatives longer than one) begin and end (resp. begin, resp. end) with two distinct symbols.
Consider the word $w=121$. By Theorem \[theor:Weakley\], $w$ is left doubly extendable and right doubly extendable. Nevertheless, $w$ is not fully extendable, since it is single-rooted. Indeed, the word $2w2$ is not in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$.
We report here a lemma given in [@FeFi10a] with a slightly different statement. Basically, it states that extending to the right by one letter a right *maximal* word (resp. extending to the left by one letter a left minimal word) results in a right *minimal* word (resp. a left minimal word). Recall that, by Theorem \[theor:Weakley\], a right (resp. left) maximal word is right (resp. left) doubly extendable.
[@FeFi10a]\[min-max\] Let $w\in{\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ be a right maximal word (resp. a left maximal word). Then the words $w1$ and $w2$ are right minimal words (resp. $1w$ and $2w$ are left minimal words).
Conversely, if $wx$, $x\in \Sigma$, is a right minimal word (resp. $xw$ is a left minimal word), then $w$ is a right maximal word (resp. $w$ is a left maximal word).
Let us summarize the previous results. Let $v$ be a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k>0$. Then we know that $v$ can be extended, to the left and to the right, with simple extensions (therefore, in a unique way) up to reaching a word $\hat{v}$, which is left doubly extendable and right doubly extendable (so, $\hat{v}$ is a *maximal* word). Moreover, $\hat{v}$ has the same root and the same height as $v$. Now, two substantially different cases arise: if $v$ is *double-rooted*, then so is $\hat{v}$, and therefore $\hat{v}$ is fully extendable, that is, the four words $1\hat{v}1$, $1\hat{v}2$, $2\hat{v}1$ and $2\hat{v}2$ are all ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. In particular, there is a choice of $x,y\in \Sigma$ such that the words $x\hat{v}y$ and $\overline{x}\hat{v}\overline{y}$ are minimal words of height $k+2$ and root $2$, and the words $x\hat{v}\overline{y}$ and $\overline{x}\hat{v}y$ are double-rooted minimal words of height $k+1$. If instead $v$ is *single-rooted*, then so is $\hat{v}$, and therefore $\hat{v}$ is not fully extendable. In fact, only three among the four words $1\hat{v}1$, $1\hat{v}2$, $2\hat{v}1$ and $2\hat{v}2$ are ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. In particular, there is a choice of $x,y\in \Sigma$ such that the word $x\hat{v}y$ is a minimal word of height $k+1$ and root $1$. The words $x\hat{v}\overline{y}$ and $\overline{x}\hat{v}y$ are instead words of height $k+1$ and root $2$, but they are minimal on one side only, while the word $\overline{x}\hat{v}\overline{y}$ is not a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word[^2].
\[ex:ext\]
The word $v=1122$ is a single-rooted minimal word of height 3. It extends to the single-rooted maximal word (of height $3$) $\hat{v}=12112212$. Table \[tab:ext\] shows the extensions of $\hat{v}$.
$$
[p[11mm]{} p[9mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[16mm]{}]{}\
& $v$ & $\hat{v}$ & $x\hat{v}$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}$ & $\hat{v}y$ & $\hat{v}\overline{y}$\
\
$D^{0}(\hat{v})$ & 1122 & 12112212 & 112112212 & 212112212 & 121122122 & 121122121\
$D^{1}(\hat{v})$ & 22 & 1221 & 21221 & 11221 & 12212 & 12211\
$D^{2}(\hat{v})$ & 2 & 2 & 12 & 22 & 21 & 22\
$D^{3}(\hat{v})$ & & & & 2 & & 2\
\
$$$$
[p[13mm]{} p[26mm]{} p[26mm]{} p[26mm]{} p[26mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[16mm]{}]{}\
& $x\hat{v}y$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}y$ & $x\hat{v}\overline{y}$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}\overline{y}$\
\
$D^{0}(\hat{v})$ & 1121122122 & 2121122122 & 1121122121 & 2121122121\
$D^{1}(\hat{v})$ & 212212 & 112212 & 212211 & 112211\
$D^{2}(\hat{v})$ & 121 & 221 & 122 & 222\
$D^{3}(\hat{v})$ & 1 & 2 & 2 &\
\
$$
\[ex:ext2\]
The word $v=1122122$ is a double-rooted minimal word of height 3. It extends to the double-rooted maximal word (of height $3$) $\hat{v}=1211221221$. Table \[tab:ext2\] shows the extensions of $\hat{v}$.
$$
[p[11mm]{} p[11mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[18mm]{} p[16mm]{}]{}\
& $v$ & $\hat{v}$ & $x\hat{v}$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}$ & $\hat{v}y$ & $\hat{v}\overline{y}$\
\
$D^{0}(\hat{v})$ & 1122122 & 1211221221 & 11211221221 & 21211221221 & 12112212211 & 12112212212\
$D^{1}(\hat{v})$ & 2212 & 12212 & 212212 & 112212 & 122122 & 122121\
$D^{2}(\hat{v})$ & 21 & 21 & 121 & 221 & 212 & 211\
$D^{3}(\hat{v})$ & & & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2\
\
$$$$
[p[13mm]{} p[25mm]{} p[25mm]{} p[25mm]{} p[25mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[16mm]{} p[16mm]{}]{}\
& $x\hat{v}y$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}y$ & $x\hat{v}\overline{y}$ & $\overline{x}\hat{v}\overline{y}$\
\
$D^{0}(\hat{v})$ & 112112212211 & 212112212211 & 112112212212 & 212112212212\
$D^{1}(\hat{v})$ & 2122122 & 1122122 & 2122121 & 1122121\
$D^{2}(\hat{v})$ & 1212 & 2212 & 1211 & 2211\
$D^{3}(\hat{v})$ & 11 & 21 & 12 & 22\
$D^{4}(\hat{v})$ & 2 & & & 2\
\
$$
One of the aims of this paper is to show that single-rooted minimal words are all one needs for dealing with ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
\[theor:unique-extension\] Let $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ of height $k>0$. If $w$ is single-rooted, then $w$ contains exactly one single-rooted minimal factor $u$ of height $k$. If $w$ is double rooted, then $w$ contains exactly two single-rooted minimal factors $u$ and $u'$ of height $k$.
Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\] allows us to state the following definition, which is fundamental for the rest of the paper.
\[def:minpart\] Let $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ of height $k>0$. The first single-rooted minimal factor of height $k$ appearing in $w$ is called the *minimal part* of $w$.
\[ex:minimalpart\] Let $w=21221211221221121$, which is a double-rooted word of height $4$. Then, $w$ contains two single-rooted minimal factors of height $4$: $u=2121122$ and $u'=112212211$. The word $u$ is the minimal part of $w$.
![The minimal part $u$ of a word $w$.[]{data-label="fig:Minimal"}](Minimal.pdf){height="40mm"}
Any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k>0$ can be obtained from its minimal part by extensions, to the left and to the right, preserving the height $k$.
The definition of minimal part induces an equivalence relation on the set of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words (defined by the property of having the same minimal part). We call a class of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words w.r.t. this equivalence a *minimal class*. As a direct consequence of Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\], there is a one-to-one correspondence between minimal classes and single-rooted minimal words. We will show that there is also a one-to-one correspondence between the set of single-rooted minimal words and the set $\Sigma^{*}$. Consequently, there are exactly $2^{k}$ single-rooted minimal words of height $k$ (and so $2^{k}$ minimal classes of height $k$).
Weakley [@We89] conjectured that for every $k\geq 0$, any double-rooted maximal word (that is, by Theorem \[theor:Weakley\], any fully extendable word) of height $k$ is shorter than any double-rooted maximal word of height $k+1$. Weakley’s conjecture can also be rephrased in terms of minimal words, i.e. it is equivalent to the following
\[conj:weakley-min\] Any minimal word of root $2$ and height $k$ is shorter than any minimal word of root $2$ and height $k+1$.
Indeed, any minimal word of root $2$ and height $k>2$ is of the form $xwy$, with $x,y\in \Sigma$ and $w$ is a double-rooted maximal word of height $k-2$.
One can wonder whether Weakley’s conjecture holds true when double-rooted minimal words are replaced with single-rooted maximal words, i.e., whether any single-rooted maximal word of height $k$ is shorter than any single-rooted maximal word of height $k+1$. Note that any minimal word of root $1$ and height $k>1$ is of the form $xwy$, with $x,y\in \Sigma$ and $w$ is a single-rooted maximal word of height $k-1$. Therefore, one can equivalently wonder whether any minimal word of root $1$ and height $k$ is shorter than any minimal word of root $1$ and height $k+1$. However, the answer to the above question is negative. For example, there exist minimal words $w,w'$ of root $1$ and height, respectively, 19 and 20, such that $|w|=3858$ and $|w'|=3851$.
It is worth noticing that Weakley’s conjecture is also equivalent to the following
\[conj:weakley-dr\] Any double-rooted minimal word of height $k$ is shorter than any double-rooted minimal word of height $k+1$.
Indeed, as a consequence of Lemma \[min-max\], $xw$, $x\in \Sigma$, is a minimal word of root $2$ and height $k+1$ if and only if $\overline{x}w$ is a double-rooted minimal word of height $k$.
Vertical representation of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words {#sec:vertical}
==========================================================
We recall here the definition of *vertical representation* of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word [@FeFi10a].
We define a function $\Psi$ for representing a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word on a three-letter alphabet $\Sigma_{0}=\{0,1,2\}$. This function is a generalization of the function $\Phi$ considered in [@BrLa03], that associates to any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w=w[0]w[1]\cdots w[n-1]$ the sequence of the first symbols of the derivatives of $w$, that is, the function defined by $\Phi(w)[i]=D^{i}(w)[0]$ for $0\le i<k$, where $k$ is the height of $w$.
If one takes the first and the last symbol of each derivatives of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word $w$, that is, the pair $\Phi(w),\Phi(\tilde{w})$, one gets a representation of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words that is not injective. For example, take the two ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words $w=2211$ and $w'=21121221$. Then one has $\Phi(w)=\Phi(w')=222$ and $\Phi(\tilde{w})=\Phi(\widetilde{w'})=122$. In order to obtain an injective representation, we need an extra symbol. We thus introduce the following definition.
We set $\Sigma_{0}=\{0,1,2\}$. We also set $$\Sigma_{0}^{++}=\{U\in \Sigma_{0}^{*}\mbox{ : $U={\varepsilon}$ or the first symbol of $w$ is different from $0$}\}.$$ Clearly, $\Sigma^{*}\subset \Sigma_{0}^{++}$.
Let $w=w[0]w[1]\cdots w[n-1]$ be a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k>0$. The *left frontier* of $w$ is the word $\Psi(w)\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$ of length $k$ defined by: $\Psi(w)[0]=w[0]$ and for $0<i<k$ $$\Psi(w)[i] = \left\{ \begin{array}{lllll}
0 & \mbox{if $D^{i}(w)[0]=2$ and $D^{i-1}(w)[0]\neq D^{i-1}(w)[1]$,}\\
D^{i}(w)[0] & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.$$
For the empty word, we set $\Psi(\varepsilon)=\varepsilon$.
The *right frontier* of $w$ is defined as $\Psi(\tilde{w})$. If $U$ and $V$ are respectively the left and right frontier of $w$, we call $U|V$ the *vertical representation* of $w$.
In other words, to obtain the left (resp. the right) frontier of w, one has to take the first (resp. the last) symbol of each derivative of $w$ and replace a $2$ by a $0$ whenever the primitive above is not left minimal (resp. is not right minimal).
\[ex:vert\] Let $w=21221211221$. We have: $$\begin{tabular}{p{15mm} l}
\hline \rule[-6pt]{0pt}{18pt}$D^{0}(w)$ & $21221211221$ \\
\rule[-6pt]{0pt}{13pt}$D^{1}(w)$ & $121122$ \\
\rule[-6pt]{0pt}{13pt}$D^{2}(w)$ & $122$\\
\rule[-6pt]{0pt}{13pt}$D^{3}(w)$ & $2$\\
\hline \rule[-2pt]{0pt}{2pt}
\end{tabular}$$ The word $D^{2}(w)=122$ is not a left minimal primitive of the word $D^{3}(w)=2$, and therefore $\Psi(w)[3]$, the fourth symbol of the left frontier of $w$, is a $0$; analogously, the word $w=21221211221$ is not a right minimal primitive of $D(w)=121122$, and therefore $\Psi(\tilde{w})[1]$, the second symbol of the right frontier of $w$, is a $0$. Hence, the vertical representation of $w$ is $\Psi(w)|\Psi(\tilde{w})=2110|1022$.
The following theorem is a direct consequence of the definition of vertical representation.
[@FeFi10a]\[teor:vertical\] Any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word is uniquely determined by its vertical representation; that is, the map defined on ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ by $$w\longmapsto (\Psi(w),\Psi(\widetilde{w}))$$ is injective.
In what follows, uppercase letters ($U,V,W,\ldots$) will denote vertical words, that are words over $\Sigma_{0}^{++}$ coding the (left or right) frontier of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word; lowercase letters ($u,v,w,\ldots$) will still denote ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
If $w$ is a minimal word, then, by definition, the left and the right frontier of $w$ are vertical words belonging to $\Sigma^{*}$. That is, they do not contain $0$. In particular, if $w$ is a single-rooted (or a double-rooted) minimal word, then the left frontier univocally determines the right frontier and *vice versa*.
For minimal words, the knowledge of one frontier is sufficient to reconstruct the word. For example, let $U=U[0]U[1]\cdots U[k-1]\in \Sigma^{k}$. Then, the unique single-rooted ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word having $U$ as left frontier is the word $w$ such that $D^{i}(w)$ is the shortest primitive of $D^{i+1}(w)$ which begins with the symbol $U[i]$, for every $0\leq i<k$. Analogously, one can construct the unique double-rooted minimal word having $U$ as left frontier.
Hence, we can state the following
\[prop:bij\] There is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of single-rooted minimal words and $\Sigma^{*}$. This correspondence is given by the map $\Psi$.
Therefore, there are exactly $2^{k}$ single-rooted minimal words of height $k$.
Analogously, the map $\Psi$ gives also a one-to-one correspondence between the set of double-rooted minimal words and $\Sigma^{*}$, and therefore there are exactly $2^{k}$ double-rooted minimal words of height $k$.
Clearly, if a smooth word contains all the single-rooted minimal words of height $k+1$ as factors, then it will also contain as factors all the ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words of height $k$, by Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\]. So, in order to prove that a smooth word ${\mathcal{W}}$ over $\Sigma$ contains as factors all the ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words, it is sufficient to prove that ${\mathcal{W}}$ contains as factors all the *single-rooted minimal* words.
We end this section with a conjecture.
\[conj:3k+1\] There exists a linear function $f(k)$ such that any [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-word of height $f(k)$ contains as factors all the single-rooted minimal words of height $k$.
Should Conjecture \[conj:3k+1\] be true, any smooth word over $\Sigma$ would contain all the [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words as factors and would be uniformly recurrent. In particular, this would be true for the Kolakoski word.
Functions on the frontiers {#sec:operators}
==========================
Let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$. Then, by Proposition \[prop:bij\], $U$ is the left frontier of a unique single-rooted minimal word $w$. We denote by ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)$ the right frontier of $w$. Analogously, $U$ is the left frontier of a unique double-rooted minimal word $w'$. We denote by ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)$ the right frontier of $w'$.
Let $U=2122$. Then ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)=2222$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)=1221$. The situation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Gamma\].
![The functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$.[]{data-label="fig:Gamma"}](Gamma.pdf){height="40mm"}
Clearly, ${\Gamma_{\! s}}^{2}(U)={\Gamma_{\! d}}^{2}(U)=U$ for any $U\in \Sigma^{*}$.
\[lem:bargamma2\] For any $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ one has $\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)}={\Gamma_{\! d}}(\overline{U})$.
We also define the compositions $$\Theta={\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! d}},$$ and $$\Pi={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! s}}.$$
Therefore, $\Theta(\Pi(U))=\Pi(\Theta(U))=U$ for any $U\in \Sigma^{*}$.
The functions $\Pi$ and $\Theta$ allow us to describe, from the point of view of the vertical representation, how single-rooted minimal words can be extended, respectively to the left and to the right, into double-rooted minimal words of the same height. Let $w\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ be a double-rooted minimal word and let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ be its left frontier. Then $w$ can be viewed as the overlap between two single rooted minimal words $u$ and $u'$. The left frontiers of $u$ and $u'$ are then $U$ and $\Theta(U)$ respectively. Clearly, $\Pi$ is the inverse of $\Theta$.
Let $U=2122$. Then $\Theta(U)=1221$ and $\Pi(U)=1121$. The situation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Theta\].
![The functions $\Theta$ and $\Pi$.[]{data-label="fig:Theta"}](Theta.pdf){height="38mm"}
Let $k\geq 0$. Then ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$, ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, $\Theta$ and $\Pi$ are bijections of $\Sigma^{k}$. Moreover, ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$ are involutory[^3].
We now show that the functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$, ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, and therefore $\Pi$ and $\Theta$, can be defined recursively and independently from the context of [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-words.
We clearly have $${\Gamma_{\! s}}({\varepsilon})={\Gamma_{\! d}}({\varepsilon})=\Pi({\varepsilon})=\Theta({\varepsilon})={\varepsilon}.$$
\[lem:recursive\] Let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$. Then:
1. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U1)={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)1$
2. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U2)=\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)}2$
3. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U1)=\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)}2$
4. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U2)={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ \overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)}1$
The lemma can be proved by simple observations on the compositions of the functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$ (see Fig. \[fig:Proof\] for an example).
![The proof of the recursion for ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U1)$.[]{data-label="fig:Proof"}](Gamma1.pdf){height="42mm"}
From the recursive formulae for ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$ we can derive recursive formulae for $\Pi$ and $\Theta$.
\[cor:piteta\] Let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$. Then:
1. $\Pi(U1)=\overline{\Pi(U)}2$
2. $\Pi(U2)=\Pi^{2}(U)1$
3. $\Theta(U1)=\Theta^{2}(U)2$
4. $\Theta(U2)=\Theta(\overline{U})1$
Note that the function $\Pi$ (or, analogously, the function $\Theta$) can be defined recursively by the formulae given in Corollary \[cor:piteta\], with no explicit reference to ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. Once the function $\Pi$ has been so defined, one can derive a recursive definition of ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$. This allows us to give a very compact description of single-rooted minimal words, presented in the following theorem.
\[theor:comprec\] Let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$. Then:
1. $\Pi(U1)=\overline{\Pi(U)}2$
2. $\Pi(U2)=\Pi^{2}(U)1$
3. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(UX)=\Pi\left({\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)\overline{X}\right)$, for any $X\in \Sigma$
4. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)=\Pi({\Gamma_{\! s}}(U))$
The theorem is a consequence of the recursive definition of $\Pi$ given in Corollary \[cor:piteta\] and of simple arguments on the compositions of the functions over the frontiers (see Fig. \[fig:Recursion\]).
Theorem \[theor:comprec\], together with Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\], gives an essential representation of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. Most of the algorithmic operations on ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words can be implemented by means of the formulae given in Theorem \[theor:comprec\]. This reduces significantly the space needed for storing a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word, since the ratio between the height of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word and its length is logarithmic.
![The recursive definition of ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$ by means of $\Pi$ in Theorem \[theor:comprec\]: ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(UX)=\Pi\left({\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)\overline{X}\right)$, for any $X\in \Sigma$. Recall that $\Pi={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! s}}$.[]{data-label="fig:Recursion"}](Recursion.pdf){height="47mm"}
The functions ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$, ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, $\Theta$ and $\Pi$ can be easily extended to $\Sigma_{0}^{++}$, as described below.
Let $U_{0}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$ be a non-empty word, and let $u$ be the shortest single-rooted ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word having $U_{0}$ as left frontier (hence $u$ is a right minimal word). We define the function ${\Gamma_{\! s}}:\Sigma_{0}^{++}\mapsto \Sigma^{*}$ by $${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U_{0})=\Psi(\tilde{u}),$$ that is, ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U_{0})$ is the right frontier of $u$.
Let $v$ be the shortest double-rooted ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word having $U_{0}$ as left frontier (hence $v$ is a right minimal word). We define the function ${\Gamma_{\! d}}:\Sigma_{0}^{++}\mapsto \Sigma^{*}$ by $${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})=\Psi(\tilde{v}),$$ that is, ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})$ is the right frontier of $v$.
Now we can define $\Theta:\Sigma_{0}^{++}\mapsto \Sigma^{*}$ and $\Pi:\Sigma_{0}^{++}\mapsto \Sigma^{*}$ by setting $$\Theta={\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! d}},$$ and $$\Pi={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ{\Gamma_{\! s}}.$$
For any word $U_{0}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$, one has $(\Pi\circ\Theta)(U_{0})=(\Theta\circ\Pi)(U_{0})={\Gamma_{\! s}}^{2}(U_{0})={\Gamma_{\! d}}^{2}(U_{0})=U\in \Sigma^{*}$. So $\Pi$ and $\Theta$ are not bijections on $\Sigma_{0}^{++}$ (neither are ${\Gamma_{\! s}}^{2}$ and ${\Gamma_{\! d}}^{2}$). They are instead projections of $\Sigma_{0}^{++}$ on $\Sigma^{*}$.
Recursive formulae for ${\Gamma_{\! s}}$, ${\Gamma_{\! d}}$, $\Pi$ and $\Theta$ as functions on words over $\Sigma_{0}^{++}$ are derived below.
We clearly have $${\Gamma_{\! s}}({\varepsilon})={\Gamma_{\! d}}({\varepsilon})=\Pi({\varepsilon})=\Theta({\varepsilon})={\varepsilon}.$$
\[lem:recursive0\] Let $U_{0}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$. Then:
1. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U_{0}1)={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})1$
2. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U_{0}2)=\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0}})2$
3. ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U_{0}0)=\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})}2$
4. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0}1)=\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})}2$
5. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0}2)={\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ \overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})}1$
6. ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0}0)=({\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}})(\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! s}}\circ {\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})})1$
7. $\Pi(U_{0}1)=\overline{\Pi(U_{0})}2$
8. $\Pi(U_{0}2)=\Pi^{2}(U_{0})1$
9. $\Pi(U_{0}0)=\Pi(U_{0})1$
10. $\Theta(U_{0}1)=\Theta^{2}(U_{0})2$
11. $\Theta(U_{0}2)=\Theta(\overline{{\Gamma_{\! s}}^{2}(U_{0})})1={\Gamma_{\! s}}(\overline{{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U_{0})})1$
12. $\Theta(U_{0}0)=\Theta(\overline{\Theta(U_{0})})1$
Right extensions {#sec:extensions}
================
In this section, we describe how a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k$ can be extended to the right into a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of height $k+1$. We do this from the point of view of the vertical representation. Indeed, an extension to the right of a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words eventually results into an extension of one letter of its left frontier when the height of the word becomes $k+1$. We restrict our attention to single-rooted minimal words. An analogous approach can be applied to the extensions on the left and the right frontier.
Let $u$ be a single-rooted minimal word with left frontier $U\in \Sigma^{*}$, and let $k>0$ be the height of $u$, that is the length of $U$.
What are the shortest ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words of height $k+1$ having $u$ as a prefix? These are exactly the shortest ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words of height $k+1$ whose left frontiers have $U$ as a prefix. That is, they are the shortest ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words having left frontier, respectively, $U1$, $U2$ and $U0$. We call these three words, respectively, the *right $1$-extension*, *right $2$-extension* and the *right $0$-extension* of the word $u$.
Note that the right $1$-extension and the right $2$-extension are single-rooted minimal words, whereas the right $0$-extension is not minimal, since its left frontier does not belong to $\Sigma^{*}$. So, what is the single-rooted minimal word corresponding to the right $0$-extension of $u$? That is, what is the minimal part of the right $0$-extension of $u$? The following theorem provides the answer to this question.
\[theor:rightext\] Let $u$ be a single-rooted minimal word of height $k>0$, and $U\in \Sigma^{k}$ its left frontier. The word $u$ can be extended to the right into two single-rooted minimal words of height $k+1$: the *right $1$-extension* of $u$, which is the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $U1$, and the *right $2$-extension* of $u$, which is the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $U2$; and into a single-rooted (not minimal) word having left frontier $U0$, called the *right $0$-extension* of $u$.
Moreover, the minimal part of the right $0$-extension of $u$ is the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $\Theta(U)2$.
The right $0$-extension and the right $1$-extension of a word $u$ are words that differ only on the last letter.
Let $u=2121122$, having left frontier $U=2122$. The right $2$-extension of $u$ is the word $212112212212$ having left frontier $U2$; the right $1$-extension of $u$ is the word $212112212211212$ having left frontier $U1$; the right $0$-extension of $u$ is the word $212112212211211$ having left frontier $U0$, whose minimal part is the word $112212211211$ having left frontier $\Theta(U)2$. The situation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:ext\].
![The right $2$-extension, the right $1$-extension and the right $0$-extension of the single-rooted minimal word $u=2121122$.[]{data-label="fig:ext"}](Extensions.pdf){height="30mm"}
The left $1$-extension, the left $2$-extension and the left $0$-extension are defined analogously.
We can now define an infinite directed acyclic graph for representing the minimal classes of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words accordingly with the three right extensions (see Fig. \[fig:Graph5\]).
![The minimal classes of the right extensions with $\Theta$.[]{data-label="fig:Graph5"}](Graph3.pdf){height="50mm"}
The graph of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words [@FeFi10a] is the graph $G$ is defined by
$$G=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}),$$
where $\mathcal{V}=\Sigma^{*}$ and the set $\mathcal{E}$ of labeled edges is partitioned into three subsets:
- $\mathcal{E}_{1}=\{(U,1,U1),\mbox{ solid edges}\}$
- $\mathcal{E}_{2}=\{(U,2,U2),\mbox{ solid edges}\}$
- $\mathcal{E}_{0}=\{((U),0,\Theta(U)2),\mbox{ dashed edges}\}$
Thus, $G$ is obtained by adding to an infinite complete binary tree (with edge labels in $\Sigma$ and node labels in $\Sigma^{*}$) one additional edge outgoing from each node (labeled by $0$).
A partial diagram of the graph $G$ is depicted in Fig. \[fig:UVCA\]. The edges in $\mathcal{E}_{0}$ are dashed.
![The minimal classes of the right extensions with $\Pi$.[]{data-label="fig:Graph4"}](Graph4.pdf){height="50mm"}
Clearly, one can define the graph $G$ by means of $\Pi$ instead of $\Theta$ (see Fig. \[fig:Graph4\]), by defining $$G'=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E'}),$$
where $\mathcal{V}=\Sigma^{*}$ and the set $\mathcal{E'}$ of labeled edges is partitioned into three subsets:
- $\mathcal{E}'_{1}=\{(U,1,U1),\mbox{ solid edges}\}$
- $\mathcal{E}'_{2}=\{(U,2,U2),\mbox{ solid edges}\}$
- $\mathcal{E}'_{0}=\{(\Pi(U),0,U2),\mbox{ dashed edges}\}$
Since $\Theta=\Pi^{-1}$ over $\Sigma^{*}$, one has $G=G'$.
As a consequence of Theorem \[theor:comprec\], the graph $G$ can be defined recursively and with no explicit reference to ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
![The graph $G$ cut at height 4.[]{data-label="fig:UVCA"}](UVCA.pdf){height="180mm"}
Let $w$ be a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word and $(U_{0},V_{0})$ its vertical representation, $U_{0},V_{0}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$. Let $u$ be the minimal part of $w$ and $(U,{\Gamma_{\! s}}(U))$ the vertical representation of $u$, $U\in\Sigma^{*}$. If $w$ is double-rooted, then $w$ contains a double-rooted minimal factor $u'$ having vertical representation $(U,{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U))$, see Fig. \[fig:Minimal\].
By Theorem \[theor:unique-extension\], the word $w$ is a simple extension on the left of $u$, and it is a simple extension on the right of $u$ (if $w$ is single-rooted) or of $u'$ (if $w$ is double-rooted).
The left frontier $U_{0}$ of $w$ is the label of a path in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $U$. Analogously, the right frontier $V_{0}$ of $w$ is the label of a path in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)$ (if $w$ is single-rooted) or in ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)$ (if $w$ is double-rooted).
Conversely, any word $U_{0}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$ labeling a path in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ is the left frontier of a simple extension on the left of any [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-word having $U$ as left frontier, and, symmetrically it is also the right frontier of a simple extension on the right of any [$\textbf{C}^{\infty}$]{}-word having $U$ as right frontier. An example is given in Fig. \[fig:Class\].
![The paths in $G$ which start at the origin and arrive in the node $2122$ are $2110$, $1002$, $2202$ and $2122$. They code the left frontiers of the simple extensions to the left of any word having left frontier $2122$.[]{data-label="fig:Class"}](Class.pdf){height="70mm"}
Thus, we have the following characterization of the minimal classes of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ words by means of the graph $G$.
Let $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ be the left frontier of a single-rooted minimal word $u$. The ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words having $u$ as minimal part are exactly the words $w$ having vertical representation $(U_{0},V_{0})$ such that $U_{0}$ labels a path in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $U$, and $V_{0}$ labels a path in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in ${\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)$ (if $w$ is single-rooted) or ${\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)$ (if $w$ is double-rooted).
In particular, the number of distinct paths in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $U\in \Sigma^{*}$ is equal to the number of simple extensions on the left (resp. on the right) of a *single-rooted minimal word* having $U$ as left (resp. right) frontier.
This allows us to show that there exists a close relation between the paths in $G$ and the length of the single-rooted minimal words.
Let $|U|$ denote the length of the single-rooted minimal word $u$ having left frontier $U$ and $||U||$ the number of distinct paths in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $U$.
From the definition of the graph $G$ (see Fig. \[fig:Graph4\]), one has $||U1||=||U||$ and $||U2||=||U||+||\Pi(U)||.$
Since $||U||$ is the number of simple-extensions to the left of $u$, we have that the length of the left $2$-extension of $u$ (that is, the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $\Pi(U)2$) is equal to $|U|+||U||$ (see Fig. \[fig:ext\]). Symmetrically, the length of the right $2$-extension of $u$ (which is the single-rooted minimal word having left frontier $U2$) is equal to $|{\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)|+||{\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)||$. Analogous considerations hold for the (left and right) $1$-extensions. Note also that one has $|U|=|{\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)|$, $|\Theta(U)|=|{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)|$, $|U2|=|\overline{U}2|$ and $|U1|=|U0|$.
We therefore deduce the following recursive formulae:
1. $|U2|=|U|+||{\Gamma_{\! s}}(U)||=|\Theta(U)|+||\Theta(U)||$
2. $|U1|=|\Theta(U)|+||\Theta(U)||+||{\Gamma_{\! d}}(U)||$
We think that these formulae show the interest of dealing with the graph $G$ when considering problems on the ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. For example, analogous formulae can be applied to compute the number of $1$’s and $2$’s in a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word, thus giving a possible direction to investigate Keane’s conjecture on the frequency of letters in the Kolakoski word.
Conclusion and open problems {#sec:final}
============================
The vertical representation is a compact representation of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words that allows one to represent any ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word of length $n$ by means of two words whose length is logarithmic in $n$ (the frontiers). In this paper, we showed that this representation can be defined in terms of two simple recursive functions, that are naturally represented by a directed acyclic infinite graph $G$. The recursive definitions of the functions on the frontiers leads to a recursive definition of the graph $G$, therefore independent from the context of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
Besides being more compact, we believe that the new representation presented here will allow the use of results from graph theory or poset theory in the study of the Kolakoski word. As an illustration, we formulate below two new conjectures on the graph $G$ which, if proven, would imply the validity of important conjectures on ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words.
- We conjecture that for any $U_{1},U_{2}\in \Sigma^{*}$ it is possible to find two words $V_{1},V_{2}\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$ such that $U_{1}V_{1}$ and $U_{2}V_{2}$ label two paths in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in the same node (see Fig. \[fig:conj\]). This would imply that for any $u,v\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ there exists $z$ such that $uzv\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ (see Fig. \[fig:rep2\]). This latter conjecture was referred to as the Universal Glueing Conjecture [@FeFi10a].
![A conjecture on the graph $G$ implying the Universal Glueing Conjecture.[]{data-label="fig:conj"}](Conj2.pdf){height="60mm"}
![Conjecture on the existence of a word $uzv\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$ for any $u,v\in {\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$.[]{data-label="fig:rep2"}](Repetition2.pdf){height="40mm"}
- We also conjecture that there exists a linear function $f(k)$ such that for every word $Z\in \Sigma^{f(k)}$ and every word $U\in \Sigma^{k}$, there exists a word $V\in \Sigma_{0}^{++}$ such that $UV$ labels a paths in $G$ starting at the origin and ending in $Z$. This would imply that any smooth word is uniformly recurrent. In particular, this would be true for the Kolakoski word.
The key step underlying the construction presented here is the recognition of the fundamental role of minimal words (and associated classes) in the structure of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words. The simplicity of the representation of ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-words in terms of their vertical representation strongly suggests that these are at the heart of the structure of the entire set. This is supported by the fact that, quite surprisingly, also the study of the densities of 1’s and 2’s in a ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$-word can be carried out using combinatorial properties of the graph $G$.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors acknowledge a financial support from the French National Research Agency project EMC (ANR-09-BLAN-0164).
[^1]: The run-length encoding is the operator that counts the lengths of the maximal blocks of consecutive identical symbols in a string.
[^2]: It is in fact a *minimal forbidden word for ${\ensuremath{\textbf{C}^{\infty}}}$*[@FeFi10a].
[^3]: A map is involutory if the composition with itself is the identity map.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Emanuele Alberti$^{*,1}$, Antonio Tavera$^{*,1}$, Carlo Masone$^{2}$, Barbara Caputo$^{1}$[^1][^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- './bibtex/bib/Bibliography.bib'
title: '**IDDA: a large-scale multi-domain dataset for autonomous driving** '
---
=1
INTRODUCTION
============
RELATED WORK
============
DATA CREATION
=============
THE DATASET
===========
EXPERIMENTS
===========
CONCLUSIONS
===========
[^1]: \*The authors contributed equally
[^2]: $^{1}$Emanuele Alberti, Antonio Tavera and Barbara Caputo are with Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy [{emanuele.alberti, antonio.tavera, barbara.caputo}@polito.it]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$Carlo Masone is with ItalDesign Giugiaro SPA, Turin, Italy [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Nodoka <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yamanaka</span>$^{1,2}$'
title: Status of the Theoretical Calculation of Nuclear Electric Dipole Moment
---
\#1
Introduction
============
The excess of matter over antimatter, or the baryon number asymmetry, was generated in the early Universe by a theory fulfilling Sakharov’s criteria [@sakharov]. One of the required conditions, the CP violation, is known to have a critical deficit in the standard model (SM) of particle physics. The search for new sources of CP violation beyond the SM is currently one of the most important fundamental problems of particle physics to be solved.
One of the most sensitive experimental observables to the CP violation beyond the SM is the electric dipole moment (EDM) [@engeledmreview; @yamanakabook; @atomicedmreview; @chuppreview]. Recently, the measurement of the nuclear EDM is under discussion [@anastassopoulos; @jedi]. The nuclear EDM has many advantages. Like the EDM of other systems, the SM contribution is known to be very small [@yamanakasmedm]. It can also be measured with high accuracy using storage rings [@storage1; @storage2], being free from the suppression of the EDM due the screening by atomic electrons [@schiff].
Theoretically, the nuclear EDM is also very attractive, since the effect of CP violation may be enhanced by the many-body effect [@devriesedmreview; @yamanakanuclearedmreview]. The nuclear structure of light nuclei can be handled with good accuracy either ab initio or in the cluster model [@clusterreview3]. The importance of light nuclei is also emphasized by the suppression of the EDM of heavy nuclei due to the configuration mixing [@yoshinaga1; @yoshinaga2].
The nuclear EDM has two leading contributions, namely, the intrinsic nucleon EDM contribution, and the polarization of the nucleus by the CP-odd nuclear force. The former one is not enhanced at the nuclear level due to the pairing and the nonrelativistic nature of nuclei, so we do not treat it in this proceeding. Here we review the current status of the theoretical calculations of the EDM of light nuclei due to the polarization generated by the one-pion exchange CP-odd nuclear force. We also present the preliminary result on the calculations of the EDM of $^7$Li.
In the next section, we present the nuclear interactions used in our discussion. In Section \[sec:polarization\], we review the current results of the nuclear EDM with the relevant physics. The last section is devoted to the summary.
Model setup and interactions
============================
The Bare $N-N$ interaction
--------------------------
The deuteron, $^3$He, and $^3$H are treated ab initio using the A$v$18 potential [@av18]. The CP-odd nuclear force required to polarize the system is modeled by the one-pion exchange potential [@pvcpvhamiltonian3]. $$\begin{aligned}
H_{P\hspace{-.35em}/\, T\hspace{-.5em}/\, }^\pi
& = &
\bigg\{
\bar{G}_{\pi}^{(0)}\,{\vc{\tau}}_{1}\cdot {\vc{\tau}}_{2}\, {\vc{\sigma}}_{-}
+\frac{1}{2} \bar{G}_{\pi}^{(1)}\,
( \tau_{+}^{z}\, {\vc{\sigma}}_{-} +\tau_{-}^{z}\,{\vc{\sigma}}_{+} )
+\bar{G}_{\pi}^{(2)}\, (3\tau_{1}^{z}\tau_{2}^{z}- {\vc{\tau}}_{1}\cdot {\vc{\tau}}_{2})\,{\vc{\sigma}}_{-}
\bigg\}
\cdot
\frac{ \vc{r}}{r} \,
V(r)
,
\label{eq:CPVhamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ with the relative coordinate between the two nucleons denoted by $\vc{r} \equiv \vc{r}_1 - \vc{r}_2$. We also define the spin and isospin matrices by ${\vc{\sigma}}_{-} \equiv {\vc{\sigma}}_1 -{\vc{\sigma}}_2$, ${\vc{\sigma}}_{+} \equiv {\vc{\sigma}}_1 + {\vc{\sigma}}_2$, ${\vc{\tau}}_{-} \equiv {\vc{\tau}}_1 -{\vc{\tau}}_2$, and ${\vc{\tau}}_{+} \equiv {\vc{\tau}}_1 + {\vc{\tau}}_2$. Here we consider three isospin structures with independent CP-odd couplings $\bar G_\pi^{(i)}$ $(i=0,1,2)$. The radial dependence of the one-pion exchange CP-odd nuclear force is given by $$V^\pi (r)
=
-\frac{m_\pi}{8\pi m_N} \frac{e^{-m_\pi r }}{r} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{m_\pi r} \right)
\ .$$ Its shape is displayed in Fig. \[fig:folding\]. In the leading order of chiral perturbation, there are also additional interactions such as the short-range CP-odd $N-N$ interaction [@cpveft], which will not be discussed due to the large uncertainty of the nuclear wave function at short distance [@bsaisou], or the three-pion interaction [@cpveft2], which can be effectively included into the isovector coupling $\bar G_\pi^{(1)}$.
![ The radial shape of the one-pion exchange CP-odd nuclear force $V^\pi (r)$ for bare $N-N$ system, and in cluster models. The coupling constant $\bar G_\pi^{(i)}\, (i=0,1,$ or $2)$ was factored out. []{data-label="fig:folding"}](comparison_vcp_folded.eps){width="8cm"}
The cluster model
-----------------
It is known that the cluster model reproduces well the structure of light nuclei [@clusterreview3]. In this study, we consider the $\alpha$-cluster model to describe the $^6$Li, $^9$Be, and $^{13}$C nuclei, and the $\alpha - ^3$H model for $^7$Li. Regarding the CP-even interactions, we use the Kanada-Kaneko potential for the $\alpha -N$ system of $^6$Li and $^9$Be, and $^{13}$C [@kanada]. For the $\alpha - \alpha$ system, we use the modified Hasegawa-Nagata potential [@hasegawa] needed for $^6$Li and $^9$Be, and the Schmid-Wildermuth potential [@schmid] for that of $^{13}$C. For $\alpha -^3$H we use the interaction of Nishioka [*et al*]{}. [@nishioka]. We exclude forbidden states using the Orthogonality Condition Model [@saito].
To model the CP-odd potential between clusters, we use the folding [@horiuchi] of the bare CP-odd $N-N$ interaction of Eq. (\[eq:CPVhamiltonian\]). The oscillator parameter is taken as $b = 1.358$ fm and 1.482 fm for the CP-odd $\alpha - N$ and $\alpha - ^3$H potentials, respectively. The shape of the above CP-odd interactions is shown in Fig. \[fig:folding\]. Note that the isoscalar and isotensor CP-odd nuclear forces vanish after folding since the spin and isospin shells are closed for the $\alpha$-clusters.
Contribution of the CP-odd nuclear force to the nuclear electric dipole moment\[sec:polarization\]
==================================================================================================
The polarization contribution to the nuclear EDM is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
d_{A}^{\rm (pol)}
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^{A} \frac{e}{2}
\langle \, \tilde \Phi_J (A) \, |\, (1+\tau_i^3 ) \, r_{iz} \, | \, \tilde \Phi_J (A) \, \rangle
,
\label{eq:polarizationedm}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\, \tilde \Phi_{J} (A)\, \rangle$ is the wave function of the nucleus $A$ polarized along the axis of the measurement. The nuclear EDM can then be parametrized as a linear combination of CP-odd nuclear couplings: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{A}^{\rm (pol)}
&=&
\bar G_\pi^{(0)}
a_\pi^{(0)}
+\bar G_\pi^{(1)}
a_\pi^{(1)}
+\bar G_\pi^{(2)}
a_\pi^{(2)}
.
\label{eq:polarizationedm}\end{aligned}$$ Interesting nuclei are thus those which have large coefficients $a_\pi^{(i)}$ $(i=0,1,2)$.
We summarize in Table \[table:nuclearedm\] the current results of the calculations of nuclear EDMs.
$a_\pi^{(0)}$ ($10^{-2} e$ fm) $a_\pi^{(1)}$ ($10^{-2} e$ fm) $a_\pi^{(2)}$ ($10^{-2} e$ fm)
-------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
$n$ [@crewther] $1$ $- $ $-1$
$^{2}$H [@yamanakanuclearedm] $-$ $1.45 $ $-$
$^{3}$He [@yamanakanuclearedm] $0.59$ 1.08 1.68
$^{3}$H [@yamanakanuclearedm] $-0.59$ 1.08 $-1.70$
$^{6}$Li [@yamanakanuclearedm] $-$ 2.2 $-$
$^{7}$Li $-0.6$ 1.6 $-1.7$
$^{9}$Be [@yamanakanuclearedm] $-$ $1.4$ $-$
$^{13}$C [@c13edm] $-$ $-0.20 $ $-$
: The EDM coefficients of the pion exchange CP-odd nuclear force. The symbol “$-$” means that the coefficient cancels. Those of the neutron are also given for comparison [@crewther]. Note that the coefficients of light nuclei do not include the effect from the intrinsic nucleon EDM. []{data-label="table:nuclearedm"}
The results for the deuteron, $^3$He, and $^3$H are consistent with previous works [@liu; @bsaisou]. The deuteron is only sensitive to the isovector CP-odd nuclear force due to the isospin selection rule. The EDMs of $^3$He and $^3$H are sensitive to all three isospin structures because of the isospin asymmetry.
The EDM of $^6$Li is only sensitive to the isovector coupling. It receives contributions from the EDM of the deuteron subsystem and from the CP-odd $\alpha -N$ interaction. Both only depends on the isovector CP-odd nuclear force. It is also larger than the deuteron one. This fact shows that the two contributions interfere constructively. For $^9$Be, the EDM is smaller than that of $^6$Li, since the CP-odd $\alpha -N$ interaction is the only source of polarization. The EDM of $^7$Li receives contribution from the EDM of the $^3$H cluster and from the CP-odd $\alpha -^3$H interaction, which also interfere constructively. The results of the EDM of $^6$Li, $^7$Li and $^9$Be suggest an additive counting rule involving the EDM of clusters and the CP-odd $\alpha -N$ interaction with a contribution of $(0.005 - 0.007) \bar G_\pi^{(1)} e$ fm.
The polarization contribution to the EDM of $^{13}$C is however not respecting this counting rule. The $^{13}$C nucleus has an opposite parity state at 3.1 MeV above the ground state, so we would expect a relatively large EDM, since the EDM is a mixing between states with opposite parity. This state is however known to have a $^{12}$C cluster with different structure than that of the ground state [@yamada]. Due to this bad overlap, the EDM of $^{13}$C is actually suppressed by one order of magnitude [@c13edm].
Summary\[sec:summary\]
======================
In this work, we made an overview of the current status of the nuclear EDM. The study of $^6$Li, $^7$Li and $^9$Be revealed us that the EDM seems to obey a rough counting rule depending on the EDM of the cluster and the CP-odd $\alpha -N$ polarization. The EDM of $^{13}$C is however not obeying it, and it has a suppressed coefficient, which is due to the bad overlap between even- and odd-parity states. Those results tell us that each light nucleus has its own mechanism to generate its EDM, so the EDM of experimentally measurable light nuclei has to be evaluated independently.
[99]{}
A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**5**]{}, 32 (1967) \[JETP Lett. [**5**]{}, 24 (1967)\].
J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**71**]{}, 21 (2013).
N. Yamanaka, “Analysis of the Electric Dipole Moment in the R-parity Violating Supersymmetric Standard Model,” Springer, Berlin Germany (2014). doi:10.1007/978-4-431-54544-6 N. Yamanaka, B. Sahoo, N. Yoshinaga, T. Sato, K. Asahi, and B. Das, Eur. Phys. J. A [**53**]{}, 54 (2017).
T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. T. Singh, arXiv:1710.02504 \[physics.atom-ph\].
V. Anastassopoulos [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**87**]{}, 115116 (2016).
JEDI Collaboration (G. Guidoboni [*et al.*]{}), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 054801 (2016).
N. Yamanaka and E. Hiyama, JHEP [**02**]{}, 067 (2016); N. Yamanaka, Nucl. Phys. A [**963**]{}, 33 (2017).
I. B. Khriplovich, Phys. Lett. B [**444**]{}, 98 (1998).
F. J. M. Farley [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 052001 (2004).
L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. [**132**]{}, 2194 (1963).
J. de Vries and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**25**]{}, 1641008 (2016).
N. Yamanaka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**26**]{}, 1730002 (2017).
Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, and A. Tohsaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**82**]{}, 78 (2015).
N. Yoshinaga, K. Higashiyama, and R. Arai, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**124**]{}, 1115 (2010).
N. Yoshinaga, K. Higashiyama, R. Arai, and E. Teruya, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{}, 045501 (2014).
R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 38 (1995).
I. S. Towner and A. C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. C [**49**]{}, 2391 (1994).
J. de Vries, R. Higa, C.-P. Liu, E. Mereghetti, I. Stetcu, R. G. E. Timmermans, and U. Van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 065501 (2011).
J. Bsaisou, J. de Vries, C. Hanhart, S. Liebig, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, D. Minossi, A. Nogga, and A. Wirzba, JHEP [**03**]{}, 104 (2015) \[Erratum ibid. [**05**]{}, 083 (2015)\].
J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, R. G. E. Timmermans, and U. van Kolck, Ann. Phys. [**338**]{}, 50 (2013).
H. Kanada, T. Kaneko, S. Nagata, and M. Morikazu, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1327 (1979).
A. Hasegawa and S. Nagata, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**45**]{}, 1786 (1971).
E. W. Schmid and K. Wildermuth, Nucl. Phys. [**26**]{}, 463 (1961).
H. Nishioka, S. Saito, and M. Yasuno, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**62**]{}, 424 (1979).
S. Saito, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**40**]{} (1968) 893; [**41**]{}, 705 (1969); Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. No. [**62**]{}, 11 (1977).
H. Horiuchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**62**]{}, 90 (1977).
R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B [**88**]{}, 123 (1979).
N. Yamanaka and E. Hiyama, Phys. Rev. C [**91**]{}, 054005 (2015).
N. Yamanaka, T. Yamada, E. Hiyama, and Y. Funaki, Phys. Rev. C [**95**]{}, 065503 (2017).
C.-P. Liu and R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{}, 055501 (2004).
T. Yamada and Y. Funaki, Phys. Rev. C [**92**]{}, 034326 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present temperature dependent magnetic neutron diffraction measurements on Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ for $x$ = 0.039, 0.022, and 0.021 as-grown single crystals. Our investigations probe the behavior near the magnetic tricritical point in the ($x$,$T$) plane, $x_{tr}~\approx~$0.022, as well as systematically exploring the character of the magnetic phase transition across a range of doping values. All samples show long range antiferromagnetic order that may be described near the transition by simple power laws, with $\beta$ = 0.306$\pm$0.060 for $x$ = 0.039, $\beta$ = 0.208$\pm$0.005 for $x$ = 0.022, and $\beta$ = 0.198$\pm$0.009 for $x$ = 0.021. For the $x$ = 0.039 sample, the data are reasonably well described by the order parameter exponent $\beta$ = 0.326 expected for a 3D Ising model while the $x$ = 0.022 and $x$ = 0.021 samples are near the $\beta$ = 0.25 value for a tricritical system in the mean-field approximation. These results are discussed in the context of existing experimental work and theoretical predictions.'
author:
- 'D. M. Pajerowski'
- 'C. R. Rotundu'
- 'J. W. Lynn'
- 'R. J. Birgeneau'
title: 'Magnetic neutron diffraction study of Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ critical exponents through the tricritical doping'
---
Introduction
============
Superconductivity has been a major research interest of the scientific community ever since the first set of experiments in 1911 suggested electron conductance without resistance, and the classes of materials that show a superconducting state have grown extensively over the years.[@Matthias1963] From a technological standpoint, high temperature (high-$T_{C}$) superconductors are particularly attractive, such that when record breaking superconductivity was reported in 1986 for copper oxide based materials[@Bednorz1986] the field experienced an enormous surge in activity.[@Dagotto1994] Recently, in 2008,[@Kamihara2008] a new paradigm was discovered when iron pnictides were shown to display superconductivity at temperatures in the 50 K range.[@Stewart2011] Both the copper oxide and the iron pnictide systems are characterized by competition between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity.
![(color online) Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ phase diagram in the vicinity of the tricritical point. The three phases in this region are delineated: the paramagnetic (PM) to antiferromagnetic (AFM) transition at the Neél temperature ($T_{N}$), the tetragonal ($I4/mmm$) to orthorhombic ($Fmmm$) transition at the structural transition temperature ($T_{S}$), and the metallic (M) to superconducting (SC) transition at the critical temperature ($T_{C}$). For the magnetic transition, open squares correspond to a first order transition and closed squares connected by a solid line correspond to a second order transition. The vertical dashed lines show the doping levels studied in this work. The data points for the phase lines are from magnetic susceptibility studies reported in reference [@Rotundu2011].[]{data-label="fig:BaFeCoAsFig1"}](BaFeCoAsFig1.pdf){width="65mm"}
With an eye to understanding better the underlying physics in high-$T_{C}$ materials, the iron pnictides quickly became the subject of intense scrutiny. As a result, a wide variety of iron pnictides, oxypnictides, and chalcogenides have been found to exhibit superconductivity, and it has become common parlance to refer to different structural classes by listing the subscripts of their undoped chemical formulae as in ’1111’ for compounds isostructural to LaFeAsO, ’122’ for compounds isostructural to BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$, or even more complicated formulae.[@Stewart2011] It is starting to become clear which classes of iron based compounds show technological promise; it is worth mentioning that while cuprates presently retain superiority in terms of high transition temperatures and critical fields, the mechanical properties of some iron based materials which are metallic may better lend themselves to wire production than the more brittle, layered ceramic cuprates.
The interplay of superconductivity and magnetism seen in cuprates is also seen in the iron pnictides, which has motivated concentrated study of the role of the magnetism in this new class of high temperature superconductors. Interestingly, there is compelling evidence that superconductivity can coexist with long range iron antiferromagnetic order in the iron superconductors, while it remains uncertain if copper magnetic order (other than short range) coexists with superconductivity in the cuprates.[@Armitage2010] This coexistence has been shown in some ’122’ and ’1111’ iron compounds, where long-range magnetic order and superconductivity arise from bands derived from iron 3d electrons, but is not generic to the system as some formulations do not show coexistence.[@Stewart2011] For the examples without a sharp boundary between superconducting and magnetic phases, the interaction and competition between the phases is seen as a reduction in the ordered moment at the onset of superconductivity.[@Pratt2009] Other non-high-$T_{C}$ magnetic superconductors have shown coexistence, such as borocarbides ($R$Ni$_{2}$B$_{2}$C)[@Canfield1998], the Chevrel phases ($R$Mo$_{6}$S$_{8}$)[@Fischer1983], and ruthenates (RuSr$_{2}$GdCu$_{2}$O$_{8}$)[@Lynn2000], but the most striking analogy is drawn when the same electronic bands participate in both phases such as in UPt$_{3}$[@Aeppli1988] and UNi$_{2}$Al$_{3}$[@Isaacs1995; @Lussier1997]. Additionally, providing even more evidence for the importance of magnetism in the high-$T_{C}$ iron based superconductors is the observation of a magnetic resonance in the inelastic neutron scattering spectrum, just as previously seen in cuprates and heavy fermion materials.[@Lumsden2010]
In the present study, we investigate the cobalt-doped ’122’ system, Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$, at low doping.[@Sefat2008; @Chu2009] The phase diagram, reproduced using measurements from reference [@Rotundu2011] in Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig1\], shows a typical response to doping. The parent BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ phase shows two phase transitions when cooling below room temperature, a structural transformation from tetragonal to orthorhombic symmetry (whose temperature is denoted $T_{S}$), and a magnetic transformation from paramagnetic to antiferromagnetic (whose temperature is denoted $T_{N}$).[@Rotter2008] While nearly concurrent in the parent, doping causes a progressive separation of $T_{S}$ and $T_{N}$ with increasing $x$. Furthermore, upon initial doping, the structural transition is 2nd order and the magnetic transition is 1st order, and, at a doping denoted xtr, near the region of onset of superconductivity, the structural transition remains 2nd order while the magnetic transition crosses over from 1st to 2nd order.[@Kim2011] This crossover point in the ($x$,$T$) plane, which is near $T$ = 100 K and $x$ = 0.022, is almost certainly a tricritical point.[@Rotundu2011]
To explore the nature of the magnetic phase transitions, we have performed temperature dependent neutron diffraction measurements for samples whose Co concentrations, $x$, are in the vicinity of the tricritical value, $x$ = 0.022. Due to the antiferromagnetic nature of iron based superconductors, neutron scattering has proven ideal for studies of the magnetic structures and excitations.[@Lynn2009] In Sec. II, we outline our experimental procedures for sample preparation and spectrometer configuration. Section III shows our diffraction data with model fits, while Sec. IV discusses the results of the fits in detail. Finally, in Sec. V we give our final conclusions and summarize the results.
Experimental Procedure
======================
Synthesis
---------
Single crystals of Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ with cobalt doping values, $x$, of 0.039, 0.022, and 0.021 were grown using a self-flux method, with details available in a previous report.[@Rotundu2011] Samples $x$ = 0.021 of mass 117.2 mg ($T_{N}$ $\approx$ 105 K) and $x$ = 0.039 of mass 81.7 mg ($T_{N}$ $\approx$ 66 K; $T_{C}$ $\approx$ 11 K) are the samples previously used in mapping the phase diagram for cobalt doping [@Rotundu2011], and $x$ = 0.022 of mass 114.6 mg ($T_{N}$ $\approx$ 100 K) is from the same batch of the $x$ = 0.022 material in the same study.
Instrumentation
---------------
Neutron diffraction experiments were performed on the BT-7 thermal triple-axis spectrometer at the NIST Center for Neutron Research,[@Lynn2012] with a collimation of open-50’-sample-50’-120’. The $x$ = 0.022 sample was also measured on the high-resolution SPINS cold-source triple-axis spectrometer with a collimation of open-80’-sample-80’-open. Both machines use the (0 0 2) reflection of pyrolytic graphite (PG) as a monochromator and analyzer. PG filters to reduce higher order neutrons were employed on the BT-7 spectrometer using a fixed neutron energy of 14.7 meV ($\lambda$ = 2.36 $\textrm{\AA}$), and SPINS used a fixed neutron energy of 5.0 meV ($\lambda$ = 4.05 $\textrm{\AA}$) with a cold Be filter. Samples were mounted in the $(H~0~L)_{O}$ scattering plane and placed inside a helium flow cryostat, and temperature control was performed in a calibrated geometry capable of at least 50 mK stability. The energy resolution on BT-7 in this configuration is approximately 1 meV and the energy resolution on SPINS in this configuration is approximately 0.2 meV. Resolution corrections to the intensity were performed using the Cooper-Nathans approximation.[@Cooper1967] Tabulated values for scattering lengths[@Sears1992] and magnetic form factors were used.[@Clementi1974]
Neutron Diffraction
===================
To begin, we cooled each sample to less than 10 K and performed $\theta-2\theta$ scans of the $(0 0 4)_{O}$, $(2 0 0)_{O}$, $(2 0 2)_{O}$, and $(2 0 4)_{O}$ nuclear reflections as well as the $(1 0 3)_{O}$ magnetic reflection, where the subscript denotes orthorhombic notation (typical lattice parameters of a $\approx$ 5.62 $\textrm{\AA}$, b $\approx$ 5.57 $\textrm{\AA}$, c $\approx$ 12.94 $\textrm{\AA}$ ). Typical data are shown in Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig2\]. The scale-factor was determined from the nuclear peaks using the BaFe2As2 $Fmmm$ (space group No. 69) structure,[@Huang2008] with the appropriate substitutions of cobalt for iron in the structure factor calculation. In these doping ranges, it has been shown that the magnetic structure remains commensurate as in the parent phase.[@Kim2010] In this way, we were able to extract the size of the low-temperature ordered moment to be 0.49$~\mu_{B}\pm$0.01 $\mu_{B}$ ($x$ = 0.021), 0.25$~\mu_{B}\pm$0.01 $\mu_{B}$ ($x$ = 0.022), and 0.31$~\mu_{B}\pm$0.02 $\mu_{B}$ ($x$ = 0.039).
![(color online) $\theta-2\theta$ scans in the $(H~0~L)_{O}$ scattering plane for Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$. The $(1 0 3)_{O}$ magnetic reflection present at the lowest angle is shown amplified by 50 times for clarity. The slightly higher background for the $x$ = 0.039 sample is due to a larger detector arm distance used for that measurement. Uncertainty bars are smaller than the data points, and the lines are results of model fits that are used to extract overall scale factors.[]{data-label="fig:BaFeCoAsFig2"}](BaFeCoAsFig2.pdf){width="87mm"}
![(Color online) Intensity of the magnetic $(1 0 3)_{O}$ peak upon warming. Experimental data are represented by triangles for $x$ = 0.021, circles for $x$ = 0.022 with both thermal (thick black circles) and cold (thin red circles) neutron diffraction shown, and squares for $x$ = 0.039. The results of model fits are the lines overlaying the data points, details of which are described in the text and in Table I. The uncertainty bars are derived from counting statistics and represent one standard deviation.[]{data-label="fig:BaFeCoAsFig3"}](BaFeCoAsFig3.pdf){width="87mm"}
\[\]
----- ----------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------
$x$ = 0.021 $x$ = 0.022 $x$ = 0.039
Eq. $\beta$ $T_{N}$ (K) $\sigma$ (K) $\beta$ $T_{N}$ (K) $\sigma$ (K) $\beta$ $T_{N}$ (K) $\sigma$ (K)
1 0.198$\pm$0.009 108.15$\pm$0.09 - 0.208$\pm$0.005 99.73$\pm$0.05 - 0.306$\pm$0.060 68.77$\pm$0.72 -
2 0.204$\pm$0.006 108.32$\pm$0.03 0.51$\pm$0.05 0.208$\pm$0.006 99.73$\pm$0.10 0.00$\pm$1.00 0.304$\pm$0.087 69.03$\pm$1.00 1.70$\pm$0.06
3 0.296$\pm$0.018 108.34$\pm$0.13 - 0.331$\pm$0.011 99.99$\pm$0.07 - 0.612$\pm$0.178 69.64$\pm$1.12 -
4 0.356$\pm$0.008 108.44$\pm$0.05 0.44$\pm$0.08 0.481$\pm$0.087 98.98$\pm$1.05 0.76$\pm$0.42 0.624$\pm$0.128 68.00$\pm$0.97 1.29$\pm$0.31
----- ----------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------
In order to understand the critical behavior of the sublattice magnetization as a function of cobalt doping, the temperature dependence of the magnetic $(1 0 3)_{O}$ peak was measured on warming through the magnetic transition for all three samples using $\theta-2\theta$ scans and integrating the intensity. Near the transition temperature, the intensity, I, of the magnetic diffraction peak may be fit to a simple power law, $$I~=~A~\left(\frac{T_{N}-T}{T_{N}}\right)^{2\beta}~~~,$$ where $T_{N}$ is the Néel temperature, $A$ is a proportionality constant, and $\beta$ is the order parameter critical exponent. For doped samples like those that we are studying, inhomogeneities in the growth process may give rise to a distribution of Néel temperatures, which if assumed to be Gaussian adds an additional term to eq. 1 for the standard deviation, $\sigma$, such that, for $T<T_{N}$, $$I~=~A~\int{dt_{N}\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{t_{N}-T_{N}}{\sigma}\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{t_{N}-T}{t_{N}}\right)^{2\beta}}~~~.$$ Finally, renormalization group techniques show that logarithmic corrections lower the effective exponents that one measures when approaching a tricritical point,[@Stephen1975] such that the intensity might be modeled as $$I~=~A~\left(\frac{T_{N}-T}{T_{N}}\right)^{2\beta}~log\left|\frac{T_{N}-T}{T_{N}}\right|^{2\beta}~~~,$$ or for the case of distribution of N$\acute{\textrm{e}}$el temperatures, for $T<T_{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&A~\int{dt_{N}}\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{t_{N}-T_{N}}{\sigma}\right)^{2}} \ldots \nonumber \\ &&\left(\frac{t_{N}-T}{t_{N}}\right)^{2\beta}~log\left|\frac{T_{N}-T}{T_{N}}\right|^{2\beta}~~~.\end{aligned}$$ Results of the measured temperature dependence along with the results of the fits to the data to Eq. 2 are shown in Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig3\] and on a log-log scale in Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig4\]; the best fit parameters for Eq.’s 1-4 are shown in Table I. In fact, subtle differences between model fits are impossible to discern on the scale of Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig3\] and are obfuscated due to different $T_{N}$ values on plots like Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig4\], but in the following we elucidate the nuances of each fit. Fits were performed for reduced temperature within 0.1 of $t_{N}$ to 0.01 of $t_{N}$. No change in the width of the scattering as a function of temperature was observed. For the $x$ = 0.022 sample, an abnormal behavior was seen above the preponderant transition temperature that was shown to be elastic by measuring with different energy resolutions of 1 meV and 0.2 meV that showed identical behavior. This additional scattering was a consequence of the high sensitivity of the transition to cobalt doping; similar behavior was seen in a neutron diffraction study of potassium doped BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$.[@Rotundu2012]
\[\] ![(Color online) Intensity of the magnetic $(1 0 3)_{O}$ peak upon warming on a log-log scale. The three samples, $x$ = 0.021 (green triangles), $x$ = 0.022 (red circles), and $x$ = 0.039 (black squares) are shown here normalized to their fit functions to illustrate the differences in $/beta$. The results of model fits to Eq. 1 are lines overlaying the data points, with fit parameters listed in Table I. Uncertainty bars are derived from counting statistics and represent one standard deviation.[]{data-label="fig:BaFeCoAsFig4"}](BaFeCoAsFig4.pdf "fig:"){width="87mm"}
\[h!\] ![(Color online) (color online) $\chi^{2}$ surfaces from fitting to $I~=~A~\left(\frac{T_{N}-T}{T_{N}}\right)^{2\beta}$. Using the color map shown at the bottom of this figure, $\chi^{2}$ surfaces on a log scale illustrate the uniqueness of the extracted parameters as well as giving an idea of parameter correlation. In each subplot, a solid (blue) horizontal line illustrates the best fit $\beta$ value while a dashed (green) horizontal line shows the value for a relevant universality class ($\beta$ = 0.326 of a 3D Ising model for $x$ = 0.039, and $\beta$ = 0.25 of a mean-field tricritical model for $x$ = 0.022 and $x$ = 0.021.)[]{data-label="fig:BaFeCoAsFig5"}](BaFeCoAsFig5.pdf "fig:"){width="87mm"}
Before delving into the physical relevance of the extracted parameters, it is edifying to briefly examine the fits themselves. The quoted uncertainties are square roots of variances from the least squares algorithm. To understand how the parameters interact during the fit procedure, the correlation coefficients are a useful, but not necessarily definitive metric,[@Spiegel1992] that suggest a strong connection between the proportionality constant, $A$, and the critical exponent, $\beta$, and less so between other parameters. A clear illustration of possible correlations as well as the goodness of fit are the $\chi^{2}$ surfaces near the solution, which we plot for $\beta$ vs. $T_{N}$ and $\beta$ vs. $A$ for fits to Eq. 1 in Fig. \[fig:BaFeCoAsFig5\]. For a given data set, the four equations have similar $\chi^{2}$ maps, with log corrections (not shown) in eq.’s 3-4 systematically causing a shift to higher $\beta$ values while retaining the basic shape of the minimum.
Discussion
==========
In the present study, we have measured and analyzed the critical behaviors of the order parameter of cobalt doped barium ’122’ crystals with a precision approaching the experimental limit dictated by the inherent chemical inhomogeneities characteristic of such doped materials. We find that the shape of the onset of the magnetic transition to be a function of the amount of doping, in a slightly more complicated way than previously hypothesized for these systems that suggested two distinct critical exponents for ’1111’ and ’122’ materials depending upon whether $T_{N}$ and $T_{S}$ were coincident or separated.[@Wilson2010] This general trend of softening the transition with doping is also qualitatively present in a study performed over a large range of doping values.[@Fernandes2010] Quantitatively, for the parent BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$, previous neutron diffraction experiments found $\beta$ = 0.103$\pm$0.018, which is less than but near the 2D Ising value of $\beta$ = 0.125.[@Wilson2009] One possibility for such a reduction in the effective exponent is the weakly first order nature of the magnetic transitions for doping values smaller than at the tricritical doping. Doped Ba(Fe$_{0.953}$Co$_{0.047}$)$_2$As$_2$ ($x$ = 0.047) samples that are within the superconducting range were accurately modeled with $\beta$ = 0.3,\[6\] which is near the expected value for a 3D Ising model,[@Campostrini2002] and we observe a virtually identical value for $x$ = 0.039, Table I. It is also worth noting that a similar $\beta$-value was seen in nickel doped superconducting samples.[@Harriger2009]
In the iron pnictides, the tricritical point is of importance because of its potential role in the onset of superconductivity. However, there is also a general interest in tricritical points from a fundamental viewpoint, stemming from the inception of the field in the study of $^{3}$He-$^{4}$He mixtures[@Griffiths1970] and quickly branching out to magnetic systems.[@Birgeneau1974] Therefore, when additional systems come along that possess a tricritical point, it is exciting to test the validity of the theoretical models. In cobalt-doped BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$, we have studied the tricritical point in the ($x$,$T$) plane, which is expected to behave in a classical manner such that $\beta$ = 0.25.[@Landau1935; @Huang1987] As we previously noted, logarithmic corrections to mean-field tricritical exponents have been predicted by theory,[@Stephen1975] and such corrections have been applied to similar systems.[@Lynn1985] Nearly identical behavior is seen in the $x$ = 0.021 and $x$ = 0.022 samples that are in the vicinity of the tricritical point. The best fit exponent for simple power law fits including the evident spread in $T_{N}$ due to chemical inhomogeneity (Eq. 2) is 0.21$\pm$0.01; this is somewhat less than the mean field tricritical value of 0.25, presumably due to the fact that our data do not probe the true asymptotic critical region. It is puzzling that the inclusion of a possible logarithmic correction causes the values of beta extracted from the fits to increase dramatically, taking on physically unrealistic values. For the $x$ = 0.039 sample, where we expect a simple power law to describe the behavior of the order parameter well we find $\beta$=0.30$\pm$0.01, close to, but somewhat less than the 3D Ising value of 0.326. This is consistent with the results of Wilson and coworkers[@Wilson2010] who analyzed similar data in a large number of materials. It is possible that the reduced effective exponent reflects a residual effect of the nearby tricritical point.
Finally, the moment values that we measure are in the expected range for the doping values measured,[@Fernandes2010] although the anomalously low value of the $x$ = 0.022 moment is unexpected. Previous systematic work has shown appreciable scatter in the moment values, and it is likely that strains in the sample contribute to this distribution. It is circumstantially evident from the additional features above TN that the $x$ = 0.022 sample may have a larger internal strain.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have measured the critical exponents of Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ around and above the tricritical point in the ($x$,$T$) plane, showing behavior consistent with mean-field predictions at the tricritical point. When above the tricritical point but below optimal doping, we find values of $\beta~\approx$ 0.30, consistent with previous results in a variety of materials but slightly below the expected asymptotic 3D Ising value of 0.326. As the presence of a tricritical point seems to be a common feature in many iron superconductor systems, it will be interesting to see if other systems show the same behavior. Finally, there should also be dramatic signatures of the tricritical point in both the heat capacity and the staggered susceptibility. These properties will be explored in future experiments.
We thank A. Aharony for helpful communications. We acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, in providing the neutron research facilities. DMP acknowledges support from the National Research Council NIST post-doctoral associateship program. The work at LBL was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
[22]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty , , (, , ****, ) , (, , ) , (, , , )
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
hep-th/0405118\
NSF-KITP-04-53
[Seiberg Duality is an Exceptional Mutation ]{}\
[Christopher P. Herzog]{}\
KITP, UCSB,\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A.\
[[email protected]]{}\
[Abstract]{}
The low energy gauge theory living on D-branes probing a del Pezzo singularity of a non-compact Calabi-Yau manifold is not unique. In fact there is a large equivalence class of such gauge theories related by Seiberg duality. As a step toward characterizing this class, we show that Seiberg duality can be defined consistently as an admissible mutation of a strongly exceptional collection of coherent sheaves.
May 2004
Introduction
============
We study the action of Seiberg duality on strongly coupled gauge theories with gravity duals. Our examples are constructed from D-branes probing del Pezzo singularities of a non-compact Calabi-Yau manifold.
These del Pezzo constructions are interesting examples of gauge/gravity duality because they exhibit several new features not observed in simpler models. For example, [@HananyWalcher; @Hananywall; @chaos] gave evidence that the gauge theories for these del Pezzo models often have duality walls. In other words, the gauge theories cannot not be defined at energies higher than the scale of the wall. In [@chaos], the authors argue that the renormalization group flows for these models not only have walls but also can be chaotic.
The motivation for this paper comes partially from a desire to better understand the duality walls and chaotic renormalization group flows of these del Pezzo theories. In order to follow the renormalization group flow, the authors of [@Hananywall; @chaos] relied on ideas of Klebanov and Strassler (KS) [@KlebanovStrassler]. KS studied D-branes probing a conifold singularity and discovered that the renormalization group flows could be continued past strong coupling by looking at the Seiberg dual. One crucial difference between the KS paper and the del Pezzo examples is that while the Seiberg dual of the conifold gauge theory is essentially the same gauge theory, Seiberg duality acting on a del Pezzo gauge theory produces, typically, an infinite tree of new theories. To understand duality walls and chaotic renormalization group flows, we first need a better understanding of the different possible Seiberg dual theories.
A second motivation for the present paper is a desire to clear up some puzzles in the immense literature on Seiberg duality for del Pezzos. In addition to Seiberg’s original gauge theory analysis [@Seibergduality] (see [@IntSei] for a review), here are four conjectured alternate ways of understanding the equivalence:
1. Toric Duality: Using toric geometry to derive del Pezzo gauge theories, the authors of [@BP; @HananySD] noticed that a phenomenon called toric duality could example by example be understood as Seiberg duality. However, not all del Pezzos are toric.
2. Picard-Lefschetz Monodromy: The authors of [@HananySD; @CFIKV; @oova] pointed out that certain but not all Picard-Lefschetz monodromies in the mirror geometry were Seiberg dualities.
3. Mutation: Using exceptional collections of sheaves to generate the gauge theory, [@CFIKV] and [@Wijnholt] noticed that certain combinations of mutations (or braiding operations on the collections) were Seiberg dualities. The combinations that were not mutations were labelled partial Seiberg dualities. On an example by example basis, partial Seiberg dualities tend to produce pathological gauge theories [@HananyPL; @Herzog].
4. Tilting Equivalences: The low energy gauge theory on these D-brane configurations can be described by a quiver with relations. There is a derived category which can be constructed from the quiver. Berenstein and Douglas [@BD] conjecture that Seiberg duality can be understood as a tilting equivalence of the quiver derived category. This idea was later developed by [@Braun; @indians].
This brief list makes several problems clear. In all this early work, although some Seiberg dualities had alternate interpretations, it was never clear that all Seiberg dualities could be understood using some other framework. It was also not clear what role if any partial Seiberg dualities should play. Here are two important questions: How general is the equivalence between Seiberg duality and any item on this list? How precisely are the various items on this list related to each other?
In this paper, we show that mutation is a consistent alternate way of thinking about Seiberg duality for all our del Pezzo examples. Our results suggest a close relationship between mutation and tilting equivalences.
As a step toward classifying all possible Seiberg dual theories for del Pezzos, we find evidence that all these theories are well split. A precise definition begins section 5; here we give a simple but intriguing consequence for the superpotential. Well split means that there is a cyclic ordering of the $SU(N)$ gauge groups which any possible superpotential term respects.
Statement of Results
--------------------
Our strongly coupled gauge theories are engineered from a ten dimensional geometry $\IR^{3,1} \times \bX$ where $\IR^{3,1}$ is four dimensional Minkowski space and $\bX$ is a three complex dimensional Calabi-Yau. We consider a severely restricted class of $\bX$. Let $\calb$ be a del Pezzo surface, i.e. $\IP^2$, $\IP^1 \times \IP^1$, or $\IP^2$ blown up at $n$ points where $1\leq n \leq 8$. Our $\bX$ is a complex line bundle over $\calb$. (In particular, we take the canonical line bundle $\calo(K)$ over $\calb$.)
The D-branes in this geometry fill $\IR^{3,1}$ and wrap holomorphic cycles in $\bX$. (We work with type IIB string theory.) We assume there is a locus in the Kaehler moduli space of $\bX$ where $\calb$ shrinks to zero size. At this point in the moduli space, we expect an enhanced gauge symmetry for D-branes wrapping cycles in $\calb$, essentially because of all the strings between the D-branes that become massless. In the case of $\IP^2$, this locus of enhanced symmetry corresponds to the point in moduli space where $\bX$ becomes the orbifold $\IC^3/\IZ_3$ [@DFR]. By an abuse of notation, we shall continue to call this locus the “orbifold point" for general del Pezzos. However, it is important to note that in general the locus may contain more than one point and $\bX$ may not be an orbifold on this locus.
Kontsevich [@Kont] conjectured and later Douglas and collaborators [@DFR; @dido; @doug] gave further support to the idea that these holomorphically wrapped D-branes are objects in the derived category of coherent sheaves $D^\flat(\bX)$. Bondal has shown that exceptional collections of coherent sheaves on the del Pezzos generate $D^\flat(\calb)$ [@Bondal]. In this esoteric mathematical context, it is not too surprising that exceptional collections should play a vital role in understanding the low energy gauge theories on these D-branes. Indeed, Cachazo, Fiol, Intriligator, Katz, Vafa [@CFIKV], and later Wijnholt [@Wijnholt] proposed a recipe for writing down a gauge theory given an exceptional collection. It is this recipe that we analyze in detail using the lens of Seiberg duality.[^1]
In an earlier paper [@Herzog], we found that Seiberg duality could be defined in terms of mutations if the D-brane configuration (or exceptional collection) was well split. In order to have a consistent definition, we conjectured in [@Herzog] that the Seiberg dual of a well split quiver was well split.
Taken together, the two principal results of this paper, Theorems \[sewellsplit\] and \[setheorem\], allow a consistent definition of Seiberg duality in terms of mutations of strongly exceptional collections and prove a weaker version of the well split conjecture. Theorem \[sewellsplit\] identifies a subset of well split exceptional collections, namely exceptional collections which are not only strongly exceptional but which also generate something called a strong helix. Theorem \[setheorem\] states that the Seiberg dual of an exceptional collection which generates a strong helix is another exceptional collection which also generates a strong helix.
These two results allow us consistently to ignore the problematic partial Seiberg dualities mentioned above. The types of gauge theories (not well split) and exceptional collections (not strongly exceptional) that arise from partial Seiberg dualities, never arise from performing Seiberg duality.
Strong helices have appeared in the mathematics literature before. Bondal [@Bondal] calls them admissible helices. The condition that a D-brane configuration generates a strong helix is a statement about the kinds of open strings between the D-branes (or equivalently $\Ext$ maps between the sheaves in the exceptional collection).
There is a separate more mathematical way of understanding our results. Bondal [@Bondal] defines admissible mutations to be those which preserve the strongly exceptional property of the D-brane configuration. Thus, we have demonstrated that Seiberg dualities can be understood as admissible mutations.
To make the connection between well split and the strong helix property, we introduce an intermediate notion, dubbed $\Ext^{1,2}$ which, though technical, is a more obvious physical constraint on the D-branes than strongly exceptional. We will not give a precise definition of $\Ext^{1,2}$ until section 5, but we will be able partially to elucidate the physics of it in section \[sec:bbrane\]. Two key auxiliary results in this paper are 1) Lemma \[ext12\] which states that $\Ext^{1,2}$ implies the collection is well split and 2) Propositions \[ext12impse\] and \[seimpext12\] which imply $\Ext^{1,2}$ is equivalent to the strong helix property.
Reading Map
-----------
This paper is meant to be read by both mathematicians and physicists. As a result, there are some sections which may be less interesting for one or the other half of the intended audience. Section \[sec:bbrane\] is intended primarily for a physics audience interested in understanding why the derived category is useful for studying gauge theory and is drawn largely from other sources (see for example [@Aspinwall]). Section \[sec:defs\] sets up the exceptional collection machinery with a level of rigor hopefully acceptable to mathematicians and is also drawn from other sources (see for example [@Rudakov]). Section \[sec:gaugetheory\], which should be interesting to both physicists and mathematicians, describes how to convert an exceptional collection on a del Pezzo into a quiver gauge theory, a recipe worked out in [@CFIKV; @Wijnholt; @HW]. Section \[sec:proof\] contains the proofs of the new results described in the introduction concerning the $\Ext^{1,2}$ and strongly exceptional conditions. The penultimate section contains a discussion of how our exceptional collection definition of Seiberg duality matches the original gauge theory definition.
Gauge Theories from B-Branes {#sec:bbrane}
============================
In this section, we make more precise the way in which gauge theories arise from D-brane configurations. The material below is drawn largely from other sources [@DFR; @dido; @doug; @digo; @mayr] (for a recent review, see for example [@Aspinwall]), but we include it for coherence and completeness.
Our universe consists of D3-, D5-, and D7-branes in $\IR^{3,1} \times \bX$ where $\bX$ is a noncompact Calabi-Yau three-fold. We want to think of our gauge theory as living in $\IR^{3,1}$, and so our D-branes span these directions. To preserve ${\mathcal N}=1$ supersymmetry, we take the remaining transverse directions of the D-branes to lie on holomorphic cycles in $\bX$. If we think only in terms of $\bX$, we have B-branes.
The gauge theory is the low energy world-volume description of the D-branes. In particular, we only keep the massless degrees of freedom, the degrees of freedom that morally at least correspond to zero-length strings joining the D-branes. But we need to be more precise.
First, we need a more precise definition of these D3-, D5-, and D7-branes. Inside $\bX$, they are submanifolds with some additional data. If we think of the D-brane intrinsically, independent of its embedding, the additional data is a vector bundle. However, once we put the D-brane back in its ambient space $\bX$, we are forced into using the language of coherent sheaves.
For example, consider the trivial line bundle ${\mathcal O}$. Global sections of $\calo$ are holomorphic functions on $\bX$. Consider also ${\mathcal O}(-D)$. The global sections of $\calo(-D)$ have the analog of a single pole on the submanifold (or divisor) $D$. There is clearly a map , \[cokernel\] which is given by multiplying sections of $\calo(-D)$ by sections which vanish on $D$. Morally, the cokernel of such a map, which we denote ${\mathcal O}_D$, is a D-brane, i.e. the set of holomorphic functions on a submanifold (or divisor) $D$. However, such an object is not a vector bundle in $\bX$. Mathematicians would say that the kernel (or cokernel) of a map between vector bundles does not necessarily exist while the kernel of maps between coherent sheaves does.
As a first pass, then, D-branes correspond to coherent sheaves on $\bX$. It turns out, however, that neither sheaves nor vector bundles are quite good enough. Physically, we also need to be able to describe anti-branes. An anti-brane should correspond to an “inverse” sheaf with the opposite charges, but taking the inverse of a sheaf is difficult. Instead, mathematicians introduce the notion of the derived category of coherent sheaves, $D^\flat(\bX)$ where inverting is more natural. In the derived category, sheaves get promoted to complexes that are zero everywhere except at one position. Let $\delta$ be the map that takes a sheaf $E$ into an object in $D^\flat(\bX)$: E 0 E 0 . Although the position of $E$ in a sequence has no meaning, once we introduce other sheaves (or D-branes), we need to keep track of which elements in the sequence are nonzero. Thus, $\delta E [n]$ is the complex with $E$ shifted $n$ places to the left. In this language, $\delta E$ shifted an odd number of places is an antibrane of $\delta E$. To sum up, we have found that B-type D-branes are objects, i.e. complexes, in $D^\flat(\bX)$.
Next, we need a better definition of the massless degrees of freedom corresponding to zero-length strings. Massless degrees of freedom often come from zero modes of a system, which are topological in nature, suggesting we look at the cohomology of the D-branes. Take two D7-branes corresponding to the line bundles $\calo(E)$ and $\calo(F)$. Someone truly inspired might guess (correctly) that the massless degrees of freedom should come from H\^[(0,k)]{}((F) (E)\^\*) for some $k$. However, such a guess, while good for vector bundles, is insufficient for sheaves. Luckily mathematicians have introduced a more general notion of cohomology for sheaves called $\Ext$. For vector bundles, we find H\^[(0,k)]{}((F) (E)\^\*) = \^k((E), (F)) . On the three-fold $\bX$, our candidate massless degrees of freedom correspond to $\Ext^k$ where $k=0$, 1, 2, or 3. There is a notion of Serre duality for $\Ext$ groups. On $\bX$, Serre duality tells us that \^k(E, F) = \^[3-k]{}(F, E)\^\* . \[serreduality\]
As a last step in identifying candidate massless degrees of freedom, we need to lift $\Ext$ to $D^\flat(\bX)$, which fortunately has also been worked out by mathematicians. One finds that \^k(E,F) = \^[k-p+q]{}\_[D\^()]{} (E \[p\], F\[q\]) where no summation on $p$ and $q$ is implied.
Armed with a categorical description of D-branes and some candidates for massless degrees of freedom, we need to check whether or not these degrees of freedom are actually massless. The masses of the strings depend on the Kaehler moduli space of $\bX$. Strings that are massive at one point in Kaehler moduli space may become massless or even tachyonic as we move to another point! In fact, more than the masses of the strings is at stake here. A tachyonic string indicates the original pair of D-branes is unstable and will condense to form a bound state.
The masses are most easily checked at the large volume point in the Kaehler moduli space of $\bX$. However, we will eventually need to compute the masses at the analog of the orbifold point. Recall the case where $\bX$ is the complex line bundle $\calo(-3)$ over $\IP^2$. The total space is Calabi-Yau. At the large volume point, the $\IP^2$ gets very large. The orbifold point is $\IC^3 / \IZ_3$. For a general del Pezzo, at the analog of the orbifold point, $\calb$ should shrink to zero size and we expect there to be extra massless open strings which enhance the gauge symmetry of D-branes wrapping cycles of $\calb$.
In general, we can define the D-brane charge of a sheaf $E$ Z(E) = \_e\^[-B-iJ]{} (E) + …where $\Td(\bX)$ is the Todd class of $\bX$, $B+iJ$ is the complexified Kaehler form, and the $\ldots$ are instanton corrections which become more and more important as we move away from large volume (large $J$). Fortunately, the Picard-Fuchs equations and the mirror geometry usually allow one to calculate $Z(E)$ numerically. We define the overall grading of the brane (E) = Z(E) 2 . One can also define $Z$ and $\xi$ in the derived category. At large volume, the categorical grading $n$ of $\delta E[n]$ multiplies $Z(E)$ by $(-1)^n$: Z(E\[n\]) = e\^[in]{} Z(E) .
The mass of the mode in $\Hom_{D^\flat(\bX)}^k(A,B)$ is given by M\^2 = ( (B) - (A) + k - 1) . \[mass\] The formula (\[mass\]) is confusing in that $M^2$ changes as we move away from the large volume point. At large volume, we might have a D7-brane anti-brane pair and a corresponding tachyon with $M^2=-1/2$. However, as we move to the “orbifold point”, instanton corrections can align the two $\xi$, leaving a massless field.
Now, we analyze the masses at the analog of the orbifold point. At such a supersymmetric locus of points, all the gradings $\xi(A_i)$ of the branes should be aligned, i.e. $\xi(A_i) = \xi(A_j)$ $\forall i,j$ [@DFR; @Aspinwall]. We will assume in all that follows that such a supersymmetric locus of points exists. This assumption lets us ignore the Picard-Fuchs equations and other subtleties of computing $Z(E)$.
As a result of this assumption, for $\Hom_{D^\flat}^k(A,B)$, $k=2$ or 3, the mass is positive and the corresponding degree of freedom should be absent in the low energy theory on the collection of D-branes at the “orbifold point”. For $k=1$, we find a massless scalar mode. For $k=0$, we find a tachyon! The ${\mathcal N}=1$ supersymmetry tells us that our fields should fall into chiral or vector multiplets.
We recall a little elementary superstring theory and move beyond topological reasoning. In quantizing the string in flat space, we used the GSO projection to get rid of the tachyon. In the present context, we can use the GSO projection to eliminate the ground state string modes corresponding to $\Hom_{D^\flat}^0(E,F)$ and $\Hom_{D^\flat}^2(E,F)$. In this way, we eliminate all the tachyons.
Let’s consider what kinds of fields are left. Take $\Hom_{D^\flat}^0(E,E)$. Although the ground state tachyon is projected out, just as in the more familiar context of quantizing superstrings in $\IR^{9,1}$, there is an excited massless string state corresponding to a gauge boson (and, filling out the $\caln =1$ multiplet, a gaugino). For $\Hom_{D^\flat}^1(E,E)$, we get adjoint matter fields. For $\Hom_{D^\flat}^1(E,F)$, we get matter fields transforming in the fundamental of one gauge group and the antifundamental of another.
On the other hand, $\Hom_{D^\flat}^0(E,F)$, $E \neq F$, is problematic. Although the ground state is projected out, the first excited state is a gauge field transforming in the bifundamental representation of the gauge groups associated with $E$ and $F$. Gauge fields by definition should transform in the adjoint representation of a Lie group. Moreover, this Lie group should be a direct product of simple Lie groups and $U(1)$ factors. The gauge groups associated with $E$ and $F$ will be of type $SU(N)$. The bifundamental representation of $SU(N)\times
SU(M)$ is the adjoint representation of some Lie group, but that Lie group does not have this direct product structure.[^2] (See however [@VafaMN] for a different perspective on these fields.) It is precisely these types of fields that can arise under the partial Seiberg dualities discussed in the introduction.
We are now in a position to elucidate in part the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition. One consequence of the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition is that for $E \neq F$, $k$ in $\Hom^k_{D^\flat}(E,F)$ is either one or two. Thus, these weird bifundamental gauge fields will never appear and will never be produced by Seiberg duality. In other words, we can consistently ignore all the D-brane configurations which give rise to bifundamental gauge fields.
Exceptional Sheaves on del Pezzos {#sec:defs}
=================================
We are interested in exceptional collections of coherent sheaves $E$ supported on a del Pezzo surface $\calb$. The standard mathematical reference, from which we draw much of this section, is [@Rudakov].
A sheaf $E$ is called [*exceptional*]{} if $\Hom(E,E) \cong \IC$ and $\Ext^i(E,E) = 0$ for $i>0$.
Recall that $\Hom \equiv \Ext^0$. In gauge theory language, we would associate a gauge group to each sheaf. Exceptional sheaves have no adjoint matter. In [@KO] it is proven that an exceptional sheaf $E$ on a del Pezzo is either a vector bundle or a torsion sheaf of the form $\calo_\ell(m)$ where $\ell$ is an exceptional curve.
An [*exceptional collection*]{} is an ordered set of exceptional sheaves $(E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_n)$ with the following additional properties:
1. [$\Ext^k(E_i, E_j) = 0$ $\forall k$ if $i>j$;]{}
2. [$\Ext^k(E_i, E_j) = 0$ for all but at most one $k$ if $i<j$.]{}
For gauge theories, the $\Ext$ maps between sheaves correspond to bifundamental matter fields. The exceptional collection condition implies that the matter associated with any particular sheaf/gauge group is chiral.
A [*strongly exceptional collection*]{} is an exceptional collection such that only $\Hom(E_i,E_j)$ is nonzero.
Kuleshov and Orlov (see section 2.11 of [@KO]) demonstrated that for del Pezzo surfaces, for an exceptional pair $(E,F)$, the maps $\Ext^i(E,F)$ can be non-zero for either only $\Hom$ or only $\Ext^1$.
Euler Character
---------------
We will gradually see the significance of strong exceptionality, but we remark in the meantime that the Euler character $\chi(E,F)$ makes exceptional collections relatively easy to work with: (E,F) \_k (-1)\^k \^k (E,F) . In particular, the Euler character is an efficient tool for calculating $\dim \Ext^i (E,F)$ for an exceptional pair $(E,F)$ (and hence the number of bifundamentals in the gauge theory). Riemann-Roch implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(E,F) &=& \int_{\calb} \ch(E^*) \ch(F) \Td(\calb) \\
&=& r(E) r(F) + \frac{1}{2}( r(E) \deg(F) - r(F) \deg(E) )\\
&& +r(E) \ch_2(F) + r(F) \ch_2(E) - c_1(E)\cdot c_1(F) \ \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Chern character of the sheaf (E) = (r(E), c\_1(E), \_2(E)) . Also, $\Td(\calb) = 1 - \frac{K}{2} + H^2$, where $K$ is the canonical class and $H$ is the hyperplane, with $\int_\calb H^2 = 1$. Finally, the degree $\deg(E) = (-K) \cdot c_1(E)$.
We define the slope of a torsion free sheaf $E$ to be $\mu(E) = \deg(E)/ r(E)$.
The slope of a torsion sheaf $\mu(\calo_\ell(m))$ is taken to be infinite.
We denote $\chi_-(E,F)$ to be the antisymmetric part of $\chi$ \_-(E,F) = r(E) (F) - r(F) (E) . Note that for an exceptional pair $(E,F)$, $\chi_-(E,F) = \chi(E,F)$. For torsion free sheaves, we may write \_-(E,F) = r(E) r(F) ((F) - (E)) .
Derived Category
----------------
We denote by $D^\flat(\calb)$ the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $\calb$. The main reason for moving to the derived category is that we will need a notion of an inverse exceptional collection, and while sheaves do not necessarily have well defined inverses, their images in the derived category do.
We can map coherent sheaves $E$ to objects in the derived category in a simple way. In particular, we denote by $\delta E$ the complex in $D^\flat(\calb)$ which has only one nonzero entry, $E$. We are free to shift the location of $E$ in the complex by $k$ units to the left, which we denote $\delta E[k]$. Note that \_[D\^]{}\^k(E\[i\], F\[j\]) = \^[k-i+j]{}\_[D\^]{}(E, F) = \^[k-i+j]{}(E,F) .
The notion of exceptionality extends naturally to $D^\flat(\calb)$. An object $A \in D^\flat(\calb)$ is called [*exceptional*]{} if $\Hom^0_{D^\flat(\calb)}(A,A) \cong \IC$ and $\Hom^i_{D^\flat(\calb)}(A,A) = 0$ for $i\neq 0$. The notion of exceptional collection generalizes as well. For a set of objects $(A_1, A_2, \ldots A_n)$, $\Hom^k_{D^\flat(\calb)}(A_i, A_j) = 0$ for $i>j$ and $\Hom^k_{D^\flat(\calb)}(A_j, A_i) = 0$ for all but at most one $k$.
We define the Euler character for complexes with one nonzero element in the following way: (E\[j\], F\[k\]) = (-1)\^[k-j]{} (E,F) .
Mutations
---------
A useful way of generating new exceptional collections from old ones is mutation. We will eventually see that certain sequences of mutations are Seiberg dualities. Let $(A,B)$ be an exceptional pair of objects in $D^\flat(\calb)$. There exists a canonical morphism $\RHom(A,B) \otimes A \stackrel{can}{\to} B$. Let the [*left mutation*]{} of $B$ over $A$, denoted $L_A^D B$, be the object which completes this morphism to a distinguished triangle L\_A\^D B\[-1\] (A,B) A B L\_A\^D B . \[dtril\] Equivalently, one may define [*right mutation*]{} as the object which completes the canonical morphism $A \to \RHom^*(A,B) \otimes B$ to the distinguished triangle R\_B\^D A A \^\*(A,B) B R\_B\^D A\[1\] .
If $(A,B)$ is an exceptional pair in $D^\flat(\calb)$, then $(L_A^D B, A)$ and $(B, R_B^D A)$ are exceptional pairs in $D^\flat(\calb)$.
For a pair $(A,B) = (\delta E, \delta F)$, the distinguished triangle (\[dtril\]) will reduce to a short exact sequence of sheaves. If $\Ext^1(E,F) \neq 0$, the mutation is called an extension and takes the form 0 F L\_E F \^1(E,F) E 0 . If $\Hom(E,F) \neq 0$, we need to make sure that $L_E F$ is defined in such a way that $r(L_E F) = \pm ( r(F) - \chi(E,F) r(E)) \geq 0$. There are two possibilities: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to L_E F \to \Hom(E,F) \otimes E \to F \to 0 && \mbox{(division)} \ , \\
0 \to \Hom(E,F) \otimes E \to F \to L_E F \to 0 && \mbox{(recoil)} \ .\end{aligned}$$
Similarly for right mutation, we find the three short exact sequences $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to E \to \Hom(E,F)^* \otimes F \to R_F E \to 0 && \mbox{(division)} \ , \\
0 \to R_F E \to E \to \Hom(E,F)^* \otimes F \to 0 && \mbox{(recoil)} \ ,\\
0 \to \Ext^1(E,F)^* \otimes F \to R_F E \to E \to 0 && \mbox{(extension)} \ .\end{aligned}$$
In the case where $L_F E$ or $R_F E$ is torsion, there is an ambiguity in the positive rank prescription which we now eliminate. Note from our elementary discussion of torsion sheaves around (\[cokernel\]) that we expect these torsion sheaves to show up as cokernels in short exact sequences. Thus, if $L_F E$ is torsion, we conclude the sequence must be a recoil while if $R_F E$ is torsion, then the sequence is a division.
Now we come to a crucial observation about the relation between mutation in $D^\flat(\calb)$ and mutation of coherent sheaves.
If a sheaf mutation of a pair $(E,F)$ is either a recoil or an extension, then $L_{\delta E}^D \delta F = \delta L_E F$ and $R_{\delta F}^D \delta E =\delta R_F E$. For the case of division, $L_{\delta E}^D \delta F = \delta L_E F[1]$ and $R_{\delta F}^D \delta E = \delta R_F E [-1]$.
Braid Group
-----------
One can think of mutations as an action of the braid group on an exceptional collection.
We define the following maps $L_i$ and $R_i$ on an exceptional collection $\cale = (E_1, \ldots, E_n)$: $$\begin{aligned}
L_i : (\ldots, E_{i-1}, E_i, E_{i+1}, \ldots) &\to &
(\ldots, E_{i-1}, L_{E_i} E_{i+1}, E_i, \ldots) \ , \\
R_i: (\ldots, E_{i-1}, E_i, E_{i+1}, \ldots) &\to &
(\ldots, E_{i-1}, E_{i+1}, R_{E_{i+1}} E_i, \ldots ) \ .\end{aligned}$$
The mutations $R_i$ and $L_i$ are inverse, $R_i \circ L_i = \id$. Moreover, right and left mutations define an action of the $n$-string braid group on $\cale$: R\_i R\_[i+1]{} R\_i = R\_[i+1]{} R\_i R\_[i+1]{} , L\_i L\_[i+1]{} L\_i = L\_[i+1]{} L\_i L\_[i+1]{} . \[braidrels\]
Helices
-------
A [*helix*]{} $\calh = (E_i)_{i\in \IZ}$ is a bi-infinite extension of an exceptional collection $\cale$ defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{i+n} &=& R_{E_{i+n-1}} \cdots R_{E_{i+1}} E_i \ , \\
E_{-i} &=& L_{E_{-i+1}} \cdots L_{E_{n-1-i}} E_{n-i} \; \; \; i \geq 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ such that the helix has period $n$, by which we mean E\_i = E\_[n+i]{} K i . \[helixperiod\] A [*foundation of a helix*]{} is any subcollection of the form $(E_{m+1}, \ldots, E_{m+n})$, where $m \in \IZ$. An exceptional collection is called [*complete*]{} if it generates $D^\flat(\calb)$.
An exceptional collection is complete if and only if it is the foundation of a helix.
A corollary that can be extracted from Bondal’s proof of the preceding theorem (and Serre duality) is that L\^D\_[E\_[1]{}]{} L\^D\_[E\_[2]{}]{} L\^D\_[E\_[n-1]{}]{} E\_n = (E\_n K) \[2\] . \[leftshift2\]
Helices provide us with a stronger notion of strongly exceptional which will be important for our proofs.
A [*strong helix*]{} is a helix $\calh$ such that every foundation $\cale$ of $\calh$ is strongly exceptional.
\[strslopes\] Given an exceptional collection $\cale = (E_1, \ldots, E_n)$, $\cale$ generates a strong helix if and only if the slopes satisfy (E\_1) (E\_2) (E\_n) (E\_1) + K\^2 .
The remark follows from (\[helixperiod\]). In the forward direction, we find that $\cale$ must be strongly exceptional. Therefore, the first $n-1$ inequalities follow. We could also choose a different foundation which included $E_n \otimes K$ and $E_1$ as neighbors in the collection. Then the last inequality follows because tensoring with $K$ subtracts $K^2$ from the slope of the sheaf. In the reverse direction, we know that all foundations of the helix can be generated by tensoring the sheaves in $\cale$ with $K$ the appropriate number of times. Given any foundation, $n-1$ of the $n$ inequalities above are sufficient to guarantee that the foundation is strongly exceptional. (Note we have departed from the conventions of Bondal [@Bondal] here, who calls such helices admissible.)
Quiver Gauge Theories {#sec:gaugetheory}
=====================
A [*quiver*]{} is a collection of nodes (or vector spaces) and arrows (or maps between the vector spaces).
For nodes $i$ and $j$, we denote a map from vector space $V_i$ to $V_j$ as $X_{ij}$. A [*quiver with relations*]{} is a quiver where certain compositions of maps are identified.
A ${\mathcal N}=1$ [*supersymmetric quiver*]{} is a quiver with relations such that all the relations are generated by a superpotential $W$ and are of the form = 0 . Moreover, the superpotential must be a polynomial in the $X_{ij}$ and correspond to a sum over loops in the quiver.
To each exceptional collection of sheaves $\cale = (E_1, \ldots, E_n)$, we can associate a supersymmetric quiver in the following way. To calculate the number of bifundamentals or maps between the nodes, we first produce the left-dual collection or gauge theory collection \^Q = (E\_n\^, …, E\_1\^) = (L\^D\_[E\_1]{}L\^D\_[ E\_[n-1]{}]{} E\_n, …, L\^D\_[E\_1]{} E\_2, E\_1) . \[dualdef\] Note that this collection is dual in the sense of the Euler character: (E\_i, E\_j\^) = \_[ij]{} . \[eulerdual\] We define the upper triangular matrix S\_[ij]{} = (E\^\_j, E\^\_i) . Note that $\cale^Q$ lives in $D^\flat(\calb)$ while $\cale$ is a collection of sheaves. The number of arrows from node $i$ to node $j$ is defined to be $S_{ij}$ for $i \neq j$, where $S_{ij} < 0$ implies we reverse the direction of the arrows. We will call a quiver produced in this way an [*exceptional quiver*]{}. At the moment, it is only known how to produce cubic superpotential terms from $\cale$ [@Wijnholt].
Note that the original or geometric collection $\cale$ generates a helix $\calh$ in the usual way. One might worry that different foundations of the helix produce different quivers.
The quiver produced from a helix $\calh$ is independent of the particular foundation $\cale$ chosen.
This construction can be partially motivated for strongly exceptional collections in the following way. We begin by considering the algebra of homomorphisms. = \_[i,j=1]{}\^n (E\_i, E\_j) on the del Pezzo. Note that for ordinary exceptional collections, $\Ext$ maps would appear which would make the interpretation of this algebra more painful.
To construct the supersymmetric quiver from $\cala$, we make an intermediate step of constructing a quiver whose path algebra is the same as $\cala$, the so called Beilinson quiver. For the Beilinson quiver, $\dim \Hom (E_i, E_j)$ has an interpretation as the total number of paths between nodes $i$ and $j$ up to relations. In constructing the quiver, we cannot put $\dim \Hom(E_i, E_j)$ arrows between nodes $i$ and $j$ unless $j = i+1$ because then we would have far too many paths. We can only write down the generators of the algebra.
Roughly, the negative entries of $S_{ij}$ correspond to generators of the algebra ${\mathcal A}$ while the positive entries correspond to relations. $S$ is an upper triangular matrix with ones along the diagonal. Thus $S^{-1}$ where $S_{ij}^{-1} =
\dim \Hom(E_i, E_j)$ is also upper triangular with ones along the diagonal. The claim follows from writing $\dim \Hom(E_i, E_j)$ in terms of the individual elements of $S$. However, we say roughly because in general there can be higher relations: relations between relations and so forth. These higher order relations do not occur once we restrict to strong helices in section 5.
To get the supersymmetric quiver from the Beilinson quiver, we promote relations to generators. By assumption, the relations in the supersymmetric quiver come from a superpotential $W$. When a relation becomes a generator $X_{ij}$ in moving from the Beilinson quiver to the supersymmetric quiver, the old relation can be represented as $\partial W / \partial X_{ij} = 0$.
We leave a physics motivation to the end of subsection \[ssec:quivreps\]
Representations of the Quiver {#ssec:quivreps}
-----------------------------
We get representations of the quiver by choosing ranks $d^i$ for the vector spaces $V_i$. To each representation, we associate an object $A$ in the derived category (although here we really only need the chern characters): (A) = \_[i=1]{}\^n d\^i (E\^\_i) . Certain special representations are singled out, the representations which satisfy chiral anomaly cancellation (S - S\^T) d = 0 . The relation is satisfied for objects $A$ such that $\chi(E_i^\vee, A) = \chi(A, E_i^\vee)$ $\forall i$. Such objects have $r(A)=0$ and $\deg(A) =
(-K)\cdot c_1(A)=0$. One such object corresponds to the skyscraper sheaf at a point, $\delta {\mathcal O}_{pt}$. For each exceptional divisor $\ell_I$ in the del Pezzo, we construct an additional object satisfying chiral anomaly cancellation. For a del Pezzo with three or more exceptional divisors, one could choose, for example, objects with chern characters $\ch(A_I) = (0,\ell_1 - \ell_I, 0)$ for $I>1$ and $\ch(A_1) =
(0, H- \ell_1 - \ell_2 - \ell_3, 0)$.
If $d$ satisfies anomaly cancellation, then it must be of the form d\^i = r\^i N + s\^i\_I M\^I where $r^i = r(E_i)$, $s^i_I = c_1(A_I) \cdot c_1(E_i)$, and $N$ and the $M^I$ are arbitrary integers. In D-brane language, ${\mathcal O}_{pt}$ corresponds to a D3-brane while the remaining $A_i$ correspond to D5-branes wrapped on the exceptional divisors $\ell_I$.
\[Ptwo\] Let us consider the collection $\cale = ({\mathcal O}, {\mathcal O}(1), {\mathcal O}(2))$ on $\IP^2$. First we construct $\cale^Q = (\delta {\mathcal O}(-1)[2], \delta T^*(1)[1], \delta {\mathcal O})$ where $T^*(1)$ is the twisted cotangent bundle defined by the short exact sequence (division) 0 T\^\*(1) \^3 (1) 0 . Note that S = (
[rrr]{} 1 & -3 & 3\
0 & 1 & -3\
0 & 0 & 1
) and the kernel of $S-S^T$ is one dimensional; there are no $s^i_I$ in this example. The vector $d$ is a multiple of $(1,1,1)$.
A precise definition of a supersymmetric field theory is difficult to present and also not so important for the following. However, this work was inspired by the desire to use exceptional collection techniques to understand field theories. Thus, to each supersymmetric quiver, we may associate an ${\mathcal N}=1$ [*supersymmetric quiver gauge theory*]{}. In particular, for every node, we have a $SU(d^i)$ gauge group. For every map $X_{ij}$, we have a bifundamental chiral superfield transforming in the fundamental representation of $SU(d^i)$ and the antifundamental of $SU(d^j)$. Quiver invariants such as $\Tr X_{ij} X_{jk} X_{ki}$, where the trace is over the $SU(d^i)$ indices, become gauge invariant operators in the field theory and are important to physicists.
We come now to a physical motivation for the construction of a supersymmetric quiver, at least for the $\Ext^{1,2}$ configurations mentioned in the introduction.
The gauge theory arises from a D-brane configuration in the total space $\bX$ of the complex line bundle over the del Pezzo. Consequently, we must lift our sheaves up into $\bX$. We will take the simplest approach and “extend by zero". In other words, our sheaves only have support on the submanifold $\calb \in \bX$. Away from $\calb$, the sections of our sheaves vanish. If $E$ is a sheaf on $\calb$, let its extension by zero be denoted $\tilde E$.
By a result of Seidel and Thomas [@SeiTho] and also of [@CFIKV], \^i(E, F) = \^i(E,F) \^[3-i]{} (F, E)\^\* . Essentially, one finds that the two $\Ext$’s are the same up to the modification needed for consistency with Serre duality (\[serreduality\]). This result can then be adjusted to account for the gradings of the derived category: \_[D\^()]{}\^i(A, B) = \_[D\^()]{}\^i(A,B) \_[D\^()]{}\^[3-i]{} (B, A)\^\* . where we can assume if necessary that $A$ and $B$ are complexes with only one non-zero entry.
In section \[sec:bbrane\], the massless bifundamental matter fields corresponded to nonzero \_[D\^()]{}\^k(A,B) with $k=1$. A nonzero $\Hom_{D^\flat(\calb)}^k$ with $k=1$ or $k=2$ will lift to a nonzero $\Hom_{D^\flat(\bX)}^k$ with $k=1$ and $k=2$. The GSO projection eliminates the $k=2$ state in $\bX$. (Also, the $k=2$ state is massive and absent at low energies.) A $k=2$ state in $\calb$ will become a $k=1$ state in $\bX$ with the oppositive orientation, i.e. we would draw the arrow in the opposite direction in the quiver.
Thus in the case where $\cale^Q$ contains nonzero $\Hom_{D^\flat(\calb)}^k(E_i^\vee, E_j^\vee)$, $i \neq j$, only for $k=1$ and $k=2$, the prescription given above for writing down a quiver based on the sign of the $S_{ij}$ matches the discussion in section \[sec:bbrane\] concerning bifundamental chiral fields.
To review, we start with $\IR^{3,1} \times \bX$ and some D-branes wrapped holomorphically on $\calb \in \bX$. We assume that there is an “orbifold point” (or perhaps locus) in the Kaehler moduli space of $\bX$ where the gauge symmetry on the D-branes is enhanced. At this orbifold point, we assume that an $\Ext^{1,2}$ exceptional collection on $\calb$ provides a complete collection of mutually supersymmetric fractional branes. The collection is complete in the sense that the K-theory charges (or chern character) of any D-brane can be represented as a sum over the K-theory charges of the fractional branes. Because of anomaly cancellation considerations, we only consider D-brane configurations with the same K-theory charges (or chern characters) as a collection of D3-branes and D5-branes wrapped on the exceptional divisors of $\calb$.
Seiberg Duality {#sec:proof}
===============
We would like to define Seiberg duality as an action on $\cale$. As originally defined, Seiberg duality is a transformation on an ${\mathcal N}=1$ gauge theory. We will see how our definition matches the usual definition in section \[sec:usualdef\]. We do not know how to define Seiberg duality on a generic $\cale$. We must first introduce the notion of [*well split*]{}.
A node $i$ of an exceptional quiver is [*well split*]{} if we can choose a foundation of $\calh$ such that for all $j<i$, the arrows are outgoing from $i$ while for all $j>i$, the arrows are ingoing into $i$.
Well split is perhaps more easily thought of pictorially in terms of the quiver. We order the nodes of the quiver on a circle as they appear in the foundation of the helix. We then construct the quiver as described in section 4. If a node is well split, we can draw a line through the node that divides the quiver into two pieces such that the arrows incident on the node satisfy a special property. In particular, in one piece, all these arrows will be incoming to the well split node. In the other piece, the arrows will all be outgoing from the well split node. In Figure \[pentfig\], the extra line that divides the quiver into two pieces joins the node and the blue dot.
We can now define the action of Seiberg duality, $SD$, on a well split node. The idea is to left mutate (or right mutate), the well split node $i$ past all the outgoing (respectively ingoing) nodes. SD : (E\_1, …, E\_i, …E\_n) (L\_[E\_1]{} L\_[E\_[i-1]{}]{} E\_i, E\_1, …, E\_[i-1]{}, E\_[i+1]{}, …, E\_n) . From the helix property, we know the result is independent of whether we perform right or left mutation.
Clearly, this definition of Seiberg duality would be more useful if it could be performed at every node of a quiver. We are naturally led to consider [*well split quivers*]{}.
A quiver is well split if every node is well split.
![Well split, five node quivers. The blue dot identifies a special polygon around which all arrows travel counterclockwise.[]{data-label="pentfig"}](pent1 "fig:"){width="3in"} ![Well split, five node quivers. The blue dot identifies a special polygon around which all arrows travel counterclockwise.[]{data-label="pentfig"}](pent2 "fig:"){width="3in"}
![Well split, five node quivers. The blue dot identifies a special polygon around which all arrows travel counterclockwise.[]{data-label="pentfig"}](pent3){width="3in"}
An interesting subset of well split quivers satisfies a different pictorial constraint. Instead of checking each node individually that all the incoming arrows come from the right in the collection and all the outgoing arrows go to the left, one searches the quiver for a polygon such that around the polygon, all the arrows travel counterclockwise.[^3] Note that the quiver may have to be deformed to get the polygon to appear.
Figure \[pentfig\] shows the three types of well split five node quivers that typically appear. (Note there are also degenerate cases where some arrows are missing.) The three types correspond to the three types of polygons in this geometric construction.
The existence of such a polygon clearly implies well split. Put a point inside the polygon. Pick any node. Join the point and the node with a line. All the arrows incident on this node to one side of this line will be ingoing while all the arrows on the other side will be outgoing. That well split implies the existence of such a polygon is not trivial, and we leave it as a conjecture. Figure \[sixfig\] provides an apparent counterexample. However, we can deform the quiver such that the triangle with a red dot disappears and a new triangle appears with the required counterclockwise property.
![A well split six node quiver. The blue dots label polygons around which only nearby arrows travel counterclockwise. The red dot labels a triangle which can disappear if the nodes are moved. Indeed, if we move nodes 1 and 2 farther apart and 4 and 5 closer together, the triangle with a red dot will disappear and a new triangle will take its place around which [*all*]{} arrows travel counterclockwise.[]{data-label="sixfig"}](sixwell){width="5in"}
Exploring the value of our sheaf theoretic definition of Seiberg duality, we are also led to wonder if we can take arbitrary Seiberg duals of Seiberg duals. For that we would need the following.
The Seiberg dual of a well split quiver is well split.
The conjecture is trivial for three node exceptional quivers and was proved for the four node exceptional quivers in [@Herzog]. In the following, we will prove what superficially appears to be a weaker version of this conjecture. However, we are uncertain that a stronger version exists.
Our two principal results are
\[sewellsplit\] A strong helix $\calh$ generates a well split quiver.
and
\[setheorem\] Let $\calh$ be a strong helix. Let $\cale$ be a foundation of $\calh$. The Seiberg dual $\cale'$ of $\cale$ generates a strong helix $\calh'$.
Proof of Theorem \[sewellsplit\]
--------------------------------
To prove Theorem \[sewellsplit\], we introduce an intermediate notion, $\Ext^{1,2}$. We will prove that $\Ext^{1,2}$ implies well split and then finish by demonstrating that $\Ext^{1,2}$ is equivalent to the strong helix property.
In this paper, we are concerned with $\cale$ constructed from del Pezzo surfaces. We see from (\[leftshift2\]) that the object $E_n^\vee \in \cale^Q$ considered as a sheaf will have a shift of grading equal to two. Meanwhile, the object $E_1^\vee = \delta E_1$ is not shifted at all. Because the shifts of grading can only increase as we left mutate $E_i$, the non-zero sheaf in the complex $E_i^\vee$ can be shifted only zero, one, or two places. We imagine the following nice scenario where $$\begin{aligned}
\cale^Q &=& (E_n^\vee, \ldots, E_1^\vee) \nonumber \\
&=&
(\delta F_n[2], \ldots, \delta F_b[2], \delta F_{b-1}[1], \ldots,
\delta F_c[1],\delta F_{c-1}, \ldots, \delta F_1)
\label{shifts}\end{aligned}$$ and the $F_i$ are sheaves. Clearly the $\IP^2$ example satisfies this condition. Indeed all three block exceptional collections in [@NK] also satisfy this condition, and examples are known for all del Pezzos. We assume the preceding blocking structure for $\cale^Q$ and also that $\Hom^k(E_i^\vee, E_j^\vee) = 0$ unless $k=1$ or 2. We will call these two conditions together the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition. In the preceding sections, we spent a substantial amount of time explaining the second condition using physics considerations.
\[ext12\] The $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition implies well split.
Consider two sheaves $F_i$ and $F_j$ in $\cale^Q$ with the same grading, $i>j$. Either $\Hom(F_i,F_j) = 0$ or $\Ext^1(F_i, F_j) = 0$ because $(F_i, F_j)$ form an exceptional pair. However, to satisfy the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition, we must have $\Hom(F_i, F_j) = 0$. Thus, the arrow in the quiver points from $i$ to $j$. We conclude there can be no violations of the well split condition within a block of sheaves of the same grading.
We can conclude slightly more from the preceding. In particular, recall that $\chi_-(F_i, F_j) = \chi(F_i, F_j)$. Thus, the slopes must satisfy $\mu(F_i) \geq \mu(F_j)$.
Next consider $\delta F_i[2]$ and $\delta F_j$ for $n \geq i \geq b$ and $c-1 \geq j \geq 1$. By the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition, $\Ext^1(F_i, F_j) = 0$ or we would have an $\Hom^3$ type map in $D^\flat(\calb)$. Thus, the arrow, if it exists, points from $j$ to $i$.
The only possible violation to well split will occur for maps between sheaves with gradings shifted by one. Consider $\delta F_i[2]$ for $n \geq i \geq b$ and $\delta F_j[1]$, $\delta F_k[1]$ for $b-1 \geq j > k \geq c$. Assume $\Ext^1(F_i, F_j) \neq 0$, i.e. there is an arrow from $j$ to $i$. We would have a violation of well split if then $\Hom(F_i, F_k) \neq 0$, but such a violation cannot occur for the following reason. $\Ext^1(F_i, F_j) \neq 0$ implies that $\mu(F_j) < \mu(F_i)$. We have from the first part of the proof that $\mu(F_j) \geq \mu(F_k)$. Therefore $\mu(F_k) < \mu(F_i)$ and the map from $F_i$ to $F_k$ must also be of type $\Ext^1$. A similar argument rules out violations of the well split condition for maps from $F_i[1]$ to $F_j$ in $\cale^Q$.
We also have a useful corollary for the values of the slopes.
\[Qslopes\] For a collection $\cale^Q$ satisfying the $\Ext^{1,2}$ condition, the slopes of the sheaves with a given grading are in descending order within $\cale^Q$. In particular, for $n \geq i > j \geq b$ or for $b-1 \geq i > j \geq c$ or for $c-1 \geq i > j \geq 1$, $\mu(F_i)\geq \mu(F_j)$. Moreover, $\mu(F_n) \leq \mu(F_1)$.
Given an $\cale^Q$, we are assuming that $\cale^Q$ was constructed from a collection $\cale$ where all the sheaves in $\cale$ are torsion free. Otherwise, the corresponding gauge groups would have rank zero, and we would lose our physical motivation for studying these collections. It may be that $\cale^Q$ is also torsion free, but we have not been able to prove it, and it is therefore worthwhile to consider the special cases where some of the $E_i^\vee$ have zero rank.
Our proof of Lemma \[ext12\] holds whether or not some of the $E_i^\vee$ are torsion. If $F_i$ were torsion, we take $\mu(F_i) = \infty$ and $\mu(F_i) \geq
\mu(F_j)$ $\forall j$.
Interestingly, the torsion sheaves can only occur in special places inside $\cale^Q$.
\[specialplace\] If $F_i$ is torsion then $i=b-1$ or $i=c-1$ or $F_{i+1}$ is torsion.
Because $F_n = E_n \otimes K$ is not torsion, the torsion sheaves will only appear in (\[shifts\]) shifted by zero or one.
The $\Ext^{1,2}$ property strongly constrains the form of the original collection $\cale$. To see these constraints, we need the following lemma.
\[chernreg\] The chern character of $E_j^\vee$ is (E\_j\^) = \_[i=1]{}\^j S\_[ij]{} (E\_i) .
From the definition of $S$, (E\_j\^, E\_i\^) = S\_[ij]{} . From (\[eulerdual\]), (E\_i, E\_j\^) = \_[ij]{} . Because $\cale$ is complete, we can express the chern character of any sheaf as a sum over the chern characters of the $E_i \in \cale$. In particular (E\_j\^) = \_i a\_[ij]{} (E\_i) . The lemma follows from acting on each side of the equality with $\chi(\cdot, E_k^\vee)$.
\[cherninv\] Since $S$ has an inverse, we find (E\_j) = \_[i=1]{}\^j S\_[ij]{}\^[-1]{} (E\_i\^) .
\[ext12impse\] If $\cale^Q$ is $\Ext^{1,2}$, then the original collection $\cale$ generates a strong helix.
Using Corollary \[cherninv\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(E_{j-1}) & \leq & \mu(E_j) \iff \\
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \deg(E_i^\vee) S^{-1}_{i(j-1)} }
{\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r(E_i^\vee) S^{-1}_{i(j-1)} }
&\leq &
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{j} \deg(E_i^\vee) S^{-1}_{ij} }
{\sum_{i=1}^{j} r(E_i^\vee) S^{-1}_{ij} } \ .\end{aligned}$$ Note that by assumption, all the ranks of the sheaves in $\cale$ are positive. We can clear the denominators without flipping the sign of the inequality. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(E_{j-1}) & \leq & \mu(E_j) \iff \\
\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \sum_{k=1}^j S_{i(j-1)}^{-1} S_{kj}^{-1}
( \deg(E_i^\vee) r(E_k^\vee) - \deg(E_k^\vee) r(E_i^\vee)) &\leq & 0 \iff \\
\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \sum_{k=1}^j S_{i(j-1)}^{-1} S_{kj}^{-1} (S_{ik} - S_{ki})
&\leq & 0 \iff \\
-S_{(j-1)j}^{-1} &\leq & 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ The fact that $S$ is upper triangular and has ones on the diagonal implies that $S_{(j-1)j}^{-1} = - S_{(j-1)j}$. Moreover, well split tells us that $S_{(j-1)j} \leq 0$.
From Corollary \[Qslopes\], we have that $\mu(F_n) \leq \mu(F_1)$. Note that $F_n = E_n \otimes K$ and $F_1 = E_1$. Thus, $\mu(E_n) - K^2 \leq \mu(E_1)$ and the helix must be strongly exceptional.
\[seimpext12\] If $\cale$ generates a strong helix, then $\cale^Q$ is $\Ext^{1,2}$.
We will spend the rest of this section in a rather technical proof of this important proposition. The strategy is first to show that $\cale^Q$ respects the blocking structure of grading shifts in the definition of $\Ext^{1,2}$. Next, we will demonstrate that the slopes satisfy Corollary \[Qslopes\].
By the braid group relations, E\_j = R\_[E\_1\^]{}\^D R\_[E\_[j-1]{}\^]{}\^D E\_j\^ .
Inverting this relation, we find E\_j\^= L\_[E\_[j-1]{}\^]{}\^D L\_[E\_1\^]{}\^D E\_j . The chern character of $E_j^\vee$ can then be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\ch(E_j^\vee) &=& \ch(E_j) - \sum_{i=1}^{j-1}
\chi(E_i^\vee, L_{E_{i-1}^\vee}^D \cdots L_{E_1^\vee}^D E_j) \ch(E_i^\vee) \\
&=& \ch(E_j) - \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \chi(E_i, E_j) \ch(E_i^\vee) \\
&=& \ch(E_j) - \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} S_{ij}^{-1} \ch(E_i^\vee) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with the result of Corollary \[cherninv\]. We have rederived this result to see that each term in the sum corresponds to a separate left mutation and thus a separate opportunity for the complex $E_j^\vee$ to be shifted by one with respect to $\delta F_j$. Note that r(E\_j\^) = r(E\_j) . As we sum from $i=1$ to $j-1$, each time the term in brackets changes sign, $E_j^\vee$ will shift by one with respect to $\delta F_j$. Note that if a partial sum is zero, there is no corresponding shift in grading because for left mutations a torsion sheaf can only be produced by a recoil, and there is no shift in grading for a recoil.
Let $c$ be the smallest integer such that $r(E_c^\vee) < 0$. There must exist such a $c$ because $E_n^\vee$ is shifted by two with respect to $\delta F_n$. For all $i<c$, there is no relative shift and $E_i^\vee = \delta F_i$. We now argue that for all $i>c$, $E_i^\vee = \delta F_i [s_i]$ where $s_i$ is either one or two. The reason is that $\cale$ is strongly exceptional and $\mu_i \leq \mu_{i+1}$. In particular, \_[i=1]{}\^[c-1]{} r(E\_i) r(E\_i\^) (\_c - \_i) \_[i=1]{}\^[c-1]{} r(E\_i) r(E\_i\^) (\_k - \_i) for $k>c$. Thus, $E_k^\vee$ will be shifted by at least one with respect to $\delta F_k$. To summarize, we have found that \^Q = (F\_n\[s\_n\], …, F\_[c+1]{}\[s\_[c+1]{}\], F\_c \[1\], F\_[c-1]{}, …, F\_1) . \[shifts1\] where $s_i = 1$ or 2.
We now take advantage of the helix structure to complete a proof of the fact that $\cale^Q$ contains objects with the appropriate shifts of grading. Using E\_i K\[2\] = L\_[E\_[i+1]{}K\[2\]]{}\^D L\_[E\_n K\[2\]]{}\^D L\_[E\_1]{}\^D L\_[E\_[i-1]{}]{}\^D E\_i , we find that E\_i\^= R\_[E\_n K\[2\]]{}\^D R\_[E\_[i+1]{}K\[2\]]{}\^D (E\_i K\[2\]) . With the braid relations, E\_i K\[2\] = L\_[E\_n\^]{}\^D L\_[E\_[i+1]{}\^]{}\^D E\_i\^ , and thus E\_i\^= R\_[E\_[i+1]{}\^]{}\^D R\_[E\_n\^]{}\^D (E\_i K\[2\]) .
Just as done above, we can use this expression for $E_i^\vee$ to derive a relation on $\ch(E_i^\vee)$: (E\_j\^) = (E\_j K) - \_[i=j+1]{}\^n S\_[ij]{}\^[-1]{} (E\_j\^) . For the ranks, we find then r(E\_j\^) = r(E\_j) which could have been derived from (\[cherninv\]) and chiral anomaly cancellation ($(S-S^T)\cdot r = 0$), but now again we have an interpretation of each term in the sum in brackets as a right mutation.
As before, we find that there is a $b$ such that $r(E_i^\vee) > 0$ for $n\geq i \geq b$ and $r(E_{b-1}^\vee) \leq 0$.[^4] Moreover, for $i<b$, $E_i^\vee = \delta F_i[s_i]$ and $s_i$ is either zero or one. In particular \^Q = (F\_n\[2\], …, F\_b\[2\], F\_[b-1]{}\[1\], F\_[b-2]{}\[s\_[b-2]{}\] …F\_1\[s\_1\]) . \[shifts2\] Putting (\[shifts1\]) and (\[shifts2\]) together, we conclude that the shifts of grading of $\cale^Q$ are precisely as in (\[shifts\]).
The last remaining step in the proof of Theorem \[sewellsplit\] is to check that the slopes are as in Corollary \[Qslopes\] (which in turn implies the restriction on the types of $\Ext$ maps between the sheaves). We first consider the $E_i^\vee$ which are torsion free. Notice that $\sign(r(E_i^\vee)) = \sign(r(E_j^\vee))$ for $n\geq i > j \geq b$ or for $b-1 \geq i > j \geq c$ or for $c-1 \geq i > j \geq 1$. Using Lemma \[chernreg\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(E^\vee_{j-1}) & \leq & \mu(E^\vee_j) \iff \\
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \deg(E_i) S_{i(j-1)} }
{\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r(E_i) S_{i(j-1)} }
&\leq &
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{j} \deg(E_i) S_{ij} }
{\sum_{i=1}^{j} r(E_i) S_{ij} } \ .\end{aligned}$$ We can clear the denominators without flipping the sign of the inequality only if $\sign(r(E_{j-1}^\vee)) = \sign(r(E_j^\vee))$, which will be true if $E_j^\vee$ and $E_{j-1}^\vee$ are shifted by the same amount. Manipulations analogous to those in the proof of Proposition \[ext12impse\] show $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(E^\vee_{j-1}) & \leq & \mu(E^\vee_j) \iff \\
\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \sum_{k=1}^j S_{i(j-1)} S_{kj}
( \deg(E_i) r(E_k) - \deg(E_k) r(E_i)) &\leq & 0 \iff \\
\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \sum_{k=1}^j S_{i(j-1)} S_{kj} (S_{ki}^{-1} - S_{ik}^{-1})
&\leq & 0 \iff \\
S_{(j-1)j} &\leq & 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ From the structure of these upper triangular matrices, $S_{(j-1)j} = -S_{(j-1)j}^{-1}$. From the strong exceptional property, $S_{(j-1)j}^{-1} \geq 0$.
We also check that $\mu(F_n) \leq \mu(F_1)$. Note that $\mu(F_n) = \mu(E_n \otimes K) = \mu(E_n) -K^2$ and $\mu(F_1) = \mu(E_1)$. But we know that $\mu(E_n) \leq \mu(E_1) + K^2$ because $\cale$ generates a strong helix.
Finally, we consider the $E_i^\vee$ which are torsion. If the torsion sheaves occur as in Remark \[specialplace\], then $\cale^Q$ continues to satisfy the conditions of Corollary \[Qslopes\] because the slope of a torsion sheaf is infinite. Note that $F_1 = E_1$ and $F_n = E_n \otimes K$ are torsion free from our assumption about $\cale$. We can then finish our proof of Proposition \[seimpext12\] by showing that for $E_i^\vee$ and $E_{i+1}^\vee$ shifted by the same amount, if $F_{i}$ is torsion, then so is $F_{i+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{i(i+1)} =
\chi(E_{i+1}^\vee, E_i^\vee) = \chi(F_{i+1}, F_i) = r(F_{i+1}) \geq 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ However, as above we have that $S_{i(i+1)} = -S^{-1}_{i(i+1)} \leq 0$ and we conclude that $r(F_{i+1})=0$.
Proof of Theorem \[setheorem\]
------------------------------
Let $\cale$ generate a strong helix. We are free to take the Seiberg dual of $E_n$ without loss of generality. (We just choose an appropriate foundation of the helix. The strong property of the helix means that any foundation will also be strongly exceptional.) Let $\cale'$ be the Seiberg dual collection: ’ = (E\_1, …, E\_a, L\_[E\_[a+1]{}]{} L\_[E\_[n-1]{}]{} E\_n, E\_[a+1]{}, …, E\_[n-1]{}) \[eprimedef\] where we have assumed that nodes 1 through $a$ all have arrows ending on node $n$ while nodes $a+1$ through $n-1$ have arrows beginning at node $n$. Note that from the helix property, E\_n’ L\_[E\_[a+1]{}]{} L\_[E\_[n-1]{}]{} E\_n = R\_[E\_1]{} R\_[E\_a]{} (E\_n K) . \[alternateE1\]
Our strategy is to show that the slopes of $\cale'$ satisfy the conditions of Remark \[strslopes\]. $\cale'$ is an exceptional collection, and the conditions on the slopes are sufficient to guarantee that $\cale'$ is strongly exceptional and in fact generates a strong helix.
\[chernone\] The chern character of $E_n'$ is (E\_n’) = -\_[i=a+1]{}\^n S\_[in]{} (E\_i) .
From the definition of mutation in terms of short exact sequences, we find that (E\_n’) = (-1)\^[\_[n-1]{}]{} (E\_n) + \_[i=a+1]{}\^[n-1]{} (-1)\^[\_i]{} S\_[in]{}’ (E\_i) where we have defined S\_[in]{}’ = -(E\_i, L\_[E\_[i+1]{}]{} L\_[E\_[n-1]{}]{} E\_n) and $\delta_i$ is the number of mutations among the $L_{E_{a+1}}, \ldots, L_{E_i}$ of type division.
Recall the definition S\_[jn]{} = (E\_n\^, E\_j\^) = (L\_[E\_1]{}\^D L\_[E\_[n-1]{}]{}\^D E\_n, L\_[E\_1]{}\^D L\_[E\_[j-1]{}]{}\^D E\_j) . We can massage this formula into something a little more useful $$\begin{aligned}
S_{jn} &=& \chi(L_{\delta E_j}^D \cdots L_{\delta E_{n-1}}^D \delta E_n, \delta E_j) \\
&=& -\chi(\delta E_j, L_{\delta E_{j+1}}^D \cdots L^D_{\delta E_{n-1}} \delta E_n) \\
&=& (-1)^{\epsilon_j} S_{jn}'\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_i$ is number of mutations of type division among the $L_{E_{i+1}}, \ldots, L_{E_{n-1}}$. Clearly, $\epsilon_i+\delta_i$ is a constant. In particular, $\epsilon_i + \delta_i = \epsilon_{a} = \delta_{n-1}$. We conclude that (E\_n’) = (-1)\^[\_a]{} .
We argue that $\epsilon_a = 1$. $\epsilon_a = 0$, $1$, or $2$ and, from (\[leftshift2\]), there would be exactly two divisions if we were to left mutate $E_n$ through the whole collection. For an exceptional pair $(F,E)$, recall that a division occurs whenever $r(L^D_{\delta F} \delta E) = r(E) - \chi(E,F) r(F)$ is negative. The well split condition implies that $S_{in} \geq 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq a$ and $S_{in} \leq 0$ for $a+1 \leq i \leq n-1$. In order to have two divisions as a result of mutating $E_n$ through the collection, from the signs of the $S_{in}$, we need exactly one division by the time we get to $i=a+1$. Therefore $\epsilon_a = 1$.
Note that $r(E_n') > 0$ and $E_n'$ cannot be torsion because the grading does not shift if a left mutation produces a torsion sheaf.
It follows from Lemma \[chernone\] that the slope of $E_n'$ is (E\_n’) = = .
\[ineqone\] The slope of $E_n'$ satisfies the inequality: (E\_n’) (E\_a) .
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu(E_n') &\geq& \mu(E_a) \iff \nonumber \\
\sum_{i=a+1}^n S_{in} \left(
r(E_i) \deg(E_a) - r(E_a) \deg(E_i)
\right) & \geq& 0 \iff \nonumber \\
-\sum_{i=a+1}^n S_{ai}^{-1} S_{in} &\geq& 0 \iff \nonumber \\
S_{an} &\geq& 0 \ .
\label{ineq}\end{aligned}$$
By the well split assumption, $S_{an}\geq 0$.
\[ineqtwo\] The slope of $E_n'$ satisfies the additional inequality: (E\_n’) (E\_[a+1]{}) .
It is convenient to choose a different foundation for the helix to check the inequality. We rename $E_n \otimes K = E_0$, and then we introduce = (F\_1, …, F\_n) = (E\_0, E\_1, …, E\_[n-1]{}) . Using (\[alternateE1\]) and an argument analogous to the proof of Lemma \[chernone\], we find that (E\_n’) = - \_[i=1]{}\^[a+1]{} S\_[1i]{} (F\_i) where now the $S_{ij}$ have been defined with respect to $\calf$. It follows that (E\_n’) = . One additional subtlety is the fact that we are using right mutations to construct $E_n'$. Thus we need the fact from the proof of Lemma \[chernone\] that $r(E_n') \neq 0$. An argument equivalent to (\[ineq\]) demonstrates that $\mu(E_n') \leq \mu(F_{a+2}) = \mu(E_{a+1})$ if and only if $S_{1(a+2)} \geq 0$, which follows from well split.
From Lemmas \[ineqone\] and \[ineqtwo\], it follows that $\cale'$ is strongly exceptional.
Now we check that $\cale'$ generates a strong helix. Note that $\mu(E_n) - K^2 \leq \mu(E_1) \leq \mu(E_2)$ so $\mu(E_n) - K^2 \leq \mu(E_2)$.
Recovering the Old Seiberg Duality {#sec:usualdef}
==================================
As promised, we discuss how our definition of Seiberg duality matches the original definition.
For the original Seiberg duality, one takes a node $i$ of a supersymmetric quiver and reverses the orientation of all the arrows incident on that node, $X_{ij} \to
X_{ji}'$ and $Y_{ji} \to Y_{ij}'$. The old maps $X_{ij}$ and $Y_{ki}$ one combines to make so called mesonic fields (or maps) $M_{kj} = X_{ij} Y_{ki}$. To the superpotential, one adds new mass terms $W \to W + M_{kj} Y_{ik}' X_{ji}' $ for each $M_{kj}$ field.
Sometimes, the $M_{kj}$ maps will be oriented opposite to the maps $X_{kj}$ or $X_{jk}$ present in the original quiver. If we hope to be able to represent the quiver with exceptional collections, we need to be able to ensure that the maps between $k$ and $j$ are only in one direction. One can “integrate out" the $M_{kj}$ (or equivalently the $X_{jk}$), by which is meant one uses the relations $\partial W / \partial M_{kj} = 0$ to eliminate $M_{kj}$ from W. Such a procedure is not always possible.
Let’s compare this procedure with exceptional collections. We Seiberg dualize on node 1, obtaining the collection $\cale'$ given by \[neweprimedef\] ’ = (E\_2, …, E\_a, R\_[E\_a]{} R\_[E\_2]{} E\_1, E\_[a+1]{}, …, E\_n)
\[dualprime\] The dual exceptional collection ${\cale^Q}'$ takes the form ’ = (E\_n\^, …, E\_[a+1]{}\^, E\_1\[1\], R\_[E\_1]{}\^D E\_a\^, …, R\_[E\_1]{}\^D E\_2\^) .
The result follows from the expression for $\cale'$ (\[neweprimedef\]), the definition of $\cale^Q$ (\[dualdef\]), and the braid group relations (\[braidrels\]).
From this Proposition, we see that the complex $\delta E_1$ corresponding to the dualized node gets shifted by one under Seiberg duality, reversing the orientation of all the arrows incident on node $1$. Moreover, the number of arrows from $k$ to $j$ is shifted by S\_[kj]{} (E\_j\^, R\^D\_[E\_1]{} E\_k\^) = S\_[kj]{} - S\_[1k]{} S\_[1j]{} If $S_{kj} > 0$, the number of arrows between $k$ and $j$ matches the original definition of Seiberg duality. If $S_{kj}<0$, we have to assume in the original picture of Seiberg duality that we can integrate out enough of the $M_{kj}$ or $X_{jk}$ such that the result has maps only in one direction.
The original definition of Seiberg duality also came with an induced action on the quiver representation, often denoted by physicists as $N_c \to N_f - N_c$ where $N_c$, the number of colors, is the rank $d^i$ of the vector space at the dualized node $i$ and $N_f$ is the number of flavors. In particular, if we were to dualize node 1 say, N\_f = -\_[i=2]{}\^a S\_[1i]{} d\^i . In other words, we recover d\^1 -\_[i=1]{}\^a S\_[1i]{} d\^i in agreement with Lemma \[chernone\].
Discussion
==========
The results in this paper help to resolve a number of bothersome puzzles and raise some interesting questions. As we discuss presently, these puzzles concern 1) the recipe for constructing a gauge theory from an exceptional collection, 2) negative conformal dimensions of gauge invariant operators, 3) the connection between the exceptional collection literature in mathematics and del Pezzo gauge theories in physics, and 4) the connection between different mathematical formulations of Seiberg duality.
The original recipe for writing down a gauge theory quiver from an exceptional collection presented in section 4 now makes a lot more sense if we assume the collection generates a strong helix. The original recipe for writing down a gauge theory quiver from an exceptional collection relied only on the sign of the Euler character, seeming to ignore the significance of whether the maps between the sheaves were of type $\Ext^0$, $\Ext^1$, $\Ext^2$, or $\Ext^3$. From the discussion in section 2, we expected that only $\Hom_{D^\flat(\bX)}^1(E,F)$ type maps should correspond to bifundamental fields in the gauge theory. If the collection generates a strong helix, we find that there will only be $\Hom_{D^\flat(\bX)}^1$ type maps and the sign of the Euler character just lets us know whether the map descended from a $\Hom^1_{D^\flat(\calb)}$ or $\Hom^2_{D^\flat(\calb)}$ in the del Pezzo.
The recipe makes more sense not only in a physics context but also a mathematical one. We can think about the gauge theory quiver as generating an algebra, the path algebra of the quiver. This path algebra is nothing but the maps between the sheaves in the helix $\calh$, at least as long as $\calh$ is a strong helix. However, if there are higher $\Ext$ maps between the sheaves in $\calh$, it is far less clear to what this path algebra of the quiver corresponds.
Concerns have been raised in the literature [@Herzog] about possible gauge invariant, chiral operators with negative R-charge (and hence negative conformal dimension) which our results here eliminate. The authors of [@HW], inspired in particular by work of [@IW2] but also by [@HM], give a formula for the R-charges of the bifundamental fields $X_{ij}$. If $i<j$, then either R(X\_[ij]{}) = \_j - \_i or R(X\_[ji]{}) = K\^2 - \_j + \_i , depending on whether the arrow goes from $i$ to $j$ or from $j$ to $i$. For general exceptional collections, $R(X_{ij})$ may be less than zero. While not of concern by itself, gauge invariant combinations of the these $X_{ij}$, called dibaryon operators, can be made which also have negative R-charge. However, for strong helices 0 \_j - \_i K\^2 and hence the R-charges will always be positive.
Our results demonstrate the physical relevance of certain mathematical concepts and we hope may serve as inspiration to those who study exceptional collections for their own sake. Unaware of the connection to gauge theory, Bondal [@Bondal] defined and studied strong helices and admissible mutations. For example, Corollary 7.3 of [@Bondal] states that if $\cale^Q$ is strongly exceptional and Koszul, then $\cale$ is strongly exceptional. In this paper, we have replaced Corollary 7.3 with an equivalence between $\Ext^{1,2}$ and strong helices. Section 8 of [@Bondal] is a preliminary investigation of admissible mutations of strong helices. Here, we have been able to argue that an important class of these admissible mutations are Seiberg dualities. The precise connection between Koszul and $\Ext^{1,2}$ and whether or not there are other admissible mutations in addition to Seiberg dualities deserve further thought.
These admissible mutations of strongly exceptional collections must be closely related to the tilting equivalences of Berenstein and Douglas [@BD]. Bondal [@Bondal] constructs a quiver from strongly exceptional collections. The quiver he constructs, the Beilinson quiver of section 4, is not quite the gauge theory quiver but is closely related to it. He is then able to prove (Theorem 6.2 of [@Bondal]) that for strongly exceptional collections, $D^\flat(\calb)$ is equivalent to the derived category constructed from the quiver. We suspect there must be a stronger theorem which relates the derived category constructed from the gauge theory quiver to $D^\flat(\bX)$ and that in this context tilting equivalences will prove to be precisely admissible mutations.
There are at least two important physics questions that we have not been able to address here. One is the existence of an analog of the orbifold point in the Kaehler moduli space of $\bX$ where all the D-branes become mutually supersymmetric. Without such a point or locus, our gauge theory construction fails. We think it likely such a point exists, but there are no guarantees, and a more careful analysis of the Kaehler moduli space of these del Pezzos is in order. Two is whether anything we have learned here about strongly exceptional collections can be applied to the other physical situations where exceptional collections are important, for example the Landau-Ginzburg models of [@zaslow; @hiv]. We leave these questions for the future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Paul Aspinwall, Brian Conrad, Igor Dolgachev, and David Gross, for useful conversations. I would also especially like to thank David Berenstein, James M Kernan, and Johannes Walcher for comments on the manuscript. Finally, I am grateful to the referee for insisting on a more careful treatment of torsion sheaves. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.
[99]{}
A. Hanany and J. Walcher, “On duality walls in string theory,” JHEP [**0306**]{}, 055 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0301231\]. S. Franco, A. Hanany, Y. H. He and P. Kazakopoulos, “Duality walls, duality trees and fractional branes,” arXiv:hep-th/0306092. S. Franco, Y. H. He, C. Herzog and J. Walcher, “Chaotic duality in string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0402120. I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, “Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and chiSB-resolution of naked singularities,” JHEP [**0008**]{}, 052 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0007191\]. N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**435**]{}, 129 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9411149\]. K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**45BC**]{}, 1 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9509066\]. C. E. Beasley and M. Ronen Plesser, “Toric Duality is Seiberg Duality,” [*JHEP*]{} [**0112**]{} (2001) 001, \[arXiv:hep-th/0109053\]. B. Feng, A. Hanany, Y. H. He and A. M. Uranga, “Toric duality as Seiberg duality and brane diamonds,” JHEP [**0112**]{}, 035 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0109063\]. F. Cachazo, B. Fiol, K. A. Intriligator, S. Katz and C. Vafa, “A geometric unification of dualities,” Nucl. Phys. B [**628**]{}, 3 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110028\]. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Geometry of N = 1 dualities in four dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B [**500**]{}, 62 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9702180\]. M. Wijnholt, “Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,” arXiv:hep-th/0212021. B. Feng, A. Hanany, Y. H. He and A. Iqbal, “Quiver theories, soliton spectra and Picard-Lefschetz transformations,” JHEP [**0302**]{}, 056 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0206152\]. C. P. Herzog “Exceptional Collections and del Pezzo Gauge Theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0310262. D. Berenstein and M. R. Douglas, “Seiberg duality for quiver gauge theories,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0207027\]. V. Braun, “On Berenstein-Douglas-Seiberg duality,” [*JHEP*]{} [**0301**]{} (2003) 082, \[arXiv:hep-th/0211173\]. S. Mukhopadhyay and K. Ray, “Seiberg duality as derived equivalence for some quiver gauge theories,” JHEP [**0402**]{}, 070 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0309191\]. M. R. Douglas, B. Fiol and C. Romelsberger, “The spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau,” arXiv:hep-th/0003263. M. Kontsevich, “Homological Algebra of Mirror Symmetry”, in [*Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians*]{}, Birkhauser (1995) 120–139, \[arXiv:alg-geom/9411018\].
D. E. Diaconescu and M. R. Douglas, “D-branes on stringy Calabi-Yau manifolds,” arXiv:hep-th/0006224. M. R. Douglas, “D-branes, categories and N = 1 supersymmetry,” J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{}, 2818 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0011017\]. A. I. Bondal, “Representation of Associative Algebras and Coherent Sheaves,” Math. USSR Izv. [**34**]{} (1990), no. 1, 23–42.
E. Zaslow, “Solitons and helices: The Search for a math physics bridge,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**175**]{}, 337 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9408133\]. K. Hori, A. Iqbal and C. Vafa, “D-branes and mirror symmetry,” arXiv:hep-th/0005247. P. S. Aspinwall, “D-branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds,” arXiv:hep-th/0403166;\
E. Sharpe, “Lectures on D-branes and sheaves,” arXiv:hep-th/0307245.
“Helices and vector bundles,” Seminaire Rudakov. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 148. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
C. P. Herzog and J. Walcher, “Dibaryons from exceptional collections,” JHEP [**0309**]{}, 060 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0306298\]. D. E. Diaconescu and J. Gomis, “Fractional branes and boundary states in orbifold theories,” JHEP [**0010**]{}, 001 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9906242\]. P. Mayr, “Phases of supersymmetric D-branes on Kaehler manifolds and the McKay correspondence,” JHEP [**0101**]{}, 018 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010223\].\
A. Tomasiello, “D-branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds and helices,” JHEP [**0102**]{}, 008 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010217\].\
S. Govindarajan and T. Jayaraman, “D-branes, exceptional sheaves and quivers on Calabi-Yau manifolds: From Mukai to McKay,” Nucl. Phys. B [**600**]{}, 457 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010196\].
C. Vafa, “Brane/anti-brane systems and U(N$|$M) supergroup,” arXiv:hep-th/0101218. S. A. Kuleshov and D. O. Orlov, “Exceptional sheaves on Del Pezzo surfaces,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk. Ser. Mat. [**58**]{} (1994) no. 3, 53–87; translation in Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. [**44**]{} (1995) no. 3, 479–513.
A. L. Gorodentsev, “Exceptional Objects and Mutations in Derived Categories,” in [@Rudakov].
B. V. Karpov and D. Yu. Nogin, “Three-block Exceptional Collections over del Pezzo Surfaces,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. [**62**]{} (1998), no. 3, 3–38; translation in Izv. Math. [**62**]{} (1998), no. 3, 429–463, \[arXiv:alg-geom/9703027\].
P. Seidel and R. P. Thomas, “Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves,” arXiv:math.ag/0001043. K. Intriligator and B. Wecht, “Baryon charges in 4D superconformal field theories and their AdS duals,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**245**]{}, 407 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0305046\]. C. P. Herzog and J. M Kernan, “Dibaryon spectroscopy,” JHEP [**0308**]{}, 054 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0305048\]. P. S. Aspinwall and I. V. Melnikov, “D-branes on vanishing del Pezzo surfaces,” arXiv:hep-th/0405134.
[^1]: Exceptional collections have appeared elsewhere in the physics literature in related contexts. For example, they are mirror duals of certain exceptional branes in Landau-Ginzburg models [@zaslow; @hiv].
[^2]: I would like to thank D. Berenstein for this argument.
[^3]: I would like to thank Paul Aspinwall for this suggestion.
[^4]: For right mutations, a torsion sheaf can be produced by a division and hence $E^\vee_{b-1}$ may be torsion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that if ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is a Fell bundle over a locally compact group $G$, then there is a natural coaction $\delta$ of $G$ on the Fell-bundle $C^*$-algebra ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ such that if $\hat{\delta}$ is the dual action of $G$ on the crossed product ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\rtimes_{\delta} G$, then the full crossed product $({\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\rtimes_{\delta}G)\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}}G$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\otimes{\mathcal K}(L^2(G))$. Hence the coaction $\delta$ is maximal.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Arizona State University\
Tempe, Arizona 85287
- |
Department of Mathematics\
The University of Iowa\
Iowa City, IA 52242
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Arizona State University\
Tempe, Arizona 85287
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Dartmouth College\
Hanover, NH 03755
author:
- 'S. Kaliszewski'
- 'Paul S. Muhly'
- John Quigg
- 'Dana P. Williams'
title: Coactions and Fell bundles
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#intro .unnumbered}
============
The theorem announced in the abstract, which we prove as Theorem \[Phi-iso\], is part of a larger program that is inspired by the realization, which only recently has come into focus, that Fell bundles over groups and, more generally, Fell bundles over groupoids, provide a natural setting for a broad range of imprimitivity theorems and equivalence theorems for $C^*$-dynamical systems, especially theorems involving nonabelian duality. The present paper is a first step in this larger program.
Very roughly, a Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ over a locally compact group $G$ is a bundle over $G$ such that the fibre $A_e$ over the identity $e$ of $G$ is a $C^*$-algebra and such that the fibre $A_s$ over each $s\in G$ is an $A_{e}$–$A_{e}$-imprimitivity bimodule with the property that $A_s\otimes_{A_e} A_t$ is isomorphic to $A_{st}$ in such a way that tensoring gives an associative multiplication on ${{\mathscr{A}}}$.[^3] The space of continuous, compactly supported cross sections of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, denoted $\Gamma_c(G;{{\mathscr{A}}})$, carries a natural convolution-like product under which it forms a $*$-algebra. A certain completion of this algebra is a $C^*$-algebra, denoted ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$. One can profitably think of ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ as a generalized crossed product of $A_e$ by $G$. Indeed, if $G$ acts on a $C^*$-algebra $B$ via a continuous homomorphism $\alpha : G \to \operatorname{Aut}(B)$, and if ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is defined to be $B\times G$, with product defined by the equation $(a,s)(b,t)=(a\alpha_{s}(b),st)$, then ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is a Fell bundle over $G$, called the *semidirect-product bundle* determined by the action, and the $C^*$-crossed product $B\rtimes_\alpha G$ is isomorphic to the bundle $C^*$-algebra ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$. This point was made by Fell in his first works on the subject [@fel:ajm69; @fel:mams69] and was one of the reasons he began the theory of these bundles. Importantly, not every Fell bundle over a group $G$ is isomorphic to such a bundle [@fd2 §§VIII.3.16, VIII.4.7].[^4]
Coactions were introduced to give a generalization, for non-abelian groups, of the Takai-Takesaki duality for crossed products by actions of abelian groups on $C^*$-algebras. Subsequently Katayama proved a crossed-product duality theorem for coactions, specifically, if $\delta$ is a coaction of a group $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra $A$, then there is a dual action $\hat\delta$ of $G$ on the crossed product $A\rtimes_\delta G$ such that the *reduced* crossed product $(A\rtimes_\delta G)\rtimes_{\hat\delta,r}G$ is isomorphic to $A\otimes {\mathcal K}(L^2(G))$. Katayama used what are now known as *reduced* coactions, which involve the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(G)$. For more information on crossed-product duality, see [@enchilada Appendix A].
The use of the term “crossed product” both in the context of group actions and in the context of coactions may seem confusing, initially. However, in practice, it is easy to distinguish between the two.
Raeburn introduced *full* coactions, which involve the full group $C^*$-algebra $C^*(G)$, to take advantage of universal properties. For such coactions, there is always a canonical surjection $$\Phi: A\rtimes_\delta G\rtimes_{\hat\delta}G\to A\otimes {\mathcal K}(L^2(G)),$$ and the question naturally arose, when is $\Phi$ in fact an isomorphism? When this is the case, *full crossed-product duality* is said to hold, and the coaction $\delta$ is said to be *maximal*. For example, the dual coaction on a full crossed product by an action is always maximal [@ekq Proposition 3.4].
Since Fell bundle $C^*$-algebras are generalizations of crossed products by actions, it is natural to ask whether there exists a coaction ${\delta}$ of $G$ on $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, and if so, whether $\delta$ is maximal. In the present paper, we settle these questions affirmatively.
The existence of a coaction on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ was briefly presented in [@lprs] for the case of reduced coactions. In [@Q96] (see also [@ngdiscrete]), the third author showed that when the group $G$ is discrete there is in fact a bijective correspondence between Fell bundles over $G$ and coactions of $G$ on $C^*$-algebras. Further, in [@eq:full] the third author and Echterhoff observed that given a Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ over a discrete group $G$, there is a natural coaction $\delta$ of $G$ on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ and the crossed product ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\rtimes_{\delta} G$ is naturally isomorphic to the $C^*$-algebra of a Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G$ over the [discrete]{} groupoid $G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$ obtained by letting $G$ act on itself by left translation. This observation, coupled with the work of the second and fourth authors on the theory of Fell bundles over groupoids [@mw:fell] (which, in turn, was inspired, in part, by [@Q96]), was the point of departure for the current project.
Indeed, although groupoids do not appear explicitly in the statement of our main theorem, Fell bundles over groupoids are crucial in the techniques we develop for the proof. We rely heavily on [@mw:fell] for the theory and basic results concerning Fell bundles over groupoids. In particular, we make free use of the Disintegration Theorem for Fell bundles [@mw:fell Theorem 4.13] which is a generalization of Renault’s Disintegration Theorem for groupoids [@ren:representation Proposition 4.2]. (See [@muhwil:nyjm08 §7] for more discussion and references on Renault’s Theorem.)
The plan for our proof of Theorem \[Phi-iso\] is as follows: The initial two sections are preparatory. Section \[prelim\] establishes notation and collects some results that will be used in the sequel. Section \[product bundles\] addresses some fine points regarding the problem of “promoting” a Fell bundle over a group to a Fell bundle over the product of the group with itself. The first real step in our analysis is taken in Section \[exist\]. There we prove in Proposition \[exists\] that if ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is a Fell bundle over a locally compact group $G$, then there is a natural coaction $\delta$ of $G$ on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ analogous to the dual coaction on a crossed product.
We note in passing that in [@exelng], Exel and Ng prove a result that is similar to our Proposition \[exists\]. However, their setting is somewhat different from ours in that it uses an older and no-longer-used definition of “full coaction” that was advanced by Raeburn in [@rae:representation]. Also, their proof is different in certain important respects. So, to keep this note self-contained we present full details.
The second substantial step taken in our analysis is Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\], which asserts that there is a natural isomorphism $\theta$ from the crossed product ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\rtimes_\delta G$ to the $C^*$-algebra $C^*(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$ of the Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G$ over the transformation groupoid $G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$. As we mentioned above, this isomorphism theorem was inspired by [@eq:full]. Section \[transformation bundles\] provides the necessary prerequisites for the formulation and proof of Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\].
The third major step is Theorem \[action crossed product isomorphism\], which establishes, in the general context of a Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ over a groupoid ${\mathcal G}$, an isomorphism between the $C^*$-algebra of a semidirect-product bundle ${{\mathscr{B}}}\times_\alpha G$ (the theory of which is developed in Section \[Semidirect-product bundles\]) and the crossed product of $C^*({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ by a corresponding action of $G$.
The remainder of the argument occupies Section \[canonical\]. There, we show that the isomorphism $\theta$ established in Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\] is equivariant for the dual action $\hat{\delta}$ of $G$ on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\times_\delta G$ and a natural action of $G$ on $C^*(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$. Using this, $\theta$ is promoted to an isomorphism between the two crossed products. We then apply the result of Section \[action crossed product\] to this natural action to see that the crossed product can be realized as the $C^*$-algebra of a certain semidirect-product bundle; this bundle turns out to be isomorphic to one whose $C^*$-algebra is easily recognized as $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes{\mathcal K}(L^2(G))$. Finally, we show that these isomorphisms combine to give the canonical surjection $\Phi$, and this completes our proof of Theorem \[Phi-iso\].
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
If $A$ is a $C^{*}$-algebra, then its maximal unitization $M(A)$ ([@tfb Definition 2.46]) is called the *multiplier algebra* of $A$. Traditionally, $M(A)$ is realized as the collection of double centralizers. Here we adopt the approach taken in [@tfb], regarding $M(A)$ as the algebra $\mathcal{L}(A)$ of bounded adjointable operators on $A$ viewed as a right-Hilbert module over itself. (That any two maximal unitizations are naturally isomorphic is guaranteed by [@tfb Theorem 2.47].) As usual, we let ${\tilde A}$ be the $C^{*}$-subalgebra of $M(A)$ generated by $A$ and $1_{M(A)}$. (Thus ${\tilde A}=A$ if $A$ is unital, and ${\tilde A}$ is $A$ with an identity adjoined otherwise.) We use minimal tensor products of $C^*$-algebras throughout.
Let $G$ be a locally compact group. We use $u: G\to M(C^*(G))$ to denote the canonical embedding, although sometimes we will simply identify $s\in G$ with its image $u(s)\in M(C^*(G))$. Similarly, we will usually not distinguish between a strictly continuous unitary homomorphism of $G$ and its unique nondegenerate extension to $C^*(G)$. As a general reference for group actions we use [@danacrossed], and for coactions we refer to [@enchilada Appendix A].
Group Actions
-------------
An *action* of $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is a homomorphism $\alpha: G\to \operatorname{Aut}A$ such that the map $s\mapsto \alpha_s(a)$ is norm continuous from $G$ to $A$ for each $a\in A$. A *covariant representation* of $(A,G,\alpha)$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ is a pair $(\pi,U)$, where $\pi: A\to B({\mathcal H})$ is a nondegenerate representation and $U: G\to B({\mathcal H})$ is a strongly continuous unitary representation, which satisfies the *covariance condition* $$\label{variant}
\pi(\alpha_s(a)) = U_s \pi(a) U_s^*
\quad\text{for $a\in A$ and $ s\in G$.}$$ More generally, for any $C^*$-algebra $B$, a *covariant homomorphism* of $(A,G,\alpha)$ into $M(B)$ is a pair $(\pi,U)$, where $\pi:A\to M(B)$ is a nondegenerate homomorphism and $U: G\to
M(B)$ is a strictly continuous unitary homomorphism, which satisfies .
A *crossed product* for $(A,G,\alpha)$ is a $C^*$-algebra $A\rtimes_\alpha G$, together with a covariant homomorphism $(i_A,i_G)$ of $(A,G,\alpha)$ into $M(A\rtimes_\alpha G)$ which is universal in the sense that for any covariant homomorphism $(\pi,U)$ of $(A,G,{\alpha})$ into $M(B)$ there is a unique nondegenerate homomorphism $\pi\rtimes U:A\rtimes_{\alpha}G\to M(B)$, called the *integrated form* of $(\pi,U)$, such that $$\pi=(\pi\rtimes U)\circ i_A\quad\text{and}\quad U=(\pi\rtimes U)\circ
i_G.$$ The crossed product is generated by the universal covariant homomorphism in the sense that $$A\rtimes_{\alpha}G = \operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}{\{\, i_A(a) i_G(f) : \text{$a\in A$ and $ f\in
C_c(G)$}\,\}}.$$ The space $C_c(G,A)$ of compactly supported continuous functions from $G$ into $A$ is a $*$-algebra with (convolution) multiplication and involution given by $$(f*g)(s) = \int_G f(t) \alpha_t(g(t{^{-1}}s)) \,dt \quad\text{and}\quad
f^*(s) = f(s{^{-1}})^*{\Delta}(s){^{-1}},$$ where ${\Delta}$ denotes the modular function of $G$. The algebra $C_c(G,A)$ embeds as a dense $*$-subalgebra of $A\rtimes_\alpha G$ via the map $$f\mapsto \int_G i_A(f(s)) i_G(s)\,ds,$$ so that if $(\pi,U)$ is a covariant homomorphism of $(A,G,\alpha)$, then $$\pi\rtimes U(f) = \int_G \pi(f(s)) U(s)\,ds.$$
Coactions
---------
A *coaction* of $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is a nondegenerate injective homomorphism ${\delta}:A\to M(A\otimes C^*(G))$ which satisfies the *coaction identity* $$\label{comodule}
({\delta}\otimes {\text{\textup{id}}}_G)\circ {\delta}=({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes {\delta}_G)\circ {\delta},$$ and which is *nondegenerate as a coaction* in the sense that $$\label{nondegenerate}
\operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}\{{\delta}(A)(1\otimes C^*(G))\}=A\otimes C^*(G).$$ Here ${\delta}_G:C^*(G)\to M(C^*(G)\otimes C^*(G))$ is the homomorphism determined by the unitary homomorphism of $G$ given by $s\mapsto
u(s)\otimes u(s)$. Note that condition implies nondegeneracy of ${\delta}$ as a map into $M(A\otimes C^*(G))$.
A *covariant representation* of $(A,G,{\delta})$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ is a pair $(\pi,{\mu})$, where $\pi: A\to B({\mathcal H})$ and ${\mu}:
C_0(G)\to B({\mathcal H})$ are nondegenerate representations which satisfy the *covariance condition* $$\label{covariant}
\operatorname{Ad}({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)(\pi(a)\otimes 1)=(\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})({\delta}(a))
\quad\text{for $a\in A$.}$$ Here $w_G$ is the element of $M(C_0(G)\otimes C^*(G))$ which corresponds to the canonical embedding $u: G\to M(C^*(G))$ under the natural isomorphism of $M(C_0(G)\otimes C^*(G))$ with the strictly continuous bounded maps from $G$ to $M(C^*(G))$. More generally, for any $C^*$-algebra $B$, a *covariant homomorphism* of $(A,G,{\delta})$ into $M(B)$ is a pair $(\pi,{\mu})$, where $\pi:A\to M(B)$ and ${\mu}:C_0(G)\to M(B)$ are nondegenerate homomorphisms satisfying .
A *crossed product* for $(A,G,{\delta})$ is a $C^*$-algebra $A\rtimes_{\delta}G$, together with a covariant homomorphism $(j_A,j_G)$ of $(A,G,{\delta})$ into $M(A\rtimes_{\delta}G)$ which is universal in the sense that for any covariant homomorphism $(\pi,{\mu})$ of $(A,G,{\delta})$ into $M(B)$ there is a unique nondegenerate homomorphism $\pi\rtimes
{\mu}:A\rtimes_{\delta}G\to M(B)$, called the *integrated form* of $(\pi,\mu)$, such that $$\pi=(\pi\rtimes {\mu})\circ j_A\quad\text{and}\quad {\mu}=(\pi\rtimes
{\mu})\circ j_G.$$ The crossed product is generated by the universal covariant homomorphism in the sense that $$A\rtimes_\delta G = \operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}{\{\, j_A(a) j_G(f) : \text{$a\in A$ and $
f\in C_0(G)$}\,\}}.$$ The *dual action* of $G$ on $A\rtimes_\delta G$ is the homomorphism $\hat\delta: G\to \operatorname{Aut}(A\rtimes_{\delta}G)$ given on generators by $$\hat\delta_s( j_A(a) j_G(f) ) = j_A(a) j_G({\textup{rt}}_s(f)),$$ where ${\textup{rt}}$ denotes the action of $G$ on $C_0(G)$ by right translation: ${\textup{rt}}_s(f)(t) = f(ts)$.
Given a representation $\pi$ of $A$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$, the associated *regular representation* ${\Lambda}$ of $A\rtimes_\delta G$ on ${\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$ is the integrated form $${\Lambda}=\bigl((\pi\otimes{\lambda})\circ {\delta}\bigr)\rtimes (1\otimes M),$$ where $\lambda$ is the left regular representation of $G$ on $L^2(G)$ and $M$ is the representation of $C_0(G)$ on $L^2(G)$ by multiplication: $(M_f\xi)(s) = f(s)\xi(s)$. When $\pi$ is faithful, the associated regular representation is always faithful [@enchilada Remark A.43(3)], and thus gives an isomorphism between $A\rtimes_\delta G$ and the concrete $C^*$-algebra $${\Lambda}(A\rtimes_\delta G) = \operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}{\{\, (\pi\otimes{\lambda})\circ {\delta}(a)(1\otimes
M_f) : \text{$a\in A$ and $ f\in C_0(G)$} \,\}}.$$
The *canonical surjection* associated to $\delta$ is the map $$\Phi = \bigl( ({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes\lambda)\circ\delta \rtimes (1\otimes
M)\bigr) \rtimes (1\otimes\rho): A\rtimes_\delta G\rtimes_{\hat\delta}
G \to A\otimes {\mathcal K}(L^2(G)),$$ where $\rho$ is the right regular representation of $G$ on $L^2(G)$. (It almost goes without saying that, by convention, $(\lambda_s\xi)(t) = \xi(s{^{-1}}t)$ and $(\rho_s\xi)(t) = \xi(ts){\Delta}(s)^{1/2}$.) On the generators, $\Phi$ is given by $$\Phi\bigl( i_{A\rtimes_\delta G}(j_A(a)j_G(f)) i_G(g) \bigr) =
({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes\lambda)\circ\delta(a)\bigl( 1\otimes M_f\rho(g)\bigr)$$ for $a\in A$, $f\in C_0(G)$, and $g\in C^*(G)$. The coaction $\delta$ is *maximal* if the canonical surjection $\Phi$ associated to $\delta$ is injective; thus the maximal coactions are precisely those coactions for which full crossed-product duality holds in the sense that $\Phi$ is an isomorphism of $A\rtimes_\delta
G\rtimes_{\hat\delta} G$ onto $A\otimes {\mathcal K}(L^2(G))$.
Some of our coaction calculations will involve the *Fourier-Stieltjes* algebra $B(G)$. (see [@enchilada §§A.4–A.5] for brief survey or [@eym] for a more detailed treatment). In simple terms the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)$ is a space of bounded continuous functions on $G$ which can be identified with the dual space $C^*(G)^*$ via the formula $$f(g) = \int_G f(s) g(s) \,ds \quad\text{for $f\in B(G)$ and $ g\in
C_c(G)\subseteq C^*(G)$.}$$ By [@eym Propositions 3.4 and 3.7], the intersection $B(G)\cap C_0(G)$ is norm dense in $C_0(G)$. For $f\in B(G)$, the *slice map* ${\text{\textup{id}}}_{A}\otimes f: A\otimes
C^*(G)\to A$ determined by $$({\text{\textup{id}}}_{A}\otimes f)(a\otimes b)=af(b)\quad\text{for $a\in A$ and $b\in
C^*(G)$}$$ extends uniquely to a strictly continuous linear map ${\text{\textup{id}}}_{A}\otimes
f: M(A\otimes C^*(G))\to M(A)$, and moreover such slice maps separate the points of $M(A\otimes C^*(G))$ ([@enchilada Lemma A.30]).
Fell Bundles
------------
A Fell bundle over a groupoid is a natural generalization of Fell’s $C^{*}$-algebraic bundles over groups treated in detail in [@fd2 Chap. VIII] and discussed briefly in the introduction. We will refer to [@mw:fell] for the particulars of Fell bundles over groupoids. Generally speaking, a *Fell bundle* $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to{\mathcal G}$ is a upper semicontinuous Banach bundle over a locally compact Hausdorff groupoid ${\mathcal G}$ satisfying the axioms laid out in [@mw:fell Definition 1.1].[^5] It was observed in [@bmz Lemma 3.30] that the underlying Banach bundle of an upper semicontinuous Fell bundle over a *group* is necessarily continuous. (The authors of [@bmz] attribute this observation to Exel.) Since all the Fell bundles in this work originate from Fell bundles over groups, they will necessarily be built on continuous Banach bundles.[^6] We will assume all the Fell bundles here are *separable* in that ${\mathcal G}$ is second countable and the Banach space $\sa_{0}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ of sections is separable. (This hypothesis is not only a sign of good taste, but it will also ensure that the results of [@mw:fell] apply.)
We are only interested in groupoids ${\mathcal G}$ with a continuous Haar system ${\{\,\lambda^{u}\,\}}_{u\in{{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}}$. Then the set $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ of continuous compactly supported sections of ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ has the structure of a $*$-algebra: $$f*g(x):=\int_{{\mathcal G}}f(y)g(y^{-1}x)\,d\lambda^{r(x)}(y)\quad \text{and}
\quad f^{*}(x):=f(x^{-1})^{*}.$$ Then we can define a norm, $\|\cdot\|_{I}$, on $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ via $$\|f\|_{I}=\max\Bigl\{ \sup_{u\in{{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}}\int_{{\mathcal G}}
\|f(x)\|\,d\lambda^{u}(x),
\sup_{u\in{{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}}\int_{G}\|f(x)\|\,\lambda_{u}(x) \Bigr\}.$$ If ${\mathcal H}$ is a Hilbert space, then a $*$-homomorphism $L:\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\to B({\mathcal H})$ is called *$\|\cdot\|_{I}$-decreasing* if $\|L(f)\|\le\|f\|_{I}$ for all $f$. We say that $L$ is a $\|\cdot\|_{I}$-decreasing *representation* if it is also *nondegenerate* in the sense that $$\overline{\operatorname{span}}{\{\,L(f)\xi:\text{$f\in\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$
and $\xi\in{\mathcal H}$}\,\}}={\mathcal H}.$$ Then, by definition, the *universal norm* on $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ is $$\|f\|:=\sup{\{\,\|L(f)\|:\text{$L$ is a $\|\cdot\|_{I}$-decreasing
representation of $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$}\,\}}.$$ The completion $\overline{\bigl(\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}),\|\cdot\|\bigr)}$ is the $C^{*}$-algebra $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ of the Fell bundle $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to{\mathcal G}$.[^7]
More generally, a nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism $L:{\Gamma}_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\to
B({\mathcal H})$ is called simply a *representation* if $L$ is continuous when $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ is equipped with the inductive limit topology and $B({\mathcal H})$ is given the weak operator topology. It is a nontrivial result — a consequence of the Disintegration Theorem ([@mw:fell Theorem 4.13]) — that every representation of $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ is $\|\cdot\|_{I}$-decreasing. Since $\|\cdot\|_{I}$-decreasing representations are clearly representations, we see that $$\|f\|=\sup{\{\,\|L(f)\|:\text{$L$ is a
representation of $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$}\,\}}$$ (see [@mw:fell Remark 4.14]).
\[lem-pull-back\] Suppose that $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal G}$ is a Fell bundle over a locally compact groupoid ${\mathcal G}$. If ${\mathcal H}$ is a locally compact groupoid and $\phi:{\mathcal H}\to {\mathcal G}$ is a continuous groupoid homomorphism, then the pull-back $q:\phi^{*}{{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal H}$ is a Fell bundle over ${\mathcal H}$ with multiplication and involution given by $$(a,h)(b,t)=(ab,ht)\quad\text{and}\quad (a,h)^{*}=(a^{*},h^{-1}).$$
The proof is routine. For example, $q:\phi^{*}{{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal H}$ is clearly a Banach bundle (see [@fd1 §II.13.7] where pull-backs are called retractions). The fibre over $h$ is isomorphic to $B_{\phi(h)}$. The Fell bundle structure from ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ makes the latter into a $B_{r(\phi(h))}$–$B_{s(\phi(h))}$-imprimitivity bimodule. Since the fibre over $s(h)$ is isomorphic to $B_{\phi(s(h))}$ and $\phi(s(h))=s(\phi(h))$, the rest is easy. (Note that when ${\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathcal H}$ are groups, this result is [@fd2 § VIII.3.17].)
Fell Bundles over Groups
------------------------
However, to begin with, we are interested in a (separable, of course) Fell bundle $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ where $G$ is a locally compact *group*. This case affords a number of simplifications, and also allows us to avoid some of the overhead coming from [@mw:fell]. Note that a Fell bundle $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ over a group is what Fell and Doran call a $C^{*}$-algebraic bundle over $G$ (see [@fd2 Definitions VIII.16.2 and VIII.3.1]). Since we ultimately treat Fell bundles over groups as a special case of a Fell bundle over a groupoid, our axioms require that $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is *saturated* in the sense that $\operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}\{A_sA_t\}=A_{st}$ for all $s,t\in G$ (see [@fd2 §VIII.2.8]). We will often write $a_{s}$ for an element of $A_{s}$; that is, $a_{s}\in {{\mathscr{A}}}$ and $p(a_{s})=s$.
We do make one deviation from the groupoid treatment when building the associated $C^{*}$-algebra, $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. In order that we can easily obtain the usual group $C^{*}$-algebra construction as well as the usual crossed-product construction as special cases, it is convenient to add the modular function, $\Delta$, on $G$ to the definition of the involution on $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$: $$f^{*}(s)=\Delta(s)^{-1}f(s^{-1})^{*}$$ (see [@fd2 §VIII.5.6]). Then the somewhat unsatisfactory $\|\cdot\|_{I}$ reduces to the normal analog of the $L^{1}$-norm: $$\|f\|_{1}:=\int_{G}\|f(s)\|\,ds,$$ and the universal norm on $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ is given as the supremum over $\|\cdot\|_{1}$-decreasing representations. As we shall see shortly (see Remark \[rem-modular-differences\]), the isomorphism class of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ is the same as that obtained using the definition of the involution given for groupoids where no modular function is available.
Assuming $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is a Fell bundle over a group, a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(B)$ is just a map with the obvious algebraic properties. We call $\pi$ *nondegenerate* if $$\operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}\{\pi(A_{e})B\}=B.$$ The next lemma shows that ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ comes with a canonical nondegenerate strictly continuous embedding $\iota:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$. Then Lemma \[bundle map\] shows that the pair $(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}),\iota)$ is in fact universal for strictly continuous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphisms of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ into multiplier algebras.
\[key\] Let $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ be a separable Fell bundle over a locally compact group $G$. There exists a strictly continuous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism $\iota: {{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$ such that for $a_s\in
A_s$ and $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, we have $\iota(a_s)f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, with $$\label{iota}
(\iota(a_s)f)(t) = a_s f(s{^{-1}}t).$$
For each $a_s\in A_s$, clearly defines a linear map $\iota(a_s)$ of $\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ into itself. Here we will view $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ as a dense subspace of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ viewed as a Hilbert module over itself. Then the inner product $\rip< f, g>
=f^{*}*g$ is $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$-valued on $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. It is easy to check that $\iota(a_{s})\iota(a_{t})=\iota(a_{s}a_{t})$, and a straightforward computation shows that $$\label{eq:1}
\brip< \iota(a_{s})f,g> = \brip< f,\iota(a_{s}^{*})g>$$ (a similar, but more involved computation is given in detail in the proof of Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\]). Since $\|a_{s}\|^{2}1_{A_{e}}-a_{s}^{*}a_{s}\ge 0$ in ${\tilde A}_{e}$, there is a $b_{e}\in {\tilde A}_{e}$ such that $\|a_{s}\|^{2}1_{A_{e}}-a_{s}^{*}a_{s} = b_{e}^{*}b_{e}$. Then, since makes sense and $\iota$ is multiplicative for elements of ${\tilde A}_{e}$, and since also holds for $b_e\in{\tilde A}_{e}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|a_{s}\|^{2}\brip< f,f> - \brip< \iota(a_{s})f,\iota(a_{s})f > &=
\brip<
\iota(\|a_{s}\|^{2}1_{A_{e}} -a_{s}^{*}a_{s})f,f> \\
&= \brip< \iota(b_{e})f,\iota(b_{e})f> \ge 0
\end{aligned}$$ for all $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. It follows that $\iota(a_{s})$ is bounded and extends to a bounded operator on $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ with adjoint $\iota(a_{s}^{*})$. It is routine to verify that the resulting map $\iota:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to
M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$ is a $*$-homomorphism.
To see that $\iota$ is nondegenerate, first note that $A_{s}$ is an $A_{e}$–$A_{e}$-imprimitivity bimodule. Thus if ${\{\,a_{i}\,\}}_{i\in I}$ is an approximate identity in $A_{e}$, then $a_{i}a_{s}\to a_{s}$ for any $a_{s}\in A_{s}$. Then a messy compactness argument similar to that given in the proof of Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\] shows that $\iota(a_{i})f\to f$ in the inductive limit topology on $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ for any $f\in \sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. Since convergence in the inductive limit topology implies convergence in the $C^{*}$-norm, this establishes nondegeneracy.
It only remains to prove strict continuity. Our separability assumptions on $p: {{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ allow us to invoke [@fd1 Proposition II.13.21] to see that ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is second countable. Thus, it suffices to show that if ${\{\,a_{s_n}\,\}}$ is a sequence in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ converging to $a_s$, then $\iota(a_{s_n})\to
\iota(a_s)$ strictly.
The convergent sequence ${\{\,a_{s_n}\,\}}$ must lie in a norm-bounded subset of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, so the image $(\iota(a_{s_n}))$ is a bounded sequence in $M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$ (because $\|\iota(a_s)\|\leq \|a_s\|$). Thus, it suffices to show that $\iota(a_{s_n})\to \iota(a_s)$ $*$-strongly; and since $a_{s_n}^*\to a_s^*$ and $\iota$ is $*$-preserving, it suffices to show strong convergence. Finally, since ${\{\,\iota(a_{s_n})\,\}}$ is bounded, it suffices to show that $\iota(a_{s_n})f\to \iota(a_s)f$ in the inductive limit topology, for each $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.
Suppose not; so there is $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ such that $\iota(a_{s_n})f$ does not converge to $\iota(a_s)f$ in the inductive limit topology. Note that since $s_n\to s$ in $G$, we can find a compact set $K\subseteq G$ such that the supports of $\iota(a_s)f$ and all the $\iota(a_{s_n})f$ are contained in $K$, so it must be that the convergence is not uniform on $K$. So, passing to a subsequence and relabeling, we can find ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $t_n\to t$ in $K$ such that for all $n$, $$\| \iota(a_{s_n})f(t_n) - \iota(a_s)f(t_n) \| \geq {\varepsilon}.$$ But by joint continuity of multiplication in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, we have $$\iota(a_{s_n})f(t) = a_{s_n}f(s_n{^{-1}}t) \to a_s f(s{^{-1}}t) =
\iota(a_s)f(t)$$ in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$. Since this implies that the norm of the difference goes to zero, we have a contradiction.
\[bundle map\] Let $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ be as in Lemma \[key\]. If $B$ is a $C^*$-algebra and $\pi_0:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(B)$ is a strictly continuous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism, then there is a unique nondegenerate homomorphism $\pi:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(B)$, called the *integrated form* of $\pi_0$, such that $\pi\circ\iota = \pi_0$. Moreover, $$\label{int}
\pi(f)=\int_G \pi_0(f(s))\,ds
\quad\text{for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.}$$
Conversely, every nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism of $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ is the integrated form of some such $\pi_0$.
Note that the integral in makes sense since $\pi_0\circ
f$ is strictly continuous so that we can apply, for example, [@tfb Lemma C.11].
It is straightforward to check that defines a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(B)$.
To see that $\pi$ is nondegenerate, we need to see that $$\operatorname*{span}{\{\,\pi(f)b:\text{$f\in\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $b\in B$}\,\}}$$ is dense in $B$. To this end, fix $a\in A_{e}$ and choose $f\in\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ such that $f(e)=a$. Let ${\{\,\phi_{k}\,\}}$ be a sequence in $C_{c}^{+}(G)$ with integral one whose supports shrink to the identity. Let $f_{k}(s)=\phi_{k}(s)f(s)$. Then it is not hard to see that $\pi(f_{k})b\to \pi_{0}(a)b$. Therefore, the nondegeneracy of $\pi$ follows from that of $\pi_{0}$.
If $L:B\to B(\mathcal{H})$ is a faithful representation, then $L\circ \pi$ is a $\|\cdot\|_{1}$-decreasing representation of $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. By the definition of the universal norm, $$\|L\circ \pi(f)\|\le\|f\|.$$ Since the extension of $L$ to $M(B)$ is isometric, $\|\pi(f)\|\le
\|f\|$. Therefore, $\pi$ extends to $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.
To prove uniqueness, we need to establish that $$\label{iint}
\int_{G}\iota\bigl(f(s)\bigr) \,ds=f,$$ where the equality in is meant in $M\bigl(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\bigr)$. Therefore, it suffices to see that $$\label{eq:2}
\Bigl(\int\iota\bigl(f(s)\bigr)\,ds\Bigr)
g=\int_{G}\iota\bigl(f(s)\bigr) g\,ds=f*g
\quad\text{for all $g\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.}$$ Thus we need to establish that the $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$-valued integral in the middle of takes values in (the image of) $\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ in $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and coincides with $f*g$. This can be verified almost exactly as in the proof of [@danacrossed Lemma 1.108].
Now, if $\rho: C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(B)$ is a homomorphism such that $\rho\circ\iota = \pi_0$, then by , for each $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(f) &= \rho\Bigl(\int_G \iota(f(s))\,ds \Bigr) = \int_G
\rho(\iota(f(s)))\,ds = \int_G \pi_0(f(s))\,ds = \pi(f).
\end{aligned}$$
For the converse, let $\pi: C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(B)$ be a nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism. By nondegeneracy, $\pi$ extends to a strictly continuous homomorphism of $M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$, so that $\pi\circ\iota$ is a strictly continous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ whose integrated form, by uniqueness, is $\pi$.
\[rem-modular-differences\] If $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is a Fell bundle over a locally compact *group*, then we could just as well have formed the $C^{*}$-algebra ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ by treating $G$ as a groupoid. (That is, by leaving the modular function off the involution.) To see that ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ and ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ are naturally isomorphic, we first observe that Lemma \[key\] and Lemma \[bundle map\] remain valid for ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ using virtually the same proofs; the only difference is that Equations (\[iota\]) and (\[int\]) must be modified to deal with the lack of modular function in the involution: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:7}
\bigl(\iota'(a_{s})f\bigr)(t)=\Delta(s)^{{\frac12}}a_{s}f(s^{-1}t)
\tag*{$(\ref{iota})'$} \quad\text{and} \\
\pi(f)=\int_{G}\pi_{0}'\bigl(f(s)\bigr) \Delta(s)^{-{\frac12}}
\,ds.\tag*{$(\ref{int})'$}\label{eq:10}
\end{gathered}$$ Then notice that there is a $*$-isomorphism $\phi:{\Gamma_{c}^{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\to{\sa_{c}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ given by $\phi(f)(s)=\Delta(s)^{-{\frac12}}f(s)$. We just need to see that $\phi$ is isometric with respect to the universal norm $\|\cdot\|_{\text{Gr}}$ on ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ and $\|\cdot\|$ on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$. To verify this, let $M$ be a faithful representation of ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$. Then $M$ is the integrated form of $M_{0}:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to B({\mathcal H})$. But if $L$ is the representation of ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ which is the integrated form of $M_{0}$, then $$\|\phi(f)\|=\|M(\phi(f))\|=\|L(f)\|\le\|f\|_{\text{Gr}}.$$ On the other hand, if $L$ is a faithful representation of ${C^{*}_{\operatorname{Gr}}(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ which is the integrated form of $L_{0}$, then we can let $M$ be the representation of ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}$ that is integrated up from $L_{0}$. Then $$\|\phi(f)\|\ge \|M(\phi(f))\|=\|L(f)\|=\|f\|_{\text{Gr}}.$$ Thus $\phi$ is isometric.
\[rem-more-modular\] The same comments about modular functions apply to the standard group $C^{*}$-algebra and crossed product constructions; that is, one can omit the modular function in the definition of the involution and arrive at isomorphic algebras. However, you have pay for the luxury of modular-free involutions by adding the modular function to the integrated form of any representation as in \[eq:10\].
\[prop-Fell-multipliers\] Let $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal G}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a locally compact groupoid ${\mathcal G}$, and let ${\mathsf{X}}_{0}$ be a dense subspace of a right Hilbert $A$-module ${\mathsf{X}}$. Suppose that $L$ is a algebra homomorphism of $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ into the linear operators, $\operatorname{Lin}({\mathsf{X}}_{0})$, on ${\mathsf{X}}_{0}$ such that for all $x,y\in{\mathsf{X}}_{0}$
1. $\brip A< L(f)x,y>=\brip A< x,L(f^{*})y>$,
2. $f\mapsto \brip A< L(f) x,y>$ is continuous in the inductive limit topology, and
3. $\operatorname*{span}{\{\,L(f)x:\text{$f\in\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and
$x\in{\mathsf{X}}_{0}$}\,\}}$ is dense in ${\mathsf{X}}$.
Then $L$ is bounded with respect to the universal $C^*$-norm on $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and extends to a nondegenerate homomorphism $L:\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\to \mathcal{L}({\mathsf{X}})$.
This proposition is a consequence of the disintegration result [@mw:fell Theorem 4.13] for Fell bundles. To see this, let $\rho$ be a state on $A$. Then $$\ipr(x|y):= \rho\bigl(\rip A<y,x>\bigr)$$ is a pre-inner product on ${\mathsf{X}}_{0}$. After modding out by the subspace $\mathcal{N}$ of vectors of length zero, we get a pre-Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}_{0}:={\mathsf{X}}_{0}/\mathcal{N}$ which we view as a subspace of its completion ${\mathcal H}$. Since $$\ipr(L(f)x|{L(f)x})=\ipr(x|{L(f^{*}*f)x}),$$ it follows from the Cauchy Schwartz inequality that $L(f)$ maps $\mathcal{N}$ to itself. Therefore $L(f)$ defines a linear operator $L^{\rho}(f)$ on ${\mathcal H}_{0}$ via $L^{\rho}(f)(x+\mathcal{N})=L(f)x+\mathcal{N}$. It is clear that $L^{\rho}$ defines a pre-representation of ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ on ${\mathcal H}_{0}$ as in [@mw:fell Definition 4.1]. Then [@mw:fell Theorem 4.13] implies that $$\ipr(L(f)x|{L(f)x})\le \|f\|^{2}\ipr(x|x).$$ Since this holds for all states $\rho$, we have $\|L(f)\|\le\|f\|$. The rest is straightforward.
\[extends\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a groupoid ${\mathcal G}$. Every $*$-homomorphism from $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}})$ into a $C^*$-algebra which is continuous from the inductive limit topology into the norm topology is bounded for the universal norm, and hence has a unique extension to $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}})$.
Suppose that $\pi:\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}})\to B$ is such a homomorphism, and that $\rho: B\to B({\mathcal H})$ is a faithful representation of $B$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$. Let $${\mathcal H}_1 = \operatorname*{\overline{\operatorname*{span}}}{\{\, \rho\circ\pi(f)\xi : f\in \sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}),
\xi\in{\mathcal H}\,\}}.$$ Then $f\mapsto \rho\circ\pi(f)|_{{\mathcal H}_1}$ is a representation of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ on ${\mathcal H}_1$ in the sense of [@mw:fell Definition 4.7], since the operator norm topology is stronger than the weak operator topology. By [@mw:fell Remark 4.14], $$\|\pi(f)\| = \| \rho\circ\pi(f) \| = \| \rho\circ\pi(f)|_{{\mathcal H}_1} \|
\leq \| f \|\quad\text{for all $f\in \sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}})$.}\qed$$
Product bundles {#product bundles}
===============
If $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is a Fell bundle over a locally compact group $G$, then the Cartesian product, ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times G$, carries a natural Fell bundle structure over $G\times G$. The bundle projection $q:{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G\to
G\times G$ is given by $q(a,t)=(p(a),t)$ and the multiplication and involution are given by $$(a_s,t)(b_r,u)=(a_sb_r,tu) \quad\text{and}\quad
(a_s,t)^*=(a_s^*,t{^{-1}}).$$ (Indeed, the map $(a,t)\mapsto (a,(p(a),t))$ is a bijection of ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times
G$ onto the pull-back Fell bundle $\phi^{*}{{\mathscr{A}}}$ — see Lemma \[lem-pull-back\] — where $\phi:G\times G\to G$ is the projection onto the first factor.)
Every section $h\in \sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$ is of the form $$h(s,t)=(h_1(s,t),t),$$ where $h_1\in C_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ satisfies $h_1(s,t)\in A_s$ for $s,t\in G$. For $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$ we let $f\boxtimes g$ denote the element of $\sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$ defined by $$(f\boxtimes g)(s,t)=(f(s)g(t),t).$$
\[basic dense\] With the above notation, $\operatorname*{span}{\{\,f\boxtimes g:\text{$f\in
\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$}\,\}}$ is inductive-limit dense in $\sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$.
Put $ {\mathcal{S}}={\{\,f\boxtimes g:f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}),g\in C_c(G)\,\}}$. Then for each $(s,t)\in G\times G$, ${\{\,h(s,t):h\in{\mathcal{S}}\,\}}$ is easily seen to be dense in $A_s\times \{t\}$, which is the fibre of the bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times G$ over $(s,t)$. Furthermore if $u,v\in C_{c}(G)$ and $u{\otimes}v$ is the function in $C_{c}(G\times G)$ given by $u{\otimes}v(s,t)=u(s)v(t)$, then $(u{\otimes}v)h\in{\mathcal{S}}$ for all $u,v\in C_{c}(G)$ and $h\in{\mathcal{S}}$. Then, because the $u{\otimes}v$’s span an inductive-limit dense subspace of $C_{c}(G\times G)$, a straightforward partition of unity argument implies that $\operatorname*{span}{\mathcal{S}}$ is dense as required (see [@fd1 Proposition II.14.6 and its remark] or [@danacrossed Proposition C.24]).
For the study of the coaction associated to a Fell bundle over a group (specifically, in Section \[coaction crossed product\]) we will need the following slight variation on Lemma \[basic dense\]:
\[dense\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ be a Fell bundle. For $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in
C_c(G)$ define $f\bullet g\in C_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ by $$f\bullet g(s,t)=f(s)g(s{^{-1}}t),$$ and define $$f\star g(s,t)=(f\bullet g(s,t),t).$$ Then $f\star g\in \sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$, and such sections have inductive-limit-dense span.
It is obvious that $f\star g\in \sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$. For the second statement, let $${\mathcal{S}}=\operatorname*{span}\{\,f\star g:\text{$f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in
C_c(G)$}\,\}.$$ To show that ${\mathcal{S}}$ is dense, we want to invoke a partition of unity argument exactly as in Lemma \[basic dense\]; thus it suffices to establish the following two assertions:
1. For each $(s,t)\in G\times G$, the set ${\{\,h(s,t):h\in {\mathcal{S}}\,\}}$ is dense in $A_s\times \{t\}$;
2. For each $\kappa,\eta\in C_c(G)$ and $h\in {\mathcal{S}}$ we have $(\kappa\bullet \eta)h\in {\mathcal{S}}$, where similarly to the above we define $ \kappa\bullet \eta(s,t)=\kappa(s)\eta(s{^{-1}}t)$.
(Note that (ii) suffices since the set of functions of the form $\kappa\bullet \eta$ have dense span in $C_c(G\times G)$ for the inductive limit topology, because this set is the image of the set ${\{\,u\otimes v:u,v\in C_c(G)\,\}}$ under the linear homeomorphism $\Psi:C_c(G\times G)\to C_c(G\times G)$ defined by $$\Psi({\phi})(s,t)={\phi}(s,s{^{-1}}t),$$ and the functions $u\otimes v$ have dense span in the inductive limit topology.)
For (i), if $a_s\in A_s$ we can choose $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in
C_c(G)$ such that $f(s)=a_s$ and $g(s{^{-1}}t)=1$, and then $$f\star g(s,t)=(a_s,t).$$ For (ii), just observe that $$(\kappa\bullet \eta)(f\star g)=(\kappa f)\star (\eta g).{\relax}$$
Coactions from Fell bundles {#exist}
===========================
As mentioned in the introduction, if $\alpha$ is an action of a locally compact group $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra $B$, then ${{\mathscr{A}}}=B\times G$ has a natural Fell-bundle structure such that $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\cong B\rtimes_{\alpha}G$. Then the dual coaction on $B\rtimes_{\alpha}G$ gives us a coaction on $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. In this section, we show that if $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is any Fell bundle, then $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ admits a natural coaction $\delta$ generalizing the dual coaction construction just described.
\[exists\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a group $G$. There is a unique coaction ${\delta}$ of $G$ on $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ such that $$\label{coaction}
{\delta}(\iota(a_s))=\iota(a_s)\otimes s\quad\text{for $ a_s\in A_s$ and $
s\in G$.}$$
For the proof we will make explicit the canonical map $u: G\to
M(C^*(G))$. Consider the map ${\delta}_0: {{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
C^*(G))$ defined by ${\delta}_0(a_s) = \iota(a_s)\otimes u(s)$. This clearly gives a $*$-homomorphism of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, and nondegeneracy of ${\delta}_0$ follows directly from nondegeneracy of $\iota$. That ${\delta}_0$ is strictly continuous follows from strict continuity of $\iota:
{{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}))$ and $u: G\to M(C^*(G))$. To see this, let $a_{s_i}\to a_s$ in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, and let $x\in \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
C^*(G)$. Since $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ embeds nondegenerately in $M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G))$ via $b\mapsto b\otimes 1$, by the Hewitt-Cohen factorization theorem we can write $x=(b\otimes 1)y$ for some $b\in \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $y\in \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
C^*(G)$. Since $\iota(a_{s_i})b\to \iota(a_s)b$ in norm, we have $\iota(a_{s_i})b\otimes 1\to \iota(a_s)b\otimes 1$ in norm in $M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G))$. Since the map $u:G\to M(C^*(G))$ is strictly continuous, and since $a_{s_i}\to a_s$ implies $s_i\to s$ in $G$, we have $(1\otimes u(s_i))y\to (1\otimes u(s))y$ in norm in $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G)$. Since multiplication is norm continuous, $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl(\iota(a_{s_i})\otimes u(s_i)\bigr)x
&=\bigl(\iota(a_{s_i})\otimes u(s_i)\bigr)(b\otimes 1)y
=\bigl(\iota(a_{s_i})b\otimes 1\bigr) \bigl(1\otimes u(s_i)\bigr)y
\\
\intertext{converges in norm to} & \bigl(\iota(a_s)b\otimes
1\bigr) \bigl(1\otimes u(s)\bigr)y =\bigl(\iota(a_s)\otimes
u(s)\bigr)x.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus Lemma \[bundle map\] gives a unique nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism ${\delta}: C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
C^*(G))$ such that ${\delta}\circ\iota = {\delta}_0$, and by we have $${\delta}(f) = \int_G \iota(f(s))\otimes u(s) \,ds \quad\text{for $f\in
\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.}$$
To see that ${\delta}$ is injective, let $1_G:G\to {\mathbb C}$ be the constant function with value $1$, and regard $1_G$ as an element of the Fourier-Stieltjes algebra $B(G)=C^*(G)^*$. Then for $f\in
\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ equation and strict continuity of the slice map give $$({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes 1_G)({\delta}(f)) =\int ({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes 1_G)(\iota(f(s))\otimes
u(s))\,ds =\int \iota(f(s))\,ds =f.$$ Thus $({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes 1_G)\circ {\delta}={\text{\textup{id}}}_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}$ by continuity and density, so ${\delta}$ is injective.
Now if $a_s\in A_s$, then $$\begin{gathered}
({\delta}\otimes {\text{\textup{id}}})\circ{\delta}_0(a_s)) =({\delta}\otimes {\text{\textup{id}}})(\iota(a_s)\otimes
u(s))
=\iota(a_s)\otimes u(s)\otimes u(s)\\
=({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes {\delta}_G)(\iota(a_s)\otimes u(s)) =({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes {\delta}_G)\circ
{\delta}_0(a_s).
\end{gathered}$$ Thus the coaction identity follows from uniqueness in Lemma \[bundle map\] together with the usual manipulations with vector valued integrals as justified, for example, in [@tfb Lemma C.11].
Finally, for the nondegeneracy condition , we elaborate on the argument sketched in the paragraph preceding [@exelng Lemma 1.3]. Consider the map ${\zeta}_0: {{\mathscr{A}}}\times G\to
M({\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\otimes C^*(G))$ defined by ${\zeta}_0(a_s,t) = \iota(a_s)\otimes
u(t)$, where ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times G$ is the Fell bundle over $G\times G$ defined in Section \[product bundles\]. Arguing as for ${\delta}_0$ shows that ${\zeta}_0$ is a strictly continuous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism, and so Lemma \[bundle map\] gives a nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism ${\zeta}: C^*(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)\to
M(C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G))$ such that ${\zeta}\circ\iota = {\zeta}_0$.
In particular, using and we have, for $f\in
\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\zeta}(f\boxtimes g)
&= \int_{G\times G} {\zeta}_0\bigl((f\boxtimes g)(s,t)\bigr)\,d(s,t)\\
&= \int_G \int_G {\zeta}_0(f(s)g(t),t) \,ds\,dt\\
&= \int_G \iota(f(s))\,ds \otimes \int_G g(t)u(t)\,dt\\
&= f\otimes g,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies that ${\zeta}$ maps $C^*(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$ onto (and into) $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G)$.
Similarly, if $f\star g$ is the element of $\sa_c(G\times
G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$ defined in Lemma \[dense\], then for $a\otimes
b\in C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\zeta}(f\star g)(a\otimes b)
&= \int_{G\times G} \zeta_0(f\star g)(s,t)(a\otimes b)\,d(s,t)\\
&= \int_G\int_G \zeta_0(f(s)g(s{^{-1}}t),t)(a\otimes b)\,dt\,ds\\
&= \int_G\int_G \iota(f(s))a \otimes g(s{^{-1}}t)u(t)b \,dt\,ds\\
\intertext{which, after $t\mapsto st$, is}
&= \int_G\int_G \iota(f(s))a \otimes g(t)u(st)b\,dt\,ds\\
&= \int_G\int_G \bigl(\iota(f(s))\otimes u(s)\bigr)
\bigl(a\otimes g(t)u(t)b\bigr)\,dt\,ds\\
&= \Bigl(\int_G {\delta}_0(f(s))\,ds\Bigr)
\Bigl(\int_G 1\otimes g(t)u(t)\,dt\Bigr)(a\otimes b)\\
&={\delta}(f)(1\otimes g)(a\otimes b).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the multiplier ${\delta}(f)(1\otimes g)$ of $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
C^*(G)$ coincides with the image $\zeta(f\star g)$, and the set of sections of the form $f\star g$ was shown in Lemma \[dense\] to have dense span in $\sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$, so the images ${\zeta}(f\star g)$ have dense span in $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*(G)$. It follows that $\delta$ satisfies the nondegeneracy condition .
It is clear from the above proof that saturation of the Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is not necessary for Proposition \[exists\].
Not every coaction is isomorphic to one constructed from a Fell bundle as in Proposition \[exists\] [@lprs Example 2.3(6)]. For *abelian* $G$, in [@exelspectral Theorem 11.14] Exel effectively characterizes which coactions do arise from Fell bundles (modulo the correspondence between coactions of $G$ and actions of the Pontryagin dual group $\widehat G$).
\[bundle covariant\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a group $G$, and let ${\delta}$ be the coaction of $G$ on $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ described in Proposition \[exists\]. Further let $\pi_0: {{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(B)$ be a strictly continuous nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism, with integrated form $\pi: C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(B)$, and let $\mu: C_0(G)\to M(B)$ be a nondegenerate homomorphism. Then the pair $(\pi,{\mu})$ is a covariant homomorphism of $(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}),G,{\delta})$ if and only if $$\label{bundle covariance condition}
\pi_0(a_s){\mu}(f)={\mu}\circ {\textup{lt}}_s(f)\pi_0(a_s)
\quad\text{for $s\in G$, $a_s\in A_s$ and $f\in C_0(G)$,}$$ where ${\textup{lt}}$ is the action of $G$ on $C_0(G)$ by left translation: ${\textup{lt}}_s(f)(t)=f(s{^{-1}}t)$.
First assume that $(\pi,{\mu})$ is covariant. Because $B(G)\cap
C_0(G)$ is dense in $C_0(G)$, it suffices to verify for $f\in B(G)$. So fix $f\in B(G)$, and put $g={\textup{lt}}_s(f)\in B(G)$. By [@enchilada Proposition A.34], we have $$({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}{\otimes}g)\bigl((\mu{\otimes}{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_{G})\bigr) =\mu(g)$$ where ${\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes g:M(C_0(G)\otimes C^*(G))\to M(C_0(G))$ denotes the slice map. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mu}\circ{\textup{lt}}_s(f)\pi_0(a_s) &={\mu}(g)\pi_0(a_s)\\
&=({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes
g)\bigl(({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr)\pi_0(a_s) \\
\intertext{which, by \cite[Lemma~A.30]{enchilada}, is}
&=({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes g)\bigl(({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)(\pi(\iota(a_s))
\otimes 1)\bigr)
\\
\intertext{which, by the covariance condition \eqref{covariant},
is} &=({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes
g)\bigl((\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})({\delta}(\iota(a_s)))({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr)
\\
&=({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes g)\bigl((\pi(\iota(a_s))\otimes
u(s))({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr) \\
&=({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes g)\bigl((\pi_0(a_s)\otimes
1)({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\bigl((1\otimes u(s))w_G\bigr)\bigr)
\\
\intertext{which, after applying \cite[Lemma~A.30]{enchilada} and
writing $({\textup{lt}}_{s{^{-1}}}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)$ for the multiplier
$r\mapsto u(sr)$, is} &=\pi_0(a_s)({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes
g)\bigl(({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\bigl(({\textup{lt}}_{s{^{-1}}}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr)\bigr)
\\
\intertext{which, since $(\mu{\otimes}{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ ({\textup{lt}}_{s^{-1}}{\otimes}{\text{\textup{id}}}) = \mu\circ{\textup{lt}}_{s^{-1}}{\otimes}{\text{\textup{id}}}$ as a nondegenerate
homomorphism of $C_{0}(G){\otimes}C^{*}(G)$ into $M(B){\otimes}C^{*}(G)\subseteq M(B{\otimes}C^{*}(G))$, is}
&=\pi_0(a_s)({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes
g)\bigl(({\mu}\circ{\textup{lt}}_{s{^{-1}}}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr)
\\
\intertext{ which, by \cite[Proposition~A.34]{enchilada}, is }
&=\pi_0(a_s){\mu}\circ{\textup{lt}}_{s{^{-1}}}(g) \\
&=\pi_0(a_s){\mu}(f).
\end{aligned}$$
Conversely, the above computation can be rearranged to show that, if holds, then $$({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes g)\bigl(({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)(\pi(\iota(a_s)) \otimes
1)\bigr) = ({\text{\textup{id}}}_{B}\otimes
g)\bigl((\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})({\delta}(\iota(a_s)))({\mu}\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(w_G)\bigr)$$ for every $g\in B(G)$. Since slicing by elements of $B(G)$ separates points in $M({\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\otimes C^*(G))$, it follows that the covariance condition holds for every $a$ of the form $\iota(a_s)$, which then implies (by Lemma \[bundle map\]) that it holds for every element of $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$.
We include the following proposition since it might be useful elsewhere, although we will not need it in the present paper.
If $\alpha$ is an action of a group $G$ on a $C^*$-algebra $B$, and ${{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ is the associated semidirect-product Fell bundle, then the isomorphism $$B\rtimes_\alpha G \cong C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$$ carries the dual coaction $\hat\alpha$ to the coaction $\delta$ of $G$ on $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ described in Proposition \[exists\].
We recall that the isomorphism $\theta: B\rtimes_\alpha G\to
C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ is characterized on generators by $$\theta(i_B(b)i_G(f)) = \int_G f(s) \iota(b,s)\,ds \quad\text{for
$b\in B$ and $ f\in C_c(G)$}$$ (which follows from [@fd2 §VIII.5.7]). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\circ\theta(i_B(b)i_G(f))
&= \int_G f(s) \delta(\iota(b,s))\,ds\\
&= \int_G f(s) \iota(b,s)\otimes s\,ds\\
&= \int_G f(s) (\theta\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})(i_B(b)i_G(s)\otimes s)\,ds\\
&= \int_G f(s) (\theta\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ\hat\alpha(i_B(b)i_G(s))\,ds\\
&= (\theta\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ\hat\alpha(i_B(b)i_G(f)).{\relax}\end{aligned}$$
Transformation bundles {#transformation bundles}
======================
Having defined a coaction $\delta$ on the $C^{*}$-algebra $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ of a Fell bundle over a group, an obvious next step is to consider the corresponding crossed product. In the next section, we will show that $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G$ is isomorphic to the $C^{*}$-algebra of a Fell bundle over a groupoid. The purpose of this short section is to describe that groupoid and Fell bundle.
Let $G$ be a locally compact group, and let $G\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G$ denote the transformation groupoid associated to the action ${\textup{lt}}$ of $G$ on itself by left translation, with multiplication and inverse $$(s,tr)(t,r)=(st,r) \quad\text{and}\quad (s,t){^{-1}}= (s{^{-1}},st) \quad
\text{for $s,t,r\in G$.}$$ Note that the unit space is $(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)^0=\{e\}\times G$, and the range and source maps are given by $$r(s,t)=(e,st)\quad\text{and}\quad s(s,t)=(e,t).$$ It it not hard to check that we get a left Haar system on $G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$ via $$\int_{G\times_{\textup{lt}}G} f(u,v)\,d{\lambda}^{r(s,t)}(u,v) = \int_G f(u,u{^{-1}}st)\,du \quad\text{for $f\in C_c(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$.}$$
Now let ${{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ be a Fell bundle over the locally compact group $G$. The map $\phi:(s,t)\mapsto s$ is a groupoid homomorphism of $G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$ onto the group $G$. The pull-back Fell bundle $\phi^{*}{{\mathscr{A}}}$ (see Lemma \[lem-pull-back\]) will be called the *transformation Fell bundle* ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G\to G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}
G$. We will use the bijection $(a_s,(s,t))\mapsto (a_s,t)$ to identify the total space of ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$ with the Cartesian product ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times G$. Then the multiplication is $$(a_s,tr)(b_t,r)=(a_sb_t,r)\quad\text{for $s,t,r\in G$, $a_s\in A_s$
and $b_t\in A_t$,}$$ and the involution is $$(a_s,t)^*=(a_s^*,st).$$ For future reference, the convolution in $\sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(h*k)(s,t) &=\int_G h(u,u{^{-1}}st)k(u{^{-1}}s,t)\,du\label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ and the involution by $$h^*(s,t) =h\bigl((s,t){^{-1}}\bigr)^* =h(s{^{-1}},st)^*.\label{eq:4}$$
Note that every $h\in\sa_{c}({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$ is of the form $$h(s,t)=\bigl(h_{1}(s,t),t\bigr)$$ for a continuous function $h_{1}:{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}\to{{\mathscr{A}}}$ with $h_1(s,t)\in A_{s}$.
Coaction crossed product {#coaction crossed product}
========================
Our purpose in this section is to prove the following:
\[coaction crossed product isomorphism\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a group $G$, and let ${\delta}$ be the associated coaction on $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ described in Proposition \[exists\]. If $q:{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}\to{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}$ is the transformation Fell bundle constructed in the preceding section, then there is an isomorphism $${\theta}:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\to \cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$$ such that $$\label{theta}
{\theta}\bigl(j_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}(f)j_{G}(g)\bigr)=({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g
\quad\text{for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $ g\in C_c(G)$,}$$ where $({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\in \sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,
{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ is defined by $(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g)(s,t) =
({\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}f(s)g(t),t)$.
For $G$ discrete, this is a special case of [@eq:full Corollary 2.8].
We will obtain $\theta$ as the integrated form of a covariant homomorphism $({\theta}_{{\mathscr{A}}},{\theta}_G)$ of $(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}),G,{\delta})$ into $M(\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G))$ such that $$\label{theta2}
{\theta}_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f){\theta}_G(g)=({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\in \sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,
{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$$ for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$. It will follow that ${\theta}={\theta}_{{\mathscr{A}}}\rtimes{\theta}_G$ maps $A\rtimes_{\delta}G$ into $C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$, satisfies , and is surjective because ${\{\,f\boxtimes g: f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}),g\in C_c(G)\,\}}$ has inductive-limit-dense span in $\sa_c(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}
G)$. We will show that $\theta$ is injective by finding a representation $\Pi$ of $C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$ such that $\Pi\circ\theta$ is a faithful regular representation of $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G$.
We will obtain ${\theta}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to
M\bigl(\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)\bigr)$ as the integrated form of a $*$-homomorphism ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to
M\bigl(\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)\bigr)$ (as in Lemma \[bundle map\]). Given $a_{s}\in A_{s}$, we define an operator ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)$ on $\sa_{c}(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$ by[^8] $$\label{eq:5}
({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h)(t,r) =\bigl(a_sh_1(s{^{-1}}t,r){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},r\bigr).$$ Then it is straightforward to verify that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s){{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_t) = {{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s a_t)$. Moreover, if $h,k\in \sa_c(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\brip< &{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h,k> (t,r)
= \bigl( ({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h)^**k \bigr)(t,r)\\
\intertext{which, in view of the formula for convolution given by
\eqref{eq:3}, is}
&= \int_G ({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h)^*(u,u{^{-1}}tr)\, k(u{^{-1}}t,r)\,du\\
\intertext{which, using the formula for the involution given by
\eqref{eq:4}, is}
&= \int_G ({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h)(u{^{-1}},tr)^*\, k(u{^{-1}}t,r)\, du\\
&= \int_G \bigl( a_s h_1(s{^{-1}}u{^{-1}},tr){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},tr \bigr)^*
\, \bigl( k_1(u{^{-1}}t,r),r \bigr)\, du\\
&= \int_G \bigl( h_1(s{^{-1}}u{^{-1}},tr)^* a_s^*{\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}, u{^{-1}}tr \bigr)\,
\bigl( k_1(u{^{-1}}t,r),r \bigr)\, du\\
&= \int_G \bigl( h_1(s{^{-1}}u{^{-1}},tr)^* a_s^* k_1(u{^{-1}}t,r),
r\bigr)\, {\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}du\\
\intertext{which, after sending $u\mapsto us^{-1}$, is} &= \int_G
\bigl( h_1(u{^{-1}},tr)^* a_s^* k_1(su{^{-1}}t,r),r
\bigr)\,{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}du\\
&= \int_G \bigl( h_1(u{^{-1}},tr)^*, u{^{-1}}tr\bigr)
\bigl( a_s^*k_1(su{^{-1}}t,r){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}},r\bigr)\,du\\
&= \int_G \bigl(h_1(u{^{-1}},tr),tr\bigr)^*
\bigl(a_s^*k_1(su{^{-1}}t,r){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}},r\bigr)\,du\\
&= \int_G h(u{^{-1}},tr)^* ({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s^*)k)(u{^{-1}}t,r)\, du\\
&= \int_G h^*(u,u{^{-1}}tr) ({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s^*)k)(u{^{-1}}t,r)\, du\\
&= \bigl( h^**({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s^*)k)\bigr)(t,r)\\
&= \brip< h,{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s^*)k >(t,r).
\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $b_{e}\in{\tilde A}_{e}$ such that $\|a_{s}\|^{2}1_{A_{e}}-a_{s}^{*}a_{s}=b_{e}^{*}b_{e}$, then since ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ makes sense and is multiplicative on ${\tilde A}_{e}$, and since the preceding computation certainly holds for $b_{e}\in{\tilde A}_{e}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|a_{s}\|^{2}\brip< h,h> -\brip< {{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{s})h,{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{s})h> &=
\brip<
{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(\|a_{s}\|^{2}1_{A_{e}} - a_{s}^{*}a_{s})h,h> \\
&=\brip< {{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(b_{e})h,{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(b_{e})h> \ge 0
\end{aligned}$$ for all $h\in \sa_{c}(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$. Thus ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{s})$ extends to a bounded adjointable operator on $\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$ and we get a $*$-homomorphism ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to M(C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G))$.
We need to show that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ is strictly continuous and nondegenerate. For nondegeneracy, let $\{e_i\}$ be an approximate identity in $A_e$. It suffices to show that if $h\in \sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,
{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ then ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_i)h\to h$ in the inductive limit topology.[^9] Notice that $${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_i)h(r,t)=(e_ih_1(r,t),t).$$ Since each $A_{r}$ is an $A_{e}$–$A_{e}$-imprimitivity bimodule, $e_ih_{1}(r,t)\to h_{1}(r,t)$ for any $(r,t)\in{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}$. Fix ${\varepsilon}>0$. Since $a\mapsto \|a\|$ is continuous on ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, we can cover $\operatorname{supp}h_{1}$ with open sets $V_{1},\dots,V_{n}$ and find $a_{j}\in A_{e}$ such that $$\|a_{j}h_{1}(r,t)-h_{1}(r,t)\|<\frac{\varepsilon}3\quad\text{for all
$(r,t)\in V_{j}$.}$$ Let ${\{\,\phi_{j}\,\}}\subseteq C_{c}^{+}({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$ be such that $\operatorname{supp}\phi_{j}\subseteq V_{j}$ and
$\sum_{j}\phi_{j}(r,t)\leq1$ for all $(r,t)$, with equality for $(r,t)\in\operatorname{supp}h_{1}$. Define $a\in
C_{c}({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},A_{e})$ by $$a(r,t)=\sum_{j}\phi_{j}(r,t)a_{j}.$$ Then $$\|a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)-h_{1}(r,t)\|<\frac{\varepsilon}3\quad\text{for all $(r,t)$.}$$ Clearly, there is an $i_{0}$ such that $i\ge i_{0}$ implies that $$\|e_{i}a(r,t)-a(r,t)\|<\frac{\varepsilon}{3(\|h_{1}\|_{\infty}+1)}\quad\text{for
all $(r,t)$.}$$ Since $\|e_{i}\|\le1$ for all $i$, we see that $i\ge i_{0}$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\|{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_{i})&h(r,t)-h(r,t)\|= \|e_{i}h_{1}(r,t)-h_{1}(r,t)\| \\
&\le
\|e_{i}h_{1}(r,t)-e_{i}a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)\|+\|e_{1}a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)
- a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)\| \\
&\hskip1in +
\|a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)-h_{1}(r,t)\| \\
&\le 2 \|h_{1}(r,t)-a(r,t)h_{1}(r,t)\|
+\|e_{i}a(r,t)-a(r,t)\|\|h_{1}\|_{\infty} \\
&<\frac{\varepsilon}3+\frac{\varepsilon}3+\frac{\varepsilon}3={\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_i)h\to h$ uniformly, so since $\operatorname{supp}{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_i)h = \operatorname{supp}h$ for all $i$, we have ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(e_i)h\to h$ in the inductive limit topology, as desired.
Finally, for strict continuity we note that our separability assumption on $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to G$ guarantees that ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is second countable [@fd1 Proposition II.13.21]. Thus, it suffices to show that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ takes convergent sequences to strictly convergent sequences.
So suppose ${\{\,a_{i}\,\}}$ is a sequence converging to $a$ in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$. Let $s=p(a)$, and for each $i$, let $s_i=p(a_i)$; so $s_i\to s$ in $G$. Since ${\{\,a_{i}\,\}}$ must lie in a norm-bounded subset of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, the image ${\{\,{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{i})\,\}}$ is a bounded sequence in $M(\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G))$. Thus it suffices to show that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{i})\to{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a)$ $*$-strongly [@tfb Proposition C.7]. Since $a_{i}^{*}\to a^{*}$ and ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ is $*$-preserving, it suffices to show strong convergence. Since ${\{\,{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{i})\,\}}$ is bounded, it suffices to show that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{i})h\to {{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a)h$ in the inductive limit topology for each $h\in \sa_{c}(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$.
We can replace $\{a_i\}$ by a subsequence (keeping the same notation) such that the $s_i$’s lie in a fixed compact neighborhood of $s$. Then the supports of the ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_i)h$’s all lie in a fixed compact set, so it suffices to show that ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_i)h\to {{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a)h$ uniformly. If not, then there are $(r_{i},t_{i})$, all lying in a compact subset of ${G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}$, and an ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\label{eq:11}
\|{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{i})h(r_{i},t_{i})-{{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a)h(r_{i},t_{i})\|\ge{\varepsilon}.$$ Of course, we can pass to a subsequence, relabel, and assume that $(r_{i},t_{i})\to (r,t)$. But the left-hand side of equals $$\label{eq:12}
\|a_{i}h_{1}(s_{i}^{-1}r_{i},t_{i})-ah_{1}(s^{-1}r_{i},t_{i})\|.$$ Since $(a_{i},h_{1}(s_{i}^{-1}r_{i},t_{i}))$ and $(a,h_{1}(s^{-1}r_{i},t_{i}))$ both converge to $(a,h_{1}(s^{-1}r,t))$ in ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times {{\mathscr{A}}}$, and since multiplication is continuous from ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times{{\mathscr{A}}}\to {{\mathscr{A}}}$, it follows that $a_{i}h_{1}(s_{i}^{-1}r_{i},t_{i})-ah_{1}(s^{-1}r_{i},t_{i})$ tends to $0_{A_{r}}$ in ${{\mathscr{A}}}$. Therefore, tends to zero, and this contradicts . Thus ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ is strictly continuous.
Having dealt with ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$, we turn to the definition of ${\theta}_{G}$. For $f\in C_0(G)$ and $h\in \sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ define $$\label{eq:6}
({\theta}_G(f)h)(s,t)=(f(st)h_1(s,t),t).$$ We note that makes perfectly good sense for $f\in
C_{0}(G)^{\sim}$, and then ${\theta}_G(fg) = {\theta}_G(f){\theta}_G(g)$ for $f,g\in C_{0}(G)^{\sim}$. Another computation shows that $$\brip< {\theta}_{G}(f)h,k> = \brip< h,{\theta}_{G}({\overline}f)k>$$ for all such $f$. Writing $\|f\|_{\infty}^{2}-{\overline}f f = {\overline}g g$ for some $g\in C_{0}(G)^{\sim}$, we thus have $$\|f\|_{\infty}^{2}\brip <h,h> - \brip<
{\theta}_{G}(f)h,{\theta}_{G}(f)h> = \brip<
{\theta}_{G}(g)h,{\theta}_{G}(g)h> \ge 0$$ for all $h$. Therefore ${\theta}_{G}(f)$ is bounded and we get a $*$-homomorphism of $C_{0}(G)$ into $M\bigl(\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\rtimes_{{\textup{lt}}G})\bigr)$.[^10]
We let ${\theta}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}$ be the integrated form of ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ (see Lemma \[bundle map\]). To see that $({\theta}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}},{\theta}_{G})$ is covariant, we will use Proposition \[bundle covariant\]. For $a_s\in A_s$, $f\in C_c(G)$, $h\in \sa_c(G\times G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times G)$, and $r,t\in G$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s){\theta}_G(f)h\bigr)(r,t) &=\bigl(a_s({\theta}_G(f)h)_1(s{^{-1}}r,t){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},r\bigr) \\&=\bigl(a_sf(s{^{-1}}rt)h_1(s{^{-1}}r,t){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},r\bigr) \\&=\bigl({\textup{lt}}_s(f)(rt)a_sh_1(s{^{-1}}r,t){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},r\bigr)
\\&=\bigl({\textup{lt}}_s(f)(rt)({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h)_1(r,t),r\bigr)
\\&=\bigl({\theta}_G\circ{\textup{lt}}_s(f){{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_s)h\bigr)(r,t).
\end{aligned}$$
To verify , for $h\in \sa_c(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\theta}_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f){\theta}_G(g)h\bigr)(s,t) &=\int
\bigl({{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(f(r)){\theta}_G(g)h\bigr)(s,t)\,dr \\&=\int
\bigl(f(r)({\theta}_G(g)h)_1(r{^{-1}}s,t){\Delta}(r)^{{\frac12}},t\bigr)\,dr
\\&=\int \bigl(f(r)g(r{^{-1}}st)h_1(r{^{-1}}s,t){\Delta}(r)^{{\frac12}},t\bigr)\,dr \\&=\int
\bigl(f(r){\Delta}(r)^{{\frac12}}g(r{^{-1}}st),r{^{-1}}st\bigr)\bigl(h_1(r{^{-1}}s,t),t\bigr)\,dr \\&=\int \bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes
g\bigr)(r,r{^{-1}}st)h(r{^{-1}}s,t)\,dr
\\&=\bigl(\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\bigr)*h\bigr)(s,t).
\end{aligned}$$
As outlined at the start of the proof, it follows from the above that the integrated form ${\theta}={\theta}_{{\mathscr{A}}}\rtimes{\theta}_G$ maps $A\rtimes_{\delta}G$ (into and) onto $C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$. To show that ${\theta}$ is faithful, we will now construct a representation $\Pi$ of $C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G)$ such that $\Pi\circ\theta$ is the regular representation ${\Lambda}=(\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ {\delta}\rtimes (1\otimes M)$ associated to a faithful representation $\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}$ of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$. This will suffice since ${\Lambda}$ is faithful by [@enchilada Remark A.43(3)].
So let $\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a faithful nondegenerate representation of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$. Of course, $\pi_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}$ is the integrated form of a representation ${\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$, by Lemma \[bundle map\]. For $h\in
\sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ and $\xi\in
C_c(G,{\mathcal H})\subseteq {\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$, define $\Pi_0(h)\xi: G\to {\mathcal H}$ by $$\label{Pi}
\bigl(\Pi_0(h)\xi\bigr)(t)=\int_G {\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl(h_1(s,s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)
\xi(s{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds;$$ the integrand is in $C_c(G\times G,{\mathcal H})$, so does define a vector in ${\mathcal H}$, and $\Pi_0(h)\xi\in C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$. It follows that defines a linear operator $\Pi_0(h)$ on the dense subspace $C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$ of ${\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$.
By [@mw:fell Theorem 4.13], to show that $\Pi_0$ extends to a representation $\Pi:C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)\to
B({\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G))$, it suffices to show that $\Pi_0$ is a *pre-representation* of ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G$ on $C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$. Recall from [@mw:fell Definition 4.1] that to say that $\Pi_0$ is a pre-representation means that $\Pi_0:\sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)\to \operatorname{Lin}(C_c(G,{\mathcal H}))$ (where $\operatorname{Lin}(C_c(G,{\mathcal H}))$ denotes the algebra of all linear operators on the vector space $C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$) is an algebra homomorphism such that for all $\xi,\eta\in C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$:
1. $h\mapsto \brip<\Pi_0(h)\xi,\eta>$ is continuous in the inductive limit topology;
2. $\brip<\Pi_0(h)\xi,\eta>=\brip<\xi,\Pi_0(h^*)\eta>$; and
3. $\Pi_0(\sa_c(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G))C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$ has dense span in ${\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$.
$\Pi_0$ is obviously linear; we verify that it is multiplicative: for $f,g\in \sa_c(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ and $\xi\in
C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl(\Pi_0&(f*g)\xi\bigr)(t) =\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl((f*g)_1(s,s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\xi(s{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds \\
&=\int_G\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl(f_1(r,r{^{-1}}t)g_1(r{^{-1}}s,s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\xi(s{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds\,dr
\\
\intertext{which, after $s\mapsto rs$, is}
&=\int_G\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl(f_1(r,r{^{-1}}t)g_1(s,s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\xi(s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(rs)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds\,dr
\\
&=\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl(f_1(r,r{^{-1}}t)\bigr) \\
&\hskip1in \Bigl(\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl(g_1(s,s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\xi(s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}}t) {\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds\Bigr)
{\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}}\,dr
\\
&=\bigl(\Pi_0(f)\Pi_0(g)\xi\bigr)(t).
\end{aligned}$$
For (i), it suffices to show that if $K\subseteq G\times G$ is compact and $\{h_n\}$ is a sequence converging uniformly to $0$ in ${\Gamma}_K(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$ then $$\brip<\Pi_0(h_n)\xi,\eta>\to 0\quad\text{for all $\xi,\eta\in
C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$.}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\brip<\Pi_0(h_n)\xi,\eta>
&=\int_G\brip<\bigl(\Pi_0(h_n)\xi\bigr)(t),\eta(t)>\,dt
\\
&=\int_G\int_G \brip<{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}({h_n(s,s{^{-1}}t))\xi(s{^{-1}}t)},\eta(t)>\,ds\,dt,
\end{aligned}$$ which converges to $0$ since the integrands converge uniformly to $0$ and the integration is over a compact set.
For (ii) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\brip<\Pi_0(h)\xi,\eta>
&=\int_G\brip<\bigl(\Pi_0(h)\xi\bigr)(t),\eta(t)>\,dt
\\
&=\int_G\int_G\brip<{{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(h_1(s,s{^{-1}}t))\xi(s{^{-1}}t)},\eta(t)>
{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,dt\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\int_G\brip<\xi(s{^{-1}}t),{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(h_1(s,s{^{-1}}t)^*)\eta(t)>
{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,dt\,ds
\\
\intertext{which, after $t\mapsto st$, is}
&=\int_G\int_G\bigl\<\xi(t),{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(h_1(s,t)^*)\eta(st)\bigr\>
{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,dt\,ds
\\
\intertext{which, after $s\mapsto s{^{-1}}$, is}
&=\int_G\int_G\brip<\xi(t),{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(h_1(s{^{-1}},t)^*)\eta(s{^{-1}}t)>
{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,dt\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\int_G\brip<\xi(t),{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}((h^*)_1(s,s{^{-1}}t))\eta(s{^{-1}}t)>
{\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds\,dt
\\
&=\int_G\brip<\xi(t),\bigl(\Pi_0(h^*)\eta\bigr)(t)>\,dt
\\
&=\brip<\xi,\Pi_0(h^*)\eta>.
\end{aligned}$$
For (iii), it suffices to show that for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$ we have $$\Pi_0(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g) =
(\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ{\delta}(f)(1\otimes M_g),
$$ because the ranges of the operators on the right-hand side have dense span in ${\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$ since the regular representation of $A\times_{\delta}G$ is nondegenerate. For $\xi\in C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl(\Pi_0\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\bigr)\xi\Bigr)(t)
&=\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}\bigl((f\boxtimes g)_{1}(s,s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\xi(s{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}\,ds \\
&=\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(f(s))g(s{^{-1}}t)\xi(s{^{-1}}t)\,ds \\
&=\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(f(s))(M_g\xi)(s{^{-1}}t)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G{\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(f(s))({\lambda}_sM_g\xi)(t)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\bigl(\bigl({\pi^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(f(s))\otimes
{\lambda}_sM_g\bigr)\xi\bigr)(t)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\bigl(\bigl(\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}(\iota(f(s)))\otimes
{\lambda}_sM_g\bigr)\xi\bigr)(t)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\bigl(\bigl(\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda}\bigr)\bigl(\iota(f(s))\otimes
u(s)\bigr) \bigl(1\otimes M_g\bigr)\xi\bigr)(t)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\bigl((\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ{\delta}(\iota(f(s)))(1\otimes
M_g)\xi\bigr)(t)\,ds
\\
&=\bigl((\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ{\delta}(f)(1\otimes M_g)\xi\bigr)(t).
\end{aligned}$$
As we explained above, we now can conclude that $\Pi_0$ extends uniquely to a nondegenerate representation $\Pi$ of $\cs(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)$, and then the above calculation verifies that $\Pi\circ\theta$ agrees with the regular representation ${\Lambda}=(\pi_{{\mathscr{A}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ {\delta}\times (1\otimes M)$ on the generators $j_A(f)j_G(g)$ for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in
C_c(G)$. Hence $\Pi\circ\theta = {\Lambda}$ on all of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\times_{\delta}G$ by linearity, continuity, and density.
Semidirect-product bundles {#Semidirect-product bundles}
==========================
To prove our main theorem in Section \[canonical\], we are going to need to build a Fell bundle over groupoid arising as a semidirect product. In this section, we give the construction of this *semidirect-product Fell bundle*. We will investigate the structure of the corresponding Fell bundle $C^{*}$-algebra in Section \[action crossed product\].
To begin, let ${\mathcal G}$ be a locally compact Hausdorff groupoid with Haar system ${\{\,\lambda^{u}\,\}}_{u\in {\mathcal G}^{(0)}}$, and let $G$ be a second countable locally compact group. An *action* of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$ is a homomorphism ${\beta}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}{\mathcal G}$ such that $(x,t)\mapsto {\beta}_t(x)$ is continuous from ${\mathcal G}\times G$ to ${\mathcal G}$. (Note that automorphisms of a groupoid do not necessarily fix the unit space pointwise.) Given an action $\beta$ of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$, the *semidirect-product groupoid* ${\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$ comprises the Cartesian product ${\mathcal G}\times G$ with multiplication $$(x,t)(y,s)=(x{\beta}_t(y),ts)$$ whenever $s(x)=\beta_{t}(r(y))$ and inverse $(x,t){^{-1}}=({\beta}_{t{^{-1}}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}})$ ([@ren:approach Definition I.1.7]). Note that we have $({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G)^0={\mathcal G}^0\times \{e\}$, with $$r(x,t)=(r(x),e)
\quad\text{and}\quad
s(x,t)=({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(s(x)),e).
$$ Also note that $C_c({\mathcal G})\odot C_c(G)$ is inductive-limit dense in $C_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G)$.
Now suppose $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal G}$ is a separable Fell bundle over ${\mathcal G}$. An *action* of $G$ on ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ is a homomorphism ${\alpha}:G\to \operatorname{Aut}{{\mathscr{B}}}$ such that $(b,t)\mapsto {\alpha}_t(b)$ is continuous from ${{\mathscr{B}}}\times G\to{{\mathscr{B}}}$, together with an *associated action* ${\beta}$ of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$ such that $p\bigl(\alpha_{t}(b)\bigr)= \beta_{t}\bigl(p(b)\bigr)$ for all $t\in G$ and $b\in{{\mathscr{B}}}$.
\[rem-alpha-bar\] The compatibility of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ allows us to write down, for each $t\in G$, an automorphism ${\overline}\alpha_t$ of $\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ given by $$\label{eq:13}
{\overline}\alpha_t(f)(x)=\alpha_{t}\bigl(f(\beta_{t}^{-1}(x)\bigr).$$ Since ${\overline}\alpha_{t}$ is clearly continuous from the inductive limit topology to the norm topology, it follows from Proposition \[extends\] that ${\overline}\alpha_{t}$ extends to an automorphism of $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$. Similarly, $t\mapsto
{\overline}\alpha_{t}(f)$ is continuous from $G$ into $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$, so we obtain an action ${\overline}\alpha$ of $G$ on $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$.
\[prop-fb-needed\] Let $\alpha$ be an action of $G$ on a Fell bundle $p: {{\mathscr{A}}}\to {\mathcal G}$, with associated action $\beta$ of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$. Then the Banach bundle $q:{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G\to {\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$ with total space ${{\mathscr{B}}}\times G$ and bundle projection $q(b,t) = (p(b),t)$ becomes a Fell bundle when equipped with the multiplication given by $$(b_x,t)(c_y,s)=(b_x{\alpha}_t(c_y),ts)
\quad\text{whenever $s(x)=r({\beta}_t(y))$}$$ and the involution given by $$(b_x,t)^*=({\alpha}_{t{^{-1}}}(b_x)^*,t{^{-1}}).$$
We refer to a Fell bundle which arises from a group action as in Proposition \[prop-fb-needed\] as a *semidirect-product Fell bundle*.
For convenience, we’ll write $C_{(x,t)}$ for the fibre of ${{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G}$ over $(x,t)$. Verifying the axioms that ${{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G}$ is a Fell bundle is routine with the possible exception of seeing that $C_{(x,t)}$ is a $C_{(r(x),e)}$–$C_{(\beta_{t}^{-1}(s(x)),e)}$-imprimitivity bimodule with respect to the operations inherited from ${{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G}$. However, $C_{(x,t)}$ is naturally identified with $B_{x}$, and the latter is given to be a $B_{r(x)}$–$B_{s(x)}$-imprimitivity bimodule with respect to the operations inherited from ${{\mathscr{B}}}$. Furthermore, $\alpha_{t}$ restricts to a $C^{*}$-algebra isomorphism of $B_{\beta_{t}^{-1}(s(x))}$ onto $B_{s(x)}$. Therefore $B_{x}$ is naturally a $B_{r(x)}$–$B_{\beta_{t}^{-1}(s(x))}$-imprimitivity bimodule. The right action is given by $x\cdot b=x\alpha_{t}(b)$ and the right inner product is given by $$\langle x,y\rangle_{\ripsqueeze\ipscriptstyle
B_{\beta_{t}^{-1}(s(x))}} =\alpha_{t}^{-1}\bigl(\langle x\ipcomma
y \rangle_{\ripsqueeze\ipscriptstyle{B_{s(x)}}}\bigr).$$ Now it is a simple matter to see that the given operations in ${{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G}$ induce the same structure on $C_{(x,t)}$ as does the identification of $C_{(x,t)}$ with $B_x$.
In order to have a Haar system on a semidirect-product groupoid ${\mathcal G}\times_\beta G$, we will need $\beta$ to be compatible with the Haar system on ${\mathcal G}$ in the following sense.
\[invt-def\] An action ${\beta}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}{\mathcal G}$ is *invariant* if for all $u\in{{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}$, $f\in C_c({\mathcal G})$, and $t\in G$ we have $$\int_{\mathcal G}f({\beta}_t(y))\,d{\lambda}^u(y)=\int_{\mathcal G}f(y)\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t(u)}(y),$$ i.e., ${\beta}_t$ transforms the measure on $r{^{-1}}(u)$ to the measure on $r{^{-1}}({\beta}_t(u))$. If ${\alpha}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}{{\mathscr{B}}}$ is an action on a Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{B}}}\to {\mathcal G}$ with associated action ${\beta}:G\to \operatorname{Aut}{\mathcal G}$, we say ${\alpha}$ is *invariant* if ${\beta}$ is.
\[lem-haar-system-gltgg\] Let ${\beta}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}{\mathcal G}$ be an invariant action on a groupoid ${\mathcal G}$ with Haar system $\{ {\lambda}^u \}_{u\in {\mathcal G}^{(0)}}$. Then $$d{\lambda}^{(u,e)}(y,s)=d{\lambda}^u(y)\,ds$$ is a Haar system on ${\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$.
The left-invariance property we need is that for $h\in
C_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G)$ and $(x,t)\in {\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$ we have $$\int_{{\mathcal G}\times G}h\bigl((x,t)(y,s)\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{s(x,t)}(y,s)
=\int_{{\mathcal G}\times G}h(y,s)\,d{\lambda}^{r(x,t)}(y,s),$$ and it suffices to take $h=f\otimes g$, where $f\in G_c({\mathcal G})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$. Fix $x\in {\mathcal G}$ with $s(x)=v$ and $r(x)=u$. In the left-hand integral we must have $$(r(y),e)=r(y,s)=s(x,t)=({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(s(x)),e)=({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v),e),$$ and in the right-hand integral we must have $$(r(y),e)=(r(x),e)=(u,e).$$ Since $$(x,t)(y,s)=(x{\beta}_t(y),ts),$$ we must show that $$\int_{\mathcal G}\int_Gf(x{\beta}_t(y))g(ts)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)
=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_Gf(y)g(s)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^u(y).$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathcal G}\int_Gf(x{\beta}_t(y))g(ts)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)
&=\int_{\mathcal G}f(x{\beta}_t(y))\int_G g(ts)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)
\\&=\int_{\mathcal G}f(x{\beta}_t(y))\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)\int_Gg(s)\,ds
\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathcal G}\int_Gf(y)g(s)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^u(y) =\int_{\mathcal G}f(y)\,d{\lambda}^u(y)\int_G g(s)\,ds,
\end{aligned}$$ so it remains to verify $$\int_{\mathcal G}f(x{\beta}_t(y))\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)=\int_{\mathcal G}f(y)\,d{\lambda}^u(y).$$ But invariance of the action ${\beta}$ gives $$\int_{\mathcal G}f(x{\beta}_t(y))\,d{\lambda}^{{\beta}_t{^{-1}}(v)}(y)=\int_{\mathcal G}f(xy)\,d{\lambda}^v(y),$$ which equals $\int_{\mathcal G}f(y)\,d{\lambda}^u(y)$ because ${\lambda}$ is a Haar system.
For reference, we record the formula for convolution in $C_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&(h*k)(x,t) =\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G h(y,s)k\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y).\end{aligned}$$ Thus in $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ the convolution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(h*k)(x,t) &=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G h(y,s)k\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y) \\
&=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G (h_1(y,s),s)\bigl(k_1\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y) \\
&=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G \bigl( h_1(y,s){\alpha}_s\bigl(k_1\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\bigr) ,t \bigr) \,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y).\end{aligned}$$ As with product bundles (see Section \[product bundles\]), every section $h\in\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ is of the form $$h(x,t)= (h_1(x,t), t),$$ where $h_1\in C_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}})$ satisfies $h_1(x,t) \in B_x$. So in particular $$\label{hkxt}
(h*k)_1(x,t)
=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G
h_1(y,s){\alpha}_s\bigl(k_1\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\bigr)
\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y).$$ The involution in $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h^*(x,t) &=h\bigl((x,t){^{-1}}\bigr)^*
=h\bigl({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr)^*
=\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr),t{^{-1}}\bigr)^*
\\&=\bigl({\alpha}_t\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr)^*\bigr),t\bigr),\end{aligned}$$ so in particular $$h^*_1(x,t) ={\alpha}_t\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr)^*\bigr).$$
Action crossed product {#action crossed product}
======================
We now relate the $C^*$-algebra of a semidirect-product bundle to the crossed product.
\[action crossed product isomorphism\] Let $p:{{\mathscr{B}}}\to{\mathcal G}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a locally compact Hausdorff groupoid with Haar system $\{ \lambda^u \}_{u\in G^{(0)}}$, and let ${\alpha}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}{{\mathscr{B}}}$ be an action of a second countable locally compact group $G$ on ${{\mathscr{B}}}$ with an invariant associated action ${\beta}$ of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$. Let $q:{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G\to
{\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$ denote the associated semidirect-product Fell bundle over the semidirect-product groupoid as defined in Section \[Semidirect-product bundles\], and let ${\overline}{\alpha}:G\to\operatorname{Aut}\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ denote the concomitant action described in Remark \[rem-alpha-bar\]. Then there is a unique isomorphism $${\sigma}:\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\rtimes_{{\overline}{\alpha}} G\longrightarrow \cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$$ such that if $f\in \sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$ then ${\sigma}(i_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)i_G(g))$ is the continuous compactly supported section of ${{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G$ given by $$\label{s-eq1}
{\sigma}\bigl(i_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)i_G(g)\bigr)(x,t)=\bigl(f(x)g(t){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}},t\bigr).$$
Uniqueness is immediate from density. For existence, we will obtain ${\sigma}$ as the integrated form of a covariant homomorphism $({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}},{\sigma}_G)$ of $(\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}),G,{\overline}{\alpha})$ into $M(\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G))$ such that $$\label{s-eq2}
{\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f){\sigma}_G(g) = f\boxtimes({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g) \in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta
G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$$ for $f\in\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$. It will follow that ${\sigma}$ maps $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\rtimes_{{\overline}{\alpha}}G$ into $\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$, satisfies , and is surjective because the sections in have inductive-limit-dense span in $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$.
To define ${\sigma}_{{{\mathscr{B}}}}$, we will appeal to Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\], viewing $\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{{\alpha}}G)$ as a right Hilbert module over itself, with dense subspace $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$. For $f\in
\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ we define a linear operator ${\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)$ on $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h\bigr)(y,t)&=\int_{\mathcal G}\bigl(f(x)h_1(x{^{-1}}y,t),t\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x).
\end{aligned}$$ Seeing that ${\sigma}_{{{\mathscr{B}}}}: \sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\to\operatorname{Lin}(\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta
G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G))$ is an algebra homomorphism is straightforward: for $f,g\in\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $h\in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta
G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f){\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(g)h\bigr)(y,t) &=\int_{\mathcal G}\bigl(
f(x)\bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(g)h\bigr)_1(x{^{-1}}y,t)
,t\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) \notag \\
&=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_{\mathcal G}\bigl( f(x)g(z)h_1(z{^{-1}}x{^{-1}}y,t) ,t\bigr)
\,d{\lambda}^{s(x)}(z) \,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x), \intertext{which, after using
Fubini and sending $z\mapsto x{^{-1}}z$, is} &=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_{\mathcal G}\bigl(f(x)g(x{^{-1}}z) h_1(z{^{-1}}y,t),t\bigr)
\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) \,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(z)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal G}\bigl(f*g(z)h_1(z{^{-1}}y,t),t\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(z) \\
&=\bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f*g)h\bigr)(y,t).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it remains to verify that ${\sigma}_{{{\mathscr{B}}}}$ satisfies (i), (ii) and (iii) of Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\].
To check (i), we compute as follows. For $h,k\in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta
G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\brip{\scriptstyle1}<{\sigma}&_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h,k>(x,t)
= \bigl( ({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h)^**k)_1(x,t)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G ({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h)^*_1(y,s) {\alpha}_s\bigl(
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)
\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G {\alpha}_s\bigl(
({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h)_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})\bigr)^* {\alpha}_s\bigl(
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)
\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\bigl(
f(z)h_1(z{^{-1}}{\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})\bigr)^*
{\alpha}_s\bigl( k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in} \,d{\lambda}^{r({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}))}(z)\, ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl(
h_1(z{^{-1}}{\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*f(z)^*
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{r({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}))}(z)\, ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
\intertext{which, after $z\mapsto {\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}})z$ for fixed $y$,
is} &= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl(
h_1(z{^{-1}},s{^{-1}})^*f({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}})z)^*
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{s({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}))}(z)\, ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
\intertext{which, by invariance of the action ${\beta}$ (in the variable $z$), is} &=
\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl(
h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*f({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}z))^*
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,{\lambda}^{s(y{^{-1}})}(z)\, ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
\intertext{which, by Fubini, is} &= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl( h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*f({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}z))^*
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\, ds\,{\lambda}^{r(x)}(z)\\
\intertext{which, after $y\mapsto zy$ for fixed $z$, is} &=
\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl(
h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*f({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}))^*
k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}z{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{s(z)}(y)\, ds\,{\lambda}^{r(x)}(z)\\
\intertext{which, by invariance of ${\beta}$ (in $y$), is} &=
\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\Bigl(
h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*f(y{^{-1}})^*
k_1(y{^{-1}}{\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\Bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{s({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z))}(y)\, ds\,{\lambda}^{r(x)}(z)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\bigl(
h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}),s{^{-1}})^*\bigr)
{\alpha}_s\bigl( f^*(y)k_1(y{^{-1}}{\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\\
&\hspace{3in}\,d{\lambda}^{r({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}x))}(y)\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(z)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G h_1^*(z,s){\alpha}_s\bigl(
({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f^*)k)_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(z{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)
\,ds\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(z)\\
&= \bigl( h^**({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f^*)k)\bigr)_1(x,t)\\
&= \brip{\scriptstyle1}< h,{\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f^*)k>(x,t).
\end{aligned}$$
To check the continuity condition (ii) of Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\], it suffices to show that if $L\subseteq {\mathcal G}$ is compact and $f_i\to 0$ uniformly in ${\Gamma}_L({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$, then for each $h,k\in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ there exists a compact set $K\subseteq
{\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G$ such that $\brip< {\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f_i)h,k>\to 0$ uniformly in ${\Gamma}_K({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$. Using continuity of the action of $G$ on ${\mathcal G}$, it is routine to verify that for any such $h$ and $k$ there exists a compact set $K$ such that $\operatorname{supp}\brip<
{\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f_i)h,k> \subseteq K$ for every $i$. Then, to verify uniform convergence, we notice that for each $i$, $$\|\brip< {\sigma}_{{{\mathscr{B}}}}(f_i)h,k>\|_{\infty}\le M
\|f_i\|_{\infty}\|h\|_{\infty} \|k\|_{\infty},$$ where $M=\sup_{u\in {\mathcal G}^{(0)}}\lambda^{(e,u)}(K)$.
For the nondegeneracy condition (iii) of Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\], note that if $f,g\in\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $h\in C_c(G)$, then $${\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)(g\boxtimes h)=(f*g)\boxtimes h,$$ where $g\boxtimes h\in\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ is defined by $(g\boxtimes h)(x,t) = (g(x)h(t),t)$. Letting $f$ run through an approximate identity $\{f_i\}$ for $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ in the inductive limit topology (see [@mw:fell Proposition 6.10]), we have $f_i*g\to g$, hence $(f_i*g)\boxtimes h\to g\boxtimes h$, both nets converging in the inductive limit topology. Since such sections $g\boxtimes h$ have dense span in $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$, hence in $\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$, nondegeneracy follows.
Now we conclude from Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\] that ${\sigma}_{{{\mathscr{B}}}}$ extends to a nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism of $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ into $M(\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G))$, as required.
We now turn to ${\sigma}_G$. Fix $s\in G$, and for each $h\in
\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$, define ${\sigma}_G(s)h \in
\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\sigma}_G(s)h\bigr)(x,t)
&=\bigl({\alpha}_s\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\bigr){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}},t\bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ Then for $h,k\in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\brip{\scriptstyle 1}< {\sigma}_G&(s)h, {\sigma}_G(s)k>(x,t)
= \bigl( ({\sigma}_G(s)h)^* * ({\sigma}_G(s)k) \bigr)_1(x,t)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G ({\sigma}_G(s)h)^*_1(y,r) {\alpha}_r\bigl(
({\sigma}_G(s)k)_1({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),
r{^{-1}}t)\bigr) \, dr\, d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G
{\alpha}_r\bigl( ({\sigma}_G(s)h)_1({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),r{^{-1}})^*\bigr) \\
&\hspace{1.5in} {\alpha}_r\bigl( ({\sigma}_G(s)k)_1({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x), r{^{-1}}t)\bigr) \, dr\,
d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G {\alpha}_r\bigl(
{\alpha}_s(h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}})),s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}})^*{\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}
\bigr)\\
&\hspace{1.5in} {\alpha}_r\bigl( {\alpha}_s(k_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x)),
s{^{-1}}r{^{-1}}t){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}
\bigr) \, dr\, d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G
{\alpha}_{rs}\bigl( h_1({\beta}_{rs}{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),(rs){^{-1}})^*\bigr) \\
&\hspace{1.5in} {\alpha}_{rs}\bigl( k_1({\beta}_{rs}{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x), (rs){^{-1}}t)\bigr) \,
{\Delta}(s)dr\, d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
\intertext{which, after $r\mapsto rs^{-1}$, is} &= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G
{\alpha}_{r}\bigl( h_1({\beta}_{r}{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}),r{^{-1}})^*\bigr)
{\alpha}_{r}\bigl( k_1({\beta}_{r}{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x), r{^{-1}}t)\bigr) \, dr\, d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&=\int_{\mathcal G}\int_G h_1^*(y,r) {\alpha}_r\bigl( k_1({\beta}_r{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),r{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\, dr\,
d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\\
&= ( h^**k )_1(x,t) = \rip{\scriptstyle1}< h,k >(x,t).
\end{aligned}$$ Since we clearly have ${\sigma}_{G}(s){\sigma}_{G}(t)={\sigma}_{G}(st)$ and ${\sigma}_{G}(e)$ is the identity, it follows that ${\sigma}_{G}(s)$ defines a unitary in $M(\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G))$.
To see that the resulting homomorphism ${\sigma}_G:G\to M(\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G))$ is strictly continuous, it suffices (by [@tfb Corollary C.8]) to show that if $s_i\to e$ in $G$ and $h\in\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ then ${\sigma}_G(s_i)h\to h$ in the inductive limit topology. Without loss of generality all the $s_i$’s are contained in some compact neighborhood $V$ of $e$. Choose compact sets $K\subseteq {\mathcal G}$ and $L\subseteq G$ such that $\operatorname{supp}h\subseteq K\times L$. Then for each $i$ we have $$\operatorname{supp}{\sigma}_G(s_i)h\subseteq {\beta}_{V{^{-1}}}(K)\times V{^{-1}}L,$$ which is compact by continuity of the action ${\beta}$. The uniform continuity of $h$ and continuity of the actions ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$ guarantee that $$\lim_i{\alpha}_{s_i}\bigl(h_1({\beta}_{s_i{^{-1}}}(x),s_i{^{-1}}t\bigr)\bigr) =
h_1(x,t)$$ uniformly in $(x,t)$, so ${\sigma}_G(s_i)h\to h$ uniformly. Thus ${\sigma}_G(s_i)h\to h$ in the inductive limit topology.
Now we verify that the pair $({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}},{\sigma}_G)$ is covariant for $(\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}),G,{\overline}{\alpha})$. If $f\in
\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $s\in G$, then for each $h\in
\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_\alpha G)$ and $(y,t)\in
{\mathcal G}\times_\beta G$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\sigma}_G(s)&{\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h\bigr)_1(y,t)
= {\alpha}_s\bigl(({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)h)_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\bigl( f(x)h_1(x{^{-1}}{\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}
\,d{\lambda}^{r({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y))}(x)\\
\intertext{which, by invariance of ${\beta}$, is} &= \int_{\mathcal G}{\alpha}_s\bigl( f({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(x))h_1({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}y),s{^{-1}}t)\bigr){\Delta}(s)^{{\frac12}}
\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x)\\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}{\overline}{\alpha}_s(f)(x)\bigl({\sigma}_G(s)h\bigr)_1(x{^{-1}}y,t)
\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x)\\
&= \bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}({\overline}{\alpha}_s(f)){\sigma}_G(s)h\bigr)_1(y,t).
\end{aligned}$$
Next we verify : for $h\in\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ and $(y,s)\in
{\mathcal G}\times_\beta G$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl({\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f){\sigma}_G(g)&h\bigr)(y,s) =\Bigl( \int_{\mathcal G}f(x)
\bigl({\sigma}_G(g)h\bigr)_1(x{^{-1}}y,s) \,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) ,s\Bigr)
\\
&=\Bigl( \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G f(x) g(t) {\alpha}_t\Bigl(
h_1\bigl({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}y),t{^{-1}}s) \Bigr)
{\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}\,dt \,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) ,s\Bigr) \\
&= \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G \bigl( f(x)g(t){\alpha}_t\bigl(h_1({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}y),t{^{-1}}s)\bigr),s\bigr){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}} \,dt\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) \\
& = \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G
\bigl(f(x)g(t){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}},t\bigr)\bigl(h_1({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}y),t{^{-1}}s),t{^{-1}}s\bigr) \,dt\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) \\
& = \int_{\mathcal G}\int_G \bigl(f\boxtimes({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\bigr)(x,t)
h({\beta}_t{^{-1}}(x{^{-1}}y),t{^{-1}}s) \,dt\,d{\lambda}^{r(y)}(x) \\
& = \bigl(\bigl(f\boxtimes({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\bigr)*h\bigr)(y,s).
\end{aligned}$$
As outlined at the start of the proof, it follows from the above that the integrated form ${\sigma}={\sigma}_{{\mathscr{B}}}\rtimes {\sigma}_G$ maps $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\rtimes_{{\overline}{\alpha}} G$ (into and) onto $\cs({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$. To show injectivity of $\sigma$, it suffices to find a left inverse. We will begin by constructing a $*$-homomorphism $\tau:\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)\to
C_c(G,\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))$ which is continuous for the inductive limit topologies on each algebra, where (of course) $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ is also given the inductive limit topology. Then, the composition $$\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G) \xrightarrow{\tau}
C_c(G,\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})) \xrightarrow{} C_c(G,C^*({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))
\xrightarrow{} C^*({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\times_{{\overline}{\alpha}}G$$ will be continuous from the inductive limit topology to the $C^*$-norm topology, and hence, by Proposition \[extends\], will extend to a homomorphism, which we will also denote by $\tau$, of $C^*({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ into $C^*({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})\rtimes_{{\overline}{\alpha}}G$. Finally, we will check that $\tau\circ\sigma={\text{\textup{id}}}$ on generators, and this will suffice.
For $h\in \sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_\beta G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ and $t\in G$, it is clear that the rule $$x\mapsto h_1(x,t){\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}}$$ defines an element $\tau(h)(t)$ of $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$. The discussion in [@fd1 II.15.19] shows that the map $t\mapsto h_1(\cdot,t)$ from $G$ into $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ is inductive-limit continuous, and it follows that $t\mapsto \tau(h)(t)$ defines an inductive-limit continuous map $\tau(h)$ from $G$ to $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$. Since $\tau(h)$ obviously has compact support, we therefore have $\tau(h)\in C_c(G,\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))$, with $$\tau(h)(t)(x) = h_1(x,t){\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}} \quad\text{for $t\in G$ and $
x\in {\mathcal G}$.}$$
Now the rule $h\mapsto \tau(h)$ gives a map $\tau$ with domain $\sa_c({\mathcal G}\times_{\beta}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ which is clearly linear. To show that $\tau$ is continuous for the inductive limit topologies, it suffices to show that if $K\subseteq {\mathcal G}$ and $L\subseteq G$ are compact and $\{ h_i\}$ is a net in ${\Gamma}_{K\times L}({{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{\alpha}G)$ converging uniformly to $0$, then $\tau(h_i)\to 0$ in the inductive limit topology of $C_c(G,\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))$. Since $\operatorname{supp}\tau(h_i)\subseteq L$ for all $i$, it suffices to show that $\tau(h_i)\to 0$ uniformly. But this is obvious, since $h_i\to 0$ uniformly.
Next we show that $\tau$ is a $*$-homomorphism. For $h,k\in
\sa_{c}({\mathcal G}\times_{{\beta}}G,{{\mathscr{B}}}\times_{{\alpha}}G)$ we can use the argument [^11] of [@danacrossed Lemma 1.108] to conclude that $\tau(h)*\tau(k)$, which is *a priori* an element of $C_{c}(G,\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))$, lies in $C_{c}(G,\sa_{c}({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}}))$ and that we can pass “evaluation at $x$” through the integral in the second line of the following computation: $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl(\tau(h)&{}*\tau(k)\bigr)(t)(x)
=\Bigl(\int_G\tau(h)(s)*{\overline}{\alpha}_s\bigl(\tau(k)(s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\,ds\Bigr)(x)
\\
&=\int_G\bigl(\tau(h)(s)*{\overline}{\alpha}_s\bigl(\tau(k)(s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)\bigr)(x)\,ds \\
&=\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}\tau(h)(s)(y) {\overline}{\alpha}_s\bigl(\tau(k)(s{^{-1}}t)\bigr)(y{^{-1}}x)\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\,ds
\\
&=\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}h_1(y,s){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}} {\alpha}_s\bigl(\tau(k)(s{^{-1}}t)\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x)\bigr)\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\,ds \\
&=\int_G\int_{\mathcal G}h_1(y,s){\Delta}(s)^{-{\frac12}}
{\alpha}_s\bigl(k_1\bigl({\beta}_s{^{-1}}(y{^{-1}}x),s{^{-1}}t\bigr)\bigr) {\Delta}(s{^{-1}}t)^{-{\frac12}}\,d{\lambda}^{r(x)}(y)\,ds
\\
&=(h*k)_1(x,t){\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}} \\
&=\tau(h*k)(t)(x),
\end{aligned}$$ so $\tau$ is multiplicative. For the involution, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(h)^*(t)(x) &={\overline}{\alpha}_t\bigl(\tau(h)(t{^{-1}})^*{\Delta}(t{^{-1}})\bigr)(x)
\\&={\overline}{\alpha}_t\bigl(\tau(h)(t{^{-1}})^*\bigr)(x){\Delta}(t{^{-1}})
\\&={\alpha}_t\bigl(\tau(h)(t{^{-1}})^*\bigl({\beta}_{t{^{-1}}}(x)\bigr)\bigr){\Delta}(t{^{-1}})
\\&={\alpha}_t\bigl(\tau(h)(t{^{-1}})\bigl({\beta}_{t{^{-1}}}(x{^{-1}})\bigr)^*\bigr){\Delta}(t{^{-1}})
\\&={\alpha}_t\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_{t{^{-1}}}
(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}\bigr)^*{\Delta}(t{^{-1}})
\\&={\alpha}_t\bigl(h_1\bigl({\beta}_{t{^{-1}}}(x{^{-1}}),t{^{-1}}\bigr)\bigr)^*{\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}}
\\&=(h^*)_1(x,t){\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}} \\&=\tau(h^*)(t)(x).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we check $\tau\circ{\sigma}={\text{\textup{id}}}$ on generators of the form $i_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)i_G(g)$ for $f\in\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau\circ{\sigma}\bigl(i_{{\mathscr{B}}}(f)i_G(g)\bigr)(t)(x) &=\tau\bigl(f\boxtimes
({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\bigr)(t)(x) \\
&=\bigl((f\boxtimes ({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\bigr)_1(x,t){\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}}
\\
&=f(x)g(t)
\\
&=\bigl(i_B(f)i_G(g)\bigr)(t)(x).{\relax}\end{aligned}$$
The canonical surjection is injective {#canonical}
=====================================
The object of this section is to prove our main result:
\[Phi-iso\] Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be a separable Fell bundle over a group $G$, and let $\delta$ be the associated coaction of $G$ on $C^*(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ as in Proposition \[exists\]. Then the canonical surjection $$\Phi: \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G \to \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes
{\mathcal K}(L^2(G))$$ is an isomorphism; hence $\delta$ is maximal.
To do this, we will factor $\Phi$ into three isomorphisms, each involving the $C^{*}$-algebra of a Fell bundle over a groupoid. These isomorphisms will be presented in Propositions \[Theta\]–\[Upsilon\]. We will use the following notation for canonical maps related to the double-crossed product $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G$: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{{\mathscr{A}}}=i_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G}\circ
j_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}:{}&\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}) \rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G)\\
k_{C(G)}=i_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G}\circ j_G:{}&C_0(G)\to
M(\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})
\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G)\\
k_G=i_G:{}&G\to M(\cs(A,{\mathcal G})\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the double-crossed product is densely spanned by products of the form $$k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f) k_{C(G)}(g) k_G(h) \quad\text{for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $
g,h\in C_c(G)$.}$$
Our first isomorphism involves an iterated product Fell bundle. Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G$ be the transformation Fell bundle over the transformation groupoid $G\times_{\textup{lt}}G$, as in Section \[transformation bundles\]. The group $G$ acts on both $G\times_{\textup{lt}}G$ and ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{\textup{lt}}G$ by right translation in the second coördinate: $$({\text{\textup{id}}}_G\times{\textup{rt}})_r(s,t) = (s,tr{^{-1}}) \quad\text{and}\quad
({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\textup{rt}})_r(a_s,t) = (a_s,tr{^{-1}}).$$ Thus we get a semidirect-product Fell bundle ${{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G}$; for simplicity, we will denote the corresponding semidirect-product groupoid $({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{G}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G$ by ${\mathcal{S}}$.
The action of $G$ on ${G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}$ is invariant in the sense of Definition \[invt-def\], since for each $(e,u)\in ({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})^0 = \{e\}\times G$, $f\in C_c({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$, and $r\in G$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}} f\bigl(({{\text{\textup{id}}}_{G}\times{\textup{rt}}})_r(s,t)\bigr)\,d{\lambda}^{(e,u)}(s,t)
&= \int_G f(({{\text{\textup{id}}}_{G}\times{\textup{rt}}})_r(s,s{^{-1}}u)\,ds\\
&= \int_G f(s,s{^{-1}}u r{^{-1}})\,ds\\
&= \int_{{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}} f(s,t)\,d{\lambda}^{(e,ur{^{-1}})}(s,t)\\
&= \int_{{G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G}} f(s,t)\,d{\lambda}^{({{\text{\textup{id}}}_{G}\times{\textup{rt}}})_r(e,u)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore Proposition \[lem-haar-system-gltgg\] gives a Haar system on ${\mathcal{S}}$, so we can form the Fell-bundle $C^{*}$-algebra $\cs({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})$.
\[Theta\] There is an isomorphism $$\Theta:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G \to
\cs({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})$$ such that, for $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g,h\in C_c(G)$, the image $\Theta(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h))$ is in $\sa_{c}({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})$, with $$\label{generators}
\Theta\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)(r,s,t)
=\bigl(
f(r)g(s)h(t){\Delta}(rt)^{{\frac12}}
,s,t\bigr).$$
Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\] gives an isomorphism $${\theta}:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\to C^*({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$$ such that $${\theta}(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G(g))=({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g$$ for $f\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $g\in C_c(G)$. We want to parlay this into our isomorphism $\Theta$. First, we verify that ${\theta}$ is equivariant for the dual action of $G$ on ${\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}\rtimes_{\delta}G$ and the action ${({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}$ coming from the action of $G$ on ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G$. Note that for $h\in
\sa_{c}({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$, $${({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}_{s}(h)(t,r)=\bigl(h_{1}(t,rs),r\bigr).$$ Thus for $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, $g\in C_c(G)$ and $s\in G$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}_s\circ{\theta}\bigl(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G(g)\bigr)(t,r)
&={({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}_s\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\bigr)(t,r)
\\&=\bigl({\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}f(t)g(rs),t\bigr)
\\&=\bigl({\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}f(t){\textup{rt}}_s(g)(r),t\bigr)
\\&=\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes {\textup{rt}}_s(g)\bigr)(t,r),
\intertext{so that}
{({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}_s\circ{\theta}\bigl(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G(g)\bigr)
&={\theta}\bigl(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G({\textup{rt}}_s(g))\bigr)
\\&={\theta}\Bigl(\hat{\delta}_s\bigl(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G(g)\bigr)\Bigr)
\\&={\theta}\circ\hat{\delta}_s\bigl(j_{{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}}(f)j_G(g)\bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we have an isomorphism $${\theta}\rtimes G:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\rtimes_{\delta}G\rtimes_{\hat{\delta}} G \to
\cs({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})\times_{{({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}} G.$$ Now, Theorem \[action crossed product isomorphism\] gives an isomorphism $${\sigma}:\cs({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})\rtimes_{{({\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}){\overline}{\phantom{t}}}} G \to \cs({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})$$ taking a generator $i_{\cs({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})}(k)i_G(h)$ for $k\in
\sa_c({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$ and $h\in C_c(G)$ to the section of ${{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G}$ given by $${\sigma}\bigl(i_{C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}
G)}(k){\text{\textup{id}}}_G(h)\bigr)(r,s,t)
=\bigl(k(r,s)h(t){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}},s,t\bigr).$$
We now define $\Theta$ to be $\sigma\circ(\theta\rtimes G)$, and it only remains to verify . We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)&k_G(h)\bigr) ={\sigma}\circ ({\theta}\times
G)\bigl( i_{\cs(A,{\mathcal G})\times_{\delta}G}\bigl(j_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}(f)j_G(g)\bigr)i_G(h) \bigr)
\\
&={\sigma}\bigl( ({\theta}\times G)\bigl( i_{\cs(A,{\mathcal G})\times_{\delta}G}\bigl(j_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}(f)j_G(g)\bigr)i_G(h) \bigr) \bigr) \\
&={\sigma}\bigl( i_{C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}} G)}\circ {\theta}\bigl(
j_{\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})}(f)j_G(g)
\bigr)i_G(h) \bigr) \\
&={\sigma}\bigl( i_{C^*(G\times_{\textup{lt}}G,{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}
G)}\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\bigr)i_G(h) \bigr),
\end{aligned}$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)(r,s,t) &=\bigl(
\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}f)\boxtimes g\bigr)(r,s)h(t){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}
,t\bigr) \\&=\bigl( f(r)g(s)h(t){\Delta}(rt)^{{\frac12}} ,s,t\bigr).
{\relax}\end{aligned}$$
For our second isomorphism, we let ${\mathcal E}$ denote the equivalence relation groupoid $G\times G$ on the set $G$, and we endow ${\mathcal E}$ with the Haar system $\lambda^{(s,s)} = \delta_s\times \lambda$, where $\delta_s$ is the point mass at $s$, and $\lambda$ is Haar measure on $G$. We then form the Cartesian product Fell bundle ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E}$ over the Cartesian product groupoid $G\times{\mathcal E}$, in analogy with the group case in Section \[product bundles\].
\[Psi\] There is an isomorphism $$\Psi:\cs({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})\to \cs(G\times{\mathcal E},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})$$ such that, for $f\in\sa_{c}({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})$, the image $\Psi(f)$ is in $\sa_c(G\times {\mathcal E}, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})$, with $$\label{Psi-eq}
\Psi(f)(r,s,t) = (f_{1}(r,r^{-1}s,s^{-1}rt),s,t).$$
First notice that the groupoids ${\mathcal{S}}=(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G$ and $G\times {\mathcal E}$ are isomorphic via the homeomorphism $\psi:{\mathcal{S}}\to G\times{\mathcal E}$ given by $\psi(r,s,t)=(r,rs,st)$. Furthermore, the homeomorphism $\Psi_0:
{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G}\to {{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E}$ given by $\Psi_{0}(a_{r},s,t)=(a_{r},rs,st)$ is a bundle map which covers $\psi$ and is an isometric isomorphism on each fibre. Routine computations show that $\Psi_0$ also preserves the multiplication and involution. Hence we can define a $*$-isomorphism $\Psi:\sa_{c}({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})\to
\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal E},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})$ by $$\Psi(f)(r,s,t) = \Psi_0(f(\psi{^{-1}}(r,s,t)) =
(f_{1}(r,r^{-1}s,s^{-1}rt),s,t).$$ Because $\Psi_0$ is a homeomorphism, $\Psi$ is homeomorphic for the inductive limit topologies; therefore $\Psi$ extends to an isomorphism of the bundle $C^*$-algebras which satisfies .
\[Upsilon\] There is an isomorphism $$\Upsilon:\cs(G\times{\mathcal E},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})\to \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}{\mathcal K}\bigl(L^{2}(G)\bigr)$$ such that, for every faithful nondegenerate representation $\pi:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to B({\mathcal H})$, $f\in \sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal E},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})$, and $\xi\in C_c(G,{\mathcal H})$, we have $$\label{eq:9}
\bigl((\pi{\otimes}{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ \Upsilon(f)\xi\bigr)(s) =\int_{G}
\int_{G} \pi_{0}\bigl(f_{1}(r,s,t)\bigr)\xi(t){\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}} \,dr
\,dt,$$ where $\pi_{0} = \pi\circ\iota$ as in Lemma \[bundle map\].
The proposition depends on the following lemma, which may be of general interest. As above, ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}$ denotes the Cartesian product bundle over the Cartesian product groupoid $G\times{\mathcal G}$.
\[omega\] Let ${\mathcal G}$ be a second countable locally compact groupoid such that $C^*({\mathcal G})$ is nuclear. There exists an an isomorphism ${\omega}:\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times {\mathcal G})\to \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes C^*({\mathcal G})$ such that $${\omega}(g\boxtimes h)=({\Delta}^{-{\frac12}}g)\otimes h \quad\text{for
$g\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $h\in C_c({\mathcal G})$,}$$ where $g\boxtimes h\in \sa_c(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times {\mathcal G})$ is defined by $(g\boxtimes h)(s,x) = (g(s)h(x),x)$.
For $a_{t}\in A_{t}$, define a linear operator ${\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_t)$ on $\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ by[^12] $$\bigl({\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{t})h\bigr)_1(s,x)=a_{t}h_1(t^{-1}s,x){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}.$$ Then a computation shows that $$\brip< {\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{t})h,k> = \brip< h,{\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{t}^{*})k>
\quad\text{ for $h,k\in \sa_c(G\times{\mathcal G}, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$,}$$ where we are viewing $\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ as a right Hilbert module over itself with dense subspace $\sa_c(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$. Just as in the proof of Lemma \[key\], it follows that ${\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{t})$ is bounded as an operator on $\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ with adjoint ${\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{t}^{*})$, and that the rule $a_t \mapsto {\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_t)$ therefore extends to a $*$-homomorphism ${\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ into $M(\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}))$. The proof that ${\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ is nondegenerate and strictly continuous also closely parallels the proof in Lemma \[key\] and will be omitted. Using Lemma \[bundle map\], we get a nondegenerate homomorphism ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}:
\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to M(\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}))$.
Similarly, for $g\in C_{c}({\mathcal G})$ we define an operator ${\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(g)$ on $\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ by $$({\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(g)h)_1(s,x)=\int_{{\mathcal G}} g(y)h_1(s,y^{-1}x)\,d\lambda^{r(x)}(y).$$ Another computation shows that $$\rip< {\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(g)h,k> =\brip <h, {\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(g^{*})k>
\quad\text{ for $h,k\in \sa_c(G\times{\mathcal G}, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$.}$$ Thus condition (i) of Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\] is satisfied, and condition (ii) is not hard to check. Condition (iii) follows from the existence of an approximate identity for $C_{c}({\mathcal G})$ in the inductive limit topology (cf. [@mrw Corollary 2.11]). Hence, ${\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}$ extends to a nondegenerate homomorphism of $C^{*}({\mathcal G})$ into $M(\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}))$ by Proposition \[prop-Fell-multipliers\].
Clearly, ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}$ and ${\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}$ commute. Since $C^{*}({\mathcal G})$ is nuclear, we obtain a homomorphism ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}$ of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}\cs({\mathcal G})$ into $M(\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}))$. If $g\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, $h\in C_c({\mathcal G})$ and $k\in\sa_c(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$, then an argument patterned after the proof of [@danacrossed Lemma 1.108] implies that ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}(g){\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(h)k$ is in $\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ and that evaluation at $(s,x)\in G\times{\mathcal G}$ “passes through the integral” in the second step in the next calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl( {\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}(g){\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(h)k\bigr)_1(s,x) &= \Bigl(\int_G
\bigl({\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(g(t))({\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(h)k)\bigr)_1\,dt\Bigr)
(s,x)\\
&= \int_G {\rho^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(g(t))\bigl({\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(h)k\bigr)_1(s,x)\,dt\\
&= \int_G g(t) \bigl({\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(h)k\bigr)_1(t{^{-1}}s,x){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}\, dt\\
&= \int_G\int_{\mathcal G}g(t)h(y)k_1(t{^{-1}}s,y{^{-1}}x)d\lambda^{r(x)}(y){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}\, dt\\
&= \int_{G\times{\mathcal G}}\bigl(({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\boxtimes h\bigr)_1(t,y)
k_1((t,y){^{-1}}(s,x))\,d\lambda^{r(s,x)}(t,y)\\
&= \bigl( (({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\boxtimes h)*k\bigr)_1(s,x).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\label{not hard}
{\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}(g{\otimes}h)=({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\boxtimes h
\quad\text{ for $g\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $h\in C_c({\mathcal G})$.}$$ Since such elements $({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\boxtimes h$ span a dense subspace of $\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$, it follows that ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}$ maps $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}C^{*}({\mathcal G})$ (into and) onto $\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$.
Now fix a faithful nondegenerate representation $\pi$ of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$, and let $\pi_{0}:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to
B({\mathcal H})$ be the nondegenerate representation whose integrated form is $\pi$ (as in Lemma \[bundle map\]).
Further let $\tau$ be a faithful nondegenerate representation of $\cs({\mathcal G})$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal K}$. By the Disintegration Theorem ([@ren:representation Proposition 4.2] or [@muhwil:nyjm08 Theorem 7.8]), we can assume ${\mathcal K}=L^2({\mathcal G}^{(0)}*{\mathscr{V}},\mu)$, where ${\mathcal G}^{(0)}*{\mathscr{V}}$ is a Borel Hilbert bundle and $\mu$ is a finite quasi-invariant Radon measure on ${\mathcal G}^{(0)}$, such that $\tau$ is the integrated form of a groupoid representation $\tau_0$ of ${\mathcal G}$; thus $$\label{tau}
\bigl(\tau(h)\kappa\bigr)(u) = \int_{{\mathcal G}} h(x)\tau_0(x)
\kappa(s(x)){\Delta}_{{\mathcal G}}(x)^{-{\frac12}}\, d\lambda^u(x)
\quad\text{ for $h\in C_c({\mathcal G})$,}$$ where ${\Delta}_{{\mathcal G}}$ is the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $\nu{^{-1}}$ with respect to $\nu= \mu\circ\lambda$. Note that we can identify $(G\times{\mathcal G})^{(0)}$ with ${{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}$. Then we can form a Borel Hilbert bundle ${{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}*({\mathcal H}{\otimes}{\mathscr{V}})$ such that $({\mathcal H}{\otimes}{\mathscr{V}})(u)={\mathcal H}{\otimes}V(u)$ and such that $L^{2}({{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}*({\mathcal H}{\otimes}{\mathscr{V}}),\mu)$ can be identified with $H{\otimes}L^{2}({{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}*{\mathscr{V}},\mu)$. Then we can define a Borel $*$-functor (see [@mw:fell Definition 4.5]) $\Pi$ from ${{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G}$ to $\operatorname{End}({{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}*({\mathcal H}{\otimes}{\mathscr{V}}))$ by $$\Pi(a,x)=\pi_{0}(a){\otimes}\tau_{0}(x).$$ If $\mu_{G}$ is a left Haar measure on $G$, then we get a Haar system ${\{\,\underline{\lambda}^{u}\,\}}_{u\in{{\mathcal G}^{(0)}}}$ on $G\times{\mathcal G}$ via $\underline{\lambda}^{u}=\mu_{G}\times\lambda^{u}$. Notice that the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $\underline\nu^{-1}$ with respect to $\underline\nu:=\underline\lambda\circ\mu$ is given by $(s,x)\mapsto \Delta(s)\Delta_{{\mathcal G}}(x)$. Then [@mw:fell Proposition 4.10] implies that $\Pi$ integrates up to a $*$-homomorphism $L:\sa_{c}(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})\to
B({\mathcal H}{\otimes}L^2({\mathcal G}^{(0)}*{\mathscr{V}},\mu))$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{L}
L(f)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(u) \\ =\int_{G}\int_{{\mathcal G}}
\pi_{0}\bigl(f_{1}(t,x)\bigr)\eta\otimes\tau_0(x)\kappa(s(x))
{\Delta}_{{\mathcal G}}(x)^{-{\frac12}}{\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}}\,d\lambda^u(x)\, \,dt
\end{gathered}$$ which extends to a representation of $\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$.
Now, using , for $g\in \sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ and $h\in
C_c({\mathcal G})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
L\bigl(&\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\otimes\rho_{{\mathcal G}}(g\otimes h)\bigr)
(\eta\otimes\kappa)(u)\\
&= L\bigl( ({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}g)\boxtimes h\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(u)\\
&= \int_G \int_{{\mathcal G}}
\pi_0\bigl({\Delta}^{{\frac12}}(t)g(t)h(x)\bigr)\eta\otimes\tau_0(x)\kappa(s(x))
{\Delta}_{{\mathcal G}}(x)^{-{\frac12}}\,d\lambda^u(x)\, {\Delta}(t)^{-{\frac12}}\,dt\\
&= \Bigl( \int_G \pi_0(g(t))\eta\,dt\Bigr) \otimes\Bigl(
\int_{{\mathcal G}} h(x)\tau_0(x)
\kappa(s(x)){\Delta}_{{\mathcal G}}(x)^{-{\frac12}}\, d\lambda^u(x)\Bigr)\\
&= \pi(g)\eta\otimes\bigl(\tau(h)\kappa\bigr)(u)\\
&= (\pi\otimes\tau)(g\otimes h)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(u).
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $L\circ ({\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}})=\pi{\otimes}\tau$, and since the latter is a faithful representation of $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}C^{*}({\mathcal G})$, it follows that ${\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}}$ is faithful.
To complete the proof, we just let $\omega=({\rho_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}}{\otimes}{\rho_{{\mathcal G}}})^{-1}$. Then $\omega$ is an isomorphism of $\cs(G\times{\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal G})$ onto $\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}C^{*}({\mathcal G})$ and satisfies $$\omega(g\boxtimes h)=({\Delta}^{-{\frac12}}g){\otimes}h.{\relax}$$
Note that $C^{*}({\mathcal E})=C^{*}({\mathcal E},\lambda) \cong {\mathcal K}(L^{2}(G))$. In fact, since ${\mathcal E}$ is groupoid-equivalent to the trivial group, $C^{*}({\mathcal E})$ is simple, so the representation $\tau:C^{*}({\mathcal E})\to
B(L^{2}(G))$ defined by $$\bigl(\tau(h)\kappa\bigr)(s) =\int_{G}h(s,t)\kappa(t)\,dt
\quad\text{for $h\in C_{c}({\mathcal E})$ and $\kappa\in
C_{c}(G)\subseteq L^{2}(G)$}$$ is an isomorphism onto ${\mathcal K}(L^{2}(G))$. In particular, $C^*({\mathcal E})$ is nuclear, so by Lemma \[omega\], we have an isomorphism $$\Upsilon :=({\text{\textup{id}}}{\otimes}\tau)\circ
\omega:\cs(G\times{\mathcal E},{{\mathscr{A}}}\times{\mathcal E})\to \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}}){\otimes}{\mathcal K}\bigl(L^{2}(G)\bigr).$$ [If we let ${\mathcal E}^{(0)}*{\mathbb C}$ be the trivial bundle $G\times{\mathbb C}$, then we can identify $L^{2}(G)$ with $L^2({\mathcal E}^{(0)}*{\mathbb C},\lambda)$ in the obvious way. Notice also that $\lambda$ is a quasi-invariant measure on ${\mathcal E}^{(0)}$ with $\Delta_{{\mathcal E}}\equiv 1$. Thus the representation $\tau$ is essentially presented as in . (The representation $\tau_{0}$ acts on $(s,z)\in G\times{\mathbb C}$ by $\tau_{0}(t,s)(s,z)=(t,z)$.) Thus, in the current situation, reduces to $$\bigl(L(f)\xi\bigr)(s) = \int_G \int_G
\pi_0\bigl(f_1(r,s,t)\bigr)\xi(t){\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}}\,dr\,dt$$ for $\xi\in C_c(G,{\mathcal H})\subseteq {\mathcal H}\otimes L^2(G)$. Now is easily verified using the observation (from the proof of Lemma \[omega\]) that $(\pi\otimes\tau)\circ\omega
= L$.]{}
We need to show that $\Phi$ is injective, and to do this we will show that the diagram $$\xymatrix{ \cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\times_{\delta}G\times_{\hat{\delta}} G
\ar[r]^-\Theta_-\cong \ar[d]_{\Phi}&\cs({\mathcal{S}},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G\times_{{{\text{\textup{id}}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}\times{\textup{rt}}}}G})
\ar[d]^\Psi_\cong
\\
\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\otimes {\mathcal K}(L^2(G)) &\cs({\Gamma}\times{\mathcal E}, {{\mathscr{A}}}\times {\mathcal E})
\ar[l]^-\Upsilon_-\cong }$$ commutes, where $\Theta$, $\Psi$, and $\Upsilon$ are the isomorphisms of Propositions \[Theta\], \[Psi\], and \[Upsilon\], respectively.
Let $\pi:\cs(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})\to B({\mathcal H})$ be a faithful nondegenerate representation on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$. Let $f\in\sa_c(G,{{\mathscr{A}}})$, $g,h,\kappa\in C_c(G)$, and $\eta\in {\mathcal H}$. Then, to show that the diagram commutes, the following computation suffices. Applying Proposition \[Upsilon\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl((\pi\otimes{}&{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ\Upsilon\circ\Psi\circ\Theta
\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)\bigr)(s)
\\
& =\int_G\int_G \pi_{0}\bigl(
\Psi\circ\Theta\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)_1(r,s,t)
\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(t){\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}}\,dr\,dt
\\
\intertext{which, by Proposition~\ref{Psi}, is} & =\int_G\int_G
\pi_{0}\bigl(
\Theta\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)_1(r,r{^{-1}}s,s{^{-1}}rt)
\bigr)\eta\kappa(t){\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}}\,dr\,dt \\
\intertext{which, by Proposition~\ref{Theta}, is} & =\int_G\int_G
\pi_{0}\bigl( f(r){\Delta}(r)^{{\frac12}}g(r{^{-1}}s)h(s{^{-1}}rt){\Delta}(s{^{-1}}rt)^{{\frac12}}
\bigr)\eta\kappa(t){\Delta}(r)^{-{\frac12}}\,dr\,dt \\
\intertext{which, after using Fubini and sending $t\mapsto
r^{-1}st$, is} & =\int_G\int_G \pi(f(r))g(r{^{-1}}s)h(t){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}} \eta\kappa(r{^{-1}}st)\,dt\,dr
\\
\intertext{which, since $\rho_t\kappa(r{^{-1}}s) = \kappa(r{^{-1}}st){\Delta}(t)^{{\frac12}}$, is} & =\int_G\int_G \pi_{0}(f(r))\eta g(r{^{-1}}s) ({\rho}_t\kappa)(r{^{-1}}s)h(t)\,dt\,dr \\
& =\int_G \pi_{0}(f(r))\eta g(r{^{-1}}s)
\bigl({\rho}(h)\kappa\bigr)(r{^{-1}}s)\,dr \\
& =\int_G \pi_{0}(f(r))\eta
\bigl(M_g{\rho}(h)\kappa\bigr)(r{^{-1}}s)\,dr \\
& =\int_G \pi_{0}(f(r))\eta \bigl({\lambda}_rM_g{\rho}(h)\kappa\bigr)(s)\,dr
\\
& =\int_G \bigl(\pi_{0}(f(r))\eta\otimes
{\lambda}_rM_g{\rho}(h)\kappa\bigr)(s)\,dr \\
& =\int_G \bigl(\pi_{0}(f(r))\otimes
{\lambda}_rM_g{\rho}(h)\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(s)\,dr \\
& =\int_G \bigl((\pi\otimes{\lambda})(f(r)\otimes r) (1\otimes
M_g{\rho}(h)\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(s)\,dr
\\
& =(\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\Bigl(\int_G \bigl(({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ{\delta}(f(r))
(1\otimes M_g{\rho}(h)\bigr)(\eta\otimes\kappa)(s)\,dr\Bigr)
\\
& =(\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})({\text{\textup{id}}}\otimes{\lambda})\circ{\delta}(f)\bigl(1\otimes
M_g{\rho}(h)\bigr)(s)
\\
& =(\pi\otimes{\text{\textup{id}}})\circ{\Phi}\bigl(k_{{\mathscr{A}}}(f)k_{C(G)}(g)k_G(h)\bigr)(s).
{\relax}\end{aligned}$$
[10]{}
A. Buss, R. Meyer, and C. Zhu, *A higher category approach to twisted actions on [$C^*$]{}-algebras*, preprint (arXiv:math.OA.0908.0455v1).
V. Deaconu, A. Kumjian, and B. Ramazan, *Fell bundles and groupoid morphisms*, Math. Scan. **103** (2008), no. 2, 305–319.
S. Echterhoff, S. Kaliszewski, and J. Quigg, *[Maximal coactions]{}*, Internat. J. Math. **14** (2004), 47–61.
S. Echterhoff, S. Kaliszewski, J. Quigg, and I. Raeburn, *A categorical approach to imprimitivity theorems for [$C^*$]{}-dynamical systems*, vol. 180, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., no. 850, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
S. Echterhoff and J. Quigg, *[Full duality for coactions of discrete groups]{}*, Math. Scand. **90** (2002), 267–288.
R. Exel, *Morita-[R]{}ieffel equivalence and spectral theory for integrable automorphism groups of [$C\sp *$]{}-algebras*, J. Funct. Anal. **172** (2000), no. 2, 404–465.
R. Exel and C.-K. Ng, *Approximation property of [$C\sp *$]{}-algebraic bundles*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **132** (2002), no. 3, 509–522.
P. Eymard, *[L’algèbre de Fourier d’un groupe localement compact]{}*, Bull. Soc. Math. France **92** (1964), 181–236.
J. M. G. Fell, *An extension of [M]{}ackey’s method to algebraic bundles over finite groups*, Amer. J. Math. **91** (1969), 203–238. [MR ]{}[MR0247469 (40 \#735)]{}
[to3em]{}, *An extension of [M]{}ackey’s method to [B]{}anach [$\sp{\ast}
$]{}-algebraic bundles*, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 90, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1969. [MR ]{}[MR0259619 (41 \#4255)]{}
J. M. G. Fell and R. S. Doran, *Representations of [$\sp *$]{}-algebras, locally compact groups, and [B]{}anach [$\sp *$]{}-algebraic bundles. [V]{}ol. 1*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 125, Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1988, Basic representation theory of groups and algebras.
[to3em]{}, *Representations of [$\sp *$]{}-algebras, locally compact groups, and [B]{}anach [$\sp *$]{}-algebraic bundles. [V]{}ol. 2*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 126, Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1988, Banach $*$-algebraic bundles, induced representations, and the generalized Mackey analysis.
M. B. Landstad, J. Phillips, I. Raeburn, and C. E. Sutherland, *[Representations of crossed products by coactions and principal bundles]{}*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **299** (1987), 747–784.
P. S. Muhly, *Bundles over groupoids*, Groupoids in analysis, geometry, and physics ([B]{}oulder, [CO]{}, 1999), Contemp. Math., vol. 282, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001, pp. 67–82. [MR ]{}[MR1855243 (2003a:46085)]{}
P. S. Muhly, J. N. Renault, and D. P. Williams, *[Equivalence and isomorphism for groupoid $C^*$-algebras]{}*, J. Operator Theory **17** (1987), 3–22.
P. S. Muhly and D. P. Williams, *Equivalence and disintegration theorems for [F]{}ell bundles and their [$C\sp *$]{}-algebras*, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) **456** (2008), 1–57. [MR ]{}[MR2446021]{}
[to3em]{}, *Renault’s equivalence theorem for groupoid crossed products*, NYJM Monographs, vol. 3, State University of New York University at Albany, Albany, NY, 2008, Available at http://nyjm.albany.edu:8000/m/2008/3.htm.
C.-K. Ng, *Discrete coactions on [$C\sp \ast$]{}-algebras*, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A **60** (1996), no. 1, 118–127.
J. C. Quigg, *[Discrete $C^*$-coactions and $C^*$-algebraic bundles]{}*, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A **60** (1996), 204–221.
I. Raeburn, *[On crossed products by coactions and their representation theory]{}*, Proc. London Math. Soc. **64** (1992), 625–652.
I. Raeburn and D. P. Williams, *[Morita equivalence and continuous-trace $C^*$-algebras]{}*, Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol. 60, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
J. N. Renault, *[A groupoid approach to $C^*$-algebras]{}*, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 793, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980. [MR ]{}[MR584266 (82h:46075)]{}
[to3em]{}, *[Représentation des produits croisés d’algèbres de groupoides]{}*, J. Operator Theory **18** (1987), 67–97.
D. P. Williams, *Crossed products of [$C{\sp \ast}$]{}-algebras*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 134, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007.
S. Yamagami, *[On the ideal structure of $C^*$-algebras over locally compact groupoids]{}*, preprint, 1987.
[^1]: This research was partially funded by the Edward Shapiro fund at Dartmouth College.
[^2]: Date: 15 September 2009
[^3]: We follow the convention that the total space of a Banach bundle is represented in a script font, while the fibres are written in Roman font. Thus if $p:{{\mathscr{A}}}\to X$ is a bundle over a space $X$, then we’ll write $A_x$ for the fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ viewed as a Banach space.
[^4]: We shall have more to say about semidirect-product bundles in Sections \[Semidirect-product bundles\] and \[action crossed product\].
[^5]: There are a number of equivalent definitions of Fell bundles over groupoids in the literature starting with Yamagami’s original in [@yam:symmetric Definition 1.1], as well as [@muh:cm01 Definition 6] and [@dkr:ms08 Definition 2.1].
[^6]: An exception is that in sections \[Semidirect-product bundles\] and \[action crossed product\] we work with general Fell bundles over groupoids, and there it is not necessary to assume that the underlying Banach bundles are continuous.
[^7]: It might be helpful to look over the examples in [@mw:fell §2] at this point.
[^8]: The operator ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}(a_{s})$ defined in is analogous to $\iota(a_{s})$ defined in Lemma \[key\]. The modular function appearing in its definition is required to make ${{\theta}^{{{\mathscr{A}}}}_{0}}$ $*$-preserving. It is necessary here because there is no modular function in the involution in $\sa_{c}({G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G},{{{\mathscr{A}}}\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G})$.
[^9]: This could be proved using [@mw:fell Lemma 8.1]. However, the proof of that lemma given in [@mw:fell] is incorrect. Fortunately, it can be fixed along the same lines as presented here.
[^10]: In fact, modulo the obvious identification of $G$ with $(G\times_{{\textup{lt}}}G)^{(0)}$, ${\theta}_{G}$ is just the natural map of $C_{0}({\mathcal G}^{(0)})$ into the multiplier algebra of the $C^{*}$-algebra $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ of a Fell bundle over a groupoid ${\mathcal G}$.
[^11]: Lemma 1.108 of [@danacrossed] as stated does not apply to a section algebra $\sa_c({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$ sitting inside a bundle $C^*$-algebra $\cs({\mathcal G},{{\mathscr{B}}})$, but it is easy to see that the argument gives the conclusion we need here.
[^12]: Although this construction almost exactly parallels that in Lemma \[key\], we need to insert a modular function here (compare with ) because, just as with (\[eq:5\]) in the proof of Theorem \[coaction crossed product isomorphism\], there is no modular function in the definition of the involution in the $*$-algebra associated to a Fell bundle over a groupoid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum systems unfold diversified correlations which have no classical counterparts. These quantum correlations have various different facets. Quantum entanglement, as the most well known measure of quantum correlations, plays essential roles in quantum information processing. However, it has recently been pointed out that quantum entanglement cannot describe all the nonclassicality in the correlations. Thus the study of quantum correlations in separable states attracts widely attentions. Herein, we experimentally investigate the quantum correlations of separable thermal states in terms of quantum discord. The sudden change of quantum discord is observed, which captures ambiguously the critical point associated with the behavior of Hamiltonian. Our results display the potential applications of quantum correlations in studying the fundamental properties of quantum system, such as quantum criticality of non-zero temperature.'
author:
- Xing Rong
- Zixiang Wang
- Fangzhou Jin
- Jianpei Geng
- Pengbo Feng
- Nanyang Xu
- Ya Wang
- Chenyong Ju
- Mingjun Shi
- Jiangfeng Du
bibliography:
- 'myref.bib'
title: Quantum Discord for Investigating Quantum Correlations without Entanglement in Solids
---
Nowadays the significance of quantum correlations goes well beyond quantum entanglement, which has been widely investigated and believed to be the key resource of quantum information processing [@RevModPhys.81.865]. However, quantum correlations possess other facets for which the quantum entanglement does not provide a complete characterization: there exist quantum nonlocality without entanglement [@Bennett.PhysRevA.59.1070.1999]. Moreover, quantum entanglement is not a necessary for quantum computation: we presented the experiment to perform a quantum algorithm for parity problem without using entanglement as early as 2001 [@PhysRevA.64.042306], and recently a deterministic quantum computation with one qubit (DQC1 [@PhysRevLett.81.5672]) is realized experimentally [@PhysRevLett.101.200501] on the mixed separable states. In this context, it is actually the type of quantum correlation known as quantum discord [@Ollivier:2002ly; @Henderson.JPhysA.34.6899.2001], rather than quantum entanglement, that provides the enhancement for the computation [@PhysRevLett.100.050502]. The significance of quantum discord in quantum communication has been studied in the cases of local broadcasting [@Piani.PhysRevLett.100.090502.2008] and state merging [@Cavalcanti.PhysRevA.83.032324.2011; @*Madhok.PhysRevA.83.032323.2011].
Quantum correlations also provide a powerful framework for the understanding of complex quantum systems. The first step towards this investigation is due to Osborne and Nielsen [@Osborne.PhysRevA.66.032110], who studied the relation between the entanglement and the quantum phase transition in $XY$ model. Recently, it is shown that quantum discord, in contrast to entanglement, captures the critical points associated with quantum phase transitions for $XXZ$ and $XY$ model, even at finite temperature or in an external magnetic field [@Dillenschneider:2008zr; @PhysRevA.80.022108; @PhysRevLett.105.095702; @PhysRevA.82.012106; @PhysRevA.83.062334]. Besides, quantum correlations are of great importance in quantum thermodynamics [@PhysRevA.67.012320; @RevModPhys.81.1], and even in photosynthesis [@Sarovar:2010fk]. Thus the study of the quantum correlations will be of both fundamental and practical significance.
In this Letter, we report an experiment to characterize the quantum correlations in separable thermal states. Quantum discord is used as the quantifier of the quantumness in the correlation in solids. A series of separable thermal states are generated, which can be taken as the thermal-equilibrium states of a two-qubit $XXZ$ Heisenberg model at a finite temperature. By tuning the state parameter that corresponds to the anisotropic coupling constant in the $XXZ$ model, we observe the sudden changes of quantum discord. The sudden change corresponds exactly to the energy-level crossing of the $XXZ$ Hamiltonian, and also indicates the critical point on which the ground state of the Hamiltonian transforms from product state to entangled one, or vice versa. When the number of the qubit on the $XXZ$ chain tends to infinity (i.e., thermodynamic limit), the sudden changes of discord spotlight the critical points associated with quantum phase transitions [@PhysRevLett.105.095702]. Thus our experiment opens the possibility of experimentally studying the fundamental properties of quantum system from the viewpoint of quantum correlation, in particular quantum discord.
The thermal states generated in our experiment take the Bell-diagonal form, that is, $$\label{Bell-diagonal-states}
\rho_{\mathrm{BD}}= \frac{1}{4}\big(\mathbbm{1}
+c_x\sigma_x^1\sigma_x^2+c_y\sigma_y^1\sigma_y^2+c_z\sigma_z^1\sigma_z^2\big),$$ where $\sigma_i^{1(2)}$ ($i=x,y,z$) are the Pauli matrices of the first (second) qubit. From [@PhysRevA.77.042303], the quantum discord of $\rho_{\mathrm{BD}}$ is given by $$\label{discord}
D(\rho_{\mathrm{BD}})=1+h(c)-S(\rho_{\mathrm{BD}}),$$ where $c=\max\{|c_x|,|c_y|,|c_z|\}$, $S(\rho)=-\mathrm{Tr}(\rho\log_2\rho)$ is the von Neumann entropy, and the function $h(x)$ is defined as $h(x)=-\frac{1+x}{2}\log_2\frac{1+x}{2}-\frac{1-x}{2}\log_2\frac{1-x}{2}$.
The Bell-diagonal states of the form can be taken as the thermal-equilibrium states of a two-qubit $XXZ$ Heisenberg chain with the Hamiltonian given by $$\label{Hamiltonian}
H =\frac{J}{4}(\sigma_x^1\sigma_x^2+\sigma_y^1\sigma_y^2+\Delta\sigma_z^1\sigma_z^2),$$ where $J$ is the coupling constant and $\Delta$ is anisotropy parameter. In fact, the density matrix for this model at thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$ is given by the canonical ensemble $\rho=e^{-\beta H}/Z$, where $\beta=1/k_BT$, and $Z=\mathrm{Tr}(e^{-\beta H})$ is the partition function. When $T=0$, the state $\rho$ is the ground state of the Hamiltonian $H$. When the temperature $T$ is appreciably larger than the maximum splitting of $H$ in Eq. , the thermal-equilibrium state can be approximated as $$\label{thermal states}
\rho=\frac{\mathbbm1}{4}-\frac{\beta J}{16}(\sigma_x^1\sigma_x^2+\sigma_y^1\sigma_y^2+\Delta\sigma_z^1\sigma_z^2).$$ The entanglement of formation (EoF) [@PhysRevA.53.2046] and the quantum discord of the state $\rho$ can be easily obtained from Ref. [@Wootters:1998fk] and Eq. respectively. We depict the results with respect to the anisotropic parameter $\Delta$ in Fig. \[fig1\], where the units have been chosen such that $J = 1$ and $k_B$ is unity [@PhysRevA.71.012307; @*PhysRevLett.105.240405]. It is shown that with the temperature increasing, the EoF becomes zero, while the quantum discord always remains positive \[Fig. \[fig1\](b)\]. Also, at finite temperature, the quantum discord changes suddenly at $\Delta=\pm1$ which corresponds exactly to the energy-level crossing, but it is not the case for EoF: The behavior of EoF is illustrated by smooth curves (grey lines in Fig. \[fig1\](b)).
![(color online) (a) the energy-level of the Hamiltonian given by Eq. . (b) the EoF (grey lines) and quantum discord (red lines) of the state $\rho$ given by Eq. . When the temperature increase from $0$K to $2$K, the EoF vanishes and the discord remains positive. The sudden changes of discord correspond to the level crossing shown in (a).[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
To explore the quantum correlations in the separable states, we choose phosphorous donors in silicon (P:Si) material [@PhysRevLett.106.040501; @PhysRevB.68.193207] with P concentration about $1 \times 10^{16}$cm$^{-3}$ as a benchmark system. The system consists of an electron spin $S = 1/2$ and a nuclear spin $I = 1/2$. It can be described by an isotropic spin Hamiltonian: $$\label{H of P:Si}
H_{e,n} = \omega_e S_z - \omega_I I_z +2\pi a\cdot \overrightarrow{\textbf{S}}\cdot\overrightarrow{\textbf{I}},$$ where $\omega_e = g\beta_e B_0/\hbar$ and $\omega_I = g_I\beta_IB_0/\hbar$ characterize the Zeeman interaction for the electron and nuclear spins, $a=117~MHz$ is the isotropic hyperfine interaction strength and $\overrightarrow{\textbf{S}}$($\overrightarrow{\textbf{I}}$) is the electron (nuclear) spin operator. The energy diagram of this system is plotted in Fig. \[fig2\](a), where the two electron-paramagnetic-resonance (EPR) transitions and two NMR transitions have been labeled by MW1, MW2 and RF1 and RF2 respectively. The frequencies of these transitions, which are determined by field-swept echo detection (FSED) and standard Davies electron-nuclear double resonance (ENDOR) experiments, are MW$1 = 9.701~$GHz, MW$2=9.818~$GHz, RF$1=52.383~$MHz and RF$2=65.181~$MHz. The pulse length of the EPR (NMR) $\pi$ pulse is $60~$ns ($10~\mu$s) which has been derived from the EPR (NMR) Rabi nutation experiment.
![(color online) (a) Energy level diagram of the P:Si system. There are four Zeeman product states which are labeled states $1- 4$, where the left and the right $\uparrow$ ($\downarrow$) stands for the $\pm 1/2$ states of electron and nuclear spins, respectively. EPR and NMR transitions are indicated by two-way arrows. (b) Experimental results of the relaxation time measurements. The red line are collected from the echo-detected inversion recovery experiment (the related time axis is the red bottom one), which reveals $T_{1e}$. The green line is the electron spin echo decay through the Hahn echo sequence, which gives $T_{2e}$. The blue curve is the result of the nuclear spin FID with pulse sequence ($\pi_{2,4} - \pi/2_{1,2}-\tau-\pi/2_{1,2}-$echo, $\tau$ a variable), which is used to calculate $T_{2n}^*$. Note that the time axis for the green and blue curves is the black top one. The inset shows the decay of $\rho_{23}$. The experimental data (black circles) were fitted with a damped exponential function (grey line) of the form $y = y_0 + Ae^{-(\frac{t}{t_c})^2}$. (c) Diagram of the experimental pulse sequence. We use upper (lower) pulse sequence to generate the state $\rho$, in the case of $c_z > 0$ ($c_z < 0$). $\theta_{2,4}$ ($180_{1,3}$) is a MW$1$(MW$2$) pulse to rotate the electron spin by $\theta$ ($\pi$). $90_{1,2(3,4)}$ stands for a $\pi/2$ RF$1$(RF$2$) pulse. The tomography procession is composed of readout pulse sequence and electron spin echo detection. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The experiment has been carried out at $T_{\rm{exp}} = 8~$K on a homebuilt pulsed electron spin resonance (ESR) spectrometer, which provides the access to controlling both the electron and nuclear spins with flexible microwave (MW) and radio frequency (RF) pulses[@PhysRevA.63.042302]. We first measure the relaxation times of both electron and nuclear spins (see Fig. \[fig2\](b)). For the electron spin, the transverse relaxation time is $T_{2e} = 120~\mu$s (green line in Fig. \[fig2\](b)) and the electron population relaxation time is $T_{1e} = 5.6~$ms (red line in Fig. \[fig2\](b)). For the nuclear spin, the dephasing time is determined as $T_{2n}^* = 24.3~\mu s$ by a nuclear spin free induction decay (FID) experiment (blue line in Fig. \[fig2\](b)). We also measure the decay of the $\rho_{23}$ under the environment with a decay constant $t_c = 200~$ns (plotted in the inset of Fig. \[fig2\](b)). The relaxation times are similar to those reported in Ref. [@PhysRevLett.106.040501]. The nuclear population relaxation time $T_{1n}$ is estimated to be 250 times of $T_{1e}$ according to the literatures [@Tyryshkin:2006fk]. So the waiting time between each experiment has been set to $10~$s.
Fig. \[fig2\](c) shows the pulse sequence applied in our experiment. The first MW pulse is to flip the electron spin with an angle $\theta$ while $I_z = -1/2$. There is a waiting time ($\tau_1 = 1~\mu$s $\gg T_{2e}^*$) following so that the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix decay off. The first $90^\circ$ RF1(RF2) pulse is to equalize the diagonal elements $\rho_{11}$ and $\rho_{22}$ ($\rho_{33}$ and $\rho_{44}$). Then we let the off-diagonal elements, which are generated by the first RF pulse, decay off by another waiting time $\tau_2 = 200~\mu$s which is long enough compared with $T_{2n}^* $. The following $90^\circ$ RF2(RF1) pulse ($90^\circ$) and the $180^\circ$ MW1(MW2) pulses are to generate the nonzero off-diagonal element, $\rho_{23}$. After waiting time $\tau_3$ which is to introduce a decay factor $\lambda(\tau_3)$, the final state has been prepared to Bell diagonal states given by Eq. , where $c_x = c_y = -\epsilon(1-\cos\theta)\lambda(\tau_3)$, $c_z = \pm 2\epsilon(1+\cos\theta)$ and $\epsilon = g\beta_e B_0/ 8 k_B T_{\rm{exp}} = 7.35\times 10^{-3}$. Here $\lambda(\tau_3) = \exp(-\tau_3/t_c)$ which has been determined in Fig. \[fig2\](b).
![(color online) (a) The readout of the $\rho_{23}$. I$_{+x} -$I$_{-x}$ (red circles) and I$_{+y} -$I$_{-y}$(green triangles) are plotted. Sine functions(dashed lines) are fitted to the experimental data. The x axis is the rotation angle $\phi$ and the y axis is the amplitude of the echo in unit of $\epsilon$. The results give both real and imaginary parts of $\rho_{23}$. (b)The reconstructed deviation density matrix $\delta \rho = \rho - \frac{1}{4} \mathbbm{1}$ in unit of $\epsilon$, when $c_x = c_y = -0.0044$ and $c_z = 0.0008$. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="1\columnwidth"}
Tomography technique [@Vandersypen:2004fk] is then used to reconstruct the density matrix $\rho$. By observing both the in-phase and quadrature components of the electron spin echo (the block labeled by electron spin echo detection in Fig. \[fig2\](c)), measurement in $S_x$ and $S_y$ bases is achieved. For the diagonal elements $\rho_{ii, ~i = 1-4}$, the readout pulse sequence is a MW$1$(2) (RF$1$(2)) pulse (green block in Fig. \[fig2\](c)) with variable duration. Note that an additional waiting time $\tau_4 = 200~\mu$s (not shown in Fig. \[fig2\](c)), which is long enough to let dephasing effect eliminate the possible off-diagonal elements, is inserted before the readout pulse. Then this selective electron(nuclear) spin Rabi nutation corresponds to the measurement of $S_zI^{\alpha, \beta}$($S^{\alpha, \beta}I_z$) where $S(I)^{\alpha, \beta} = (1 \pm \sigma_z)/2$. To readout the off-diagonal elements $\rho_{12}$, $\rho_{34}$, $\rho_{13}$ and $\rho_{24}$, $\tau_{4}$ is set to zero. Compared with the previous nutation experimental data, these off-diagonal elements were calculated to be almost zero in our experiment.
To measure $\rho_{23}$, the readout pulse sequence is composed of a microwave pulse, $180_{2,4}$, and a radio frequency pulse, $\phi_{3,4}$, with variable rotation angle $\phi$. We denote the spectrum of Rabi nutation, when the phase of $180_{2,4}$ is $\pm x, \pm y$, as $I_{\pm x, \pm y}(\phi)$. After some calculations, we find that $I_{+x}(\phi) - I_{-x}(\phi)=- Re(\rho_{23})\sin(\phi)$ and $I_{+y}(\phi) - I_{-y}(\phi)= Im(\rho_{23})\sin(\phi)$ \[Fig. \[fig3\](a)\]. For the measurement of $\rho_{14}$, we use $\phi_{1,2}$ instead of $\phi_{3,4}$ in the readout pulse sequence of $\rho_{23}$. To normalize the results, we compare all the the amplitudes of the Rabi nutations in our tomography procession to the amplitude of electron spin Rabi nutation which can be taken as $2\epsilon$. Once the above steps are completed, the experimental density matrix can be fully reconstructed. Fig. \[fig3\](b) shows the result of the tomography of one Bell diagonal state whose $c_x = c_y = -0.0044$ and $c_z = 0.0008$ (Note that $\delta\rho$ is the result the reconstructed density matrix subtracted by $\mathbbm{1}/4$). The entanglement of this quantum state is zero, thus the state is separable. However, the quantum discord is $1.45\times 10^{-5}$. This shows that nonzero quantum correlations have been generated in a separable quantum state.
![(color online) The behavior of quantum correlations when $\Delta$ varies. The $x$ axis is the tuning parameter $\Delta$ and the $y$ axis is quantum discord. Experimental data of quantum discord (red circles), which are derived from the reconstructed density matrices, agree with the theoretical prediction using Eq. (solid line). The deviation between the experimental data and the theoretical prediction is due to the imperfection of the pulses. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="1\columnwidth"}
The values of quantum discord (red circles in Fig. \[fig4\](b)) are numerically calculated using Eq. . The experimental data agree with the theoretical prediction (line in the Fig. \[fig4\](b)). It is clear that quantum discord experiences a sudden change at $\Delta=\pm1$ where the energy level crossing occurs. It is worthy of pointing out that the entanglement, which is characterized by EoF, is measured to be zero in our experiments. Thus, we have presented a case where entanglement fails to capture energy level crossing while temperature is of a finite value. Note that there are theoretical works which conclude that quantum discord can be utilized to capture the quantum phase transition even at finite temperatures[@PhysRevLett.105.095702; @PhysRevA.83.062334; @PhysRevA.81.044101]. The success in highlighting the sudden change of the ground state ($\Delta = -1$) in the two-qubit system employed in our experiments indicates that quantum correlation could be used to observe the quantum criticality at finite temperatures.
In summary, we have experimentally observed quantum correlations in a series of separable states in solids. Furthermore, the capability of using quantum correlations to reveal the intrinsic change of the physical system is revealed. Two-qubit XXZ Heisenberg model has been taken as an example, and the abrupt change of its ground state has been unambiguously spotlighted by quantum correlations. Our experiment may serve as a preliminary meaningful step to observe quantum criticality at finite temperatures via quantum correlations.
We acknowledge X. H. Peng, C. J. Zhang and C. K. Duan for helpful discussion. This work was supported by National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos.10834005, 91021005, and 21073171), the Instrument Developing Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. Y2010025), and the National Fundamental Research Program 2007CB925200.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent experiments have shown the potential of surface acoustic waves as a mean for transporting charge and spin in quantum wells. In particular, they have proven highly effective for the coherent transport of spin-polarized wave packets, suggesting their potential in spintronics applications. Motivated by these experimental observations, we have theoretically studied the spin and charge dynamics in a quantum well under surface acoustic waves. We show that the dynamics acquires a simple and transparent form in a reference frame co-moving with the surface acoustic wave. Our results, e.g., the calculated spin relaxation and precession lengths, are in excellent agreement with recent experimental observations.'
author:
- Johannes Wanner
- Cosimo Gorini
- Peter Schwab
- Ulrich Eckern
bibliography:
- 'Biblio-new.bib'
title: Driving spin and charge in quantum wells by surface acoustic waves
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Coherent spin transport across a device is a central goal of spintronics.[@Stotz2005; @Awschalom2007] In this context the enhancement of the spin lifetime is a critical issue, and recent experiments have demonstrated the effectiveness of using Surface Acoustic Waves (SAWs) for this purpose. [@Sogawa2001; @Stotz2005; @Couto2007; @Couto2008; @Sanada2011] In such experiments the spin density in semiconducting quantum wells is optically generated by laser beams and transported by a SAW over distances of several tens of micrometers. The current understanding[@Stotz2005; @Couto2008] is that these long distances are possible due to the suppression of both Bir-Aronov-Pikus[@Bir1975] and Dyakonov-Perel’[@Dyakonov1972] spin-relaxation mechanisms: the piezoelectric SAW potential spatially separates electrons and holes, thus inhibiting Bir-Aronov-Pikus relaxation, and at the same time confines them to narrow (moving) wires/dots, which causes motional narrowing and thus a suppression of Dyakonov-Perel’ relaxation. However, motional narrowing in a 2-Dimensional Electron Gas (2DEG) ceases to be relevant for strong *static* confinements, when spin-dependent scattering at the boundaries takes over, as recently observed[@Holleitner2006] and theoretically explained.[@Schwab2006] In this work we address the question of *dynamic* confinement. In particular, we will investigate how intrinsic (Dyakonov-Perel’) spin relaxation mechanisms affect the spin dynamics of pockets of photoexcited electrons driven by SAWs.
We will also briefly comment on the role of extrinsic (Elliot-Yafet) spin relaxation.[@Raimondi2009] Spin relaxation due to the hyperfine interaction between the carriers and the background nuclei may be an important issue in strongly confined, static geometries [@Merkulov2002; @Braun2005], but was recently shown[@Echeverria2013] to be irrelevant for a pocket of mobile electrons carried by a SAW, and hence will not be considered here.
We will start in Secs. \[sec\_model\] and \[sec\_diff\] by defining the model and introducing the diffusive limit, respectively. In Sec. \[sec\_charge\] charge dynamics will be discussed, and in Sec. \[sec\_spin\] the central issue of spin dynamics. For the sake of clarity, the latter will be studied by specializing to a specific geometry, and by retaining only the dominant spin-orbit interactions. In Sec. \[sec\_superplus\] we will comment on different geometries and additional spin-orbit terms. A short summary is given in Sec. \[sec\_conclusions\].
The model {#sec_model}
=========
We consider an electron gas in the $x$-$y$–plane described by the Hamiltonian $$H = \frac{p^2}{2m}+H_{\rm so}+V(\br).$$ Here $m$ is the effective mass, $H_{\rm so}$ describes intrinsic spin-orbit coupling, and $V(\br)$ is the random impurity potential. For the latter, we assume the standard “white noise” disorder, i.e., we assume that the average of the potential is zero, and its correlations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle V(\br)V(\br')\rangle = (2\pi N_0\tau)^{-1}\delta(\br-\br').\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_0 = m/(2\pi)^2$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy per spin, $\tau$ is the elastic momentum scattering time, and we have chosen $\hbar=1$.
For $H_{\rm so}$ we consider general linear-in-momentum couplings, which arise in 2DEGs because of broken structural (Rashba[@Bychkov1984]) or bulk (Dresselhaus[@Dresselhaus1955]) inversion symmetry, or of strain;[@Bernevig2005] linear couplings are dominant with respect to cubic ones in a wide range of parameters.[@Studer2010; @Walser2012] Linear-in-momentum couplings can be written in terms of a non-Abelian vector potential $\bcA$,[@Mathur1992; @Frohlich1993; @Tokatly2008; @Gorini2010] which for spin $1/2$ carriers becomes a $SU(2)$ field with three components in the Pauli matrices basis ($a=x,y,z$), and two components in real space ($i=x,y$): $$\label{su2}
H_{\rm so} = p_i\cA_i^a\sigma^a/2m.$$ Unless otherwise specified, upper (lower) indices will refer to spin (real space) components throughout.
Our treatment is based on the general approach described in Refs. . However, for definiteness we will start by considering quantum wells grown in the $\hat{\bf z}\parallel [001]$ direction. With the in-plane base vectors $\hat{\bf x}\mid\mid [100]$ and $\hat{\bf y}\mid\mid [010]$ the linear Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit Hamiltonians read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_hR}
H^R_{\rm so} &=& \alpha (p_y\sigma^x-p_x\sigma^y),
\\
\label{eq_hD}
H^D_{\rm so} &=& \beta (p_y\sigma^y-p_x\sigma^x),\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha, \beta$ the respective coupling constants. These spin-orbit terms can be rewritten according to with the following $SU(2)$ potentials: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_AR}
&(\cA_R)^x_y = - (\cA_R)^y_x = 2m\alpha ,&
\\
\label{eq_AD}
&(\cA_D)^y_y = - (\cA_D)^x_x = 2m\beta&,\end{aligned}$$ all other components being zero.
The spin-orbit interaction depends on the electron direction of motion; thus, in order to examine the effect of a SAW, we will consider the latter to be propagating either in the $[110]$ or in the $[\bar{1}10]$ direction. In both cases the driving field can be written as $$\label{drivingSAW}
{\bf E}(\br)=E\,\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cos\left(\mathbf{kr} -\omega t\right),$$ where $\omega=v \vert\mathbf{k}\vert$; $v$ is the sound velocity in the medium, and $ \hat{\mathbf k} $ is the unit vector pointing in the SAW propagation direction.
The SAW is generated in a piezoelectric material by applying a time-modulated voltage to interdigital transducers in contact with it, and the in-plane field is accompanied by a component in the $z$ direction and by strain.[@Mamishev2004; @Morgan2007] The latter are both sources of additional non-homogeneous and time dependent spin-orbit terms in the Hamiltonian.[@Sanada2011] We will at first neglect these complications, and start by taking into account only the driving SAW field .
Diffusive limit {#sec_diff}
===============
Within the $SU(2)$ “color” approach,[@Tokatly2008; @Gorini2010; @Raimondi2012] the charge and spin dynamics can be described by the $SU(2)$-covariant continuity equation $$\label{eq_cont}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\tilde{\nabla}\cdot\bj =0,$$ with the density and current given by $$\rho=\rho^{0}+s^{a}\sigma^{a},\quad \bj=\bj^{0}+\bj^{a}\sigma^{a}.$$ Here $ \rho^0 $ and $s^a $ are, respectively, the charge and spin ($a$-th component) density. The covariant derivative $$\tilde{\nabla} =\nabla + \mathrm{i}\left[\bcA,...\right],$$ where $$\bcA= \left(\bcA^x \sigma^x +\bcA^y \sigma^y+\bcA^z \sigma^z\right)/2$$ is defined according to Ref. , consists of two terms, the spatial derivative $\nabla$ and the commutator with the vector potential describing spin precession around the spin-orbit field. In this work, we consider the diffusive regime, i.e., we assume that the mean free path, $ l= v_F \tau $, is much smaller than the wavelength of the SAW, $ 2\pi/k $. In this limit, the electric field $ \textbf{E} $ of the SAW enters the charge-spin current as follows:[@Gorini2010] $$\label{eq_current}
\bj=-D \tilde{\nabla}\rho +\mu \textbf{E}\rho,$$ where $ D $ is the diffusion constant, and $ \mu $ the mobility. This simple structure is due to the fact that we are dealing with linear-in-momentum spin-orbit interactions. Substituting into the continuity equation leads to a drift-diffusion equation for the charge density $\rho^0$, and to Bloch-type equations for the spin densities $s^a$.
Charge dynamics {#sec_charge}
===============
As discussed above, the drift-diffusion equation for the charge carriers in the diffusive limit has the well known form: $$\frac{\partial \rho^{0}}{\partial t}+\mu\nabla\cdot(\textbf{E}\rho^{0}) -D\nabla^{2}\rho^{0}=0.
\label{dyn}$$ In the following we assume the $ x $ axis to be parallel to the SAW propagation direction. Since there is no drift of the carriers in the direction perpendicular to the SAW ($ y $ axis), the solution of the drift-diffusion equation factorizes, $ \rho_0(\textbf{r},t)=a_0 X(x,t) Y(y,t) $. Here $a_0$ is a constant fixed by the initial conditions, irrelevant for the dynamics and thus neglected in the following unless otherwise specified. The motion in the $ y $ direction is governed by the solution of the diffusion equation, $$Y(y,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi D t}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,\mathrm{d}y'\exp\left[-\frac{(y-y')^2}{4 D t}\right]
Y(y',0).
\label{ydens}$$ For the dynamics in $x$ direction one has to discriminate between two cases, depending on the SAW velocity $ v $ being larger or smaller than the carrier velocity $ \mu E $. In the first case, $ v>\mu E $, the carriers are too slow to follow the SAW, but move from one minimum to the next. Considering in addition not too small $E$ such that $Dk\ll\mu E$, cf. Eq. (\[dyn\]), diffusion can be neglected and the dynamics is governed by the drift. In typical non-degenerate semiconductors the Einstein relation $D = \mu k_B T/e$ can be employed to estimate the diffusion constant,[@Cameron1996; @Wang2013; @Garcia-Cristobal2004] implying that the condition $Dk\ll\mu E$ becomes independent of the mobility, namely reduces to $k_B T \cdot k \ll eE$, or $k_B T\ll eE/k$. This requirement is easily met at low temperatures, $T \sim 20$ K or lower.[@Garcia-Cristobal2004] Though diffusion acquires importance with increasing temperature, the experimental data of Ref. [@Couto2008] (see Fig. 4(b) therein), where $k\approx 1.12 \times
10^4 {\rm cm}^{-1}$ and $eE \approx 3.4 \times 10^3$ eV/cm, show that drift can be dominant even at room temperature. In this case, the differential equation (\[dyn\]) simplifies, and $ X(x,t) $ is found to be given by $$X(x,t)=\frac{v-\mu E\cos\left[k \,\xi(x,t)\right]}{v-\mu E \cos\left(k x-\omega t\right)}X\left(\xi(x,t),0\right),\label{dde}$$ with
$$\xi(x,t)=\frac{2}{k} \arctan
\left\lbrace\sqrt{\frac{v-\mu E }{v+\mu E }}
\tan\left[\arctan\left(\sqrt{\frac{v+\mu E }{v-\mu E}}\tan\left(\frac{k x-\omega t}{2}\right)\right)
+\frac{\sqrt{v^{2}-(\mu E )^{2}}}{2v}\,\omega t \right]
\right\rbrace.$$
Note that $ \xi(x,t=0)=x. $
Care is needed because of the periodicity of $ \tan\left[\left(k x-\omega t\right)/2\right] $, since for an arbitrary initial condition one has to choose the right branch in order to obtain the solution with the correct initial distribution. One can circumvent this difficulty by choosing an initial condition with all carriers within one period. In Fig. \[fig\_charge\] we therefore assumed a Gaussian initial distribution with a standard deviation much smaller than the SAW wavelength. Although the carriers are not fast enough to follow the SAW, they flow from one minimum to the next, with the average velocity $$\overline{v}=v-\sqrt{v^{2}-(\mu E)^{2}}, \; \mu E < v.$$
![Motion of the charge carriers $ X(x,t) $ in $ x $ direction with $ \mu E/v=0.5 $.[]{data-label="fig_charge"}](Chargenosurf-red.png){width="45.00000%"}
The situation is quite different for $ \mu E > v $, when the charge carriers are fast enough to follow the SAW, i.e. they are “surfing”. This means that they are subjected to a stationary potential in a reference frame moving with the SAW, and at the point $ x_0 =\arccos\left(v/\mu E\right)/k $ in this frame they move with its velocity. [^1] Since the potential is periodic, there is such a point in every period. Independent of the initial distribution $ X(x,0) $, the carriers flow towards the point $ x_0 $ corresponding to their period, until they reach a stationary distribution. Thus, for $ \mu E > v $ the solution (\[dde\]) converges to $ X(x,t) \sim\delta (k (x-x_0)-\omega t) $, and the carrier density $ X(x,t) $ is concentrated in an infinitely small wire parallel to the wave front. This implies that the diffusion term cannot be neglected anymore. Since the charge density distribution becomes stationary, the charge current vanishes in the moving frame, leading to $$X(x,t)=\exp\left[\frac{\mu E \sin(kx-\omega t)-v (k x-\omega t) }{D k}\right],
\label{eq_carrier}$$ which is sharply peaked at $ kx -\omega t=kx_0 $. Hence for $ \vert kx - \omega t -k x_0 \vert \ll 1 $, $ X(x,t) $ can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution, $$X(x,t)\approx\frac {e^{-\frac {(kx-\omega t-k x_0 )^2} {2\sigma^2}}} {\sqrt {2\pi}\sigma},$$ with standard deviation $ \sigma^2= D k /\sqrt{(\mu E)^{2}-v^{2}} $. Note that the exact solution (\[eq\_carrier\]) of the continuity equation (\[dyn\]) does not depend on the sign of $ \mu $. In other words, this solution describes the dynamics of electrons as well as that of holes, provided both are in the surfing regime, i.e., $\mu_{\rm e}E$, $\mu_{\rm h}E>v$. In this case the spatial separation of the two pockets of carriers is $$\Delta x_0=\frac{\arccos\left(v/\mu_{\mathrm{h}} E\right)-\arccos\left(v/\mu_{\mathrm{e}} E\right)}{k}.\label{distance}$$
Spin dynamics {#sec_spin}
=============
In this section, we examine the influence of a SAW on the spin density. The spin-orbit Hamiltonians can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{newcoord1}
H^R_{\rm so}+H^D_{\rm so}=&-(\alpha+\beta)\frac{p_x-p_y}{\sqrt{2}}\,\frac{\sigma^x+\sigma^y}{\sqrt{2}}\\
&+(\alpha-\beta)\frac{p_x+p_y}{\sqrt{2}}\,\frac{\sigma^x-\sigma^y}{\sqrt{2}}\nonumber\\
\label{newcoord2}
=:&\ap p_{x'}\sigma^{y'}+\am p_{y'}\sigma^{x'}\end{aligned}$$ where the primed coordinates correspond to the two directions, $ [110] $ and $ [\bar{1}10] $. In the following, we will perform all our calculations in this rotated reference frame (both real space and spin components rotated by $ \pi/4 $ around the $ z $ axis) with $ \hat{\mathbf{x}}\parallel [110] $ and $ \hat{\mathbf{y}}\parallel [\bar{1}10] $, but drop the prime (except for the closing of Sec. \[sec\_superplus\] where we will revert back to non-rotated coordinates). For the vector potential $ \bcA $ one finds $$\begin{aligned}
&(\cA)_x^y=-2m(\alpha+\beta):=\,2m\ap,&\\
&(\cA)_y^x=2m(\alpha-\beta):=\,2m\am,&\\
&(\cA)_x^x=(\cA)_y^y=0.&
\label{vecpot}\end{aligned}$$ The Bloch equations describing the dynamics of the spin density read $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t} s^a+\mu\nabla \cdot\textbf{E}s^a - D \nabla^{2}s^a & = & -2 D\,
\epsilon_{abc}\,\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^b \cdot\nabla s^c - \Gamma^{ab} s^b+\nonumber\\
& & + \epsilon_{abc}\,\mu\textbf{E}\cdot\bcA^b s^c .
\label{eq_bloch}\end{aligned}$$ These set of equations are obtained by taking the spin $a$-component of the continuity equation (\[eq\_cont\]), after expressing the current in the diffusive regime according to . Without a SAW and for a homogeneous spin distribution, one can immediately determine the spin lifetimes from the eigenvalues of the inverse spin relaxation matrix $ {\hat\Gamma}^{-1} $. In fact $ \hat\Gamma $ in (\[eq\_bloch\]) is diagonal, and its eigenvalues are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_x &=&\, 4Dm^2 \ap^2 \,, \label{Gamma1} \\
\Gamma_y &=&\, 4Dm^2 \am^2 \,, \label{Gamma2} \\
\Gamma_z &=&\, 4Dm^2 \left(\ap^2+\am^2\right)\,. \label{Gamma3}\end{aligned}$$ From one sees that for $y$-polarized spins there is no relaxation if $ \alpha=\beta $. Although this limit can be realized in experiments,[@Koralek2009; @Kohda2012] we here consider the more general case $ \alpha\neq \beta $.
Homogeneous initial conditions {#subsec_homo}
------------------------------
The spin dynamics depends strongly on the initial conditions. In this subsection we consider an experimental setup where a short laser pulse homogeneously polarizes the complete surface. In the surfing regime electrons and holes are strongly localized and effectively spatially separated, see Eq. , and are transported—along with their spins—across the sample. The description of the spin dynamics is considerably simplified by switching to a reference frame co-moving with the SAW. A change to such a reference frame leads to an additional term in the continuity equation which acts like an internal magnetic field, $$\partial_{t}\rho+\tilde{\nabla}\textbf{j}+\mathrm{i}[\textbf{v}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\rho]=0.$$ where $ \textbf{v} = v \hat{\mathbf{k}}$. A further simplification can be achieved by applying the following $SU(2)$ gauge transformation: $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow U^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}U+iU^{\dagger}\nabla U, \;
U=\exp\left(\mathrm{i}x\mathcal{A}_{x} \right).$$ In this gauge, the covariant derivative $ \tilde{\partial}_x \rightarrow \partial_x $ is diagonal in spin space but leads to a $ x $-dependent vector potential $ \mathcal{A}_{y}(x) $. However, since the charge carriers are Gaussian-distributed at the origin in the co-moving system with $ \sigma \ll 1/2m \ap $, one can neglect the $ x $-dependence of the vector potential, hence $ \mathcal{A}_{y}(x)\approx\mathcal{A}_{y}(0) $.
The time-dependence of the spin density in the presence of the SAW is governed by an effective relaxation matrix $\hat\gamma$, whose (complex) eigenvalues are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{x,z}& = & 2Dm^2 \am^2\pm2\,\mathrm{i}\sqrt{v^2 m^2 \ap^2-D^2 m^4 \am^4}\label{eig110-1},\\
\gamma_y & = & \, 4Dm^2 \am^2.
\label{eig110-2}\end{aligned}$$ Since all carriers move with the same velocity $ v $, the real part of these eigenvalues is related to the spin decay length, $$L_s=\frac{v}{\Re (\gamma)},\label{decaylength}$$ whereas the imaginary part determines the spatial precession length, $$\lambda=\frac{v}{\Im(\gamma)}.
\label{precessionlength}$$ For a SAW moving in the $ y $ direction we proceed in the same way. The carriers are then concentrated in a small wire parallel to the $ x $ axis. In this case one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_x & = & \, 4Dm^2 \ap^2,\\
\gamma_{y,z} & = & 2Dm^2 \ap^2\pm2\,\mathrm{i}\sqrt{v^2 m^2 \am^2-D^2 m^4\ap^4}\end{aligned}$$ which is obtained from Eqs. and by interchanging $ x $ and $ y $ as well as $+$ and $-$.
Comparing the real parts with Eqs. and , one finds a maximal enhancement of the spin lifetime by a factor of $ 2 (\ap/\am)^2 $ for the $ x $ direction, and $ 2 (\am/\ap)^2 $ for the $ y $ direction (“motional narrowing”). Note that the real parts of $ \gamma_{x/z} $ and $ \gamma_{y/z} $ are by a factor of two smaller than their perpendicular counterparts, $ \gamma_y $ and $ \gamma_x $, respectively. These perpendicular counterparts, describing the relaxation of spins parallel to the SAW wave front, are not affected by the SAW in the simple case of a homogeneous spin density.
Specifically we numerically calculated the $x$-spin density for a SAW traveling in the $ x $ direction and for different $E$ values. For simplicity, we set $ \ap=\am $, which in the surfing regime implies a spin lifetime increase by a factor of two. Not being interested in the spatial variation of the spin density, we consider the spin polarization $ P_s=\vert\textbf{P}_s \vert $, by integrating the spin density over the whole surface. From the Bloch equations one sees that, without a SAW, the spin polarization decays exponentially with the spin scattering rate . Hence we define the average spin lifetime by $$\langle\tau\rangle=\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}tP_s\,\mathrm{d}t }{\int_{0}^{\infty}P_s\,\mathrm{d}t }.$$ For the numerical analysis, we started at $ t=0 $ with a Gaussian distribution in $ x $ direction, with a standard deviation $ \sigma \gg 1/2m\ap $, polarized in $ x $ direction. The spin lifetime as a function of the ratio $ \mu E/v $ is shown in Fig. \[figspin\], where the expectation value $ \langle\tau\rangle $ is normalized to the corresponding spin lifetime $ \tau_s $ without SAW, cf. Eq. .
![Numerical results for the increase of the spin lifetime $ \langle\tau\rangle $ due to a SAW. For the calculation we assumed $ \ap=\am $. The spin lifetime is normalized by $ \tau_s=\Gamma^{-1}_x $, cf. Eq. .[]{data-label="figspin"}](tau.png){width="45.00000%"}
In the regime $ \mu E/v <1 $, when the carriers are not surfing, the spin lifetime depends strongly on the form of the initial spin distribution; in particular, for our choice its $E$-dependence is non-monotonic. As one approaches the surfing regime $ \mu E>v $ the spin lifetime converges to the expected value $ 2 \tau_s $.
Inhomogeneous initial conditions {#subsec_inhomo}
--------------------------------
So far we have discussed the spin dynamics of an initially homogeneous spin distribution, for which case there is no spin current parallel to the SAW wave front. However this assumption is not justified in experiments where the initial spin distribution is created by, say, a focused laser beam. Again, without loss of generality, we consider a SAW moving in $x$ direction.
While for the homogeneous case, the spins were precessing only around the axis parallel to the SAW wave front, now there will be diffusion along the wave front, and hence they will also rotate around the SAW propagation direction. As a consequence the spins along the narrow moving wire will not have the same orientation. In order to deal with this additional precession we employ the following ansatz for the spin density: $$s^a=\rho^0(r,\varphi,t)\,\eta^{a}(\varphi,t),
\label{ansatz}$$ where $ r=2m\sqrt{\ap^2 x^2+\am^2 y^2} $ denotes the renormalized (dimensionless) radius, and $ \varphi=\arctan[\am y/(\ap x)] $. The carrier density in the surfing regime, $ \rho^0(r,\varphi,t) $, was already determined in Sec. \[sec\_charge\], with $ X(x,t) $ given in ; according to Eq. the carrier density along the $ y $ axis for an initial Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $ y_0 $ reads $$Y(y,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(2 D t+y_0^2)}}\exp\left[-\frac{y^2}{2 (2 D t+y_0^2)}\right].$$ Instead of switching to the SAW co-moving reference frame as in the homogeneous case, we stay in the laboratory frame but perform again a gauge transformation, $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow U^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}U+iU^{\dagger}\nabla U,
\; U=\exp\left[\mathrm{i}(x-x_0-vt)\mathcal{A}_{x} \right],$$ since as above all relevant spin dynamics takes place in a small wire parallel to the SAW wave front. With the ansatz , and by neglecting terms $ \mathcal{O}(r^{-1}) $, the continuity equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t}\eta-\mathrm{i}\,\frac{v}{\cos\varphi}\left[\mathcal{A}_x(\varphi),\eta\right]+
D\left[\mathcal{A}_y,\left[\mathcal{A}_y,\eta\right]\right]=0,
\label{2ddyn}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \mathcal{A}_x(\varphi)=\exp\left(-\mathrm{i}\frac{\varphi}{2}\sigma^z\right)\mathcal{A}_x
\exp\left(\mathrm{i}\frac{\varphi}{2}\sigma^z \right) $ is the vector potential rotated around the $ z $ axis. The second term in Eq. leads to spin precession around the $ \varphi $-dependent vector potential $ \mathcal{A}_x(\varphi) $, whereas the third term is responsible for the relaxation of the spin components perpendicular to the $ x $ axis.
![Time-integrated spin density, $ \overline{s}^z $, for a SAW moving in $ [110] $ direction[]{data-label="2D110"}](110a002b17.png){width="45.00000%"}
\[fig\_110\]
![Time-integrated spin density, $ \overline{s}^z $, for a SAW moving in $ [\bar{1}10] $ direction[]{data-label="2D-110"}](m110a002b17.png){width="45.00000%"}
\[fig\_bar110\]
The Bloch equations now read $$\partial_{t}\eta^a=- \gamma(\varphi)^{ab}\eta^b,$$ with the $\varphi$-dependent effective relaxation matrix $$\begin{aligned}
&\\ \nonumber
\hat\gamma(\varphi)=&\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 2m v \ap \\
0 & 4 Dm^2 \am^2 & 2m v \ap \tan\varphi \\
- 2m v \ap & -2m v \ap \tan\varphi & 4 Dm^2 \am^2
\end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the temporal resolution is not high enough to measure the time dependence of the spin density directly (see, e.g., Ref. ), we characterize the additional rotation of the spins due to the diffusion parallel to the SAW wave front by the time-integrated spin density: note that all spins are confined within a narrow wire, and the spin density vanishes everywhere but for $ x-x_0 \approx vt $. For the time-integrated spin density we therefore obtain $$\overline{s}^a=\int_{0}^{\infty} s^a\,\mathrm{d}t\simeq a_0 Y\left(y,(x-x_0)/v\right)\eta^a\left(r,\varphi\right).$$ The results presented in Figs. \[2D110\] and \[2D-110\] were obtained by calculating numerically the time-dependence of the spin density $ s^z $, assuming at $t=0$ a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation of 1 $\mathrm{\mu m}$. Specifically, Figs. \[2D110\] and \[2D-110\] show the time-integrated spin density for a SAW moving in $x$ and $y$ direction, respectively. We have chosen parameters comparable to the experimental ones[@Sanada2011] (we restore temporarily $\hbar$), namely $ 2 m \alpha/\hbar^2 = 0.02 \,\mu \mathrm{m}^{-1} $, $ 2 m \beta/\hbar^2 = 0.17\,
\mu \mathrm{m}^{-1} $, $ D=30\, \mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{s} $, and $ v = 2.9 \times 10^5\,\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s} $. The elliptical shape of the time-integrated spin density, which is a consequence of the $ \varphi $-dependence of $ \mathcal{A}_x(\varphi) $, is clearly visible in both figures, in remarkable agreement with the observed behavior.[@Sanada2011]
The time-integrated $ s^z $ takes a very simple form along certain directions. For example, along the $x$ direction for $y=0$ (recall that our coordinate choice means $\hat{\bf x}\parallel[110]$, $\hat{\bf y}\parallel[\bar{1}10]$) we find $$\overline{s}^z= a_0 \frac{\exp\left(-(x-x_0)/L_{s,110}\right)}{\sqrt{y_0^2+2D(x-x_0)/v}}
\cos\left[\frac{2\pi (x-x_0)}{\lambda_{110}}\right],
\label{polz}$$ where $$\label{L110}
L_{s,110}= {v}/{2Dm^2\am^2},\; \lambda_{110}= {v}/{2\sqrt{v^2m^2\ap^2-D^2m^4\am^4}};$$ this is plotted in Fig. \[fig\_zspin\], upper panel (solid black line). The constant $a_0$ is fixed by fitting the numerical data, as discussed below. For a SAW propagating in $y$ direction (for $ x=0 $), one finds a similar expression, with the substitutions $x, L_{s,110}, \lambda_{110} \rightarrow y, L_{s,\bar{1}10}, \lambda_{\bar{1}10}$: $$\label{Lbar110}
L_{s,\bar{1}10}= {v}/{2Dm^2\ap^2},\; \lambda_{\bar{1}10}= {v}/{2\sqrt{v^2m^2\am^2-D^2m^4\ap^4}},$$ compare Fig. \[fig\_zspin\], lower panel (solid black line). In both propagation directions the numerical and analytical data are in good agreement for $x,\; y\gtrsim 3\, \mu \rm m $. The reason for the deviation near the origin is that for the chosen parameters, the standard deviation 1 $ \mathrm{\mu m}$ of the initial Gaussian is only marginally smaller than the SAW wavelength $ 2\pi/k=2.55\,\mathrm{\mu m} $, leading to two small wires instead of one. This causes the peak for $x,\; y$ close to this value. The spin dynamics is, however, in both wires the same. We emphasize that the dependence of the spin precession length on the direction of motion of the SAW is in very good agreement with the experimental observations.[@Sanada2011]
![Time-integrated spin density, $ \overline{s}^z $, along the \[110\] and \[$\overline{1}$10\] directions. The red circles represent the numerical solution of Eq. . The black solid line shows the analytical expression .[]{data-label="fig_zspin"}](Sza002b17.png){width="45.00000%"}
Miscellaneous {#sec_superplus}
=============
Other growth directions
-----------------------
Our treatment is based on the general $SU(2)$-covariant equations and . The latter require as only input the specific form of the spin-orbit interaction, i.e., of the non-Abelian vector potential $\bcA$, and yield at once the spin diffusion (Bloch) equations . Therefore any linear-in-momentum spin-orbit term can be handled straightforwardly. Let us consider, as another example, the $[110]$-grown GaAs quantum well experimentally studied in Refs. . The Rashba interaction is unchanged, compare Eqs. and , whereas the Dresselhaus term points out-of-plane,[@Sih2005] $$H_{so}^D = \beta p_y \sigma^z,$$ i.e., the only non-zero component of the vector potential $\bcA_D$ is $(\cA_D)^z_y=2m\beta$. If only the $[110]$ Dresselhaus term were present, $s^z$ would be a conserved quantity, [@Hankiewicz2006; @Raimondi2009] and confinement along the $x$ direction would be inconsequential. This changes when the Rashba interaction is also taken into account. The eigenvalues of the $\hat\Gamma$ matrix become [@Raimondi2009] $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1 &=&\, 4Dm^2 \alpha^2 \,, \\
\Gamma_2 &=&\, 4Dm^2 \left(\alpha^2+\beta^2\right) \,, \\
\Gamma_3 &=&\, 4Dm^2 \left(2\alpha^2+\beta^2\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with two eigenmode directions depending on the relative strength of the Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{e}_1 & \parallel & (-\alpha,0,\beta)\,,\\
\hat{e}_2 & \parallel & (0,1,0)\,,\\
\hat{e}_3 & \parallel & (\beta,0,\alpha)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The influence of a SAW on the spin lifetimes now crucially depends on the propagation direction. For an $x$-propagating SAW, in the co-moving frame and after gauging away $(\cA)^y_x$ as before, we find the eigenvalues of the $\hat\gamma$ matrix to be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{1,3}& = & 2Dm^2 \left(3\alpha^2+\beta^2\right)\nonumber \\
& &\pm 2\,\mathrm{i}\sqrt{v^2 m^2 \alpha^2-D^2 m^4 \left(\alpha^2+\beta^2\right)}\,,\\
\gamma_2 & = & \, 4Dm^2 \left(\alpha^2+\beta^2\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the eigenmode directions $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{e}'_1 & \parallel & (-8Dm^2\alpha^2 + \gamma_1, 0, 2m\alpha v +4Dm^2\alpha\beta)\,,\\
\hat{e}'_2 & \parallel & (0,1,0)\,, \\
\hat{e}'_3 & \parallel & (-8Dm^2\alpha^2 - \gamma_3, 0, 2m\alpha v +4Dm^2\alpha\beta)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The $y$-polarized spin eigenmode keeps its direction, $\hat{e}'_2=\hat{e}_2$, and its lifetime, $\gamma_2=\Gamma_2$, as in the case of a \[001\]-grown quantum well (see and ). On the other hand, the $\Gamma_1$- and $\Gamma_3$-modes are mixed by the SAW-induced dynamics. By comparing $ \Gamma_{1,3} $ with the real parts of $ \gamma_{1,3} $, one sees that ${\Re (\gamma_1)} > \Gamma_1$, i.e., the new $\gamma_1$ eigenmode has actually a shorter lifetime compared to the old one. On the other hand, ${\Re (\gamma_3]} < \Gamma_3$, with the eigenmode lifetime increasing by a factor of two for strong Dresselhaus interaction, $\beta\gg\alpha$.
Even more interestingly, for a $y$-propagating SAW the relaxation is independent of $\beta$. The eigenvalues of the $ \hat\gamma $ matrix, in the moving frame and after the usual gauge transformation, read $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1 &=&\, 4Dm^2 \alpha^2\,,\\
\gamma_{2,3} &=&\, 2Dm^2 \alpha^2\nonumber \\
& &\pm 2\,\mathrm{i}\sqrt{v^2 m^2 \left(\alpha^2+\beta^2\right)-D^2 m^4 \alpha^4}\,,\end{aligned}$$ whereas the eigenmode directions are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{e}'_1 & \parallel & (-\alpha,0,\beta)\,,\\
\hat{e}'_2 & \parallel & (2mv\beta, \gamma_2 , 2mv \alpha)\,,\\
\hat{e}'_3 & \parallel & (2mv\beta, -\gamma_3 , 2mv \alpha)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now the $\Gamma_1$-mode keeps both its lifetime, $\gamma_1=\Gamma_1$, and its direction, $\hat{e}'_1=\hat{e}_1$, while the other two modes are strongly influenced by the presence of the SAW. In particular, compared to the eigenmodes $\Gamma_{2,3}$, the new eigenmodes $\gamma_{2,3}$ have a spin lifetime enhanced by a factor of $2\beta^2/\alpha^2$ if the Dresselhaus interaction dominates, $\beta\gg\alpha$.
Additional spin-orbit interactions
----------------------------------
Additional sources of Rashba or Dresselhaus-like spin-orbit terms are the out-of-plane (i.e., parallel to the quantum well growth direction) SAW field and strain. Experimental observations suggest these dynamical contributions to be subleading compared to the static ones, though not completely negligible, especially for very strong SAW power.[@Sanada2011] For this discussion we consider the non-rotated coordinates, cf. Sec. \[sec\_model\].
In the laboratory reference frame the additional spin-orbit interactions appear as time- and space-dependent Rashba or Dresselhaus terms. For example, considering a SAW propagating along the $x$ direction, Eq. is modified to $$\label{eq_hR_new}
H^R_{\rm so} = \left[\alpha+\alpha_{\rm piezo}(x,t)+\alpha_{\rm strain}(x,t)\right]
(p_y\sigma^x-p_x\sigma^y),$$ and similarly for the Dresselhaus terms. In the color language this means that we deal with a space- and time-dependent vector potential $\bcA(x,t)$. Nevertheless, as long as the spatial variations of the spin-orbit fields are slow on the scale of the Fermi wavelength, the $SU(2)$ approach can be employed directly, as it treats homogeneous/static spin-orbit terms on the same footing as inhomogeneous/time-dependent ones.[@Gorini2010] The dynamical nature of these additional spin-orbit interactions substantially complicates the problem, but once more a change to the SAW co-moving reference frame offers a great simplification: when all disturbances, i.e., in- or out-of-plane fields, either piezoelectric or due to strain, propagate approximately with the same sound velocity $v$, all their contributions become static in the SAW co-moving frame, $\bcA(x,t)\rightarrow\bcA(x)$. Moreover, in the surfing regime when the carriers are confined, the vector potential can be approximated by its value at $x_0=\arccos\left(v/\mu E\right)/k$ (see Sec. \[sec\_charge\]), $\bcA(x)\approx\bcA(x_0)$. Hence we are back to the situation discussed in Sec. \[sec\_spin\], with the following modifications: $$\begin{aligned}
\bcA_R &\rightarrow& \bcA_R+\bcA^{\rm piezo}_R(x_0)+\bcA^{\rm strain}_R(x_0)
\\
\bcA_D &\rightarrow& \bcA_D+\bcA^{\rm strain}_D(x_0).\end{aligned}$$ This corroborates and fully justifies the intuition behind the estimations of $\alpha_{\rm piezo}$, $\alpha_{\rm strain}$, and $\beta_{\rm piezo}$ described in Ref. .
Finally, we briefly discuss extrinsic spin relaxation, i.e., due to spin-orbit interaction with the disorder potential $V({\bf r})$. Extrinsic mechanisms can be included in the color approach,[@Raimondi2012] and in the present case they lead to an additional (diagonal) term $\hat\Gamma_{\rm extr}$ in the relaxation matrix $\hat\Gamma$ of Eq. , $$\hat\Gamma_{\rm extr}=\frac{1}{\tau_{EY}} \, {\rm diag}(1,1,0) \, .
$$ The Elliot-Yafet spin-flip rate $1/\tau_{EY}$ typically is negligible compared to the Dyakonov-Perel rate (see Ref. for details), and independent of the presence of SAWs or of confinement. Nevertheless, a discussion focused on its role in a moving quantum dot in the presence of a Zeeman field is given in Ref. . Note that in case the impurity potential $V(\br)$ fluctuates also out-of-plane,[@Dugaev2010] an Elliot-Yafet relaxation rate for the $z$ spin component will appear.
Conclusion {#sec_conclusions}
==========
By utilizing the microscopic model of a disordered two dimensional electron gas, we studied the effects of surface acoustic wave on the charge and spin dynamics of photo-excited carriers, focusing on intrinsic spin-orbit mechanisms (Dyakonov-Perel relaxation). A SAW has to be strong enough ($ \mu E>v $) in order to transport the carriers at the speed of sound $v$ across the sample. In this surfing regime, the spin lifetime is considerably increased due to motional narrowing, up to a factor of two in (001) quantum wells. The dynamics can be most conveniently described in a reference frame co-moving with the SAW. In particular, we determined the SAW-induced modifications of the spin relaxation and precession lengths. Considering also diffusion along the SAW wave front, we obtained very good agreement with recent experimental observations.[@Sanada2011] Additional dynamical sources of spin-orbit relaxation (out-of-plane SAW field, strain) were also shown to be most conveniently handled in the SAW co-moving frame. These effects are expected to be relevant for the “moving quantum dots” produced by the interference of two orthogonal SAW beams. [@Stotz2005; @Sanada2011]
[^1]: Note that $ k x_0 $ lies in the range $ 0\ldots\pi $. This is also apparent from Eq. \[eq\_carrier\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent letter one of us pointed out how differences in preparation procedures for quantum experiments can lead to non-trivial differences in the results of the experiment. The difference arise from the initial correlations between the system and environment. Therefore, any quantum experiment that is prone to the influences from the environment must be prepared carefully. In this paper, we study quantum process tomography in light of this. We suggest several experimental setups, where preparation of initial state plays a role on the final outcome of the experiment. We show that by studying the linearity and the positivity of the resulting maps the experimenter can determine the nature of the initial correlations between the system and the environment.'
author:
- Kavan Modi
- 'E. C. G. Sudarshan'
bibliography:
- 'dissertation.bib'
title: The role of preparation in quantum process tomography
---
=1
Quantum information processing promises powerful computational methods that surpass the methods of classical information processing [@Nielsen00a; @shannon48a]. These methods rely on taking advantage of quantum parallelism by using quantum superposition and quantum entanglement as resources. In order to implement such a device one must have precise control over the system, and isolate it from the surrounding environment to preserve coherence. Yet realistically, it is nearly impossible to isolate the system of interest completely from its surroundings, while having a great deal of control.
With the rising interest in quantum computation and quantum information processing, quantum coherence experiments are performed readily these days, though with relatively small systems. One of the major problem with these experiment is the loss of coherence due to the interaction between the system of interest and the unknown environmental states. The methods for studying the interaction between the system and the environment are given by the quantum theory of open systems.
The quantum theory of open systems got its start in almost fifty years ago with the introduction of dynamical maps [@SudarshanMatthewsRau61; @SudarshanJordan61] due to Sudarshan, Mathews, Rau, and Jordan. Decades after its conception, the dynamical map formalism is finally being tested in the laboratory setting. The experimental determination of a dynamical map is achieved by a procedure called *quantum process tomography*.
Any experiment, including quantum process tomography experiments, requires a method to prepare the initial states of the system at the beginning of the experiment [@kuah:042113; @kuahdis; @modidis; @preppap]. We study the affects of the preparation procedure on quantum systems that interact with an environment. The act of preparation has been neglected from the theory of quantum process tomography (and for all quantum experiments that interact with a non-trivial environment). We investigate this issue for quantum process tomography in detail in this paper. We present several simple examples to motivate our arguments.
In previous papers we studied not completely positivity of dynamical maps as function of initial correlations between the system and the environment [@CesarEtal07] and the role of state preparation in quantum process tomography [@kuah:042113] (and quantum mechanics in [@preppap]). This paper is an extension of those studies.
In Sec. \[secqpt\], we review the concepts and the mathematics of quantum process tomography and preparation procedure. In Sec. \[stochprep\], we construct and discuss several simple examples of quantum process tomography for different preparations procedures. In Sec. \[secexp\], we follow these examples up with analyzing some recent quantum process tomography experiment. The example are in the same spirit as the ones in the previous papers, therefore allowing us to compare all of the results. We reproduce the examples from previous papers in the Appendix of this paper for ease. We have modified the language of these examples to fit the language of this paper. And finally in Sec. \[seccon\], we discuss how preparation procedures differentiate between the outcome of a quantum process tomography experiment and its theoretical analogue, dynamical maps, along with our concluding remarks.
A brief Review {#secqpt}
==============
Quantum Process Tomography
--------------------------
Quantum process tomography [@JModOpt.44.2455; @PhysRevLett.78.390] is the experimental tool that determines the open evolution of a system that interacts with the surrounding environment. It is the tool that allows an experimenter to determine the unwanted action of a quantum process on the quantum bits going through it. It is an important tool for quantum information processing. A state going through a quantum gate or a quantum channel will experience some interactions with the surrounding environment. Quantum process tomography allows the experimentalist to distinguish the differences between the ideal process and the process found experimentally. Therefore it is an important tool in quantum control design and battling decoherence (loss of polarization).
The objective of quantum process tomography is to determine how a quantum process acts on different states of the system. In very basic terms, a quantum process connects different quantum input states to different output states: $$\mbox{input states} \rightarrow \mbox{process} \rightarrow \mbox{output states}.$$ The complete behavior of the quantum process is known if the output state for any given input state can be predicted.
The tomography aspect of quantum process tomography is to use a finite number of input states, instead of all possible states, to determine the quantum process. For instance, to determine a dynamical map, $\mathcal{B}$, we only need to know the mapping of the elements of the density matrix from an initial time to a final time, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}:\rho_{r's'}(t_0)\rightarrow\rho_{rs}(t).\end{aligned}$$ The elements of the density matrix linearly span the whole state space [@modidis].
Experimentally, we do not have the access to the individual elements of the density matrix; we can only prepare physical states. Thus, a set of physical states that linearly span the state space will be sufficient for the experiment. A state space of dimension $d$ requires $d^2$ states to span the space. Once the evolution of each these input states is known, by linearity the evolution of any input state is known (see [@Nielsen00a] for detailed discussion).
Using the set linearly independent input states $P^{(m)}$, and measuring the corresponding output states $Q^{(m)}$, the evolution of an arbitrary input state can be determined. Let $\Lambda$ be the map describing the process, which we call *process map*, and an arbitrary input state be expressed (uniquely) as a linear combination $\sum_j p^{(m)} P^{(m)}$. The action of the map in terms of the matrix elements is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r's'}\Lambda_{rr';ss'}\left(\sum_j p_j P_{r's'}^{(j)}\right)
&=& \sum_j p_j Q_{rs}^{(j)}.\end{aligned}$$ With the knowledge of the output states corresponding to the input state we find the map by the following expression. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sqptlin}
\Lambda_{rr';ss'} = \sum^{(m)} Q_{rs}^{(m)} {\tilde{P}}^{(m)^*}_{r's'},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{P}^{(n)}$ are the duals of the input states satisfying the scalar product $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{P}}^{(m)^\dag}P^{(n)}=\sum_{rs}{\tilde{P}}^{(m)^*}_{rs}{P^{(n)}_{rs}} = \delta_{mn}.\end{aligned}$$
Today there are many variations of the quantum process tomography procedure described above, namely *ancilla (entanglement) assisted process tomography* [@PhysRevLett.86.4195; @PhysRevA.67.062307; @PhysRevLett.90.193601; @PhysRevLett.91.047902], *direct characterization of quantum dynamics* [@mohseni:170501; @mohseni:062331], *selective efficient quantum process tomography*[@paz], and *symmetrized characterization of noisy quantum processes*[@laflamme]. Some of these procedures have been experimentally tested [@Nielsen:1998py; @PhysRevA.64.012314; @PhysRevLett.91.120402; @Wein:121.13; @orien:080502; @NeeleyNature; @chow:090502; @Howard06; @myrskog:013615].
### Weak coupling assumption
In every quantum process tomography procedure listed above the input states are thought to be pure states. There are two advantages of using pure states as inputs. First, it is easier to span the space of the system with a set of pure state than it is with a set of mixed states. Second, pure states are always uncorrelated, which is one of the central assumption in every procedure above. This is often called the *weak coupling assumption* [@PhysRevLett.75.3020]. It is simply a matter of preparing necessary pure states to perform a quantum process tomography experiment.
What if we depart from this assumption? It is well known that that initially correlated states can lead to not-completely positive dynamics for the system [@rodr; @jordan:052110; @jordan06a]. In many recent experiments, the process maps that characterize the quantum operations have been plagued with negative eigenvalues and occasional non-linear behavior. We now examine the how the two cases are related.
The quantum process tomography procedures we reviewed require the input states be uncorrelated with the environment. Just before the experiment begins, in general the state of the system may be correlated with the environment. Thus, at the beginning of the experiment it is necessary to prepare the initially correlated total state into an uncorrelated state. The difference between the process maps found from a quantum process tomography experiment and the dynamical maps calculated theoretically is precisely the act of preparation of input states. Let us investigate this issue by analyzing the steps involved in a quantum process tomography experiment.
Preparation procedure {#prep}
---------------------
In practice, preparation procedures can be very complicated. Instead of describing many different procedures, we follow the theory of preparations developed in [@preppap]. Below is a brief review of the findings in that paper.
A preparation procedure is the mapping of a set of unknown states into a fix known input state. The most general transformation of a quantum state is described by a stochastic map [@SudarshanMatthewsRau61]. In light of that, a very complicated preparation procedure due to the aparatus, is simply denote by stochastic map, $\mathcal{A}^{(m)}$. The procedure of preparing the $m$th input state is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prepopen}
\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\longrightarrow
\left[\mathcal{A}^{(m)}
\otimes\mathcal{I}\right]
\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)={R^\mathcal{SE}}^{(m)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity map acting on the state of the environment. In other words, we are assuming that the preparation procedure acts only on the system[^1].
In general, the state of the system and the environment before preparation, $\rho^\mathcal{SE}$, will be correlated (see [@modigeo]). The goal of the preparation procedure is to eliminate these correlations, as for an ideal experiment the state of the system should be uncorrelated with the environment at the beginning of the experiment. Therefore, under *perfect preparation procedure assumption*, the right hand side of Eq. \[prepopen\], or the post-preparation procedure state, is of product form.
In [@preppap] two common preparation methods, that achieve product states. were discussed. In this paper we will only focus on the method called *stochastic preparation*. The other method, *projective preparations* will be discussed elsewhere.
### Stochastic preparation {#stoprep}
Many quantum experiments begin by initializing the system into a specific state. For instance, in the simplest case, the system can be prepared to the ground state by cooling it to near absolute zero temperature [@Wein:121.13; @orien:080502; @Howard06; @myrskog:013615]. Mathematically, these set of operations are written as a pin map [@GoriniSudarshan], $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta=\ket{\Phi}\bra{\Phi}\otimes\openone,\end{aligned}$$ where $\openone$ is the identity matrix, acting as the ‘trace operator’ ($\openone_{rs}\rho_{rs}=\mbox{Tr}[\rho]$) and $\ket{\Phi}$ is some fixed state (i.e. ground state) of the system. In this procedure, no matter what the initial state of the system was, it is “pinned" to the final state $\ket{\Phi}\bra{\Phi}$.
The action of the pin map $\Theta$ on a bipartite state of the system and the environment. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pinmap}
\Theta \left(\rho^\mathcal{SE}\right)
&=&\left[\Ket{\Phi}\Bra{\Phi}\otimes\openone \right]
\left(\rho^\mathcal{SE}\right)
%&=&\Ket{\Phi}\Bra{\Phi}\otimes
%\mbox{Tr}_{\mathcal{S}}[\rho^\mathcal{SE}]
=\Ket{\Phi}\Bra{\Phi}\otimes\rho^\mathcal{E}.\end{aligned}$$ The pin map fixes the system into a single pure state, which means that the state of the environment is fixed into a single state as well; the pin map decorrelates the system from the environment. Once the pin map, $\Theta$, is applied, the system is prepared in the various different input states by applying local $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stocmap}
\mathcal{A}^{(m)}\left(\rho^\mathcal{SE}\right)
%\longrightarrow R^\mathcal{SE}^{(m)}
&=&\left[\Omega^{(m)} \circ\Theta\right](\rho^\mathcal{SE})
%&=&\Omega^{(m)}\left(\Ket{\Phi}\Bra{\Phi}\right)\otimes
%\rho^\mathcal{E}
= P^{(m)}\otimes\rho^\mathcal{E}.\end{aligned}$$ As seen the last equations, the advantage of stochastic preparation method, as described here, is that the state of the environment is a constant for any input of the system. This constancy of the state of the environment is necessary to characterize the dynamical mechanisms properly [@modidis].
It may seem that stochastic preparation procedure alleviates the experiment from having an environment that depends on the preparation procedure. This is the main result of this paper, as we analyze this matter in much great detail below to show how inconsistencies in preparation procedure can lead to strange experimental results.
Quantum process tomography experiment in steps
----------------------------------------------
The basic steps in a quantum process tomography experiment are broken down below:
- [Just before the experiment begins, the system and environment is in an unknown state $\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}$. The system and the environment in general are correlated; we are no longer making the weak coupling assumption.]{}
- [The system is altered to a known input state by a preparation procedure. The system and environment state after preparation is therefore given by $$\mathcal{A}^{(m)} \left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)
\rightarrow P^{(m)}\otimes \rho^\mathcal{E} .$$ The input state is given by taking trace with respect to environment $$P^{(m)}=\mbox{Tr}_{\mathcal{E}}\left[P^{(m)}\otimes \rho^\mathcal{E} \right].$$]{}
- [The system is then sent through a quantum process. We consider the evolution to be a global unitary transformation in the space of the system *and* the environment: $$\begin{aligned}
%\hspace{1cm}
%\frac{1}{r^{(m)}}
%U \mathcal{A}^{(m)}
%\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)
%U^\dag\rightarrow
U P^{(m)}\otimes \rho^\mathcal{E} U^\dag.\end{aligned}$$]{}
- [Finally the output state is observed. Mathematically it is the trace with respect to the environment $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stocproceq}
Q^{(m)}=%\frac{1}{r^{(m)}}\mbox{Tr}_{\mathcal E}\left[U \mathcal{A}^{(m)}
%\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right) U^\dag \right]\nonumber\\
\mbox{Tr}_{\mathcal E}\left[U P^{(m)}
\otimes \rho^\mathcal{E} U^\dag \right],\end{aligned}$$ we will call this the *stochastic process equation*.]{}
- [Finally using the input and the output states, we construct a map describing the process is constructed.]{}
The procedure above is identical to the procedure to find a dynamical map, except for the preparation procedure. In the next two sections we will analyze quantum process tomography with the two preparation procedures discussed in last section. The differences between what we find here and dynamical maps will be due to the preparation procedures (see Sec. \[seccon\] for a discussion).
Quantum Process Tomography with Stochastic Preparations {#stochprep}
=======================================================
In this paper we analyze quantum process tomography procedures when the stochastic preparation procedure is used to generate the input states. The stochastic preparation map’s action on a bipartite state is given by Eq. \[stocmap\]. While the output states corresponding to the input is give by the stochastic process equation, Eq. \[stocproceq\]. All of our examples below will be based on these two equations. Furthermore, all of our examples will have the same starting point, namely the unknown state before preparation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{totst}
\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbb{I}\otimes\mathbb{I}+a_j\sigma_j\otimes\mathbb{I}+c_{23}\sigma_2\otimes\sigma_3\right).\end{aligned}$$ This is a correlated state, but it is not an entangled state. All examples will also have the same global dynamics in common, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{unitarys}
U = e^{-iHt}
= \prod_{j}\left\{\cos\left(\omega t\right)\mathbb{I}\otimes\mathbb{I} -i\sin\left(\omega t\right)\sigma_j\otimes\sigma_j\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H = \omega\sum_{j=1}^{3} \sigma_j \otimes \sigma_j.\end{aligned}$$ Let us now delve into constructing our examples. Starting with an ideal second quantum process tomography experiment.
Ideal stochastic preparation {#martinisT}
----------------------------
Let the pin map, $\Theta$ be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pin2}
\Theta=\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ is a pure state of the system. The preparation of $\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}$ in Eq. \[totst\] with this pin map leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)=\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ yielding the initial state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ for the system qubit and a completely mixed state for the environment qubit. The next step is to create the rest of the input states using maps $\Omega^{(m)}$. In this case, the fixed state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ can be locally rotated to get the desired input state $P^{(m)}$ (given in Eq. \[prj\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inp2}
\Omega^{(m)}\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}
&=& V^{(m)}\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}{V^{(m)}}^{\dag}
\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}\nonumber\\
&=&P^{(m)}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $m=\{(1,-),(1,+),(2,+),(3,+)\}$ and $V^{(m)}$ are local unitary operators acting on the space of the system. Where the inputs states are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prj}
P^{(1,-)} = \frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I} - \sigma_1\},
&& P^{(1,+)} = \frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I} + \sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
P^{(2,+)} = \frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I} + \sigma_2\},
&& P^{(3,+)} = \frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I} + \sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$
Now each input state is sent through the quantum process. We will use the following unitary operator to develop the system and environment. Noting the duals for the input states in Eq. \[prj\] are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dual}
&& \tilde{P}^{(1,-)} = \frac{1}{2}\{1 - \sigma_1- \sigma_2- \sigma_3\}, \nonumber\\
&& \tilde{P}^{(1,+)} = \frac{1}{2}\{1 + \sigma_1-\sigma_2-\sigma_3 \}, \nonumber\\
&& \tilde{P}^{(2,+)} =\sigma_2, \;\;\;
\tilde{P}^{(3,+)} =\sigma_3,\end{aligned}$$ We can calculate the output states Eq. \[stocproceq\]. The output states are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stoout}
&& Q^{(1,-)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}-\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(1,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(2,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_2\}, \nonumber\\
&& Q^{(3,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3\}.
\label{stochoutputs}\end{aligned}$$
The linear process map is constructed using Eq. \[sqptlin\], the duals in Eq. \[dual\], and the output states: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sact}
\Lambda_s=\frac{1}{2}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1+C^2 &0&0&2C^2\\
0& 1-C^2&0 & 0\\
0 & 0& 1-C^2 &0\\
2C^2& 0&0& 1+C^2
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $C=\cos(2\omega t)$. The eigenvalues of the process map are plotted in Fig. \[fig5\_1\]. The map above is completely positive and can be tested for linearity. This would be the result of an ideal quantum process tomography experiment (see Sec. \[martinis\] for such an experiment). The key thing note above is that the state of the environment is completely constant throughout the problem. Below we will show that this need not be the case all of the times.
Negative maps due to control errors {#chowT}
-----------------------------------
Suppose the initial state is prepared well using a pin map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pspure2}
\Theta\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)&=&P^{(3,+)}\otimes\mathbb{I}.\end{aligned}$$ After obtaining this state, the other input states are prepared by local rotations. Let us consider the case where one of the rotation is not perfect. $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1,-)}\ket{1}%\bra{1}{V^{(1,-)}}^\dag &=&
\rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(
\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\ket{1}-\sqrt{1+\epsilon}\ket{0}\right),
%\left(-\sqrt{1+\epsilon}\bra{0}+\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\bra{1}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is taken to be a small positive real number. We introduced a small error for the preparation of $P^{(1,-)}$, but we have kept the error simple by not giving it an additional phase, i.e. keeping $\epsilon$ to be real. For simplicity we have also assumed that the error of this sort occurs in the preparation of only one state.
Let us now pretend that we are not aware of this error. Then in reality we have the following set of input states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psprj2}
P^{(1,-)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}
+\epsilon\sigma_3
-\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\sigma_1\}, \nonumber\\
P^{(1,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
P^{(2,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\sigma_2\}, \nonumber\\
P^{(3,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us use the same unitary evolution as before given in Eq. \[unitarys\]. The output states corresponding to the last three input states in Eq. \[psprj2\] are the same as before, given by Eq. \[stochoutputs\]. For the input state $P^{(1,-)}$, the corresponding output state is follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poorout}
%Q^{(1,-)}=\frac{1}{2}&&\left(
%\begin{array}{c c}
%1+\epsilon C^2 & -\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}C^2\\
%-\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2} C^2& 1-\epsilon C^2\\
%\end{array}\right).\\
Q^{(1,-)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}
+(\epsilon\sigma_3
-\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}\sigma_1)\cos^2(2\omega t)\},\nonumber\\
Q^{(1,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
Q^{(2,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_2\},\nonumber\\
Q^{(3,+)}&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these output states, the duals given by Eq. \[dual\], and Eq. \[sqptlin\], we can find the process map.
The process map turns out to be rather complicated, and its eigenvalues are even more complicated looking. Therefore, we do not write them down, instead we have plotted the eigenvalues as function of $2\omega t$. We take the value for the error to be $\epsilon=0.1$ for the plot in Fig \[negfig\]. One of the eigenvalue in Fig. \[negfig\] is negative for certain times. This shows yet another cause for negative eigenvalues in a process map. The negative eigenvalues here have nothing to do with the initial correlations between the system and the environment. The negative eigenvalues are attributed to poor control in the preparation procedure.
Now we have discussed several scenarios that can lead to negative eigenvalues for a process map. Two comments are in order at this point. When the prepared input states are not pure and the process map has negative eigenvalues, then one should be weary of initial correlations with the environment. To further check this, the process map should be tested for linearity by sending several additional input states through the process. If the process map predicts the output states properly, then one can be confident that the system is initially correlated with the environment. If the process map does not predict the output states correctly (non-linear behavior), then there are additional problems with the experiment, including the possibility of poor control in the preparation procedure. In the case where the input states are pure and the process map has negative eigenvalues, the negativity can only come from either inconsistencies in the preparation procedure or poor preparation control.
Mixed input states {#howardT}
------------------
Demanding pure input states in a quantum process tomography experiment guarantees initially uncorrelated state of the system. Though if it is not possible to prepare pure states, we can still determine the process. Below we discuss what happens when the input is not a pure state. We will show that this creates an uncertainty about whether the system is correlated with the environment or not. Yet we show that regardless of this uncertainty, the quantum process tomography experiment can be carried out consistently.
### Uncorrelated
Suppose the initial state is prepared by a pin map leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pspure1}
\Theta\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)&=&
\left(pP^{(3,+)}+(1-p)P^{(3,-)}\right)\otimes\mathbb{I}\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\sigma_3\}\otimes\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $0<<p<1$. The rest of the input states are prepared by rotations. Then the input states are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psprj}
P^{(1,-)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}-p\sigma_1\},&&
P^{(1,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\sigma_1\},\\
P^{(2,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\sigma_2\},&&
P^{(3,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ For the unitary operator in Eq. \[unitarys\], the corresponding output states will be $$\begin{aligned}
&& Q^{(1,-)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}-p\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(1,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(2,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_2\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(3,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+p\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$
The only change that we have to make to find the process map is to define a dual proper set, in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psdual}
&& \tilde{P}^{(1,-)} = \frac{1}{2p}\{p\mathbb{I} -\sigma_1-\sigma_2- \sigma_3\}, \nonumber\\
&& \tilde{P}^{(1,+)} = \frac{1}{2p}\{p\mathbb{I} +\sigma_1-\sigma_2-\sigma_3 \}, \nonumber\\
&&\tilde{P}^{(2,+)} =\frac{1}{p}\sigma_2,\;\;\;
\tilde{P}^{(3,+)} =\frac{1}{p}\sigma_3. \end{aligned}$$ We can find the process map using Eq. \[sqptlin\]. $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{mx1}=\frac{1}{2}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1+C^2 &0&0&2C^2\\
0& 1-C^2&0 & 0 \\
0 & 0& 1-C^2 &0 \\
2C^2& 0&0& 1+C^2
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $C=\cos(2\omega t)$. The process map here case turns out to be the same as in Eq. \[sact\]. This is to expected; the process map for stochastic preparation is defined over set of all states, including the input states above.
### Correlated
The downside of course is that there is no way to distinguish the states in Eq. \[pspure1\] from the following state $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}\otimes\mathbb{I}+p\sigma_3+c_{23}\sigma_2\otimes\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ Unlike in Eq. \[psprj\], this is a correlated state. Yet, both total states have the same reduced state for the system part.
Even in this case we can find the process map properly if we use the correct dual set given in Eq. \[psdual\]. The process map in that case will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dynamicalmap}
\Lambda_{mx2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1+C^2 & 0 & -c_{23} CS & 2 C^2 \cr
0 & 1-C^2 & 0 &-c_{23} CS \cr
-c_{23} CS & 0 & 1-C^2 & 0 \cr
2C^2& -c_{23} CS & 0 &1+C^2 \cr
\end{array}\nonumber
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $C=\cos(2\omega t)$ and $S=\sin(2\omega t)$. Which the same as the dynamical map calculated in (Eq. 6) [@CesarEtal07]. In both of the examples above, had we assumed that the input states were close enough to the pure states we desired, and used the dual set give by Eq. \[dual\], then the process map would contain an error.
These two examples illustrate the contrary argument to what some have suggested, that only the completely positive process maps should be considered physically valid. We showed in the second example that, one can obtain a not-completely positive process map in a consistent fashion. The real issue is that the correlations with environment are not convenient for experimental purposes. But that does not mean that one should fix a not completely positive process map to a completely positive process map with numerical methods [@havel03; @ziman].
Multiple stochastic preparations {#myrskogT}
--------------------------------
The pin map used in stochastic preparation must be used consistently. Let us show an example of what happens when two stochastic preparation procedures are used. Consider a quantum process tomography experiment where the following linearly independent states are used to span the space of the system $$\begin{aligned}
P^{\mathbb{I}}=\frac{1}{2}
\mathbb{I},\;\;P^{(1+)},\;\;P^{(2+)},\;\;P^{(3+)}.\end{aligned}$$ These states form the linearly independent set[^2] $\{\mathbb{I},\sigma_j\}$; which is different from the set used in previous examples
Consider the following two qubit state as the available state to the experimenter at $t=0_-$: This is the same state we used in Eq. \[totst\] for the previous example.
Let the pin map, $\Theta$, for our example be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pin1}
\Theta=\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ is a pure state of the system. The preparation of $\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}$ with this pin map leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inp1}
\Theta\left(\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\right)=\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ yielding the initial state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ for the system qubit and a completely mixed state for the environment qubit. The next step is to create the rest of the input states using maps $\Omega^{(m)}$. In this case, the fixed state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$ can be locally rotated to get the desired input state $P^{(m)}$ (given in Eq. \[prj\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inp3}
\Omega^{(m)}\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}
&=& V^{(m)}\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}{V^{(m)}}^{\dag}
\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}\nonumber\\
&=&P^{(m)}\otimes\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $m=\{(1,-),(1,+),(2,+),(3,+)\}$ and $V^{(m)}$ are local unitary operators acting on the space of the system.
Once again, we take the same initial state and unitary operators as in the last example. Now suppose the pin map given in Eq. \[pin1\] is used to prepare the state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$, and then by local transformations $P^{(1,+)}$, $P^{(2,,+)}$, and $P^{(3,+)}$ are prepared. Finally the mixed state is prepared by letting $P^{(3+)}$ decohere. This is a different pin map than the one in Eq. \[pin1\], so we are using two pin maps to prepare two sets of input states. The unitary operator, we are using, is often called the *swap gate*, because it swaps the states of two qubits with the period of $t=\frac{\pi}{4\omega}$. Then at $t=\frac{\pi}{4\omega}$, the total state will be $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\mathcal{SE}}\left(\frac{\pi}{4\omega}\right)
=\frac{1}{4}
\{\mathbb{I}\otimes\mathbb{I}
+a_j \mathbb{I}\otimes\sigma_j\}.\end{aligned}$$ The state of the system has fully decohered.
The corresponding output states for the input states above are found using Eq. \[stocproceq\]. The state of environment in that equation for input $P^{\mathbb{I}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}$ is $\rho^{\mathcal E}=\frac{1}{2} \{\mathbb{I} +a_j\sigma_j\}$, while for the other inputs the state of the environment $\rho^{\mathcal E}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}$. Then the corresponding output states are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{multstocout}
&& Q^{(\mathbb{I})}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\sin^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3\}, \nonumber\\
&& Q^{(1,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\},\nonumber\\
&& Q^{(2,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_2\}, \nonumber\\
&& Q^{(3,+)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ The last three output states are the same as in the last example, but the fourth one is different.
Now suppose we calculate the output state corresponding to the input $P^{(-1)}$. By linearity we have $P^{(-1)}=\mathbb{I}-P^{(+1)}$. If the process is linear, then the output state for this input state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(-1)}&=&2 Q^{(\mathbb{I})}-Q^{(+1)}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\{\mathbb{I}+2\sin^2(2\omega t)\sigma_3
-\cos^2(2\omega t)\sigma_1\}.\end{aligned}$$ This state is not physical for certain times, and therefore the linearity and the positivity of the process is violated.
The process has not changed from the last example, only the method of determining the process has. Thus when the stochastic map is not used consistently, the process map can behave nonlinear. For completeness we find the process map for this example,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{msact}
\Lambda_{ms}=\frac{1}{2}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1+C^2 &-(1+i)S^2&0&2C^2\\
-(1-i)S^2& 1-C^2+2S^2&0 & 0\\
0 & 0& 1-C^2 &(1+i)S^2\\
2C^2& 0&(1-i)S^2& 1+C^2-2S^2
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$
where $C=\cos(2\omega t)$ and $S=\sin(2\omega t)$. The eigenvalues of this process map are negative, as seen in Fig. \[fig5\_2\]. The fact that the state of the environment is not a constant for all of the input states leads to the negativity and non-linearity of the process map.
The origin for the negative eigenvalues here is completely different than the negative eigenvalues is not due to the initial correlations between the system and the environment. Since none of the inputs were correlated with the environment here, negativity arises from the inconsistencies in the preparation procedure.
While this example may not seem realistic, the point regarding inconsistency arising from multiple pin maps still stands. In realistic cases, the trouble may not be seen so easily, due to complicated interactions with the environment. We will discuss an experiment where multiple stochastic preparation procedures are implemented in Sec. \[myrskog\].
Analysis of experiments {#secexp}
=======================
In this section we analyze four quantum process tomography experiments that are analogues of the four constructed examples of the last section. Each experiment is a well performed experiment in its own right. We analyze each experimental procedure and comment on why the result was not completely positive (when applicable).
Quantum process tomography of Josephson-phase qubit and two-level state {#martinis}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this experiment [@NeeleyNature], a Josephson-phase qubit along with a more stable but less controllable two-level state acting as memory are examined. The Josephson-phase is initially prepared into the ground state with high fidelity. Which is then prepared into various excited states via unitary transformations. Finally it is ‘swapped’ with the memory qubit and then some time later swapped back. Quantum process tomography of this procedure is implemented. By doing so, they observe that the decoherence of the Josephson-phase qubit can be hindered by transferring the information to the stable two-level state.
The experimentalist find the resulting process map to be completely positive *without* any numerical corrections. This in principle is an ideal quantum process tomography experiment. The absence of negativity from the process map suggests that the system of interest was not in anyway correlated with the surrounding degrees of freedom.
However to be sure, one should check this process map for linearity by preparing arbitrary initial states and putting them through the swap procedure. If the experimental result matches the theoretical predictions of the process map, then the results of this experiment fit the analysis of the constructed example in Sec. \[martinisT\].
Quantum process tomography solid-state qubit {#chow}
--------------------------------------------
In this experiment [@chow:090502], a solid-state qubit is put through various gates. Quantum process tomography of these gates is performed. They perform quantum process tomography on three operations; identity, rotations along $x-$plane, and rotations along $y-$plane. The results are excellent, with very little errors.
For the case where identity operation is made, the process map is nearly identity as expected. This means that the input states are well prepared, and are nearly pure. For the other transformations, the errors are attributed to errors in preparation procedures and subsequent measurements.
The process map obtained in each case, however has negative eigenvalues. Since the negativity is along the same magnitude for the case when no operation is made and when rotations along $x$ and $y-$planes are implemented, we can presume that the errors must be due to the errors in unitary operations used to prepare input states. This is along the same lines as the example in Sec. \[chowT\].
Quantum process tomography in NMR {#howard}
---------------------------------
In this experiment [@Howard06], the system that is studied is an electron configuration formed in a nitrogen vacancy defect in a diamond lattice. The quantum state of the system is given by a spin triplet ($S=1$). Again we will write the initial state of the system and environment as $\rho^\mathcal{SE}$.
The system is prepared by optical pumping, which results in a strong spin polarization. The state of the system is said to have a 70% chance of being in a pure state $\ket{\phi}$. Or more mathematically, the probability of obtaining $\ket{\phi}$ is $\mbox{Tr}[\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi} \rho^\mathcal{SE}] = 0.7$.
Since the population probability is high, an assumption was made that the state of the system can be simply approximated as a pure state $\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}$. From this initial state, different input states can be prepared by suitably applying microwave pulses resonant with the transition levels. After preparation, the system is allowed to evolve, and the output states are determined by quantum state tomography. With the knowledge of the input state and the measured output states, a linear process map is constructed.
It was found that the linear process map has negative eigenvalues, so the map was “corrected" using a least squares fit between the experimentally determined map and a theoretical map based on Hermitian parameterization [@havel03], while enforcing complete positivity.
However, if we do not regard the negative eigenvalues of the map as aberrations, then we should consider the assumptions about the preparation of the system more carefully. The assumption about the initial state of the system is: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^\mathcal{SE} \rightarrow \ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\otimes\tau .\end{aligned}$$ This is in effect a pin map. Along with the pin map, the stochastic transformations are applied on the initial state to prepare the various input states; this is identical to the stochastic preparation method discussed in Sec. \[stoprep\].
It is clear that the pure initial state assumption is unreasonable given our knowledge now of how the process is sensitive to the initial correlations between the system and the environment. In effect the action of the pin map in this experiment is not perfect, and the pin map can be ignored. Then the process equation is: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(m)} = \mbox{Tr}_\mathbb{B} [U \Omega^{(m)} \rho^\mathcal{SE} U^\dagger] \end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega^{(m)}$ is the stochastic transformation that prepares the $m$th input state. In this experiment, $\Omega^{(m)}$ is nothing more than a unitary transformation $V^{(m)}$ satisfying $V^{(m)} \ket{\phi} = \ket{\psi^{(m)}}$, where $\ket{\psi^{(m)}}$ is the desired pure $m$th input state.
We can write the unitary transformation for a two-level system as: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(m)} = \ket{\psi^{(m)}}\bra{\phi}+ \ket{\psi^{(m)}_\perp }\bra{\phi_\perp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\braket{\psi^{(m)}|\psi^{(m)}_\perp } = \braket{\phi | \phi_\perp } = 0$. This defines $V^{(n)}$ as a transformation from the basis $\{\ket{\phi}\}$ to the basis $\{\ket{\psi^{(n)}_i}\}$. The equation for the process becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(m)} &=&
\mbox{Tr}_\mathcal{E} \left[U \ket{\psi^{(m)}}\braket{\phi|
\rho^\mathcal{SE} |\phi}\bra{\psi^{(m)}} U^\dagger\right]\\
&& + \mbox{Tr}_\mathcal{E} \left[U \ket{\psi^{(m)}_\perp}\braket{\phi_\perp| \rho^\mathcal{SE} |\phi}\bra{\psi^{(m)}} U^\dagger\right]\\
&& + \mbox{Tr}_\mathcal{E} \left[U \ket{\psi^{(m)}}\braket{\phi| \rho^\mathcal{SE} |\phi_\perp}\bra{\psi^{(m)}_\perp} U^\dagger\right]\\
&& + \mbox{Tr}_\mathcal{E} \left[U \ket{\psi^{(m)}_\perp}\braket{\phi_\perp| \rho^\mathcal{SE} |\phi_\perp}\bra{\psi^{(m)}_\perp} U^\dagger\right].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, since $\braket{\phi | \rho^\mathcal{SE} | \phi} = 0.7$ to first approximation, the process is a linear mapping on the states $\ket{\psi^{(m)}}\bra{\psi^{(m)}}$. However, it is clear that if all terms are included, the process is not truly linear in the states $\ket{\psi^{(m)}}\bra{\psi^{(m)}}$. The negative eigenvalues are therefore a result of fitting results into a linear map when the process is not truly represented by a linear map.
There is no way to tell if the system in the experiment above was initially correlated with the environment or not, as shown in Sec. \[howardT\]. However the negativity in the process map obtained that the system may have been correlated initially. If this was the case the obtained map may be linear and well behaved. Fixing it numerically to make it completely positive may in reality make it behave in non linear fashion.
Quantum process tomography of motional states {#myrskog}
---------------------------------------------
In this experiment [@myrskog:013615], quantum process tomography of the motional states of trapped $^{85}Rb$ atoms in the potential wells of a one dimensional optical lattice is performed. Only two bound bands are considered, which are labeled as states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$. The states are prepared stochastically. An initial state of the system is the ground state $\ket{g}\bra{g}$, and from it states $\ket{r}\bra{r}$, $\ket{i}\bra{i}$, and the fully mixed state $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}$ are prepared. The states $\ket{r}$ and $\ket{i}$ stand for the real and imaginary coherence states, which are prepared by applying appropriate unitary transformations on the ground state. This is achieved by displacing the lattice for the real coherence state and for the imaginary coherence state, a quarter-period delay is added after the displacement. The identity state is prepared by letting a superposition state decohere. The input states are allowed to evolve and the output states are determine by quantum state tomography.
The process map is found following the usual procedure laid out in Sec. \[secqpt\]. Since there are particles lost to the neighboring cells, the map is not required to be trace preserving. Based on this loss they also argue that the map can pick non-physical behavior (not-completely positive). The map is forced to be “physical" (completely positive) by using the maximum likelihood method [@Ziman06].
In our terminology, the states prepared are $P^{(1,+)}$, $P^{(2,+)}$, $P^{(3,-)}$, and $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}$. The three projective states are prepared by a single consistent stochastic preparation, while the fully mixed state is prepared by letting the state $P^{(1,+)}$ decohere. Which means an additional pin map is applied to prepare one of the input states. As we saw in the example in Sec. \[myrskogT\], this can lead to a not-completely positive and non-linear process map.
Furthermore, the input states have varying values for polarization. Their data is listed in the table below.
$\rho_g$ $\rho_{\mathbb I}$ $\rho_r$ $\rho_i$
------------- ---------- -------------------- ---------- ----------
$P^{(3,-)}$ 0.90 0.60 0.69 0.69
$P^{(3,+)}$ 0.10 0.40 0.31 0.31
$P^{(1,+)}$ 0.82 0.59 0.85 0.63
$P^{(2,+)}$ 0.84 0.58 0.64 0.37
where $\rho_j$ are the experimentally prepared states projected onto projectors $P^{(m)}$. The polarization of the imaginary state in the $\sigma_2$ direction is very low. This could mean that it is correlated with the environment, while the polarization of the ground state along the negative $\sigma_3$ direction is almost unity, meaning it is only weakly correlated at best.
Here, we have two potential causes for the process map to have negative eigenvalues. The first problem is with the experimental procedure; applying multiple stochastic preparations that may affect the state of the environment differently. The second problem may be unavoidable; since it is extremely difficult to prepare pure states in a setup like this. Even if the negative eigenvalues are due to the initial correlations, we do not have a prescription to obtain a process map in a consistent fashion. For the last example shown in Sec. \[stochprep\], we assumed that the initial correlations were constant throughout the process. This does not seem to be the case here. Since the ground state is almost pure, while the imaginary state is clearly not pure. Therefore the correlation with environment for these two inputs must be different as in the case of the example in Sec. \[myrskogT\].
Conclusion {#seccon}
==========
The examples with multiple stochastic preparations (in Sec. \[myrskogT\]) and projective preparations (in Sec. V.A) in [@kuah:042113]) look very similar. For multiple stochastic preparations, the state of the environment depends on the stochastic map. If we think of each projective preparations as an independent stochastic preparation then the state of the environment, in the example (in Sec. V.A) in [@kuah:042113], depends on the preparation map. Then are the two situations the same? Let us show below that the two situations are fundamentally different.
In the weak coupling limit, the projective preparation procedure does not play an important role. As we saw in the last section, when the system and the environment are initially uncorrelated, the projective preparation procedure will have no affect on the state of the environment. This is because the state of the environment is affected only indirectly due to the initial correlations between the system and the environment. Thus the projective preparations, in the weak coupling limit, yield a linear process map.
This is not the case in the multiple stochastic preparation example. When multiple stochastic maps are used to prepare different input states, the inconsistencies do not stem from the initial correlations between the system and the environment. In fact, in our example all input states are initially uncorrelated from the environment. The inconsistencies arise from the preparation procedures themselves, leading to different states of the environment for different input states. These inconsistencies will be absent in the case where the system develops in a closed form, since the system does not feel the presence of the environment during the quantum process. Hence in the “weak interaction limit” multiple stochastic preparations yield a linear process map.
Lastly, note that each of the process map found in this section, given by Eqs. \[msact\], and (in Sec. V.A) in [@kuah:042113] are different from each other. This clearly shows that the preparation procedures play a non-trivial role in open quantum system experiments. The preparation procedure is the only thing that distinguished each case. For the case where no preparation procedure is applied, i.e. the case of the dynamical map (Eq. 6 in [@CesarEtal07]), the situation is still different. The dynamical map, which has negative eigenvalues, is linear and has a valid interpretation within the compatibility domain. The process maps in Eqs. \[msact\] and (in Sec. V.A) in [@kuah:042113] do not have any consistent interpretation.
When negative eigenvalues are found in a process map, they hint to some problem in the preparation procedure. Although this is a bit premature to state at this point; we analyze the negative eigenvalues in process map in more detail in the next section.
Our study of quantum process tomography started by noting that the dynamical map acting on a system can have negative eigenvalues. The dynamical map has negative eigenvalues when the system is initially correlated with the environment. In the course of our studies of quantum process tomography, we showed that the preparation procedure cannot be neglected for any quantum system that interacts with an environment. These are the two major themes discussed in this paper. Though, along the way, we presented a method of quantum process tomography that is independent of the preparation procedure. The map arising from this procedure lead us to an expression that quantifies the memory effect on the dynamics of the system due to the initial correlations with the environment. Determining the memory effect is an important task in coherence control.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} I am grateful to Aik-Meng Kuah, Ali Rezakhani, César Rodríguez-Rosario, and Daniel Terno for valuable conversations. This work was financially supported by the National Research Foundation and the Ministry of Education of Singapore.
[^1]: Generally we dot not require the preparation map to be trace preserving. However, the preparation procedure used here, the stochastic procedure, is trace preserving, hence we need to worry about this issue. See [@preppap] for details.
[^2]: The linear combination will not always be convex. For example $P^{(2,-)}=P^{(1,+)}+P^{(1,-)}-P^{(2,+)}$. Also notice that these four states form a linearly independent set, but they are not orthogonal to each other.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use Quantum Monte Carlo methods to determine $T=0$ Green functions, $G(\vec{r}, \omega)$, on lattices up to $16 \times 16$ for the 2D Hubbard model at $U/t =4$. For chemical potentials, $\mu$, within the Hubbard gap, $ |\mu | < \mu_c$, and at [*long*]{} distances, $\vec{r}$, $G(\vec{r}, \omega = \mu) \sim e^{ -|\vec{r}|/\xi_l}$ with critical behavior: $\xi_l \sim | \mu - \mu_c |^{-\nu}$, $ \nu = 0.26 \pm 0.05$. This result stands in agreement with the assumption of hyperscaling with correlation exponent $\nu = 1/4$ and dynamical exponent $z = 4$. In contrast, the generic band insulator as well as the metal-insulator transition in the 1D Hubbard model are characterized by $\nu = 1/2$ and $z = 2$.'
author:
- |
F.F. Assaad and M. Imada\
Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo,\
7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106, Japan.
title: 'Insulator-Metal Transition in the One and Two-Dimensional Hubbard Models'
---
PACS numbers: 71.27.+a, 71.30.+h, 71.10.+x
At zero-temperature a continuous metal-insulator transition driven by a change in chemical potential may be characterized by the compressibility, $\chi_c$, or the Drude weight, $D$. In the Mott insulating phase both $D$ and $\chi_c$ vanish while they remain finite in the metallic phase [@Kohn; @Imada]. In order to describe the metal-insulator transition from the insulator side, we consider the zero-temperature Green function $G(\vec{r},\omega)$ [@Note0]. At [*long*]{} distances, $|\vec{r}|$, and for values of the chemical potential, $\mu$, within the charge gap, $G(\vec{r},\omega = \mu) \sim
e^{-|\vec{r}|/\xi_l}$. The metal-insulator transition may be characterized by the divergence of $\xi_l$ as the critical chemical potential, $\mu_c$, is approached from the insulating phase. $\xi_l$ may be interpreted as the localization length involved in transferring a particle over a distance $\vec{r}$ from the electronic system to the heat bath lying at energy $\mu$ within the charge gap. Under the assumption of hyperscaling, the above quantities are expected to satisfy the scaling relations: $$\label{Scale}
\xi_l \sim \Delta^{-\nu}, \; \;
\chi_c \sim \Delta^{-\nu (z-d)}, \; \;
D \sim \Delta^{\nu (d + z - 2)}, \; \;$$ where $\Delta = |\mu - \mu_c|$, $d$ is the dimensionality and $\nu$ ($z$) corresponds to the correlation length (dynamical) exponent [@Imada]. Since the control parameter, $\Delta$, corresponds to the chemical potential, one obtains the additional constraint $\nu z = 1$ as well as $\delta \sim \Delta^{\nu (d + z) -1} $, $\delta$ being the doping concentration. In this letter, based on a recently developed numerically stable Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm to calculate zero-temperature imaginary time Green functions [@Assaad], we calculate $\xi_l$ for the two-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model at $U/t = 4$. We obtain: $\mu_c = 0.67 \pm 0.015$ in units of the hopping matrix element and $\xi_l \sim | \mu - \mu_c |^{-\nu}$ with $ \nu = 0.26 \pm 0.05$. On the other hand, the compressibility data of Furukawa and Imada [@Furukawa] in the metallic phase is consistent with $\chi_c \sim |\mu - \mu_c|^{-1/2}$. When hyperscaling describes the transition, the above scaling of the compressibility also leads to $\nu = 1/4$ [@Imada]. Comparison of those results puts the hyperscaling assumption on a firmer basis. The present estimate of $\nu$ is a more direct determination of the characteristic length scale. In contrast, the Mott transition in the one-dimensional Hubbard model satisfies the scaling relations (\[Scale\]) with $\nu = 1/2$ and $z = 2$ [@Imada; @Mori; @Shastry; @Imada1]. The generic band insulator in all dimensions equally belongs to the universality class $\nu = 1/2$ and $z = 2$ [@Imada]. The above results point out the anomalous character of the Mott transition in the two-dimensional Hubbard model.
The Hubbard model we consider reads: $$\label{HamU}
H - \mu N = -t \sum_{\langle\vec{i},\vec{j} \rangle,\sigma}
c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{j},\sigma} +
U \sum_{\vec{i}}
(n_{\vec{i},\uparrow}-\frac{1}{2})
(n_{\vec{i},\downarrow} -\frac{1}{2})
- \mu \sum_{\vec{i},\sigma} c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{i},\sigma}$$ Here, $\langle \vec{i},\vec{j} \rangle$ denotes nearest-neighbors. $c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger}$ ($c_{\vec{i},\sigma}$) creates (annihilates) an electron with [*z*]{}-component of spin $\sigma$ on site $\vec{i}$ and $n_{\vec{i},\sigma } = c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger}
c_{\vec{i}\sigma}$. In this notation half-band filling corresponds to $\mu = 0$. We start by considering the non-interacting case, $U/t = 0$. In Fourier space, the single particle energies are given by $\epsilon_{\vec{k}} = -2t(\cos(\vec{k} \vec{a}_x) +
\cos(\vec{k} \vec{a}_y) ) $, $\vec{a}_x$, $\vec{a}_y$ being the lattice constants. In this letter, the length scale is set by: $ |\vec{a}_x| = |\vec{a}_y | = 1$. At zero temperature, an insulator-metal transition will occur when $\mu \rightarrow \mu_c =
4t$. For those chemical potentials, the zero-temperature Green function [@Note0] at $\omega = \mu$ is given by: $$\label{xiU0}
G(\vec{r}, \omega = \mu ) =
\frac{2}{N} \sum_{\vec{k}}
\frac{ e^{ i \vec{k} \vec{r} } }
{ \epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu }$$ where $N$ denotes the number of sites of the square lattice and the factor $2$ corresponds to the summation over the spin degrees of freedom. Numerically, one obtains: $G(\vec{r}, \omega = \mu ) \sim e^{-|\vec{r}|/\xi_l}$ with critical behavior: $\xi_l \sim | \mu - \mu_c |^{-1/2}$ [@Note1]. One may check that this example of a band insulator-metal transition satisfies the above scaling relations (\[Scale\]) and is characterized by the exponent $\nu=1/2$. At finite values of $U/t$ and half-band filling the antiferromagnetic Hartree-Fock approximation equally yields the exponent $\nu = 1/2$ for $ \xi_l$. However, this approximation does not satisfy the hyperscaling assumption.
The physical interpretation of $\xi_l$ is facilitated by considering the single impurity Hamiltonian (Fano-Anderson model) [@Anderson; @Mahan]: $$H = \sum_{\vec{k}} \epsilon_{k}
c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{k}}
+ \epsilon_b b^{\dagger} b +
\frac{t_b}{\sqrt{N} }
\sum_{\vec{k}}
\left( c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger} b + b^{\dagger} c_{\vec{k}} \right).$$ Here, $b^{\dagger}$ creates an electron in the impurity state at the origin and energy $\epsilon_b$. The hybridization between the localized state and the band electrons alters the energy of the impurity level to the value: $ E_b = \epsilon_b + \frac{t_b^2}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}
\frac{1}{E_b - \epsilon_{\vec{k}} } $ . We will assume $ E_b > \epsilon_{\vec{k}}$ for all $\vec{k} $. When all single particle states of the valence band are filled and the impurity single particle state empty, the probability amplitude of transferring a band electron at site $\vec{r}$ to the impurity state is: $$\label{xiFA}
\frac{\langle \Psi_0 | b^{\dagger} c_{\vec{r}} |\Psi_0 \rangle }
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle } =
-\alpha(E_b) \frac{t_b}{N} \sum_{\vec{k}}
\frac{ e^{ i \vec{k} \vec{r} } }
{ \epsilon_{\vec{k}} - E_b }$$ where the normalization factor is given by $\alpha^{-1}(E_b) = 1 + \frac{t_b^2}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}}
\frac{1}{ (E_b - \epsilon_{\vec{k}})^2 }$. Comparison between equations (\[xiFA\]) and (\[xiU0\]) show that the spatial dependence of the two quantities is identical. $\xi_l$ may thus be interpreted as the localization length involved in transferring a particle over a distance $\vec{r}$ from the valence band to the heat bath (see equation (\[xiU0\])), or to the impurity state (see equation (\[xiFA\])). This definition of $\xi_l$ bears some similarity to that applied in finite size scaling studies of Anderson localized states [@Herbert; @MacKinnon]. When the imaginary part of the Green function vanishes in the insulating phase, $\xi_l$ may be used to study the metal-insulator transition.
To obtain an estimate of the critical exponent $\nu$ for the Hubbard model, we require an accurate determination of the critical chemical potential, $\mu_c$ as well as of the localization length, $\xi_l$. Both quantities may be obtained from the knowledge of: $$\label{Grtau}
G_{\sigma}(\vec{r}, \tau) = \Theta(\tau)
\frac{ \langle \Psi_0 |c_{\vec{r},\sigma}(\tau)
c_{\vec{0},\sigma}^{\dagger} | \Psi_0 \rangle}
{ \langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle}
- \Theta(-\tau)
\frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{-\vec{r},\sigma}^{\dagger}(-\tau)
c_{ \vec{0},\sigma} | \Psi_0 \rangle}
{ \langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle },$$ where $c_{\vec{r},\sigma}(\tau) =
e^{ \tau H } c_{\vec{r},\sigma} e^{-\tau H }$. Here $ |\Psi_0 \rangle $ denotes the ground state of the half-filled ($\mu = 0$) Hubbard Hamiltonian (\[HamU\]). The above quantity may be efficiently calculated with QMC methods. Since we are at half-band filling, the sign problem does not occur and we are able to consider lattice sizes up to linear dimension $L=16$, namely $N = 16 \times 16$ without any serious difficulties. The calculation of imaginary time Green function in the zero-temperature auxiliary field QMC algorithm [@Sandro; @Koonin] was first reported by Deisz et al. [@John]. However, their approach does not incorporate a numerical stabilization scheme and they are thus restricted to small values of $\tau$ (i.e. $\tau t \sim 2.5$ ). The authors have developed a numerically stable QMC algorithm for the calculation of $G_{\sigma}(\vec{r}, \tau)$. The details of the algorithm may be found in reference [@Assaad]. All our calculations were performed with periodic boundary conditions.
From the knowledge of $G_{\sigma}(\vec{r}, \tau)$ on an $N$-site lattice, we may obtain an estimate of the charge gap. We denote by $| \Psi_{n}^{N} \rangle$ the eigenvector of the Hamiltonian $H$ with eigenvalue $E_n^{N}$ in the $N$-particle Hilbert space. With this notation, $$G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau) \equiv \sum_{\sigma} G_{\sigma}(\vec{r}=0, \tau) =
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n,\vec{i},\sigma}
| \langle \Psi_{0}^{N} | c_{\vec{i},\sigma} | \Psi_{n}^{N +1} \rangle |^2
\exp \left( -\tau \left( E_n^{N+1} - E_0^N \right) \right).$$ for $\tau >0$. Fig. 1a, plots $G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau)$ for a $16 \times 16$ lattice at $U/t = 4$. We may obtain a reliable estimate of the charge gap for this lattice size by fitting $G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau)$ to the form $ e^{-\Delta_c \tau} $ with $\Delta_c \equiv E_0^{N+1} - E_0^{N}$ for [*large*]{} values of $\tau$. Fig. 1b shows $ \Delta_c$ as a function of linear lattice size. Extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit yields: $\Delta_c/t = 0.67 \pm 0.015$. This result stands in good agreement with the quoted result of Furukawa and Imada [@Furukawa]: $ \Delta_c/t = 0.58 \pm 0.08$. Since in the notation of equation (\[HamU\]) the Hubbard model satisfies particle-hole symmetry at $\mu = 0$, the critical chemical potential is nothing but the charge gap: $\mu_c \equiv \Delta_c$.
For values of the chemical potential within the charge gap, $ |\mu | < \mu_c $, the zero temperature Green function is real and may be obtained through the relation: $$\label{Inter}
G(\vec{r}, \omega = \mu) = -\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}\tau
G(\vec{r}, \tau) e^{\tau \mu}.$$ The Green function $G(\vec{r}, \tau)$ is computed at half-band filling where the sign problem is not present and the statistical uncertainty does not grow exponentially with lattice size. However, since we are multiplying the QMC data by the factor $e^{\tau \mu}$, the statistical uncertainty will grow exponentially with increasing values of $\tau$ for $\tau \mu > 0$. For each lattice size $L$, we have considered the largest distance $\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2)$. For this distance, $G(\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2), \tau )$ is plotted in Fig. 2. Due to particle-hole symmetry at $\mu =0$, $G(\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2), \tau ) = $ $-G(\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2), -\tau ) $. For the imaginary time integration, (see equation (\[Inter\])) and values of the chemical potential $ |\mu| < 0.65 t$, a cutoff of $ \tau t = 10$ proved to be sufficient for the determination of the Green function (see Fig. 2). $G(\vec{r}= (L/2,L/2), \omega = \mu)$ as a function of lattice size is plotted in Fig. 3 for several values of $\mu$. For lattice sizes ranging from $L = 6$ to $L = 16$, an exponential decay may be seen within the quoted statistical uncertainty. From this data, we obtain an estimate of the localization length $\xi_l$. With the above determined value of $\mu_c$, we plot $| \mu - \mu_c | $ versus $\xi_l$ (see Fig. 4) on a log-log plot. For all considered chemical potentials, $\xi_l/a < 8\sqrt{2} $ which corresponds to our largest considered distance ($L=16$). The slopes in Fig. 4 correspond to values of the critical exponent $\nu=1/2$ and $\nu=1/4$. The QMC data is consistent with $\nu = 1/4$ and seems to rule out the possibility $\nu=1/2$. A statistical analysis yields: $\nu = 0.26 \pm 0.05$.
The choice $\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2)$ is very convenient since apart from a sign change between $L = 4n +2$ and $L = 4n$ lattices the exponential decay of $G(\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2) ,\omega = \mu)$ as a function of $L$, is not masked by a non-trivial oscillation. For other choices of $\vec{r}$ we expect to obtain the same results since due to the point group symmetry of the square lattice, all $\vec{k}$-points in the Brillouin zone contribute to $G(\vec{r} = (L/2,L/2), \tau )$. We could however not check this point numerically.
To confirm the validity of our approach, we consider the Mott transition in the one-dimensional Hubbard model at $U/t = 4$. A similar QMC calculation as described above for the two-dimensional case yields a value of the correlation length exponent consistent with $\nu = 1/2$ (see Fig. 5). We have obtained $\mu_c/t = 0.66 \pm 0.015$ which is consistent with the exact result of Lieb and Wu [@LiebWu]: $\mu_c/t = 0.643$. Chains of linear length up to $L = 24$ were considered. This result stands in agreement with the assumption of hyperscaling with exponents $\nu = 1/2$ and $z = 2$ [@Imada; @Mori; @Shastry; @Imada1].
In conclusion, we have determined the correlation length exponent from the knowledge of $\xi_l$ in the insulating phase of the two-dimensional Hubbard model and obtained: $\nu = 0.26 \pm 0.05$. Under the assumption of hyperscaling with exponents $\nu = 1/4$ and $z = 4$, this result stands in agreement with compressibility measurements in the metallic phase [@Furukawa]. We have shown that a similar calculation for the one-dimensional Hubbard model, yields results consistent with $\nu = 1/2$. Several anomalous aspects of the metal-insulator transition are inferred when it is characterized by the universality class, $\nu = 1/4$ and $z = 4$ [@Imada]. Based on a single-particle theory, the exponents $\nu = 1/4$, $z = 4$ are consistent with the interpretation of the Mott transition driven by the divergence of the effective mass as opposed to the vanishing of the number of charge carriers. This statement is supported by the compressibility in the metallic phase [@Furukawa] as well as by the high frequency Hall coefficient [@Assaad1]. Another consequence of the exponent $\nu = 1/4$, is the behavior of the Drude weight in the vicinity of the Mott transition: $D \sim \delta^2$, $\delta$ being the hole-density. As a by-product, we have produced an accurate estimate of the charge gap for the two-dimensional Hubbard model at $U/t =4$: $\Delta_c/t = 0.67 \pm 0.015$. From the technical point of view, we have introduced an efficient method to obtain information on the nature of the metal-insulator transition by approaching the transition from the insulator side. The most important fact, is that for models which show particle-hole symmetry, such as dimerized Hubbard models, the here presented method is not plagued by the sign problem and large lattice sizes may be considered.
F.F.A. thanks the JSPS for financial support. The numerical calculations were carried out on the Fujitsu VPP500 of the Supercomputer Center of the Institute for Solid State Physics, Univ. of Tokyo. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on the Priority Area ‘Anomalous Metallic State near the Mott Transition’ from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.
[99]{}
W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. [**133A**]{}, 171, (1964).
M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. of Jpn. [**64**]{}, 2954 (1995).
We define the zero-temperature Green function by: $ i G(\vec{r}, \omega ) $ $ = \sum_{\sigma} \int {\rm d}t e^{i \omega t}$ $ \langle \Psi_0 | T c_{\sigma,\vec{r}}(t)
c_{\sigma,\vec{0}}^\dagger(0) | \Psi_0 \rangle $. Here, the notation is standard [@Mahan] and $ | \Psi_0 \rangle $ corresponds to the ground state in the insulating phase.
F.F. Assaad and M. Imada, to appear in J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. (cond-mat/9508113)
N. Furukawa and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**62**]{}, 2557, (1993).
M. Mori, H. Fukuyama and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. of Jpn. [**63**]{}, 1639, (1994).
B.S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 243, (1990).
M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 3059, (1994).
For the dispersion relation $\epsilon_{\vec{k}} = \frac{\vec{k}^2}{2m} $ the integration may be done analytically to obtain the result $\xi_l \sim | \mu - \mu_c |^{-1/2}$, with $\mu_c = 0$.
P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 41, (1961).
G.D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics, Plenum Press, New York, (1981).
D.C. Herbert and R. Jones, J. Phys. C [**4**]{}, 1145, (1971).
A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**21**]{}, 1546, (1981).
S. Sorella, S. Baroni, R. Car, and M. Parrinello, Europhys. Lett. [**8**]{} (1989) 663. S. Sorella, E. Tosatti, S. Baroni, R. Car, and M. Parinello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B[**1**]{} (1989) 993.
G. Sugiyama and S.E. Koonin, Anals of Phys. [**168**]{} (1986) 1.
J.J. Deisz, W. von der Linden, R. Preuss and W. Hanke, to appear in [*Computer simulations in Condensed Matter Physics VIII*]{}, Eds. D.P. Landau, K.K. Mon and H.B. Schüttler (Spinger Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1995).
E.H. Lieb and F.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 1445, (1968).
F.F. Assaad and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3872, (1995).
### Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
[Fig. ]{}[ ]{}
a\) $\ln G(\vec{r} =0, \tau)$ as a function of $\tau$ for the half-filled ($\mu = 0$) 2D Hubbard model at $U/t =4$ on a $16 \times 16$ lattice. The solid line corresponds to a least square fit of $G(\vec{r} =0, \tau)$ to the form $\exp(-\Delta_c \tau)$ at [*large*]{} values of $\tau$. b) $\Delta_c$ as a function of linear lattice size $L$. The solid circle at $1/L = 0$ corresponds to $\Delta_c$ as obtained in reference [@Furukawa].
$ | G(\vec{r} =(L/2,L/2),\tau) |$ as a function of system size and imaginary time $\tau$ for the 2D Hubbard model.
$ \ln | G(\vec{r} =(L/2,L/2), \omega = \mu) |$ as a function of distance and chemical potential for the 2D Hubbard model. The solid lines correspond to a least square fit of $| G(\vec{r} =(L/2,L/2), \omega = \mu) |$ to the form $ \exp \left( - |\vec{r}|/\xi_l \right) $ for $L>4$.
Localization length $\xi_l$ versus $ | \mu - \mu_c| $ for the 2D Hubbard model. The solid lines correspond to two values of the correlation length exponent: $\nu = 1/4$ and $\nu = 1/2$. The solid circles correspond to the QMC data.
Same as Fig. 4 but for the 1D Hubbard model.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A sequence of images of supernova 1993J at 30 epochs, from 50 d to $\sim 9$ yr after shock breakout, shows the evolution of the expanding radio shell of an exploded star in detail. The images were obtained from 24 observing sessions at 8.4 GHz and 19 at 5.0 GHz and from our last session at 1.7 GHz. The images are all phase-referenced to the stable reference point of the core of the host galaxy M81. This allows us to display them relative to the supernova explosion center. The earliest image shows an almost unresolved source with a radius of 520 AU. The shell structure becomes discernible 175 d after shock breakout. The brightness of the ridge of the projected shell is not uniform, but rather varies by a factor of two, having a distinct peak or maximum to the south-east and a gap or minimum to the west. Over the next $\sim 350$ d, this pattern rotates counter-clockwise, with the gap rotating from west to north-northeast. After two years, the structure becomes more complex with hot spots developing in the east, south, and west. The pattern of modulation continues to change, and after five years the hot spots are located to the north-northwest, south and south-southeast. After nine years, the radio shell has expanded to a radius of 19,000 AU. The brightness in the center of the images is lower than expected for an optically thin, spherical shell. Absorption in the center is favored over a thinner shell in the back and/or front. Allowing for absorption, we find the thickness of the shell is $25 \pm 3$% of its outer radius. We place a $3\sigma$ upper limit of 4.4% on the mean polarization of the bright part of the shell, consistent with internal Faraday depolarization. We find no compact source in the central region above a brightness limit of 0.05 m at 8.4 GHz, corresponding to 30% of the current spectral luminosity of the Crab Nebula. We conclude that either any pulsar nebula in the center of SN 1993J is much fainter than the Crab or that there is still significant internal radio absorption.'
author:
- 'M. F. Bietenholz, N. Bartel, and M. P. Rupen'
title: 'SN 1993J VLBI (III): The Evolution of the Radio Shell'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
SN 1993J is one of the brightest radio supernovae ever detected (e.g., Weiler et al. 2002). Its location in the nearby spiral galaxy M81 high in the northern sky has made it the best target for VLBI supernova studies so far. This paper is the third in a series presenting the results from our VLBI campaign on this supernova (Bietenholz, Bartel & Rupen, 2001, Paper I; Bartel et al. 2002, Paper II), and for the convenience of the reader we repeat the following two introductory paragraphs from Paper II below.
was discovered in a spiral arm of south south-west of the galaxy’s center by Garcia (Ripero & Garcia 1993) on 28 March 1993 shortly after shock breakout at $\sim 0$ UT ($t=0$) on the same day (Wheeler et al. 1993). It subsequently became the optically brightest supernova in the northern hemisphere since SN 1954A. At a Cepheid-distance of $3.63 \pm
0.31$ Mpc (Ferrarese et al. 2000; see also Freedman et al. 1994, 2001), it is also one of the closest extragalactic supernovae ever observed and is second only to SN 1987A as a subject of intense observational and theoretical supernova studies. The precursor was identified soon after the supernova discovery (e.g., Humphreys et al. 1993) and found to be an approximately K0 I supergiant with a likely mass of $\sim$ 17 (Aldering, Humphreys, & Richmond 1994; Van Dyk et al. 2002) and a radius $\geq$ 675 or $\geq 3.5$ AU (Clocchiatti et al.1995).
The light curve and the spectral properties indicated that SN 1993J was of Type IIb, characterized by a low-mass hydrogen outer layer. Höflich, Langer, & Duschinger (1993) considered a massive ($\sim 30$ ) single supergiant that had lost most of its hydrogen envelope through a strong wind and retained an envelope mass of $\sim
3$ (but see also Höflich 1995). However it is more likely that the progenitor had the lower mass given above, and a close binary companion that stripped off most of its hydrogen envelope. The progenitor was then left with a residual hydrogen mass in the outer shell probably in the range of 0.2 to 0.4 (e.g., Podsiadlowski et al. 1993; Woosley et al. 1994; Houck & Fransson 1996) with some estimates being larger, but none greater than 0.9 (Nomoto et al. 1993; Shigeyama et al. 1994; Bartunov et al. 1994).
The ejecta thrown off in the supernova explosion expand into, and interact with, the circumstellar medium (CSM), which is expected to consist of the slow, dense wind of the progenitor. In the period before the star died, the progenitor is thought to have had lost mass with a mass-loss to wind-velocity ratio $\dot
M/w=5{\mbox{$\times 10^{-5}$}}$ /10 (Van Dyk et al. 1994; Fransson & Björnsson 1998). As the ejecta expand into the CSM, it is expected that a forward shock is driven into the surrounding CSM, and a reverse shock driven back into the expanding ejecta. The radio emission is synchrotron emission, which is most likely generated by relativistic particles accelerated in the region between these two shocks (e.g., Chevalier 1982a).
In the case of SN 1993J, there may have been asymmetries in the ejecta and anisotropic expansion velocities. In particular, asymmetric spectral lines were observed (e.g., Lewis et al. 1994; Spyromilio 1994), and significant time-variable optical polarization was found in the spectra (Trammell, Hines, & Wheeler 1993; Tran et al.1997). While the asymmetry in at least one line was possibly caused by line blending (Houck & Fransson 1996), the detection of the polarization is a strong argument for asymmetry in the optical emission region and led to ejecta models with non-spherical geometries (e.g., Höflich 1995; Höflich et al. 1996).
There are a number of different mechanisms which might produce asymmetry in the ejecta of a supernova. Some of them operate even before the shock breaks out through the surface of the progenitor. For instance, an axisymmetric density distribution of the progenitor might lead to an asymmetric explosion and an anisotropic expansion pattern. Also, recent numerical modeling of massive star explosions suggests that shortly after the bounce, the expansion has fundamentally anisotropic components and develops “fingers” with speeds twice the average expansion speed. If the CSM is anisotropic, as is expected of some red giant winds, further anisotropy could develop after shock breakout. Finally, the contact surface between the ejecta and the CSM is subject to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, which, with time, could lead to fingers of shocked envelope material extending into the shocked CSM. A detailed sequence of images of the radio structure of the supernova is therefore of particular importance because it may allow us to see some of these mechanisms in action.
Early VLBI observations of SN 1993J allowed the size of the partly resolved supernova to be determined (Bartel et al. 1993, 1994; Marcaide et al. 1993, 1994). The radio source was shown to be circular within 5% (Bartel et al. 1994). As the supernova expanded further, a shell morphology could be discerned (Marcaide et al. 1995a, b; Bartel, Bietenholz, & Rupen 1995). More accurate measurements over seven years of observations allowed us to show that the radio shell’s 20% contour was circularly symmetric even within 3%, and that its angular expansion from the explosion center isotropic within 5.5% (Paper I). The observed highly isotropic expansion from the explosion center is in stark contrast to the anisotropic expansion suggested by the optical observations. In this context, a detailed investigation of the structure of the radio shell and its evolution with time becomes of particular importance.
The first angular expansion velocity determinations, when compared with optical velocity measurements, showed that the radio emission emanates from the shock region (Bartel et al. 1994). Subsequently, the expansion of the supernova underwent several changes. At 30 days after shock breakout ($t = 30$ d), the shell was expanding at $\sim 17,200$ . From then till $t \sim 300$ d, the shell was slightly decelerated, with the outer radius, ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}\propto t^m$ and $m = 0.919 \pm 0.019$. Then the deceleration grew significantly till $t \sim 1600$ d, with $m$ decreasing to $\sim 0.74$ and the expansion velocity slowing to $\sim 8900$ . Subsequently, the deceleration lessened again, with $m$ increasing to $\sim 0.85$. These changes were related to changes of the radio light-curves and the spectra, and interpreted in terms of a stratification of the ejecta, with the high-mass ejecta starting to pass through the reverse shock and exerting greater pressure on the shocked low-mass envelope and the shocked CSM (Paper II; see also Mioduszewski, Dwarkadas, & Ball 2001).
In Paper I, we located the explosion center with respect to the core of the core-jet source M81[$^*$]{}, thus defining a stable reference point for our images. We also determined, using model-fitting, an upper limit to the proper motion of the geometric center of SN 1993J, and consequently on anisotropic expansion of the radio shell. In Paper II, we determined the expansion speed of SN 1993J, measured its deceleration, and studied the radio light curves and the related changes in the radio spectrum. In this third paper, we present a complete series of VLBI images of SN 1993J at 8.4 and 5.0 GHz, along with our latest image at 1.7 GHz. While some of these images have already been presented earlier (see Papers I, II; Bietenholz et al.2001; Bartel et al. 2000; Bartel, Bietenholz, & Rupen 1995), we present here a complete and uniform set of images from 50 d after shock breakout till the present. These images form the most complete set of images of an expanding supernova ever obtained. (For some parallel observations with up to seven consecutive images, see Marcaide et al. 1995b, 1997, 2002).
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION\[sobsdat\]
==========================================
From 1993 to 2001 we made 66 multi-frequency VLBI observations at 34 epochs at 22.2, 15.0, 8.4 , 5.0, 2.3, and 1.7 GHz. We used a global array of between 11 and 18 telescopes with a total time of 12 to 18 hours for each epoch. These observations were described in Papers I and II. At 22.2 and 15.0 GHz, the supernova was only bright enough for useful observations in the first year. Even at the higher resolution available in principle at these frequencies, only the size but not yet the structure of the source could be determined. In particular, the gain in angular resolution at 15 GHz over that at 8.4 GHz with a comparable array was offset by the unavailability of European VLBI Network (EVN) or Deep Space Network (DSN) antennas at the higher frequency. In consequence, even during the first year, we obtained the best data for imaging at 8.4 GHz.
The high declination of 69 of SN 1993J enabled us to obtain essentially 100% visibility at almost every telescope, and as a result dense, fairly uniform, and nearly circular coverage for many of our observations. In Figure \[fuvcov\] we show as an example the coverage for the 8.4 GHz observations on 2000 November 13 ($t = 2787$ d). Most of the observations were made by phase-referencing to M81[$^*$]{} (Bietenholz, Bartel, & Rupen, 2000), providing a combination of unsurpassed sensitivity for imaging and accurate astrometry for tracking the position of the explosion center in the images for essentially all epochs.
We used a global array of between 9 and 18 telescopes with a total time of 9 to 18 hours for each run[^1]. The data were recorded with either the MK III or the VLBA/MKIV VLBI systems, and correlated with the NRAO VLBA processor in Socorro, New Mexico, USA. The analysis was carried out using NRAO’s Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS). The usual procedure in calibrating VLBI data is to determine the instrumental phases, which are essentially unknown, by self-calibration using an arbitrary starting model which is typically a point source (Walker 1999). While this procedure generally converges well, it can introduce symmetrizing artifacts into the images (Linfield 1986; Massi & Aaron 1999). Phase-referencing allowed us to calibrate the instrumental phases with respect to M81[$^*$]{} to the extent that we no longer needed to self-calibrate with an arbitrary starting model, and thus avoided any symmetrization. We are thus assured of the most un-biased images possible. In those cases where the signal-to-noise ratio was sufficiently high we proceeded to self-calibrate in phase, using the phase-referenced image as a model, to further improve the images. In fact, for later epochs phase-referencing was necessary for any imaging of SN 1993J, since the decreasing flux density made self-calibration impossible.
All the images were deconvolved with the CLEAN algorithm, using the robust weighting scheme implemented in the AIPS task IMAGR (Briggs 1995; Briggs, Schwab, & Sramek 1998). For imaging, the (calibrated) complex correlation coefficients are usually weighted by the inverse of the thermal noise variance. Since residual calibration errors may be present in the data and need not scale with the thermal noise, we compressed the weights somewhat by weighting with the inverse of the rms, rather than the usual variance, of the thermal noise.
Despite the mostly superb coverage, differences from epoch to epoch in the number of antennas and their scheduled time for the observations caused variations in the effective angular resolution at each frequency. In particular, the parameters of an elliptical Gaussian fit to the inner portion of the “dirty beam” varied from epoch to epoch. We aimed for the most consistent representation of the images in each sequence to facilitate inter-comparison of the images, and to minimize any possible misinterpretation due to a varying angular resolution. For this purpose, we present the sequences of images at 8.4 and at 5.0 GHz each convolved with circular Gaussian restoring beams whose widths increase monotonically with time. Since the resolution is naturally somewhat lower at 5.0 GHz than at 8.4 GHz, a somewhat larger beam was used at 5.0 GHz in the early images. In the later images, the increased dynamic range at 5 GHz compared to that at 8.4 GHz allowed us to use the same restoring beam at both frequencies, which allows for better comparison of the images at the two frequencies. In general, we chose the width of the convolving beam to be approximately equal to, or somewhat larger than, the maximum axis of the elliptical Gaussian fit to the inner portion of the “dirty beam.” In a few early cases, we mildly super-resolved our images along one or both axes of the dirty beam, and these cases are noted in Table \[tsnmaps\]. In the later images, because of the low signal-to-noise ratio, we choose a restoring beam somewhat larger than the inner portion of the dirty beam. In the remainder of this paper, when we refer to the resolution of an image, we mean the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Gaussian convolving beam[^2].
THE SEQUENCES OF IMAGES \[simages\]
===================================
In Figure \[fsnmaps\] we display 24 images of the supernova at 8.4 GHz along with 19 images at 5.0 GHz. In addition, we display the 8.4 GHz images in false color in Figure \[fcolor\]. In Table \[tsnmaps\] we give key characteristics of each of these images. In Figure \[flimage\] we show our most recent image, observed at 1.7 GHz on 2001 November 26 ($t = 3164$ d). In each image, we take the geometric center of the supernova shell as the origin of the coordinate system. In particular, we describe in Paper I how we fit a geometric spherical shell model[^3] directly to the data. It is the center of this fit model we take as the geometric center of the shell.
In Paper I, we determined the coordinates of the explosion center. At 8.4 GHz, the positions of the geometric center at each epoch are tabulated as offsets from the coordinates of the center of explosion, $\alpha_{\rm explosion} = {\mbox{${09}^{\rm h} \; {55}^{\rm m} \; {24}\fs{7747593} $}}, \; \delta_{\rm
explosion} = {\mbox{${69}\arcdeg \; {01}\arcmin \; {13}\farcs{703188} $}}$ (J2000), for all but the last two epochs for which the data reduction was not complete at the time that Paper I was published. The rms variation of these offsets is 64 , and is not significantly different from the combined standard errors of the shell center and explosion center positions of 60 .
The images show the dynamic evolution of the expanding radio shell from 50 d to 3345 d after the explosion. Never before has it been possible to obtain such detailed information on the radio emission from a supernova. With phase-referencing, dense coverage, and the use of essentially the most sensitive array available for such observations, the images are of the highest quality that could be obtained for the time of the observations. The most sensitive observations were those of our last epoch at 5.0 GHz. The standard deviation of the background brightness was just 16 $\mu{\mbox{Jy beam$^{-1}$}}$ and the peak brightness in the image was 420 $\mu{\mbox{Jy beam$^{-1}$}}$ (see Table \[tsnmaps\]), giving us a nominal dynamic range of 26, among the highest ever obtained for such a weak source.
In Figure \[ftb\] we plot the mean spectral volume emissivity, , and brightness temperature, , for SN 1993J for each of the images in Fig. \[fsnmaps\]. We calculate and from the total flux densities and fit outer radii, , from Paper II. For we take a distance of 3.6 Mpc and assume a spherical shell with ratio of the outer to the inner radius of 1.34. At 8.4 GHz, declines from a value of $(1.1 \pm 2)$ at $t = 50$ d to $(4.9 \pm 0.5)$ at $t =
2787$ d. The behavior at 5.0 GHz the is very similar, but the values are $\sim 40$% higher. The behavior of is very similar to that of , and at 8.4 GHz declines from a value of $(2.3 \pm
0.3)$ K at $t = 50$ d to $(3.3 \pm 0.2)$ K at $t =
2787$ d. The peak brightness temperatures, assuming features the size of the beam, are higher than the average values by a factor of $\sim
2$ for the epochs at which SN 1993J was clearly resolved.
General Aspects of the Changing Brightness Distribution \[saspects\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we focus on the individual images and specific features therein, we study the general aspects of the evolving brightness distribution of the expanding radio shell. At early epochs, with $t <
175$ d, SN 1993J is still unresolved. The shell structure first becomes visible at $t = 175$ d, and it remains so for all our subsequent images. As we have already shown in Papers I and II, the shell remains remarkably circular in projection. Perhaps the most striking overall feature of the structure is that the brightness of the projected shell is quite strongly modulated in position angle, p.a., despite the circularity of the outer contours. In fact, even at the earliest epoch where the shell is resolved ($t = 175$ d) the brightness around the ridge varies by a factor of $\sim 2$, with a pronounced maximum or peak at p.a. $\sim 135$ and a minimum or gap at p.a. $\sim -90$. At late times, the modulation has become more complex, and there is no longer such a clear one-sided pattern. To illustrate this behavior more clearly, we show in Figure \[fdec93-feb00\] the 8.4 GHz images at $t = 264$ and 2525 d, both convolved to the same relative resolution of $0.73 \times$ the shell outer angular radius as determined in Paper II. The shell appears much more uniform at $t = 2525$ d.
We defer detailed discussion of the reliability of the images and the uncertainties to the following sections, but we make some general remarks here. A strong argument for the reality of the observed modulation of the shell brightness is the excellent correspondence between the images at 8.4 and 5.0 GHz which is clearly visible in Figure \[fsnmaps\]. The slow changes from epoch to epoch visible also in Figure \[fsnmaps\] further argue for the reality of the structure observed.
In order to discuss the modulation of the brightness around the ridge, we introduce the following simple parameterization. For simplicity, we consider only modulation of the two-dimensional brightness distribution with p.a. Let $l$ be the wave number of a sinusoidal modulation with p.a. of the projected shell, such that there are $l$ maxima around the circumference. We plot the amplitude and phase of the first three sinusoids with $l = 1, 2, 3$ at 8.4 GHz, at which frequency the resolution is higher for early epochs, in Figure \[fl13mod\].
At $t = 264$ d the amplitude of the $l = 1$ modulation is quite large, and increases further till $t = 306$ d. It is possible that this early rise is a resolution effect, since a finite resolution will tend to suppress the apparent modulation. After $t = 306$ d, the $l=1$ amplitude falls steadily till $t \sim 1500$ d, which cannot be ascribed to a resolution effect, but rather reflects the decreasing asymmetry in brightness illustrated in Fig. \[fdec93-feb00\]. The $l = 2$ amplitude shows a sharp rise at $t \sim 500$ d which reflects the development of eastern and western hot spots discussed further in § \[stwospots\] below. At late times the amplitudes of $l = 1$, 2 and 3 are comparable, reflecting the increased complexity of the images.
Uncertainty in the Images \[suncert\]
-------------------------------------
In order to discuss the images in detail, we first elaborate on the brightness uncertainty in them. The simplest estimator of this uncertainty is the standard deviation of the brightness in empty regions of the image, which we will call , and which we list for each image in Table \[tsnmaps\]. However, for the reasons detailed below, is likely somewhat of an underestimate of the true brightness uncertainty (see also Perley 1999).
The true uncertainty will have three principal components: 1) the effect of the thermal noise, 2) the effect of residual calibration errors, and 3) the effect of instabilities or inaccuracies in the deconvolution process, which could also be described as the effect of incomplete coverage, since in the case of complete coverage, no deconvolution is necessary and therefore no such instabilities or inaccuracies will occur.
We will discuss each of these components in turn. The effect of the thermal noise, 1), will be random, will be uniform over the image, and will scale with the number and size of the telescopes, the bandwidth, and the observing time. It can be well estimated by . Unfortunately, the effects of 2) and 3) are less predictable, and may correlate with the actual structure in the image. There is thus the possibility that the effective uncertainty in our images over the extent of SN 1993J is higher than .
The effect of residual calibration errors, 2), will be approximately proportional to the total flux density. We can estimate this effect as follows. Let $N$ be the number of antennas, $\sigma_\phi$ be the rms of the residual phase mis-calibration in radians, and $M$ be the number of independent time intervals. We will conservatively take $M$ to be the number of hours of observing time to allow for correlated, slowly varying calibration errors. In our phase-referenced, and in some cases additionally phase self-calibrated data, the residual calibration phase errors, $\sigma_\phi$ are almost certainly $<
0.5$ rad. We do not separately calculate the effect of residual amplitude calibration errors, since they are almost certainly smaller. Perley (1999) gives an estimate of the dynamic range limit due to residual mis-calibration of $\sqrt{M} N/ \sigma_\phi$, where the dynamic range is the image peak brightness divided by . For our data, with $M \gtrsim 10$ and $N \gtrsim 11$, this gives a dynamic range of $\gtrsim 60$. This is probably a lower limit, since our phase-referencing cycle time was much shorter than 1 hour, and thus a realistic value of $M$ is likely larger than 10. Since the observed dynamic range is smaller than this conservative limit for all except the earliest epochs, for which $\sigma_\phi$ is almost certainly less than 0.5 rad due to the high signal-to-noise ratio and accurate phase self-calibration, we can conclude that the uncertainty introduced by residual calibration errors is likely small.
The effect of 3), instabilities or inaccuracies in the deconvolution process, will be largely confined to the area over which CLEAN components were sought in the deconvolution process, in other words over the CLEAN window. The effect will scale with the completeness of the coverage. We estimated the effect of the instabilities or inaccuracies in the deconvolution as follows: for a typical data set, the actual, measured, visibilities were replaced by the Fourier transform of the SN 1993J image. A realistic amount of random noise was added to this artificial data set, which was then deconvolved. This process was repeated for many realizations of the random noise. We then computed the rms variation over the different noise realizations at various locations of the resulting images. For the 8.4 GHz data sets at $t =
264$ d, 451 d, 1693 d and 2525 d, the standard deviation of the brightness within the CLEAN window was higher by 20%, 33%, 16%, and 37% respectively, than that of the background.
We thus estimate the total image uncertainty in the CLEAN window, i.e., over the radio shell, to be between 1.2 and 1.4 times , or the standard deviation of background brightness, the values of which are listed in Table \[tsnmaps\].
Early Structure in the Shell and Apparent Rotation between 175 and 686 Days \[searly\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The earliest 8.4 GHz image of SN 1993J, at $t = 50$ d, shows an almost unresolved source with a radius of just 0.14 mas or 520 AU, only 100 to 200 times larger than the radius of the progenitor star. No brightness structure can yet be seen. As mentioned above, the shell structure first becomes visible at $t = 175$ d. Already at this epoch there is a distinct asymmetry in the brightness, with a maximum to the east-southeast of the center and a minimum to the west. To make the asymmetry more visible, we display in Figure \[fsuperr\] the image at this epoch with a moderate degree of super-resolution, achieved using maximum entropy deconvolution as implemented in the AIPS task VTESS, which generates less spurious structure than CLEAN (Briggs 1995).
As the supernova expands, our relative resolution increases and the pattern of modulation of the ridge brightness becomes clearer. The pattern also appears to rotate counter-clockwise. By $t = 520$ d, the brightness peak is to the south and the gap to the north. In Figure \[fflxvpa\] we plot the relative brightness, averaged radially from 0.7 to $1.0 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$, as a function of p.a. for several early epochs. The p.a. of the gap clearly changes with time. The most consistent evolution is for the period between $t = 264$ d and 520 d, for which the gap moves from p.a. = 250 to 375. The peak is at p.a. = 100 at $t = 264$ d and moves to p.a. = 180 by $t = 451$ d. To further illustrate this evolution, we plot in Figure \[fminmaxpa\] the p.a.s of the peak and the gap in the ridge as determined from the images for the period $t = 175$ d to 635 d. This figure shows that the apparent rotation is not uniform. It is more pronounced for the gap, which moves consistently counter-clockwise by $\sim 130$ between $t
= 264$ d and 390 d. The peak rotates clockwise by $\sim 50$ between $t = 390$ and 451 d, and tends to rotate slightly counterclockwise at other times. We discuss the possible cause of this apparent rotation in §\[sorigins\] below, but we note here that it is possible that the apparent rotation is caused by a steady increase in brightness at p.a. of about $-110$, and an unrelated decrease at p.a. $\sim 180$. In other words the brightness at different p.a.’s may be evolving independently, albeit with a timescale on the order of 200 d, and the appearance of a rotation coincidental.
What is the significance of the apparent rotation? The apparent rotation is also suggested at 5 GHz where the first resolved image at $t = 352$ d shows a very similar pattern, in particular having the same orientation as that at 8.4 GHz. From there on, the p.a.s of the peak and the gap at 5 GHz track those at 8.4 GHz well (see Figure \[fsnmaps\]).
More generally, we can assess the significance of changes apart from homologous expansion between images of SN 1993J at different epochs by scaling the images to the same effective size, and then comparing the remaining differences between the images with the image uncertainty. We find that the differences between the 8.4-GHz images at $t = 264$ d and 451 d, when appropriately scaled in size and flux density and then convolved to the same resolution, are six times the combined . This apparent rotation thus represents a quite significant change in structure even with the conservative assumption of an uncertainty of 1.4 discussed in the previous section.
Development of Three Hot Spots Along the Ridge from 686 Days to 1253 Days\[stwospots\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the radio shell expands further, our relative resolution increases, and more complex structure becomes visible. The opening in the ridge narrows and the simple pattern with a single peak and gap gives way to an almost closed shell structure with an evolving, complex modulation along the ridge. In particular, starting at $t = 774$ d, the southeastern hot spot splits into an eastern and a southern one, and gaps appear to the north and the southwest. At $t = 1253$ d a large arc has developed stretching over about 150 in p.a., from the northeast to the south. During the same period, a third hot spot develops in the east, but in contrast to the other two hot spots, this hot spot remains stationary.
The Filling of the Northern Opening in the Ridge from 1253 Days to 3345 Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From $t = 1253$ d on, the northern opening of the ridge begins to fill in. By $t = 1693$ d the original opening has essentially vanished, and from $t = 2064$ d on the original opening has brightened to the extent that it becomes a hot spot. By $t = 2432$ d, there are again three hot spots, a prominent one slightly east of north and ones in the west-southwest and south-southeast. At 8.4 GHz the dynamic range has decreased to $\sim 10$ for the last two epochs, at which level the brightness modulations along the ridge can no longer be discerned in detail. However, the pattern of modulation can be seen also in the 5.0 and 1.7 GHz images which have a higher dynamic range. Our latest image, at $t = 3345$ d and 5 GHz still exhibits the hot-spots to the west-southwest and the south-southeast. The hot-spot east of north is also still present, but has broadened somewhat.
Given the complexity of the structure, and the decreasing dynamic range of the images, it may not necessarily be apparent which features in the late-epoch images are real, and which are merely due to noise. Since we found in Papers I and II that the projection of a uniform spherical shell, with a shell thickness of 20% of the outer radius, was a good overall description of the supernova, we will examine the deviations of our images from such a model in order to illuminate the significance of the features in the images. As an example, in Figure \[fsigmap\], we show again our images for $t = 1893$ d at 8.4 and 5.0 GHz in grayscale, with contours showing the significance of departures from a spherical shell. More precisely, the contours represent the deviations from the projected, convolved uniform spherical shell model of the image, in units of .
There are significant deviations from a uniform, spherical shell: 5 and 9 at 8.4 and 5.0 GHz respectively. Note that while the deviations at 5.0 GHz are more significant due to the higher dynamic range at that frequency, they are not larger, that is the supernova is not more uniform than at 8.4 GHz. Note also that even features with significance less than 3 may well be real since the addition of noise will not cause the disappearance of features at low amplitudes. In this example, as in the other images, there is excellent correspondence between the significant features at the two frequencies, in particular in this case for the opening to the northeast and the brightening to the southwest.
The CLEAN deconvolution process is subject to a known tendency to introduce small scale corrugation into the images (Cornwell & Braun 1988). To test to what extent this tendency might be responsible for the structure in our images, we made a biased image, again for $t =
1893$ d at 8.4 GHz, by deconvolving with maximum entropy (Cornwell 1988, 1999) using a default image consisting of the relevant projected uniform spherical shell. Even in this image, which has a relatively low dynamic range, and is biased to be as close to the uniform shell as is allowed by the data, there are deviations from a uniform shell of up to 25%, or 5, at 8.4 GHz. Even at this relatively late time, then, there are significant brightness deviations from a uniform spherical shell.
Polarization of SN 1993J \[spoln\]
----------------------------------
Synchrotron radiation is inherently polarized (e.g., Pacholczyk 1970), and the polarization properties can potentially reveal the magnetic field geometry. The integrated polarization of SN 1993J is low, being $< 1$% at centimeter wavelengths, as determined from some of our VLA observations (described Paper II). Because of the high degree of circular symmetry, however, it is possible that the polarization in a resolved image would be much higher.
In order to determine the polarization, observations in both senses of circular polarization are required, which we obtained for all our VLBI observing sessions after $t = 774$ d, with the exception of the one at $t = 1107$ d (Paper II). We did not detect any linear polarization larger than the expected antenna polarization leakage of a few percent in any of these VLBI sessions.
We carried out the full polarization calibration for several runs, namely those of $t = 1356$ d at 8.4 GHz, of $t = 873$ d, 2064 d at 5 GHz, and of $t = 3164$ d at 1.7 GHz. These runs were chosen because the images had high dynamic range, and consequently are the best choices for the search for polarization. To correct for the polarization leakage of each antenna, we determined the instrumental polarization parameters from our observations of M81[$^*$]{}, which has very low intrinsic linear polarization (Brunthaler et al. 2001) and is thus an ideal instrumental polarization calibrator.
In no case did we find any significant polarization for SN 1993J. We give the results in Table \[tppol\]. In no case did we observe linear polarization greater than the 3%[^4] upper limit on the average polarization of the bright part of the ridge is 4.4% and on polarization at the image peak 9%.
A TIME-AVERAGED IMAGE OF SN 1993J\[scompimg\]
=============================================
Our last five 8.4-GHz images in Figure \[fsnmaps\] were convolved with a CLEAN beam of FWHM 1.12 mas. This is a somewhat lower resolution than the $\sim 0.7$ mas obtained in the imaging process as described in § \[sobsdat\]. However, their relatively low dynamic range made it less useful to display them at the full resolution. A higher dynamic range, which would allow higher resolution, could be achieved by properly averaging the images. We showed in Paper II that the visibility curve of the radio shell, after scaling according to the expansion, shows only small changes with time over the time interval from $t = 996$ d to 2787 d. Since the radial profile of the radio shell is the Hankel transform of the visibility curve, this indicates, independent of any model-fitting and deconvolution, that the average radial profile also shows only small changes with time. Thus it is reasonable to average our data in time, accounting of course for the overall expansion. Such averaging allows us to study those characteristics of the radio shell which don’t change over the averaging interval with higher angular resolution.
We accordingly averaged the data from the three latest epochs at 8.4 GHz to increase our dynamic range and form an image. This image will be an average over the three individual epochs, and we note that in the presence of changes from epoch to epoch, some deconvolution errors will be incurred. Since, however, both the changes from image to image and the sidelobes are only a fraction of the surface brightness, such errors should be no more than a few percent of the brightness. Nonetheless, specific small-scale features in the composite image should be interpreted with caution.
To produce the composite image, we scaled and averaged the data from the 8.4-GHz observing sessions at $t = 2080$ d, 2525 d, and 2787 d. To account for the expansion of the radio shell, we normalized the distances by scaling them by the outer radius of the fit shell, normlized to the value at $t = 2787$ d (4.49 mas; see Paper II). For example, if the supernova was $1.5\times$ smaller than at $t =
2787$ d, the distances would be divided by 1.5. We further scaled the magnitudes of the complex correlation coefficients by the respective total flux density for each epoch, and shifted their phases so as to place the center of the fit shell at the phase center. The combined data set was then imaged and deconvolved as usual. The result is shown in Figure \[fcompimg\]. The increased dynamic range allows us to usefully image at the higher resolution of 0.7 mas. The shell appears very circular, but somewhat more uniform than it does in the individual images (Fig. \[fsnmaps\]). However, the brightness still varies by a factor of $\sim 2$ between the brightest and the faintest portions of the ridge. These variations represent changes of $\pm 4.5{\mbox{$\,\sigma_{\rm bg}$}}$, with the rms variation of the brightness around the ridge being 2.2. We estimated the errors in the deconvolution in the same way we did for individual epochs in §\[suncert\] above, and found that the uncertainty is somewhat higher in this case: 1.7. The reason for the higher uncertainty is that the coverage is less dense at the largest distances, which are given higher weight in this image. Despite the higher uncertainty, we find that the variation of the brightness around the ridge is significantly larger than the noise. In other words, there are likely true brightness contrasts of $\gtrsim 1.4$ in the bright part of the ridge which persist over periods $>1$ year.
We can also use this image to calculate the circularity of SN 1993J, as we did for the individual images in Paper I. The axis ratio of an ellipse fit to the 20% contour is 1.01. The rms variation over all p.a.’s of the radius of the 20% contour is 4%. These values are consistent with those we reported in Paper I. We note here that the 8.4 GHz image at $t = 2787$ d and the 5.0 GHz images are circular to similar limits as reported for the earlier 8.4 GHz images in Paper I. On the latest image, at $t = 3345$ d (5.0 GHz), an ellipse fit to the 20% contour has an axis ratio of 1.06 (at p.a. = 76). This is within the uncertainty for the average ellipticity reported in Paper I, but somewhat larger than those obtained at other recent epochs. Perhaps this is an indication that SN 1993J is becoming elliptical. Future measurements will be required to confirm whether this is the case.
Does the radius variation in the outer contours reflect small-scale departures from circularity, or is it due only to noise? To determine this we performed a Monte-Carlo simulation, substituting the Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric model for the composite set of visibilities above. We then added a realistic amount of noise to these model visibilities and imaged them. Over numerous realizations of the noise, we found that the average rms variation over all p.a.s of the radius and the average ellipticity of the 20% contour were not significantly different than found for the real data. The $1\sigma$ upper limit on the rms variation of the 20% contour radius not due to noise is 3%. We thus find no indication that the wavyness of the outer contours represents any significant deviation from circularity.
There is, however, a small protrusion visible to the southwest on the composite image. At the 16% contour, it extends about 0.6 mas beyond the average radius. It has a flux density of $\sim 0.5$% of the total, equivalent to $\sim 6 {\mbox{$\,\sigma_{\rm bg}$}}$. There may be further, similar protrusions, but with lower brightness, and therefore not distinguishable from the noise. Is this protrusion visible in the individual images? It is indeed apparent in the 8.4 GHz images at $t = 2080$ and 2525 d. At 5 GHz, it is visible in the image at $t = 2432$ d, not in the one at $t =
2996$ d and only suggested in the last one at $t = 3445$ d. It is not apparent in the latest 1.7-GHz image at $t = 3164$ d (Fig. \[flimage\]), but we might not expect it to be, given the lower resolution at that frequency. The protrusion is suggestive, but its reality will have to be established by future observations.
THE RADIAL BRIGHTNESS PROFILE\[sshprof\]
========================================
It is of considerable interest to determine the average radial brightness profile of the supernova. The observed profile provides an important constraint for modeling the shell structure, the density profiles of the ejecta, and the emission and absorption processes. To study the profile of SN 1993J with the highest angular resolution we used the composite image in Figure \[fcompimg\], and produced a profile of brightness [*vs.*]{} radius, which we plot in Figure \[fcompprof\]. The uncertainties in the profile were derived from the larger of and the rms scatter with position angle within each radial bin, both divided by the square root of the number of beam areas within each bin.
In addition, we plot the profiles of the models. We used a spherical shell of uniform volume emissivity as a model for our fits in Papers I and II. The radial profile of that model, fit to the present composite data set is indicated by the dotted lines in Figure \[fcompprof\]. The fit toward the outer edge of the profile is excellent, indicating that our model is good at least to the limit imposed by the resolution.
In fact, the true radial profile of SN 1993J is not expected to precisely follow this form (see e.g., Mioduszewski et al. 2001; and Jun & Norman 1996a, 1996b). We noted in Paper II (as did Mioduszewski et al. 2001) that toward the center of the shell, the observed profiles show systematic deviations from that of a spherical shell of uniform volume emissivity. Specifically, Figure \[fcompprof\] shows that, from the maximum inward, there is a deficit in emission toward the inside of the ridge and then an excess in the center. A thicker shell would provide a better fit on the inside of the ridge, but a worse fit in the center of the shell. The deficit in the center can in general also be seen in our well-resolved images at both 8.4 and 5 GHz, for example those shown in Figure \[fsigmap\], where the deficit in the center is still $> 4{\mbox{$\,\sigma_{\rm bg}$}}$ even in the biased maximum entropy image.
We will use the above scaled and time averaged data set from 2080 d $\leq t \leq 2787$ d, which was used to make the time-averaged image discussed in § \[scompimg\], to quantify these differences and to better determine the real shell emission profile. We will do this by again directly fitting the data as described in Papers I and II. We note that by fitting directly to the data, we avoid deconvolution errors so that our fit profile is a correct representation of the time-averaged profile of the supernova. Since the most prominent difference between the model and our data seems to be a deficit of emission in the center of the shell, we add a uniform disk of [*negative*]{} emission to our previous model of the projection of an optically-thin, uniform spherical shell. The physical motivation for this parameterization, in particular for the negative emission, is to represent possible absorption in the interior of the shell, which might be expected on physical grounds (e.g., Mioduszewski et al. 2001). Such absorption would lower the brightness in the central region of the projected supernova by absorbing some of the flux from the rear of the shell. Complete absorption in the interior of the three-dimensional shell would imply a reduction of exactly one-half the brightness in the central region, corresponding to a negative emission disk whose brightness was the negative of the observed average brightness in the central region. The disk and the shell have the same center, but the radius and the total (negative) flux density of the disk are free parameters[^5].
We find that the best fit of the modified shell model gives a shell thickness of 0.25 times the outer radius ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$ (equivalent to ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}/ {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm i}$}}= 1.34 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$), a radius for the absorption disk of $0.5 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$, and an absorption of 4% of the total flux density. The absorption corresponds to a reduction in the brightness of $\sim 25$% near the center of the shell. The radial profile of this model is shown by the solid line in Figure \[fcompprof\]. The inclusion of an absorbing disk in the center allows a slightly thicker shell to better fit the inner profile of the ridge without an excess of emission in the center of the shell. There are still some deviations of our measurements from the model profile, especially near the center. The resolution, however, is 0.70 mas (0.15 ), and therefore the several points nearest the center which still show a deficit compared to the model are highly correlated and probably not significant.
We repeated this analysis with the 5 GHz data sets of $t = 2992$ and 3345 d, and found a very similar result: the best fit of the modified shell model gives a shell thickness of 0.25 times the outer radius ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$ (equivalent ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}/ {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm i}$}}= 1.33 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$), a radius for the absorption disk of $0.4 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$, and an absorption of 4% of the total flux density. At 5.0 GHz, the fit radius of the absorbing disk is somewhat smaller than at 8.4 GHz. For reasons we will elaborate on below, however, the parameters of the absorbing disk should be interpreted with caution.
In fact, at this early stage, the inner ejecta are still expected to be quite opaque to radio waves (Chevalier 1982c; Reynolds & Chevalier 1984; Mioduszewski et al. 2001), and we might reasonably expect almost complete absorption of the radio emission from the rear of the shell. Accordingly, we fit also a model with an absorbing disk representing complete absorption and with a radius equal to the inner radius of the shell. In this case, the fitted shell thickness is $0.35 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$. This model is also plotted in Figure \[fcompprof\], using a dashed line. It clearly provides a poorer fit than the model with the fitted absorption.
What is the uncertainty in the fit shell thickness? The formal uncertainty on the shell thickness when an incomplete absorption disk is also fit is $0.03 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$. This uncertainty is derived directly from the visibility data, and therefore is not affected by the higher on-source errors in the image plane discussed in § \[suncert\] above. Since, however, our fit uses an approximation to the geometry of an absorption disk, and since the geometry of the absorption probably differs from a simple disk, our formal uncertainty may somewhat underestimate the true uncertainty in the shell thickness[^6]. In any case, the fits without any absorption disk and with a complete absorption disk are clearly worse, suggesting that a very conservative range for the true shell thickness is between $0.23 \,
{\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$ and $0.35 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$.
A more model-free estimate of the shell thickness can be derived from the measured radial profile. A three-dimensional shell emission region, whose radial profile has sharp boundaries at and like any of our three models in Figure \[fcompprof\] will, when projected onto two dimensions, have a radial profile with inflection points at and . Convolution with the CLEAN beam will smooth these inflection points. If we assume that extrema in the second derivative of the convolved profile trace the location of un-convolved inflection points, then these extrema occur at the projected inner and outer radii of the shell. We determined the extrema of the second derivative from our measured profile in Figure \[fcompprof\] numerically, and their locations suggest a shell thickness close to the lower end of the above range, that is $\sim 0.23 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$. In summary, we think that our fit value of the shell thickness of $(0.25 \pm 0.03) {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$ is a reasonable estimate of the thickness of the radio shell.
DISCUSSION \[sdicuss\]
======================
With thirty-one epochs of observations of SN 1993J, phase-referenced to the core of the host galaxy, we produced sequences of images of the radio shell over more than nine years from the time of explosion to the present. In our Galaxy, radio shells of supernovae have been observed over at most $\sim10$% of their age. SN 1993J has been observed essentially over 100% of its age. In the first paper of this series, we determined the position of the explosion center in the galactic reference frame with an accuracy of about 160 AU, and placed an upper limit of 5.5% on anisotropic expansion in the plane of the sky. In the second paper, we determined the deceleration of the expanding supernova as a function of time, together with the radio light curves and the spectrum, and interpreted our results in terms of the interaction of the ejecta with the CSM. In this third paper we focus on the details of the images of the evolving radio shell.
The earliest image shows an almost unresolved source with a radius of 520 AU. The shell structure can be discerned from $t = 175$ d on. The brightness along the ridge is modulated, with a maximum and a gap located almost opposite. This modulation pattern appears to rotate, with the gap rotating from the west to the north-northeast in the following 250 d. From then on the structure along the ridge becomes more complex. Even at our last few epochs, however, the outer contours of the (projected) radio shell remain circular within 4%. The brightness in the center of the shell is less than would be expected of a uniform, optically thin shell. With absorption in the center taken into account, the ratio of the shell thickness is $0.25
\, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$. No significant linear polarization was found.
These results are important for discussions about 1) the origins of the brightness modulation of the shell and in particular, possible structure in the ejecta, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, structure in the CSM and a possible distant companion, and structure of the magnetic field, 2) the relation between the outer edge of the radio shell and the forward shock front, 3) a possibly non-uniform shell thickness, 4) absorption in the center of the shell, and 5) the possibility of discovering a pulsar nebula in the center of the radio shell. We discuss each of these aspects in turn.
We discuss our results in light of the theoretical understanding of the structure of an expanding supernova shell described in the introduction. This structure is expected to comprise a forward shock, driven outward into the CSM, and a reverse shock propagating inward in the expanding ejecta (see e.g., Chevalier 1982a). The CSM, in the case of SN 1993J, consists of the slow, dense stellar wind of the progenitor. The contact discontinuity between the shocked CSM and the expanding stellar envelope is located between the forward and reverse shocks. Radio emission is thought to be produced in the region between the forward shock and the contact discontinuity by particles accelerated by the shock and magnetic fields amplified by instabilities at the contact discontinuity. In the case of a decelerating shell, it is expected that the contact discontinuity will be Rayleigh-Taylor unstable (Gull 1973; Chevalier 1982a, b, c; Chevalier & Blondin, 1995), and that with time “fingers” of shocked envelope material will extend into the shocked CSM. The shear flow along the sides of these fingers makes them subject also to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, which may well further amplify the magnetic field (Jun & Norman 1996a, b). We expect these instabilities to apply to SN 1993J, which is already substantially decelerated (Paper II; see also Bartel et al. 2000, Marcaide et al.1997, 2002). The magnetic field strength in SN 1993 can be estimated from its size or velocity and the synchrotron luminosity and spectrum (Paper II; Chevalier 1998; Fransson & Björnsson 1998). In fact, the magnetic field in SN 1993J is several orders of magnitude higher than that expected in the stellar wind, which led Fransson & Björnsson (1998) to argue that some form of field amplification must be occurring as even a strong shock will amplify the field only by a factor of four.
Many of the features of our images could be interpreted in a straightforward way within this scenario: the forward shock is at or near the outside boundary of the radio emission, and is highly circular. The contact discontinuity represents the inside boundary, and shows deviations from circularity due to instabilities which are visible chiefly as brightenings of the shell, rather than as actual fingers, due to projection and to our limited resolution. Numerical modeling has shown that the Rayleigh-Taylor fingers do not generally reach the forward shock (Chevalier, Blondin & Emmering 1992; Jun & Norman 1996a, b), and so the outer edge of the shell remains highly circular.
Our simple model of an optically thin, spherical shell of uniform volume emissivity can serve as a rough description of a supernova with this structure, with the inner and outer boundaries of the shell being, respectively, the forward shock and the contact discontinuity. Of course, the volume emissivity is not expected to be strictly uniform within this region (see e.g., Mioduszewski et al. 2001; Jun & Norman 1996a, b), but because even at the last epoch of our observations at 8.4 GHz our resolution is only comparable to the shell thickness, a uniform shell should provide an adequate first order description. However, our images clearly show deviations from this structure. We will discuss first the deviations of the azimuthally averaged profile (Fig. \[fcompprof\]), and then the smaller-scale modulations of the shell brightness visible in the images (Figs. \[fsnmaps\], \[flimage\], \[fcompimg\]).
Deficit of Emission in the Center of the Shell — An Opaque Interior?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We found that our data show a deficit of emission in the center of the shell, and an excess just inside of the ridge peak when compared to the uniform spherical shell model with the best fit. A thicker shell would fit the ridge profile better, but produce an even brighter central region. We parameterized the deficit in the center by fitting a disk of negative brightness in addition to the spherical shell (§\[sshprof\]), and we found a deficit of $\sim 4$% of the total flux density, occurring over a radius of about half of the outer radius of the shell, .
There are a number of reasons why such a deficit might be expected for SN 1993J, and below we discuss several of them, which are not mutually exclusive. An obvious one would be that SN 1993J be intrinsically non-spherical, for example prolate, and that we observe it face on. However, since the outer contours are highly circular, the prolate structure would have to be aligned with the line of sight to within a few degrees. If we assume that the apparent deficit of emission in the center is entirely caused by SN 1993J being in fact prolate, the chance of an alignment close enough to the line of sight so that SN 1993J would still appear as circular as it does is $< 5$%. Such a coincidence is unlikely. Moreover, such an orientation is hard to reconcile with the optical polarization data, which imply that we are [*not*]{} seeing SN 1993J along an axis of symmetry (Trammell et al. 1993; Tran et al. 1997; see also Höflich et al. 1996).
An equally obvious reason would be that the shell thickness is different for different parts of the shell. A shell which was thinner, or had lower volume emissivity, at the front and/or rear than it did along the circumference of the projected shell would produce the observed deficit. Once again, this would require a coincidental alignment with the line of sight. In view of the other plausible explanations for the central deficit, we do not consider these two possibilities further.
A third geometric explanation would be a shell which is in fact thinner than the 25% of its outer radius derived in §\[sshprof\], but which is “dimpled”, having local displacements from the average radius. In the center, a thinner shell seen in projection would produce relatively lower brightness. Near the limb, the dimpling seen in projection would produce an apparently thicker shell on average. Such a geometry is not unlikely given the expected Rayleigh-Taylor instability of the contact surface.
A fourth possibility is that the magnetic field is predominately radial, as is expected if field amplification occurs due to instabilities at the contact discontinuity (Jun & Norman 1996a, 1996b), and as is observed in older remnants (Milne 1987; Dickel, van Breugel, & Strom 1991). In this case even a spherical shell will show enhanced emission along the limb because the magnetic field at the limb will lie predominately in the plane of the sky, and the synchrotron emission is strongest in directions perpendicular to the magnetic field. The polarization observations would appear to contradict this scenario, since a well-ordered field should produce high polarization which is not observed. However, as we argue below, internal Faraday rotation is likely to depolarize any centimeter wavelength radio emission.
Finally, the most probable explanation is that significant absorption in the interior of the shell is attenuating the emission from the side away from us. In fact, at this early stage, the inner ejecta are still expected to be opaque to radio waves (Chevalier 1982c; Reynolds & Chevalier 1984; Mioduszewski et al. 2001) because of their high densities. Only if the inner ejecta have become transparent by filamentation (Bandiera, Pacini, & Salvati 1983) are we likely to be able to see any emission from the distant side of the shell in the first several decades after the explosion.
When we fit an absorbing disk to our data in addition to the spherical shell, we found that the disk absorbed only 4% of the total flux density and had a radius of roughly half the outer radius of the shell, . If the region inside the reverse shock were completely opaque, one would expect an absorption of $\sim 25$% of the flux density, occurring over the inner radius of the shell or $0.75 \, {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$. Even complete absorption over the fitted radius of the absorbing disk would result in 9% of the flux density being absorbed. Thus, taken at face value, our fit of the absorption disk suggests incomplete absorption over a region well within the reverse shock, possibly implying filamentation of the inner ejecta.
Complete absorption at the inside radius of the shell would result in a drop of 50% of the surface brightness at the projected inner radius or . Even with our limited resolution, this would produce a steep drop in the profile to the inside of the ridge line, as can be seen in the complete absorption model profile in Figure \[fcompprof\] (dashed line). The profile of that model is too steep on the inside of the ridge-line. In fact, even if we modify the shell profile so that the volume emissivity of the shell is 0 at the inner radius, and rises linearly to the outer radius, in other words, to soften the slope inside of the ridge line as much as possible, the model profile does not fit the observed one. This profile is plotted in Figure \[fslopepr\] (dotted line).
We conclude that if there is complete absorption in the interior of the shell, then the outer edge of the absorbing region must be somewhat soft, or that the optical depth near the inside edge is still small, and it rises only gradually towards the center of the shell. We plot such a model in Figure \[fslopepr\] (solid line). We note that this model is not unique. Rather than varying the optical depth, or the opacity as a function of the radius, we vary the fraction transmitted through the interior of the shell. It seems likely that this variation in effective opacity is due to mixing, being more properly described as a variation in the filling factor of the opaque material, in which case our treatment is reasonable.
However, the other mechanisms discussed above may also modify the brightness. Furthermore, a non-uniform volume emissivity in the shell would also alter the apparent absorption derived by fitting a uniform shell. A more quantative determination of the emission and absorption profile will have to wait for higher relative angular resolution and the development of more sophisticated plane models. In summary we believe some absorption in the interior of the shell is strongly suggested by the data. Complete absorption in the center of the shell is compatible with our data, however, complete absorption everywhere inside the inner shell radius is not.
Does the Outer Edge of the Radio Shell Coincide with the Forward Shock?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is the outer edge of the radio shell related to the forward shock front? One would expect the radio emission region to be bounded on the outside by the forward shock, which is principally responsible for accelerating the electrons which produce the radio emission. However, since the magnetic field, also necessary for synchrotron emission, is thought to be principally generated by amplification occurring near the Rayleigh-Taylor unstable contact interface, it is possible that the effective radio emission turn-on is significantly inside the forward shock (e.g., Jun & Norman 1996a). Therefore the radio emission itself can only indirectly reveal the location of the forward shock. Nonetheless, our radio images do give some suggestions concerning both geometry and location of the forward shock.
First, Mioduszewski et al.’s (2001) hydrodynamical modeling of SN 1993J gives a distance between the inner and outer shocks of $\sim
20$% the radius of the outer shock[^7]. Our measured value of the radio shell thickness of $25 \pm 3$% of the outer radius is somewhat larger. It seems unlikely that the radio emission originates either inside the reverse shock or outside the forward shock. It therefore seems most plausible that the location of the forward and reverse shocks do indeed coincide closely with and .
Second, the projection of the radio shell has remained remarkably circular from the earliest observations to the present. We determined an upper limit to deviations from circularity of 5% for the radio shell from $t = 30$ d to 90 d (Bartel et al. 1994) and of 3% for later times (Paper I; this paper), despite the significant modulations of the brightness along the ridge. The outer radius of the model radio shell is very well determined and evolves very smoothly as a function of time (Paper II). These characteristics suggest that, at least on average, the outer edge of the radio shell is not influenced by local peculiarities of the brightness distribution but determined by a fundamental parameter of the expanding supernova. It also suggests that the forward shock, like the outer edge of the radio shell, is very circular in projection, since it would be unlikely that any radio “turn-on” distance varies so as to make the radio outer edge circular when the shock front is not.
Is the outer radio turn-on sharp? Our model of a spherical shell with uniform volume emissivity produces an excellent fit, especially near the outer edge, to the projected brightness distribution (see Figure \[fcompprof\], Paper II). A distribution of volume emissivity that drops sharply at the outer edge of the shell is therefore consistent with our data. However, a sharp outer edge to the three-dimensional radio shell is not required by our data, since our resolution is only comparable to the shell thickness. Specifically, a model in which the volume emissivity is maximal at the inner radius of the shell and then decreases linearly to zero at the outer radius can be made consistent with the observed radial profile from the maximum outwards. The limited resolution and projection onto the sky render the recovery of the details of the distribution of volume emissivity virtually impossible. Future observations with a higher relative resolution will be required to determine the details of the variation of volume emissivity in the shell.
Comparison of the optical expansion velocities with the expansion velocity determined from the radio observations could shed further light on the relation between the outer edge of the radio emission and the forward shock. We will discuss this subject in more detail in a forthcoming paper (Paper IV).
The Origins of the Brightness Modulation of the Shell \[sorigins\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
The brightness along the ridge of the projected shell is substantially modulated at all epochs. Even in our time-averaged image from 2080 d $\leq t \leq 2787$ d, the brightness varies by a factor $\gtrsim 1.4$. This variation in the brightness of the projected shell implies an even larger variation in the volume emissivity of the radio shell. There are a number of possible causes for this variation. We will discuss in turn the four most likely causes and assess their relevance to the structure apparent in our images and to its evolution in time.
[1. [*Structure in the ejecta*]{}]{}. Any structure in the supernova ejecta, for instance clumping or velocity anisotropy, could cause a modulation of the brightness in the radio shell. Recent numerical studies (see Müller, Fryxell, & Arnett 1991; Fryxell 1994; Burrows, Hayes, & Fryxell 1995) suggest that the ejecta in type II supernovae develop strong hydrodynamic instabilities even before shock breakout, just minutes after core collapse. The linear polarization found in the optical emission (Trammell et al. 1993), and perhaps also the asymmetry found in the optical lines (Lewis et al. 1994; Spyromilio 1994), suggest asymmetry in the ejecta for SN 1993J. Aspherical models for the ejecta were suggested to account for the optical polarization. In particular, oblate models with a major to minor axis ratio as large as 1.7 could explain the polarization results. The brightness distribution in our early radio shell images is strikingly aspherical. Perhaps this asphericity was caused by structure in the ejecta.
Evidence for fragmented ejecta has been found in several Galactic and extragalactic supernova remnants, including Cas A (Braun, Gull, & Perley 1987; Anderson et al. 1994), Tycho (Seward, Gorenstein, & Tucker 1983) and Kepler (Bandiera & van den Bergh 1991), all of which have remained relatively circular in overall appearance despite the fragmentation of the ejecta. Numerical simulations by Cid-Fernandes et al. (1996) show that the fragmentation of the ejecta is a continuing process, with progressively smaller clumps forming in the first few years as the supernova expands. There is some observational evidence for the existence of clumping in the ejecta of SN 1993J (Filippenko, Matheson, & Barth 1994; Spyromilio 1994; Wang & Hu 1994).
The $l = 1$ (see §\[saspects\]) modulation seen at early times, however, cannot easily be explained by fragmentation, which is expected to occur on scales small compared to the shell diameter. Furthermore if anisotropy in the ejecta did occur on scales of the shell diameter, we would expect a non-circular shell, which is contrary to our results. Such fragmentation in the ejecta may, however, be the cause of the smaller-scale clumpiness seen in the radio shell at late times. The modulation of the shell brightness due to the fragmentation in the ejecta would likely expand with the shell, with a modulation pattern changing only slowly with time. Such a slowly changing structure is indeed observed in our sequence of images after $t \sim 1500$ d.
[2. [*Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities*]{}]{}. Instabilities in the expanding shell will produce a modulated shell brightness. As mentioned above, the contact surface between the ejecta and the CSM is expected to be Rayleigh-Taylor unstable. Theory suggests that the growth of the instability be such that small fingers appear first and larger ones later (Gull 1973; Chevalier 1982c). This suggestion is supported by the numerical work of Jun & Norman (1996a, b), who also find that the scale of the Rayleigh-Taylor fingers is small in comparison to the shell diameter. As with fragmentation of the ejecta above, modulation of the shell brightness on the scale of its radius is unlikely. This instability is also expected to grow with time. Therefore this mechanism is unlikely to explain the prominent $l = 1$ modulation seen at early times. By contrast, the growing amplitude and decreasing relative scale size expected of the instabilities at the contact surface are a good match for the modulation seen at late times.
Could the possible protrusion seen in the last images be a Rayleigh-Taylor finger, protruding beyond the outer shock? As we mentioned earlier, the fingers are generally not expected to reach the outer shock front (Chevalier, Blondin & Emmering 1992; Jun & Norman 1996a, b). However, Jun, Jones, & Norman (1996) showed that a clumpy exterior medium enhances the growth of the Rayleigh-Taylor fingers, and allows a few fingers to grow enough to penetrate the outer shock. It is not clear, however, that such penetration could occur within the first decade. Future observations will show whether the protrusion is, in fact, real, and whether it continues to grow.
[3. [*Structure in the CSM and a possible distant companion*]{}]{}. The structure in the shell could also be due to pre-existing structures in the CSM, which will generally influence the shell brightness more directly than by enabling the growth of a few Rayleigh-Taylor fingers beyond the shock front as discussed above. (See Jones et al. 1998 for a general discussion of the effect of the CSM on an expanding supernova). In fact, in SN 1993J, we have a unique probe of the nature of the CSM of an evolved star. Clumping in the external medium has been invoked to explain the radio light-curves of SN 1993J (Van Dyk et al. 1994), although Fransson & Björnsson (1998) have fit the radio light-curves without resort to clumping. Although the origins of possible clumps in the stellar wind are not well known, it seems likely that the clumps would form at the stellar surface with scales $\ll r_{\rm star}$, and that the clumps would then tend to dissipate as the wind flows outward, since the sound-speed in the wind is comparable to its expansion velocity. Thus one would expect the structure produced by a clumpy wind to scale in size and diminish in intensity with distance from the progenitor, and be characterized by $l > 1$ modulation.
Could structure in the CSM be responsible for the $l = 1$ modulation seen early on, and in particular for the apparent rotation of the modulation pattern between $t = 223$ d and 451 d (§\[searly\])? Blondin, Lundqvist, & Chevalier (1996) simulated the effect of a supernova expanding into a CSM which had an axisymmetric density gradient. Such a density gradient might result from a density distribution in the stellar wind which was axisymmetric about the progenitor’s rotation axis. However, an axisymmetric pattern would produce an $l = 2$ rather than an $l = 1$ modulation.
To produce the apparent rotation of the modulation pattern we see, a roughly spiral pattern in the CSM would be required, with a size of $\sim 3000$ AU. Given the different rotation of the brightness peak and gap, and the fact that the apparent rotation seems to have a beginning and an end in time, a CSM geometry considerably more complex than a simple spiral would be required to account for the brightness modulation in detail. A possibility, albeit somewhat speculative, is that spiral structure in the CSM was produced by the colliding winds of a binary. The slow wind velocity of SN 1993J’s progenitor of $\sim
10$ , along with the pitch of the spiral pattern, implies a long period for the binary of $\sim 6000$ yr. This long period is not compatible with the close binary which probably stripped much of progenitor’s hydrogen shell mass (Paper II), and therefore suggests a distant tertiary component to the progenitor system. We note that a dust plume with spiral morphology of roughly this size was recently seen near the red supergiant VY CMa by Monnier et al. (1999), who propose that it is caused by such a distant binary companion.
[4. [*Structure in the magnetic field*]{}]{}. The magnetic field structure in the CSM can also influence the synchrotron brightness of the shell, even in the absence of a significant density inhomogeneity. The magnetic field in the CSM is not expected to be dynamically important, and therefore not likely to deform the forward shock. The synchrotron emissivity, however, depends on the orientation of the magnetic field, being smallest when the field lies parallel to the line-of-sight. The orientation of the CSM magnetic field may thus influence the appearance of our images. Numerical studies (Jun & Jones 1999; Jun & Norman 1996b) have confirmed that the magnetic field orientation is important in determining the synchrotron brightness. In fact, the simulations of Jun & Norman (1996b) showed that the orientation of the weak external field, which is amplified by the forward shock, can have a significant impact on the synchrotron emissivity. A twisted field orientation, for example, might account for the peculiar apparent rotation of the brightness distribution seen between $t = 264$ and 451 d. At early times the field in the interaction region would still be dominated by the shock-compressed pre-supernova field, while at later times, it would become dominated by the component which has been amplified and also randomized by the combined Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities. The field orientation might well contribute to both the early $l = 1$ and the late $l > 1$ modulation of the shell brightness.
What can the observed linear polarization tell us about the structure of the magnetic field? We observed low values for the polarization of the bright ridge of SN 1993J (§\[spoln\]), whereas the synchrotron emission from a region of uniform magnetic field is expected to be 70% polarized (e.g., Rohlfs & Wilson 1996). The low polarization of $<3$% that we observed therefore suggests some source of depolarization, or a highly disordered field. Faraday rotation along the line of sight within the emitting region can cause depolarization of the radio emission even if the field is well ordered. Since the thermal electron densities and magnetic fields in SN 1993J are high, we might expect significant internal Faraday rotation. For our purposes here, the rotation measure, $RM$, can be taken as $RM = 810 \, n_e \, B L$ rad m$^{-2}$ where $n_e$ is the thermal electron density in cm$^{-3}$, $B$ is the magnetic field in mG, and $L$ is the path length in pc. In Paper II we estimated the magnetic field at $t = 3000$ d to be $B \sim 5$ mG (see also Fransson & Björnsson 1998, who obtain a higher value). The density can be estimated from the mass within the interaction region of 0.3 (Paper II) and its volume calculated from our shell radii. For $t =
3000$ d we obtain a value of $n_e \sim 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. Armed with these estimates, we can calculate the path length which would cause a $2\pi$ rotation of the polarization vector at 8.4 GHz to be $10^{-4}$ pc. This path length is the scale on which the radio emission would become depolarized. It also is very short compared to the size of the supernova, corresponding to an angle of only $\sim
7$ in our images. Clearly, we expect the relatively large magnetic fields and densities to highly depolarize any centimeter wavelength radiation merely due to line-of-sight depolarization. Although the $RM$ will decrease as the supernova expands, the brightness and thus the signal-to-noise ratio will decrease also. Unless there is a strong separation between the thermal and the synchrotron-emitting relativistic particles, it is unlikely that useful polarized radio emission will be seen in the near future.
In summary, the brightness modulation in our images likely shows the effects of both the fragmentation of the ejecta and the Rayleigh-Taylor instability expected at the contact discontinuity. However, there also seems to be another source of strong modulation which is most significant at early times, in particular modulation with scales comparable to the radius of the shell, or $\sim 4000$ AU. Given the high degree of circularity seen later on, the strong modulation of brightness at early times is unusual. Neither fragmentation of the ejecta nor the Rayleigh-Taylor instability is likely to produce such a modulation of the shell brightness. The most probable candidates are either density structures or an ordered magnetic field in the CSM.
A Pulsar Nebula?
----------------
SN 1993J is thought to have produced a compact remnant. Given the estimates of the progenitor mass, this compact remnant is probably a neutron star rather than a black hole, and the neutron star is generally expected to manifest itself as a pulsar. The strong relativistic wind of a young pulsar is expected to produce a bright, flat-spectrum synchrotron nebula. The expansion rate of such a pulsar nebula is expected to be $<10$% that of the shell. Therefore even at our latest epoch the angular size of such a nebula would likely be $<1$ mas (Reynolds & Chevalier 1984; Chevalier & Fransson 1992; Jun 1998). We find no such compact feature in our individual images (see Fig. \[fsnmaps\]). In particular, we examined a high-resolution image at $t = 2787$ d, which had a convolving beam area of 0.48 mas$^2$, and found no emission near the center brighter than 0.11 m. We also do not find any such compact feature in our composite image from 2080 d $\leq t \leq 2787$ d, where there is a deficit in the very center of the image, and the brightest feature in the central region represents only about 0.05 m for a beam area of 0.55 mas$^2$. At 8.4 GHz and the distance of M81, the equivalent brightness of the $\sim 950$-year-old Crab Nebula would be 0.15 m. A seven-year-old pulsar nebula, on the other hand, is expected to be considerably brighter than one 950 years old (Bandiera, Pacini, & Salvati 1984), and should therefore be detectable in our images even if it were considerably less luminous than the Crab. However, as mentioned above, the material in the center of the radio shell is likely to still have a high enough density so as to be opaque to radio waves (Chevalier 1982c; Reynolds & Chevalier 1984; Mioduszewski et al.2001). The non-detection of the expected pulsar nebula therefore leads us to conclude that either the pulsar nebula is much weaker than the Crab, or that the material immediately surrounding the putative pulsar nebula cannot yet have become transparent by filamentation.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
[1.]{} A sequence of VLBI images of SN 1993J at 30 epochs from $t =
50$ d to 3345 d shows the dynamic evolution of the expanding radio shell of an exploded star in detail.
[2.]{} The shell structure first becomes visible at $t = 175$ d, and is present in all subsequent images.
[3.]{} The brightness distribution changes significantly and systematically throughout the sequence of images. The evolution is clearly not self-similar.
[4.]{} At $t = 175$ d, the brightness around the ridge is significantly modulated, with a maximum or peak to the southeast and a minimum or gap to the west. Over the next 350 d, this pattern rotates counter-clockwise, although the peak and gap appear to rotate by slightly different angles and at slightly different times.
[5.]{} From $t = 774$ d to 1253 d, the gap fills in and three hot spots develop to the west, south and east.
[6.]{} From then on the northern part changes significantly. From $t = 2080$ d, hot spot develops in the north-northeast at the p.a. of the previous gap. There are also two further hot spots, one to the south-southwest and one to the west.
[7.]{} Throughout our observing interval, the brightness around the ridge of the projected shell is modulated by a factor of $\gtrsim
1.4$ on spatial scales of $\sim 4000$ AU (1 mas).
[8.]{} At early times, the modulation of the shell brightness on the scale of the shell radius is substantial, whereas at later times, the modulation on the scale of the radius is small.
[9.]{} Despite the modulation in brightness, even at our last epoch, we find no evidence that the outer contours of the projected shell deviate from circularity by more than a few percent. However, a first indication of a possible protrusion was found in our last images.
[10.]{} The radio emission of the bright part of the shell is $<4.4$% linearly polarized. Internal Faraday rotation is expected to produce essentially complete depolarization.
[11.]{} The brightness in the central region of the projected radio shell is lower than that of a model with uniform volume emissivity in an optically thin, spherical shell. We consider absorption in the interior of the shell more likely than a non-spherical geometry with a thinner shell at the front and/or the back.
[12.]{} The outer edge of the projected shell accurately matches that of the above model, thus an emission volume with a sharp outer edge is consistent with our data.
[13.]{} The best fit value of the shell thickness, derived from model-fits to the 8.4 GHz data between $t = 2080$ d and 2787 d and by allowing for absorption in the center, was $25 \pm 3$% of its outer radius.
[14.]{} We detect no compact feature, which might be identified as a pulsar nebula, at or near the center of the shell at any epoch. At 8.4 GHz, we can place a limit of 0.11 mJy on the flux density of any such feature at $t = 2787$ d, and a limit of 0.05 mJy on average for the interval 2080 d $\leq t \leq 2787$ d. These limits correspond to 0.7 and 0.3 times the current spectral luminosity of the Crab Nebula. We conclude either that any pulsar nebula in the center of SN 1993 is considerably less luminous than the Crab or that the interior of the shell cannot yet have become transparent by filamentation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank V. I. Altunin, A. J. Beasley, W. H. Cannon, J. E. Conway, D. A. Graham, D. L. Jones, A. Rius, G. Umana, and T. Venturi for help with several aspects of the project. J. Cadieux, M. Keleman, and B. Sorathia helped with some aspects of the VLBI data reduction during their tenure as students at York. We thank NRAO, the European VLBI Network, and the NASA/JPL Deep Space Network (DSN) for providing exceptional support for this extended and ongoing observing campaign. We also thank Natural Resources Canada for helping with the observations at the Algonquin Radio Observatory during the first years of the program. Research at York University was partly supported by NSERC. NRAO is operated under license by Associated Universities, Inc., under cooperative agreement with NSF. The European VLBI Network is a joint facility of European and Chinese radio astronomy institutes funded by their national research councils. The NASA/JPL DSN is operated by JPL/Caltech, under contract with NASA. We have made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.
Aldering, G., Humphreys, R. M., & Richmond, M. 1994, , 107, 662 Anderson, M. C., Jones, T. W., Rudnick, L., Tregilis, I. L., & Kang, H. 1994, , 421, L31 Bandiera, R., Pacini, F., & Salvati, M. 1983, , 126, 7 Bandiera, R., Pacini, F., & Salvati, M. 1984, , 285, 134 Bandiera, R., & van den Bergh, S. 1991, , 374, 186 Bartel, N. et al. 1993, IAU Circ., 5914 Bartel, N., Bietenholz, M. F., & Rupen, M. P. 1995, Proc. Nat.Acad. Sci., 92, 11374 Bartel, N., et al. 1994, , 368, 610 Bartel, N., et al. 2000, Science, 287, 112 Bartel, N., et al. 2002, , 581, 404 (Paper II) Bartunov, O. S., Blinnikov, S. I., Pavlyuk, N. N., & Tsetkov, D. Yu. 1994, , 281, L53 Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., & Rupen, M. P. 2000, , 532, 895 Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., & Rupen, M. P. 2001, , 557, 770 (Paper I) Bietenholz, M. F., et al. 2001, IAU Symp. 205: Galaxies and Their Constituents at the Highest Angular Resolutions, eds. R. A. Schilizzi, S. N. Vogel, F. Paresce and M. S. Elvis, (San Francisco: ASP), 380 Blondin, J. M., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, 472, 257 Briggs, D. S. 1995, High Fidelity Deconvolution of Moderately Resolved Sources, (PhD Thesis), NRAO Briggs, D. S., Schwab, F. R., & Sramek, R. A. 1998, in Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ASP Conference Series, vol. 180, ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley (San Francisco: ASP), 127 Braun, R., Gull, S. F., & Perley, R. A. 1987, , 327, 395 Brunthaler, A., Bower, C. G., Falcke, H., & Mellon, R. R., 2001, , 560L, 123 Burrows, A., Hayes, J., & Fryxell, B. A. 1995, , 450, 830 Chevalier, R. A. 1982a, , 258, 790 Chevalier, R. A. 1982b, , 259, 85 Chevalier, R. A. 1982c, , 259, 302 Chevalier, R. A. 1998, , 499, 810 Chevalier, R. A., Blondin, J. M., & Emmering, R. T. 1992, , 392, 118 Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1992, , 395, 540 Cid-Fernandes, R., Plewa, T., Rózyczka, M., Franco, J., Terlevich, R., Tenorio-Tagle, G., & Miller, W. 1996, , 283, 419 Clocchiatti, A., Wheeler, J. C., Barker, E. S., Filippenko, A. V., Matheson, T., & Liebert, J. W. 1995, , 446, 167 Cornwell, T. J. 1988, , 202, 316 Cornwell, T. J., & Braun, R. 1999, in ASP Conference Series vol. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli & R. A. Perley, (San Francisco: ASP), 151 Dickel, J. R., van Breugel, W. J. M., & Strom, R. G. 1991, , 101, 2151 Ferrarese, L., et al. 2000, , 128, 431 Filippenko, A. V., Matheson, T., & Barth, A. J. 1994, , 108, 2220 Fransson, C. & Björnsson, C.-I. 1998, , 509, 861 Freedman, W. L., et al. 1994, , 427, 628 Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, , 553, 47 Fryxell, B. 1994, in Numerical Simulations in Astrophysics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 149 Gull, S. F. 1973, , 161, 47 Höflich, P. 1995, , 440, 821 Höflich, P. Wheeler, J. C., Hines, D. C., & Trammell, S. R., 1996, , 459, 307 Höflich, P., Langer, N., & Duschinger, M. 1993, , 275, L29 Houck J. C., & Fransson, C. 1996, , 456, 811 Humphreys, R. M., Aldering, G. S., Bryja, C. O., & Thurmes, P. M. 1993, IAU Circ. 5739 Jones, T. W., Rudnick, L., Jun, B.-I., Borkowski, K. J., Dubner, G., Frail, D. A., Kang, H., Kassim, N. E., & McCray, R. 1998, , 110, 125 Jun, B.-I. 1998, , 499, 282 Jun, B.-I., & Norman, M. L. 1996a, , 465, 800 Jun, B.-I., & Norman, M. L. 1996b, , 472, 245 Jun, B.-I., & Jones, T. W. 1999, , 511, 774 Jun, B.-I., Jones, T. W., & Norman, M. L. 1996, , 468, L59 Lewis, J. M., et al. 1994, , 266, L29 Linfield, R. P. 1986, , 92, 213 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 1993, IAU Circ., 5785 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 1994, , 424, L25 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 1995a, , 373, 44 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 1995b, Science, 270, 1475 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 1997, , 486, L31 Marcaide, J. M., et al. 2002 in Proceedings of the European VLBI Network Symposium, eds. E. Ros, R. W. Porcas, A. P. Lobanov & J. A. Zensus, 239 Massi, M., & Aaron, S. 1999, Suppl. 136, 211 Mioduszewski, A. J., Dwarkadas, V. V., & Ball, L. 2001, , 562, 869 Milne, D. K. 1987, Australian J. Phys., 771 Monnier, J. D., Tuthill, P. G., Lopez, B., Cruzalebes, P., Danchi, W. C., & Haniff, C. A. 1999, , 512, 351 Müller, E., Fryxell, B., & Arnett, D. 1991, , 251, 505 Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., Yamaoka, H., & Saio, H. 1993, Nature, 364, 507 Pacholczyk, A.G. 1970, Radio Astrophysics (San Francisco: Freeman) Perley, R. A. 1999, in ASP Conf. Proc. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, eds. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley (San Francisco: ASP), 275 Podsiadlowski, Ph., Hsu, J. J. L., Joss, P. C., & Ross, R. R. 1993, , 364, 509 Reynolds, S. P. 1985, , 278, 630 Reynolds, S. P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1984, , 278, 630 Ripero, J., & Garcia, F. 1993, IAU Circ., 5731 Rohlfs, K. & Wilson, T. L. 1996, Tools of Radio Astronomy (Berlin: Springer). Seward, F., Gorenstein, P., & Tucker, W. 1983, , 266, 287 Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., Nomoto, K., Saio, H., & Yamaoka, H. 1994, , 420, 341 Spyromilio, J. 1994, , 266, L61 Trammell, S. R., Hines, D. C., & Wheeler, J. C. 1993, , 414, L21 Tran, H. D., Filippenko, A. V., Schmidt, G. D., Bjorkman, K. S., Jannuzi, B. T., & Smith, P. S. 1997, , 109, 489 Van Dyk, S. D., Weiler, K. W., Sramek, R. A., Rupen, M. P. & Panagia, N. 1994, , 432, L115 Van Dyk, S. D., Garnavich, P. M., Filippenko, A. V., Höflich, P., Kirshner, R. P., Kurucz, R. L., & Challis, P. 2002, , 114, 1322 Walker, R. C. 1999 in ASP Conf. Proc. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley (San Francisco: ASP), 433 Wang, L., & Hu, J. 1994, , 369, 380 Wardle, J. F. C., & Kronberg, P. P. 1974, , 194, 249 Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, , 40, 387 Wheeler, J. C., et al. 1993, , 417, L71 Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., & Pinto, P. A. 1994, , 429, 300
[r@[ ]{}l@[ ]{}l r c c c@ c c c]{} 1993&May&17 & 50 & 0.45& 45.5& 0.30\
1993&Jun&27 & 91 & 0.46& 83.3& 0.36 & 0.80& 61.7& 1.28\
1993&Sep&19 & 175 & 0.47& 23.3& 0.27\
1993&Nov& 6 & 223 & 0.49 & 15.6& 0.11\
1993&Dec&17 & 264 & 0.50 & 12.1& 0.10\
1994&Jan&28 & 306 & 0.54 &9.83 & 0.24\
1994&Mar&15 & 352 & 0.57 &6.23 & 0.15 & 0.85 & 19.80 & 0.17\
1994&Apr&22 & 390 & 0.60 &6.25 & 0.13 & 0.88& 18.75 & 0.30\
1994&Jun&22 & 451 & 0.69 &6.32 & 0.073 & 0.90& 13.57 & 0.21\
1994&Aug&30 & 520 & 0.73 &4.81 & 0.14 & 0.95 & 10.84 & 0.10\
1994&Oct&31 & 582 & 0.74 &4.73 & 0.14 & 1.00& 10.45 & 0.23\
1994&Dec&23 & 635 & 0.78 &4.17 & 0.10 & 1.01 &8.79 & 0.14\
1995&Feb&12 & 686 & 0.80 &3.66 & 0.061\
1995&May&11 & 774 & 1.00 &4.66 & 0.25\
1995&Aug&18 & 873 & & & & 1.03 &3.87 & 0.084\
1995&Dec&19 & 996 & 0.93 &1.90 & 0.088 & 1.04&3.86 & 0.20\
1996&Apr& 8 &1107 & 0.97 &1.60 & 0.087 & 1.05&2.91 & 0.11\
1996&Sep& 1 &1253 & 1.02 &1.62 & 0.065 & 1.05 &2.28 & 0.040\
1996&Dec&13 &1356 & 1.05 &2.59 & 0.056 & 1.05 &1.81 & 0.034\
1997&Jun& 7 &1532 & 1.10 &1.20 & 0.064\
1997&Nov&15 &1693 & 1.12 &1.00 & 0.042 & 1.12 &1.12 & 0.034\
1998&Jun& 3 &1893 & 1.12 &0.91 & 0.029 & 1.12 &1.20 & 0.031\
1998&Nov&20 &2064 & & & & 1.12 &0.97 & 0.021\
1998&Dec& 7 &2080 & 1.12 &0.88 & 0.038\
1999&Jun&16 &2271 & & & & 1.12 &0.84 & 0.040\
1999&Nov&23 &2432 & & & & 1.12 &0.71 & 0.037\
2000&Feb&25 &2525 & 1.12 &0.48 & 0.040\
2000&Nov&13 &2787 & 1.12 &0.32 & 0.030\
2001&Jun&10 &2996 & & & & 1.12 &0.42 & 0.016\
2002&May&25 &3345 & & & & 1.12 &0.34 & 0.019\
[l r c c @ c c @ c c]{} 1995 Aug 17 & 873 & 5.0 & 0.93 & $0.2 \pm 0.7$ & 2.3 & $+0.5 \pm 1.7$ & 6\
1996 Dec 13 & 1356 & 8.4 & 1.29 & $1.1 \pm 1.1$ & 4.4 & $+2.9 \pm 2.1$ & 9\
1998 Nov 20 & 2064 & 5.0 & 0.96 & $1.2 \pm 0.9$ & 3.9 & $-2.1 \pm 2.4$ & 5\
2001 Nov 26 & 3164 & 1.7 & 2.61 & $0.5 \pm 0.7$ & 2.6 & $-0.8 \pm 1.7$ & 4\
[^1]: see Paper II for further details of the arrays used at each session except for the 5 GHz epoch at 2002 May 25, for which the details are identical to that of 1999 June 16, with the exception that Nt did not observe, and that the total time was 11.8 hours and the on-source time was 439 baseline-hours.
[^2]: The exact procedure we used to make our final images was as follows: We first adjusted the weighting scheme via the Briggs’ robustness parameter to achieve a dirty beam with FWHM close to but somewhat smaller than the desired resolution. We then followed the usual procedure in making a restored CLEAN image of convolving the CLEAN components with the elliptical Gaussian “CLEAN beam” fitted to the inner portion of the dirty beam, and then adding the (un-deconvolved) residuals from the CLEAN deconvolution. We finally re-convolved the whole restored image, now including the residuals, to the desired effective circular Gaussian resolution. This procedure serves to keep the residuals at approximately the same effective resolution as the CLEAN components. However, the CLEANing process was carried on well into the noise in all cases, so any contribution from un-CLEANed residuals over the extent of SN 1993J was minimal.
[^3]: The model consisted of the two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional spherical shell with uniform volume emissivity and with the ratio of the outer to inner angular radius, ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}/ {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm i}$}}=
1.25$ corresponding to a shell thickness, ${\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}- {\mbox{$\theta_{\rm i}$}}$, of $0.2 \,
{\mbox{$\theta_{\rm o}$}}$ (see Paper I for details). The use of a circular model despite the evident modulation of the shell brightness is justified because, as we show in Paper I, SN 1993J remains circular to within 3%. Furthermore, as we show in Paper II, the fit size of the spherical shell evolves very smoothly, which suggests that, despite the modulation of the brightness around the ridge of the projected shell, the uniform spherical shell model is a good overall description of SN 1993J’s radio emission.
[^4]: The linearly polarized flux density, $S_{\rm pol}$, is $\sqrt{Q^2 + U^2}$ where $Q$ and $U$ are the measured Stokes parameters. By definition, $S_{\rm pol}$ is positive, and in the presence of noise is therefore biased. This bias has been calculated (Wardle & Kronberg 1974), and a bias correction has been implemented in the AIPS task COMB, which we used to calculate our linearly polarized flux densities. This procedure produces the correct mean value of $S_{\rm pol}$, at the expense of occasionally producing unphysical negative values.
[^5]: We note that a disk is only an approximation to the profile expected for absorption in the interior of a three-dimensional shell. The approximation is reasonable when, as in our case, the radius of the absorbing material is well within the outer radius of the shell.
[^6]: Our uncertainty does take into account that the fitted shell thickness is highly correlated with the fitted radius and total absorption of the absorbing disk. However, the presence of correlated visibility errors, such as would arise from residual calibration errors, might also slightly increase the true uncertainty.
[^7]: The self-similar solutions of Chevalier (1982a) also predicts a shell thickness, and give a thickness of 23% for the values of $m = 0.83$ and an external density $\propto r^{-2}$, typical for a few years after the explosion (Paper II). The predicted shell thickness varies only weakly for different $m$ (Chevalier & Fransson 1994). However, since we showed in Paper II that the evolution is not self-similar, it is possible that the shell thickness may vary systematically from that determined by Chevalier.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a comprehensive hybrid library of synthetic stellar spectra based on three original grids of model atmosphere spectra by Kurucz (1995), Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994), and Bessell [*et al.*]{} (1989, 1991), respectively. The combined library has been intended for multiple-purpose synthetic photometry applications and was constructed according to the precepts adopted by Buser & Kurucz (1992): (i) to cover the largest possible ranges in stellar parameters (${\rm
T_{eff}}$, log g, and \[M/H\]); (ii) to provide flux spectra with useful resolution on the uniform grid of wavelengths adopted by Kurucz (1995); and (iii) to provide synthetic broad–band colors which are highly realistic for the largest possible parameter and wavelength ranges.
Because the most astrophysically relevant step consists in establishing a [*realistic*]{} library, the corresponding color calibration is described in some detail. Basically, for each value of the effective temperature and for each wavelength, we calculate the [*correction function*]{} that must be applied to a (theoretical) solar–abundance model flux spectrum in order for this to yield synthetic UBVRIJHKL colors matching the (empirical) color–temperature calibrations derived from observations. In this way, the most important systematic differences existing between the original model spectra and the observations can indeed be eliminated. On the other hand, synthetic UBV and Washington ultraviolet excesses $\delta_{(U-B)}$ and $\delta_{(C-M)}$ and $\delta_{(C-T_{1})}$ obtained from the original giant and dwarf model spectra are in excellent accord with empirical metal–abundance calibrations (Lejeune & Buser 1996). Therefore, the calibration algorithm is designed in such a way as to [*preserve the original differential grid properties implied by metallicity and/or luminosity changes*]{} in the new library, if the above correction function for a solar–abundance model of a given effective temperature is also applied to models of the same temperature but different chemical compositions \[M/H\] and/or surface gravities log g.
While the new library constitutes a first–order approximation to the program set out above, it will be allowed to develop toward the more ambitious goal of matching the full requirements imposed on a [*standard library*]{}. Major input for refinement and completion is expected from the extensive tests now being made in population and evolutionary synthesis studies of the integrated light of globular clusters (Lejeune 1997) and galaxies (Bruzual [*et al.*]{} 1997).
author:
- 'Th. Lejeune'
- 'F. Cuisinier'
- Roland Buser
title: |
A standard stellar library for evolutionary synthesis\
I. Calibration of theoretical spectra
---
=10000
Introduction
============
The success of population and evolutionary synthesis calculations of the integrated light of clusters and galaxies critically depends on the availability of a suitable library of stellar spectral energy distributions (SEDs), which we shall henceforth call [*stellar library*]{}. Because of the complex nature of the subject, there are very many ways in which such calculations can contribute to the solution of any particular question relevant to the stellar populations and their evolution in clusters and galaxies. In previous studies, the particularities of these questions have largely determined the properties that the corresponding stellar library must have in order to be considered [*suitable*]{} for the purpose.
There is now a considerable arsenal of observed stellar libraries (for a recent compilation, see e.g. Leitherer [*et al.*]{} 1996), each of which has its particular resolution, coverage, and range of wavelengths as well as its particular coverage and range of stellar parameters – but which, even if taken in the aggregate, fall short by far of providing the [*uniform, homogeneous, and complete*]{} stellar library which is required now for a more systematic and penetrating exploitation of [*photometric*]{} population and evolutionary synthesis.
Ultimately for this purpose, what is needed is a uniform, homogeneous, and complete [*theoretical*]{} stellar library, providing SEDs in terms of physical parameters consistent with empirical calibrations at all accessible wavelengths. Thus, the above goal can be approached by merging existing grids of theoretical model–atmosphere spectra into the desired uniform and complete stellar library, and making it both homogeneous and realistic by [*empirical calibration*]{}.
A variant of this approach was first tried by Buser & Kurucz (1992), who constructed a more complete theoretical stellar library for O through K stars by merging the O–G–star grids of Kurucz (1979a,b) with the grids of Gustafsson [*et al.*]{} (1975), Bell [*et al.*]{} (1976), and Eriksson [*et al.*]{} (1979) for F–K stars. In their paper, Buser & Kurucz solved for uniformity and homogeneity by recomputing new late–type spectra for Kurucz’s (1979) standard grid of wavelengths and using the Kurucz & Peytremann (1975) atomic opacity source tables. The resulting hybrid library[^1] has, indeed, significantly expanded the ranges of stellar parameters and wavelengths for which [*synthetic photometry*]{} can be obtained with useful systematic accuracy and consistent with essential empirical effective temperature and metallicity calibrations (Buser & Fenkart 1990, Buser & Kurucz 1992, Lejeune & Buser 1996).
In the meantime, Kurucz (1992, 1995) has provided a highly comprehensive library of theoretical stellar SEDs which is homogeneously based on the single extended grid of model atmospheres for O to late–K stars calculated from the latest version of his ATLAS code and using his recent multi–million atomic and molecular line lists. The new Kurucz grid – as we shall call it henceforth – indeed goes a long way toward the [*complete library*]{} matching the basic requirements imposed by synthetic photometry studies in population and evolutionary synthesis. As summarized in Table 1 below, SEDs are provided for uniform grids of wavelengths and stellar parameters with almost complete coverage of their observed ranges ! These data have already been widely used by the astronomical community, and they will doubtlessly continue to prove an indispensable database for population and evolutionary synthesis work for years to come.
In the present work, we shall endeavor to provide yet another indispensable step toward a [*more complete*]{} stellar library by extending the new Kurucz grid to [*cooler temperatures*]{}. This extension is particularly important for the synthesis of old stellar populations, where [*cool giants and supergiants*]{} may contribute a considerable fraction of the total integrated light. Because model atmospheres and flux spectra for such stars – the M stars – have been specifically calculated by Bessell [*et al.*]{} (1989, 1991) and by Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994), our task will mainly be to combine these with the new Kurucz grid by transformation to the same uniform set of wavelengths, and to submit the resulting library to extensive tests for its realism. In fact, as shall be shown below, the process will provide a complete grid of SEDs which is homogeneously and consistently [*calibrated against observed colors*]{} at most accessible wavelengths.
In Sect. 2, we shall briefly describe the different libraries used in this paper and the main problems that they pose to their unification. Because the spectra exhibit systematic differences both between their parent libraries and relative to observations, we set up, in Sect. 3, the basic empirical color–temperature relations to be used for uniformly calibrating the library spectra in a wide range of broad–band colors. This calibration process is driven by a computer algorithm developed and described in Sect. 4. The actual color–temperature relations obtained from the corrected library spectra are discussed in Sect. 5, and the final organization of the library grid is presented in Sect. 6. In the concluding Sect. 7, we summarize the present state of this work toward the intended [*standard library*]{}, and we briefly mention those necessary steps which are currently in process to this end.
The basic stellar libraries
===========================
The different libraries used are from Kurucz (1995), Bessell [*et al.*]{} (1989, 1991), and Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994) – which we shall henceforth call the K–, B–, and F–libraries, respectively. Although the K–library covers a very wide temperature range (from ${\rm
T_{eff}}$=50,000 K to 3500 K), it does not extend to the very low temperatures required to model cool AGB stars. These stars are very important for population and evolutionary synthesis, since they can represent up to 40% of the bolometric and even up to 60% of the K–band luminosity of a single stellar generation (Bruzual & Charlot 1993). It is natural, then, to provide the necessary supplement by employing the suitable libraries that were specifically calculated for M–giant stars in the temperature range 3800–2500 K by Bessell [*et al.*]{} (1989,1991) and by Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994).
Table 1 summarizes the coverage of parameters and wavelengths provided by these three libraries, and Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate original sample spectra as functions of metallicity for two temperatures.
Kurucz (1995) Bessell [*et al.*]{} (1989,1991) Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994)
-------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------
${\rm T_{eff}}$ 3500 $\sim$ 50,000 K 2500 $\sim$ 3800 K 2500 $\sim$ 3800 K
log g 0.0 $\sim$ 5.0 -1.0 $\sim$ +1.0 red giant sequence
${\rm [M/H]}$ -5.0 $\sim$ +1.0 -1.0 $\sim$ +0.5 solar
$\lambda\lambda$(nm) 9.1 $\sim$ 160,000 491 $\sim$ 4090 99 $\sim$ 12,500
${\rm n(bin_{\lambda})}$ 1221 705 10,912
\[t:param\]
We should note the following: first, while both the K– and the B–library spectra are given for different but overlapping ranges in metallicity, the F–library spectra have been available for solar abundances only; secondly, the B–spectra are given for wavelengths $\lambda\lambda\geq491nm$ and nonuniform sampling, while the F–spectra also cover the ultraviolet wavelengths $\lambda\lambda\geq99nm$ in a uniform manner.
As it is one of the goals of the present effort to eventually also allow the synthesis of the metallicity–sensitive near–ultraviolet colors (e.g., the Johnson U and B), the B–library spectra – which account for the spectral changes due to variations in metallicity – have been complemented by the F–library spectra at ultraviolet wavelengths.
This step was achieved with the following procedure:
–
: All the F– and B–spectra have first been resampled at the (same) uniform grid of wavelengths given by the K–library spectra.
–
: F–spectra were then recomputed for the effective temperatures associated with the B–spectra. This was done by interpolation of the F–library sequence of 11 spectra representing M–giants of types M0 through M10, and using the spectral type – $\rm T_{eff}$ scale defined by Fluks [*et al.*]{}.
–
: Finally, in order to avoid the spurious spikes at $\lambda\lambda
510nm$ present in the synthetic B–spectra (Worthey 1994), [*each*]{} B–spectrum was combined with the blue part ($9.9 \sim 600
nm$) of the corresponding F–spectrum, i.e., having the same $\rm
T_{eff}$ and having been rescaled to the B–spectrum flux level at $\lambda\lambda 600 nm$.
The hybrid spectra created in this manner will hereafter be called ‘B+F–spectra’.
Of course in this way, completeness in wavelength coverage can only be established for solar–abundance models. However, extensions of the B–spectra to optical wavelengths down to the atmospheric limit at $\lambda = 320nm$ are being worked out now and will supersede the corresponding preliminary hybrid B+F–spectra (Buser [*et al.*]{} 1997).
Comparison with empirical calibrations
======================================
In order to assess the reliability of the synthetic spectra, we now compare them to empirical temperature–color calibrations. Depending on the availability and the quality of calibration data, two basic calibration sequences will be used for the cooler giants and for the hotter main sequence stars, respectively.
Empirical color–temperature relations
-------------------------------------
### Red giants and supergiants
Ridgway [*et al.*]{} (1980) derived an empirical temperature–(V–K) relation for cool giant stars. This relation is based on stellar diameter and flux measurements, and therefore on the definition of the effective temperature:
$$f_{bol} = \left( \frac{\phi}{2} \right) ^{2}\sigma T_{eff}^{4},$$
where $f_{bol}$ is the apparent bolometric flux, $\sigma$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $\phi$ is the angular diameter. Hence $f_{bol}$ is almost entirely empirical.
Over the range ${\rm 5000 K \sim 3250 K}$, the Ridgway [*et al.*]{} calibration was adopted as the effective temperature scale for the V–K colors. We derived the color-temperature relations for V–I, J–H, H–K, J–K and K–L using the infrared two-color calibrations given by Bessell & Brett (1988) (hereafter referred to as BB88). For the U–B and B–V colors, we used the color–color relations established by Johnson (1966), and Bessell’s (1979) calibration was adopted for the (R–I)–${\rm T_{eff}}$ relation.
Because existing calibrations do not go below ${\rm \sim 3200 K}$, we have used both observations and theoretical results published by Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994) in order to construct semi–empirical ${\rm
T_{eff}-color}$ calibrations down to the range ${\rm 3250 K \sim 2500
K}$. Synthetic V–K colors computed from their sequence of photospheric model spectra provide a very good match to the calibration by Ridgway [*et al.*]{}, which could thus be extended to the range (${\rm 3767 K
\sim 2500 K}$) by adopting the theoretical ${\rm T_{eff}}$–(V–K) relation from Fluks [*et al.*]{}[^2] We then used Fluks [*et al.’s*]{} compilation of ${\rm
(UB)_j(VRI)_c(JHKLM)_{ESO}}$ observations of a large sample of bright M–giant stars in the solar neighbourhood to establish the mean intrinsic colors and standard deviations from their estimates of interstellar extinction within each photometric band. Finally, with these results, we derived mean intrinsic color–color relations – (V–I)-(V–K), (U–B)-(V–I), (R–I)-(V–K) and (B–V)-(R–I) –, which allowed us to translate to all these other colors the basic ${\rm T_{eff}}$–(V–K) relation adopted above for red giants within the temperature range ${\rm 3250 K
\sim 2500 K}$.
Examples of the adopted fits for the (V–I)-(V–K) and the (U–B)-(V–I) sequences are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
For the infrared colors, the photometric data given by Fluks [*et al.*]{} are defined on the $(JHKL)_{ESO}$ filter system, which is different from the filter system defined by BB88. Using the color equations relating the two systems and derived by BB88, transformed JHKL colors from the Fluks [*et al.*]{} data were computed. The resulting (V–K)-(V–J), (V–K)-(V–H), (V–L)-(V–J) and (V–H)-(V–J) sequences are well approximated by linear extrapolations of the two–color relations given by BB88. Furthermore, the model colors derived from the Fluks [*et al.*]{} synthetic spectra and the filter responses defined by BB88 also agree very well with these extrapolated relations (Fig. 5). We therefore chose this method to derive the J–H, H–K, J–K and K–L colors over the range ${\rm 3250
K
\sim 2500 K}$. However, the uncertainty implied by the extrapolation to the reddest giants is of the order of ${\rm 0.1 \sim 0.2}$ mag, indicating that for the coolest temperatures near 2500 K the resulting empirical calibration of the J–H, H–K, J–K, and K–L colors should be improved by future observations.
Table 2 presents the final adopted temperature–color calibrations for red giants, which was supplemented by a log g sequence related to the effective temperature via an evolutionary track (${\rm 1 M_{\odot}}$) calculated by Schaller [*et al.*]{} (1992).
${\rm T_{eff}}$ U–B B–V V–I V–K R–I J–H H–K J–K K–L log g
----------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------
4593 $ 1.017^{5}$ $ 1.094^{5}$ $ 1.080^{1}$ $ 2.500^{1}$ $0.487^{6}$ $ 0.580^{1}$ $ 0.100^{1}$ $ 0.680^{1}$ $ 0.080^{1}$ 2.85
4436 $ 1.187^{5}$ $ 1.173^{5}$ $ 1.170^{1}$ $ 2.700^{1}$ $0.530^{6}$ $ 0.630^{1}$ $ 0.115^{1}$ $ 0.740^{1}$ $ 0.090^{1}$ 2.50
4245 $ 1.399^{5}$ $ 1.281^{5}$ $ 1.360^{1}$ $ 3.000^{1}$ $0.602^{6}$ $ 0.680^{1}$ $ 0.140^{1}$ $ 0.820^{1}$ $ 0.100^{1}$ 2.12
4095 $ 1.566^{5}$ $ 1.364^{5}$ $ 1.479^{1}$ $ 3.260^{1}$ $0.672^{6}$ $ 0.730^{1}$ $ 0.150^{1}$ $ 0.880^{1}$ $ 0.110^{1}$ 1.82
3954 $ 1.714^{5}$ $ 1.443^{5}$ $ 1.634^{1}$ $ 3.600^{1}$ $0.773^{6}$ $ 0.790^{1}$ $ 0.165^{1}$ $ 0.950^{1}$ $ 0.120^{1}$ 1.55
3870 $ 1.784^{5}$ $ 1.489^{5}$ $ 1.768^{1}$ $ 3.850^{1}$ $0.859^{6}$ $ 0.830^{1}$ $ 0.190^{1}$ $ 1.010^{1}$ $ 0.120^{1}$ 1.39
3801 $ 1.815^{5}$ $ 1.524^{5}$ $ 1.899^{1}$ $ 4.050^{1}$ $0.948^{6}$ $ 0.850^{1}$ $ 0.205^{1}$ $ 1.050^{1}$ $ 0.130^{1}$ 1.25
3730 $ 1.812^{5}$ $ 1.552^{5}$ $ 2.053^{1}$ $ 4.300^{1}$ $1.058^{6}$ $ 0.870^{1}$ $ 0.215^{1}$ $ 1.080^{1}$ $ 0.150^{1}$ 1.15
3640 $ 1.750^{5}$ $ 1.577^{5}$ $ 2.269^{1}$ $ 4.640^{1}$ $1.228^{6}$ $ 0.900^{1}$ $ 0.235^{1}$ $ 1.130^{1}$ $ 0.170^{1}$ 0.98
3560 $ 1.651^{5}$ $ 1.590^{5}$ $ 2.472^{1}$ $ 5.100^{1}$ $1.568^{4}$ $ 0.930^{1}$ $ 0.245^{1}$ $ 1.170^{1}$ $ 0.180^{1}$ 0.83
3420 $ 1.412^{5}$ $ 1.589^{5}$ $ 2.828^{1}$ $ 5.960^{1}$ $1.899^{4}$ $ 0.950^{1}$ $ 0.285^{1}$ $ 1.230^{1}$ $ 0.200^{1}$ 0.56
3250 $ 1.019^{4}$ $ 1.527^{4}$ $ 3.309^{4}$ $ 6.840^{1}$ $2.170^{4}$ $ 0.960^{1}$ $ 0.300^{1}$ $ 1.260^{1}$ $ 0.256^{1}$ 0.21
3126 $ 0.645^{4}$ $ 1.499^{4}$ $ 3.709^{4}$ $ 7.830^{3}$ $2.391^{4}$ $ 0.950^{2}$ $ 0.370^{2}$ $ 1.320^{2}$ $ 0.310^{2}$ -0.05
2890 $ 0.096^{4}$ $ 1.512^{4}$ $ 4.234^{4}$ $ 8.760^{3}$ $2.519^{4}$ $ 0.920^{2}$ $ 0.400^{2}$ $ 1.320^{2}$ $ 0.420^{2}$ -0.57
2667 $-0.146^{4}$ $ 1.507^{4}$ $ 4.439^{4}$ $ 9.310^{3}$ $2.558^{4}$ $ 0.900^{2}$ $ 0.410^{2}$ $ 1.310^{2}$ $ 0.510^{2}$ -1.09
2500 $-0.328^{4}$ $ 1.510^{4}$ $ 4.593^{4}$ $ 9.560^{3}$ $2.567^{4}$ $ 0.880^{2}$ $ 0.420^{2}$ $ 1.300^{2}$ $ 0.550^{2}$ -1.52
$^{1}$ Bessell & Brett (1988) two–color relation with Ridgway [*et al.*]{} (1980) to relate ${\rm T_{eff}}$ to V–K.
$^{2}$ Extrapolation of two–color relations from Bessell & Brett (1988).
$^{3}$ Synthetic color indices from Fluks [*et al*]{}. (1994) models.
$^{4}$ From mean two–color relations derived from the Fluks [*et al.*]{} (1994) observed data.
$^{5}$ Empirical calibration from Johnson (1966).
$^{6}$ Empirical calibration from Bessell (1979).
\[empcal\_gi\]
### Main sequence stars
To construct empirical ${\rm T_{eff}}$–color sequences from 12000 K to 3600 K for the main sequence stars, we used different calibrations: Schmidt-Kaler (1982) was chosen to relate ${\rm T_{eff}}$ to U–B, B–V or R–I, and the two–color relations established by FitzGerald (1970), Bessell (1979), and BB88 were then used to derive the temperature scales for the remaining colors. This procedure should provide color–temperature calibrations with uncertainties of $\leq$ 0.05 mag in color or $\leq$ 200 K in temperature (Buser & Kurucz 1992).
Comparison of theoretical and empirical color–temperature relations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
### Red giants and supergiants
In order to compare the models to the above color–temperature relations for red giants, model spectra were first interpolated in the theoretical libraries for appropriate values of surface gravity given by the log g–${\rm T_{eff}}$ relation defined by the ${\rm 1
M_{\odot}}$ evolutionary track from Schaller [*et al.*]{} (1992). Synthetic colors computed from these model spectra are then directly compared to the empirical color–temperature relations, as illustrated in Fig. 6.
It is evident that the color differences between equivalent models from the K– and the B+F–libraries can be as high as [*0.4 mag*]{}, while those between the theoretical library spectra and the empirical calibrations may be even larger, up to [*1 mag*]{}.
Such differences – both between the original libraries and between these and the empirical calibrations – make it clear that direct use of these original theoretical data in population and evolutionary synthesis is bound to generate a great deal of confusion in the interpretation of results. In particular, applications to the integrated light of galaxies at faint magnitude levels, where effects of cosmological redshift may come into play as well, will provide rather limited physical insight unless the basic building blocks of the evolutionary synthesis – i.e., the stellar spectra – are systematically consistent with the best available observational evidence. Thus, our work is driven by the [*systematic consistency of theoretical stellar colors and empirical calibrations*]{} as a minimum requirement for the (future) [*standard library*]{}. As a viable operational step in this direction, a suitable [*correction procedure for the theoretical spectra*]{} will be developed in the following section.
### Main sequence stars
The same procedure as for the giants was applied for the main sequence stars, except that a zero–age main sequence isochrone (ZAMS) compiled by Bruzual (1995) was used in the appropriate interpolation for the surface gravity log g. Again, synthetic photometry results obtained from the theoretical library (Kurucz) are compared to the empirical color–temperature relations in Fig. 7.
Note that the differences between the theoretical and the empirical colors are significantly smaller than those for the giants given in Fig. 6: for the hotter temperatures, they do not exceed 0.1 mag., while at cooler temperatures ($\simeq 3500$ K) differences of up to 0.3 mag in V–I between models and observations again indicate that the coolest K–library spectra still carry large uncertainties and should, therefore, be used with caution (e.g., Buser & Kurucz 1992). Thus, application of the same correction procedure as for the giant models appears warranted for the dwarf models as well.
Also note that the Kurucz spectra only go down to 3500K. We are thus missing the low–luminosity, low–temperature main sequence M stars in the present library. However, we anticipate here that in a corollary paper (Lejeune [*et al.*]{} 1997, hereafter Paper II) the necessary extension is being provided from a similar treatment of the comprehensive grid of M–star model spectra published by Allard & Hauschildt (1995).
Calibration algorithm for theoretical library spectra
=====================================================
We now establish a correction procedure [*for the library spectra*]{} which preserves their detailed features but modifies their continua in such a way that the synthetic colors from the corrected library spectra conform to the empirical color–temperature relations. Since the empirical color–temperature relations do not provide direct access to the stellar continua, pseudo–continua are instead being calculated for each temperature from both the empirical (Table 2) and the theoretical (model–generated) colors. The ratio between the two pseudo–continua then provides the desired [*correction function*]{} for the given ${\rm T_{eff}}$.
Pseudo–continuum definition
---------------------------
For a given stellar flux spectrum of effective temperature $T_{eff}$, we define the pseudo–continua $pc_{\lambda}(T_{eff})$ as black bodies of color temperature $T_c(\lambda)$ varying with wavelength:
$$pc_{\lambda}(T_{eff}) = \alpha(T_{eff}) \cdot B_{\lambda}(T_c(\lambda)),$$
where $\alpha(T_{eff})$ is a scale factor and $B_{\lambda}(T)$ is the black body function, both of which need to be determined by least–squares fits of $pc_{\lambda}(T_{eff})$ to the broad–band fluxes of the given flux spectrum. Thus,
$$\alpha(T_{eff}) \cdot \int B_{\lambda}(T_{mean})S_i(\lambda) d\lambda
\simeq f_i, i=1,...,9,$$
where $S_i$ is the normalized transmission function of the passband $i$ and $f_i$ is the broad–band flux measured through this passband. Because colors are relative measurements, we normalize by arbitrarily setting the absolute flux in the I–band to be equal to 100: $f_{I}=100.$ The black–body fit in eqn. (3) is then obtained iteratively by a conjugate gradients method.
Fig. 8 illustrates a typical result. Note that, because effects of blanketing are ignored by this fitting procedure, the mean temperature, $T_{mean}$, associated with the best–fitting black–body curve, is systematically lower than the effective temperature of the actual flux spectrum.\
$\alpha(T_{eff})$ having thus been determined, the color temperatures, $T_c(\lambda_i)$, can be derived in a straightforward manner at the mean wavelengths [^3] $\lambda_i$ of the passbands $i$ via the equations:
$$\alpha(T_{eff}) \cdot \int B_{\lambda}(T_c(\lambda_i))S_i(\lambda)d\lambda
= f_i, i=1,...,9.$$
Interpolation between the $\lambda_i$ by a spline function finally provides the continuous (and smooth) color temperatures $T_c(\lambda)$ (Fig. 10) required to calculate the pseudo–continua defined by equation (2).\
Correction procedure
--------------------
The correction procedure is defined by the following sequence, and illustrated (steps 1 to 4) in Fig. 10.
1. At effective temperature $T_{eff}$, the empirical pseudo–continuum $pc_{\lambda}^{emp}(T_{eff})$ is computed from the colors of the empirical temperature–color relations given in Table 2.
2. At the same effective temperature $T_{eff}$, the synthetic pseudo–continuum is computed from the synthetic colors obtained for the original theoretical solar–abundance spectra given in the K– and/or B+F–libraries:
$$pc_{\lambda}^{syn}(T_{eff})= pc_{\lambda}^{syn}(T_{eff}, log g \in
sequence, [M/H]=0),$$
where log g is defined in the same way as in Sect. 3 by a $1M_{\odot}$ evolutionary track calculated by Schaller [*et al.*]{} (1992).
3. The correction function is calculated as the ratio of the empirical pseudo–continuum and the synthetic pseudo–continuum at the effective temperature $T_{eff}$:[^4]
$$\Phi_{\lambda}(T) =
\frac{pc_{\lambda}^{emp}(T_{eff})}{pc_{\lambda}^{syn}(T_{eff})}.$$
4. Corrected spectra, $f_{\lambda, corr}^{*}$, are then calculated from the original library spectra, $f_{\lambda}$:
$$f_{\lambda, corr}^{*}(T,logg,\chi)=
f_{\lambda}(T,logg,\chi)\cdot \Phi_{\lambda}(T).$$
Note that the correction defined in this way becomes an additive constant on a logarithmic, or magnitude scale. Therefore, at each effective temperature the original monochromatic magnitude differences between model library spectra having different metallicities \[M/H\] and/or different surface gravities log g are conserved after correction. As we shall see below, this will be true to good approximation even for the heterochromatic broad–band magnitudes and colors because, as shown in Fig. 12, the wavelength–dependent correction functions do not, in general, exhibit dramatically changing amplitudes within the passbands.
Fig. 11 shows how the resulting correction functions change with decreasing effective temperature. Finally, Figs. 12 and 13 display the corresponding effective temperature sequence of original and corrected spectra at different metallicities for the full (Fig. 12) and the visible (Fig. 13) wavelength ranges, respectively.
5. Finally, the normalization of fluxes in the I–band, $f_{i}=100$, adopted initially for calculating the pseudo–continua must be cancelled now in order to restore the effective temperature scale. Thus, each corrected spectrum of the library, $f_{\lambda,corr}^{*}$ is scaled by a constant factor, $\xi(T,logg,\chi)$, to give the final corrected spectrum $f_{\lambda,corr}$:
$$f_{\lambda,corr}(T,logg,\chi)=\xi(T,logg,\chi) \cdot f_{\lambda,corr}^{*}(T,logg,\chi),$$
where
$$\xi(T,logg,\chi)=\frac{\sigma T^{4}}
{\int f_{\lambda}(T,logg,\chi) \cdot \Phi_{\lambda}(T) \cdot d\lambda}$$
assures that the emergent integral flux of the final corrected spectrum conforms to the definition of the effective temperature (eqn. (1)).
The final corrected spectra are thus in a format which allows immediate applications in population evolutionary synthesis. For a stellar model of given mass, metallicity, and age, the radius $R$ is determined by calculations of its evolutionary track in the theoretical HR diagram, and the total emergent flux at each wavelength can hence be obtained from the present library spectra via
$$F_{\lambda} (T,logg,\chi)= 4 \pi R^2 \cdot f_{\lambda,corr}(T,logg,\chi).$$
Results: the corrected library spectra
======================================
We now discuss the properties of the new library spectra which result from the correction algorithm developed above, and which are most important in the context of population and evolutionary synthesis.
${\rm T_{eff}}$–color relations
-------------------------------
Fig. 14 illustrates the $T_{eff}$–color relations obtained after correction of the giant sequence spectra from the K– and B+F–libraries. Comparison with the corresponding Fig. 6 for the uncorrected spectra shows that the original differences which existed both between overlapping spectra of the two libraries [*and*]{} between the synthetic and empirical relations have indeed almost entirely been eliminated. While remaining differences between libraries are negligible, those between theoretical and empirical relations are below 0.1 mag.
Fig. 15 illustrates similar results for the main sequence. Again, comparison with the corresponding Fig. 7 before correction shows that the present calibration algorithm provides theoretical color–temperature relations which are in almost perfect agreement with the empirical data.
Thus at this point, we can say that for solar abundances, the new library provides purely synthetic giant and dwarf star spectra that in general fit empirical color–temperature calibrations to within better than 0.1 mag over significant ranges of wavelengths and temperatures, and even to within a few hundredths of a magnitude for the hotter temperatures, $T_{eff}\geq4000K$.
Bolometric corrections
----------------------
Bolometric corrections, $BC_{V}$, are indispensable for the direct conversion of the theoretical HR diagram, $M_{bol}(T_{eff})$, into the observational color–absolute magnitude diagram, $M_{V}(B-V)$:
$$BC_{V}=M_{bol}-M_{V} + {\rm constant},$$
where the bolometric magnitude,
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
M_{bol} & = & -2.5 log \displaystyle \int_{0}^{\infty}f_{\lambda,corr} \, d\lambda \\
& & \\
& = & -2.5 log (\sigma T_{eff}^{4}/\pi),
\end{array}$$
provides the direct link to the effective temperature (scale). Of course, bolometric corrections applying to any other (arbitrary) passbands are then consistently calculated from $BC_{i}=BC_{V}+(M_{V}-M_{i})$, where the color $M_{V}-M_{i}$ is synthesized from the corrected library spectra.
Fig. 16 provides a representative plot of bolometric corrections, $BC_{V}$, for solar–abundance dwarf model spectra. The arbitrary constant in Eq. 11 has been defined in order to fix to zero the smallest bolometric correction (Buser & Kurucz 1978) found for the non-corrected models, which gives $BC_{\odot}=BC_{(5577, 4.44,
0.0)}=-0.190$. Comparison with the empirical calibration given by Schmidt-Kaler (1982) demonstrates that the present correction algorithm is reliable in this respect, too: predictions everywhere agree with the empirical data to within $\sim 0.05mag$ – which is excellent. Similar tests for the giant models also indicate that the correction procedure provides theoretical bolometric corrections in better agreement with the observations. These results will be discussed in a subsequent paper based on a more systematic application to multicolor data for cluster and field stars (Lejeune [*et al.*]{} 1997).
Grid of differential colors
---------------------------
Since comprehensive empirical calibration data have only been available for the full temperature sequences of solar–abundance giant and dwarf stars, [*direct*]{} calibration of the present library spectra using these data has, by necessity, also been limited to [*solar–abundance*]{} models. However, because one of the principal purposes of the present work has been to make available theoretical flux spectra covering a wide [*range in metallicities*]{}, it is important that the present calibration for solar–abundance models be propagated consistently into the remaining library spectra for parameter values ranging outside those represented by the calibration sequences. We thus have designed our correction algorithm in such a way as to [*preserve, at each temperature, the monochromatic flux ratios between the original spectra for different metallicities \[M/H\] and/or surface gravities log g*]{}. Justification of this procedure comes from the fact that, if used differentially, most modern [*grids of model–atmosphere spectra*]{} come close to reproducing observed stellar properties with relatively high systematic accuracy over wide ranges in physical parameters (e.g., Buser & Kurucz 1992, Lejeune & Buser 1996).
In order to check the extent to which preservation of monochromatic fluxes propagates into the broad–band colors, we have calculated the differential colors due to metallicity differences between models of the same effective temperature and surface gravity:
$$\Delta(c_{j,[M/H]})=c_{j,[M/H]}-c_{j,[M/H]=0}, j=1,...,8.$$
We can then calculate the residual color differences between the corrected and the original grids:
$$\delta(\Delta(c_{j,[M/H]}))=
\Delta(c_{j,[M/H]}^{corr})-\Delta(c_{j,[M/H]}^{orig}).$$
Results are presented in Figs. 17 and 18 for the coolest K–library models $(3500K \leq T_{eff} \leq 5000K)$ and for the B+F–library models for M giants $(2500K \leq T_{eff} \leq 3750K)$, respectively. Residuals are plotted as a function of the model number, which increases with both surface gravity and effective temperature, as given in the calibration sequences. The different lines represent different metallicities, $-3.0 \leq [M/H] \leq +1.0$, as explained in the captions.
The most important conclusion is that, in general, the correction algorithm does not alter the original differential grid properties significantly for most colors and most temperatures – in fact, the residuals are smaller than only a few hundredths of a magnitude. Typically, the largest residuals are found for the coolest temperatures $(T_{eff} \leq 3800K)$ and the shortest–wavelength colors, UBVRI, where the correction functions of Fig. 11 show the largest variations not only between the different passbands, but also [*within the individual passbands*]{}. This changes their [*effective wavelengths*]{} and, hence, the baselines defining the color scales (cf. Buser 1978). Since this effect tends to grow with the width of the passband, it is mainly the coincidence of large changes in both amplitudes [*and*]{} slopes of the correction functions with the wide–winged R–band which causes residuals for the R-I colors to be relatively large in Fig. 18.
Calculations of color effects induced by [*surface gravity changes*]{} lead to similar results. This corroborates our conclusion that the present correction algorithm indeed provides a new model spectra library which essentially incorporates, to within useful accuracy for the purpose, the currently best knowledge of fundamental stellar properties: a full–range color–calibration in terms of [*empirical*]{} effective temperatures at solar abundances (where comprehensive calibration data exist) [**and**]{} a systematic grid of differential colors predicted by the original [*theoretical*]{} model–atmosphere calculations for the full ranges of metallicities and surface gravities (where empirical data are still too scarce to allow comprehensive grid calibration).
Of course, we are aware that the present correction algorithm becomes increasingly inadequate with the complexity of the stellar spectra growing with decreasing temperature and/or increasing surface gravity and metallicity. For example, because under these conditions the highly [*nonlinear*]{} effects of blanketing due to line saturation and crowding and broad–band molecular absorption tend to dominate the behavior of stellar colors, particularly at shorter (i.e., visible) wavelengths, even the corresponding differential colors cannot either be recovered in a physically consistent manner by a simple linear model such as the present. However, the limits of this approach will be further explored in Paper II, where the calibration of theoretical spectra for M–dwarfs will be attempted by introducing the conservation of original differential colors of grid spectra [*as a constraint*]{} imposed to the correction algorithm.
Organization of the library
===========================
The corrected spectra have finally been composed into the unified library shown in Fig. 19. In this library, model spectra are given for a parameter grid which is uniformly sampled in $T_{eff}$, log g, and \[M/H\], each spectrum being available for the same wavelength grid, (${\rm 91 \AA \leq \lambda \leq 1,600,000 \AA}$), with a medium resolution of 10–20 Å.
The main body consists of the K–library, which provides the most extensive coverage of parameter space (cf. Table 1) down to $T_{eff}=3500K$, and which has therefore been fully implemented to this limit. The extensions to lower temperatures, $3500K \geq T_{eff}
\geq 2500K$, and associated lower surface gravities, $0.87 \geq log g
\geq -1.02$, are provided by the M–giant spectra from the B+F–library, which, however, covers only the limited metallicity range $+0.5 \geq [M/H] \geq -1.0$.
This unified library is available (in electronic form) at the CDS, Strasbourg, France, where it can be obtained in either of two versions, with the [*corrected*]{} [**or**]{} the [*original uncorrected*]{} spectra from the K– and B+F–libraries.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
Although astronomers have for a long time agreed that a uniform, complete, and realistic stellar library is urgently needed, it must be emphasized that this goal has remained too ambitious to be achieved in a single concerted effort through the present epoch. We have thus attempted to proceed in well–defined steps, with priorities set according to the availability of basic data and following the most obvious scientific questions that would likely become more tractable, or even answerable. Therefore, we briefly review the present achievement to clarify its status in the ongoing process toward a future [*standard library*]{} of theoretical stellar spectra for photometric evolutionary synthesis.
1. [**Completeness.**]{} The unification of the massive K–library spectra with those for high– luminosity M–star models (the B+F–library) is most important, because even as a small minority of the number population of a given stellar system, the late–type giants and supergiants may provide a large fraction of this system’s integrated light at visible and infrared wavelengths. This fact was recognized early on (e.g., Baum 1959), and eventually also co–motivated the effort leading to the existence of the B–library used in this work (Bessell [*et al.*]{} 1988).
While the K–, B–, and F–libraries have been used to remedy incompleteness (in either wavelength or parameter coverage, or both) of available [*observed*]{} stellar libraries before (e.g., Worthey 1992, 1994; Fioc & Rocca–Volmerange 1996), our first goal here has been to join them as a purely [*theoretical*]{} library, providing the main advantages of physical homogeneity and definition in terms of fundamental stellar parameters – which allows direct use with stellar evolutionary calculations.
But even so, the present library remains incomplete in several respects. First, stellar evolution calculations (e.g., Green [*et al.*]{} 1987) predict that high–luminosity stars with temperatures near or below $3500K$ may also exist at low metallicities, $[M/H] \sim
-1.0$, and their flux contributions at visible–near ultraviolet wavelengths (where metallicity produces significant effects) may not quite be negligible in the integrated light of old stellar populations. Therefore, in order to provide the fuller coverage required for an adequate study of this metallicity–sensitive domain, new calculations of B–library spectra extending the original data to both shorter wavelengths $(\lambda\lambda \geq 320nm)$ and lower abundances $([M/H] \geq -2)$ (Buser [*et al.*]{} 1997) will replace the current hybrid B+F spectra and make the next library version more homogeneous.
Secondly, even though the low–temperature, low–luminosity M–dwarf stars do not contribute significantly to the integrated bolometric flux, they are not negligible in the determination of mass–to–light ratios in stellar populations. Thus, a suitable grid of (theoretical) M–dwarf spectra calculated by Allard & Hauschildt (1995) is being subjected to a similar calibration process (Paper II) and will be implemented in the present library as an important step toward the intended [*standard stellar library*]{}.
Finally, the libraries of synthetic spectra for hot O– and WR–stars which were recently calculated by Schmutz [*et al.*]{} (1992) will allow us to extend the calibration algorithm to ultraviolet IUE colors, where such stars radiate most of their light.\
2. [**Realism.**]{} In view of its major intended application – photometric evolutionary synthesis –, the [*minimum requirement*]{} that we insist the theoretical library [*must*]{} satisfy, is to provide stellar flux spectra having (synthetic) colors which are systematically [*consistent with calibrations derived from observations*]{}. How else could we hope to learn the physics of distant stellar populations from their integrated colors, unless the basic building blocks – i.e., the library spectra used in the synthesis calculations – can be taken as adequate representations of the better–known fundamental stellar properties, such as their color–temperature relations?
Because the original library spectra do not meet the above minimum requirement (Sect. 3), we have developed an algorithm for calibrating existing theoretical spectra against empirical color–temperature relations (Sect. 4). Because comprehensive empirical data are unavailable for large segments of the parameter space covered by the theoretical library, direct calibration can be effected only for the major sequences of solar–abundance models (Sect. 5). However, we have also shown that the present algorithm provides the desired broad–band (or pseudo–continuum) color calibration [*without*]{} destroying the original relative monochromatic fluxes between arbitrary model grid spectra and solar–abundance calibration sequence spectra of the same effective temperature. This conservation of original grid properties also propagates with useful systematic accuracy even through most [*differential broad–band colors*]{} of the corrected library spectra. Thus, to the extent that differential broad–band colors of original library spectra were previously shown to be consistent with spectroscopic or other empirical calibrations of the UBV–, RGU–, and Washington ultraviolet-excess–metallicity relations (Buser & Fenkart 1990, Buser & Kurucz 1992, Lejeune & Buser 1996), the [*corrected*]{} library spectra are still consistent with the same calibrations.\
3. [**Library development.**]{} At this point, we feel that some of the more important intrinsic properties required of the future [*standard library*]{} have already been established. Of course, many more consistency tests and calibrations will now be needed that can, however, only be performed for [*local*]{} volumes of the full parameter space covered by the new library. For example, we shall use libraries of observed flux spectra for individual field and cluster stars to better assess – and/or improve – the performance of the present library version in the non–solar–abundance and non–visual wavelength regimes. Eventually, we also expect significant guidance toward a more [*systematically*]{} realistic version of the library from actual evolutionary synthesis calculations of the integrated spectra and colors of globular clusters (Lejeune 1997).
Last, but not least, we would like to emphasize that, while we here present the results taylored according to the general needs in the field of photometric evolutionary synthesis, the library construction algorithm has been designed such as to [*allow flexible adaptation to alternative calibration data as well*]{}. As we shall ourselves peruse this flexibility to accommodate both feed–back and new data, the reader, too, is invited to define his or her own preferred calibration constraints and have the algorithm adapted to perform accordingly.
[*Acknowledgements*]{}. We are grateful to Michael Scholz and Gustavo Bruzual for providing vital input and critical discussions. Christophe Pichon is also aknowledged for his precious help with the final implementation of some of the figures. We wish to thank warmly the referee for his helpful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Allard F., Hauschildt P.H., 1995, ApJ, 445, 433 Baum W. A., 1959, PASP, 71, 106 Bell R.A., Eriksson K., Gustafsson B., Nordlund A., 1976, A&AS 23, 37 Bessell M.S., 1979, PASP, 91, 589 Bessell M.S., Brett J.M., 1988, PASP, 100, 1134 Bessell M.S., Brett J.M., Scholz M., Wood P.R., 1989, A&AS, 77, 1 Bessell M.S., Brett J.M., Scholz M., Wood P.R., 1991, A&AS, 89, 335 Bruzual G.A., 1995, private communication Bruzual G.A., Charlot S., 1993, ApJ, 405, 538 Bruzual G.A. [*et al.*]{}, 1997 (in preparation) Buser R., 1978, A&A, 62, 411 Buser R., Fenkart, R.P. 1990, A&A 239, 243 Buser R., Kurucz R., 1978, A&A, 70, 555 Buser R., Kurucz R., 1992, A&A, 264, 557 Buser R., Scholz M., Lejeune Th. 1997, A&A (in preparation) Eriksson K., Bell R.A., Gustafsson B., Nordlund A., 1979, Trans. IAU Vol. 17A, Part 2, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 200 Fioc M., Rocca–Volmerange B., 1996, A&A, submitted FitzGerald M.P., 1970, A&A, 4, 234 Fluks M.A. [*et al.*]{}, 1994, A&AS, 105, 311 Green E.M., Demarque P., King C.R., 1987, [*The Revised Yale Isochrones and Luminosity Functions*]{}, Yale Univ. Obs., New Haven, USA Gustafsson B., Bell R.A., Eriksson K., Nordlund A., 1975, A&A 42, 407 Johnson H.L., 1966, ARA&A 4, 193 Kurucz R.L., 1979a, ApJS, 40, 1 Kurucz R.L., 1979b, in: [*Problems of Calibration of Multicolor Photometric Systems*]{}, ed. A.G. Davis Philip, Dudley Obs. Rep. 14, p. 363 Kurucz R.L., 1992, in: [*The Stellar Populations of Galaxies*]{}, eds. B. Barbuy, A. Renzini, IAU Symp. 149, Dordrecht, Kluwer, p. 225 Kurucz R., 1995, CD–ROM, private communication Kurucz R.L., Peytremann E., 1975, Smithsonian Astrophys. Obs. Special Rep. 362 Leitherer C. [*et al.*]{}, 1996, PASP 108, 996 Lejeune Th., 1997, Ph.D. thesis, in preparation Lejeune Th., Buser R., 1996, Baltic Astronomy, 5, 399 Lejeune Th., Buser R., Cuisinier F. 1997, A&A (in preparation, Paper II) Lejeune Th., Lastennet E., Valls-Gabaud D, Buser R. 1997, A&A (in preparation) Plez, B., Brett, J., Nordlund, A., 1992, A&A 256, 551 Ridgway S.T., Joyce R.R., White N.M., Wing R.F., 1980, ApJ, 235, 126 Schaller G., Schaerer D., Meynet G., Maeder A., 1992, A&AS, 96, 269 Schmidt-Kaler, Th., 1982, in:[*Landolt-Börstein*]{}, Neue Serie, Gruppe VI, Bd. 2b, eds. K Schaifers, H.H. Voigt, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p. 14 Schmutz W., Leitherer C., Gruenwald R., 1992, PASP, 104, 682 Worthey G., 1992, PhD thesis, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz Worthey G., 1994, ApJS, 95, 107
[^1]: The Buser–Kurucz library is a [*hybrid*]{} library in the sense that it is based on [*two distinct grids of model atmospheres*]{} which were calculated using different codes (ATLAS AND MARCS, respectively); it is [*quasi–homogeneous*]{}, however, because for both grids of model atmospheres the [*spectrum calculations*]{} were obtained using the [*same opacity source tables*]{}.
[^2]: The F– models were preferred to the B– models in establishing the semi-empirical ${\rm
T_{eff}}$–(V–K) relation since they include a more accurate calculation of the opacity (the Opacity Sampling technique was used instead of the simple Straight Mean method which causes problems when lines saturate). These models also incorporate atomic data, as well as new opacities for the molecules ([*e.g.*]{} ${\rm H_{2}O}$, TiO, VO), hence providing significant a improvement in the V–K synthetic colors at solar metallicity (Plez [*et al.*]{} 1992).
[^3]: The mean wavelength $\lambda_i$ of a filter of transmission function $S_i$ is defined in the following way: $$\lambda_i = \frac{\int \lambda S_i(\lambda) d\lambda}
{\int S_i(\lambda) d\lambda}.$$
[^4]: Note that in some equations that follow we use a more compact notation to designate fundamental stellar parameters which is related to the usual notation by the equivalence $(T,logg,\chi)\equiv(T_{eff},logg,[M/H])$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We formulate and prove certain vanishing theorems for $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups of arbitrary signature. The $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle for $p$-adic modular forms on the Igusa tower says that if the coefficients of (sufficiently many of) the $q$-expansions of a $p$-adic modular form $f$ are zero, then $f$ vanishes everywhere on the Igusa tower. There is no $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle for unitary groups of arbitrary signature in the literature. By replacing $q$-expansions with Serre-Tate expansions (expansions in terms of Serre-Tate deformation coordinates) and replacing modular forms with automorphic forms on unitary groups of arbitrary signature, we prove an analogue of the $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle. More precisely, we show that if the coefficients of (sufficiently many of) the Serre-Tate expansions of a $p$-adic automorphic form $f$ on the Igusa tower (over a unitary Shimura variety) are zero, then $f$ vanishes identically on the Igusa tower.
This paper also contains a substantial expository component. In particular, the expository component serves as a complement to Hida’s extensive work on $p$-adic automorphic forms.
address:
- |
Ana Caraiani\
Department of Mathematics\
Princeton University\
Fine Hall, Washington Road\
Princeton, NJ 08544-1000\
USA
- |
Ellen Eischen\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Oregon\
Fenton Hall\
Eugene, OR 97403\
USA
- |
Jessica Fintzen\
Department of Mathematics\
Harvard University\
One Oxford Street\
Cambridge, MA 02138\
USA
- |
Elena Mantovan\
Department of Mathematics\
CalTech\
Pasadena, CA 91125\
USA
- |
Ila Varma\
Department of Mathematics\
Princeton University\
Fine Hall, Washington Road\
Princeton, NJ 08544-1000\
USA
author:
- Ana Caraiani
- Ellen Eischen
- Jessica Fintzen
- Elena Mantovan
- Ila Varma
bibliography:
- 'WIN3bib.bib'
title: '$p$-adic $q$-expansion principles on unitary Shimura varieties'
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this paper is twofold: to provide an expository guide to the theory of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups and to formulate and prove certain vanishing theorems for these $p$-adic automorphic forms, which are analogous to the $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle for modular forms.
In the case of modular forms, which are automorphic forms for $GL_2/\mathbb{Q}$, the $q$-expansion principle is important for constructing families of $p$-adic modular forms and for explicitly computing the Hecke operators acting on ($p$-adic) modular forms. In turn, the algebraic $q$-expansion principle relies on the geometric interpretation of ($p$-adic) modular forms and on the underlying geometry of the moduli spaces they live on.
Automorphic forms for $GL_n$, when $n>2$, do not have a natural interpretation in terms of algebraic geometry, because the locally symmetric spaces of $GL_n$ do not have the structure of algebraic varieties. The locally symmetric spaces for unitary groups, however, do have the structure of Shimura varieties, and their cohomology realizes systems of Hecke eigenvalues coming from $GL_n$ (either directly since unitary groups are outer forms of $GL_n$, or through congruences - via $p$-adic interpolation). This is why unitary groups have been key in trying to extend results in the Langlands program from $GL_2$ to $GL_n$ in recent years [@shin; @HLTT; @scholze]. This is also why unitary groups provide a natural context in which to define and study $p$-adic automorphic forms geometrically.
The first part of our paper discusses unitary Shimura varieties, their moduli interpretation and the geometry of their integral models. This leads to the geometric definition of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups. This is a vast area of research and many different aspects could be highlighted, but we focus on providing an expository account of H. Hida’s extensive work in this area, including [@hida; @hidairreducibility]. In the second part of our paper, we formulate and prove certain analogues of the $q$-expansion principle in this context. We expect that these vanishing theorems will play a key role in constructing families of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups of arbitrary signature. We discuss these types of theorems in more depth below.
Vanishing theorems
------------------
### $q$-expansion principles for modular (and Hilbert modular) forms
We start with some overview and motivation. We then review the different incarnations of the $q$-expansion principle for modular forms. (Note that $q$-expansion principles - and the Serre-Tate expansion principle discussed later in this paper - are instances of the principle of analytic continuation, which says an analytic function on a connected domain is completely determined by its restriction to any non-empty open subset and, in particular, is determined by its Taylor expansion around any point.)
Let $\mathcal{H}=\{z\in {\bC}|\mathrm{Im}\ z>0\}$ be the complex upper half plane. The upper half plane can be identified with the *symmetric space* for the group $SL_2/\mathbb{Q}$: $$\mathcal{H}\simeq SL_2(\mathbb{R})/SO_2(\mathbb{R})$$ and it has a natural action of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ by Möbius transformations, which is equivariant for this identification. Given a congruence subgroup of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$, such as $$\Gamma_1(N):=\left\{g\in SL_2(\mathbb{Z})|g\equiv\begin{pmatrix}1&*\\0&1\end{pmatrix}\pmod{N}\right\},$$ we can form the associated *locally symmetric space* $$Y_1(N):=\mathcal{H}/\Gamma_1(N).$$ This construction generalizes from $SL_2$ to any reductive group over $\mathbb{Q}$, such as $GL_n$ or a unitary group. Moreover, the Betti cohomology of the associated locally symmetric spaces (thought of simply as real manifolds) can be related to automorphic representations of the reductive group.
In the case of $SL_2$, something special happens: $Y_1(N)$ is not merely a real manifold, but it has a natural complex structure, inherited from the complex structure on $\cH$. A modular form of weight $k$ and level $N$ is a holomorphic function on $\cH$ satisfying certain symmetries under the action of $\Gamma_1(N)$ by Möbius transformations: $$f\left(\frac{az+b}{cz+d}\right)=(cz+d)^kf(z)$$ and also satisfying a growth condition. Since $\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}\in \Gamma_1(N)$, we have $$f(z+1)=f(z),$$ which means that $f$ has a Fourier expansion, which ends up looking like $$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_nq^n,\ \mathrm{where}\ q=e^{2\pi iz}.$$ We can think of the $q$-expansion as the Taylor expansion of $f$ around the missing point $z=i\infty$ of $Y_1(N)$. The *analytic $q$-expansion principle* says that the Fourier expansion uniquely determines the modular form $f$.
There is also an algebraic $q$-expansion principle, which comes from the fact that modular forms have an interpretation in terms of algebraic geometry. Again, this is something special for $SL_2$ (and other groups that admit Shimura varieties): the Riemann surface $Y_1(N)$ has a natural moduli interpretation (parametrizing elliptic curves) and therefore comes from an algebraic curve defined over $\mathbb{Q}$. The symmetries that the holomorphic function $f$ is required to satisfy make $f$ into a section of a line bundle $\omega^k$ on this curve $Y_1(N)$. This curve is not projective: it will miss a finite number of cusps, one of which corresponds to the point $i\infty$ on the compactification of $\mathcal{H}/\Gamma_1(N)$ as a Riemann surface. If we call this cusp $\infty$, then the coordinate $q$ in the Fourier expansion of $f$ can be identified with a canonical coordinate in a formal neighborhood of $\infty$. The *algebraic* $q$-expansion of $f$ can be identified with the localization of $f$ at the cusp $\infty$. (The line bundle $\omega^k$ is also canonically trivialized.) The *algebraic $q$-expansion principle* says that a modular form of weight $k$ is uniquely determined by its $q$-expansion. This principle follows from the fact that a section of a line bundle which vanishes in a formal neighborhood of a point on an irreducible curve must vanish everywhere on that curve.
The $p$-adic interpolation of modular forms is crucial for understanding their connection with Galois representations: for example, constructing Galois representations in weight $1$ by congruences and proving modularity via the Taylor-Wiles patching method. This leads to the natural question of how to formalize the notion of $p$-adic interpolation and how to define a $p$-adic modular form.
One option is geometric: it only works for groups that have Shimura varieties and uses the geometry of their integral models. In the case of modular forms, this approach goes back to N. Katz [@ka2; @kaCM]: $p$-adic modular forms can be thought of as sections of the trivial line bundle over the *Igusa tower*, which can be constructed over the *ordinary locus*. The Igusa tower has the property that it simultaneously trivializes all the line bundles $\omega^k$, corresponding to different weight modular forms $k$. In a very rough sense, this construction can be thought of as a $p$-adic analogue of the upper half plane $\mathcal{H}$. The advantage of this approach is that the underlying geometry provides more tools for studying $p$-adic modular forms (for example, the *Hasse invariant* is such a tool) and answering questions such as when a $p$-adic modular form is classical.
The $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle says that a $p$-adic modular form is uniquely determined by its $q$-expansion. This principle relies on the irreducibility of the Igusa tower. This principle has been extremely important for further studying $p$-adic modular forms. Applications to the construction of $p$-adic $L$-functions are mentioned in Section \[antapp-section\]. The $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle is also a crucial ingredient in the work of Buzzard and Taylor on the icosahedral Artin conjecture [@buzzardtaylor] and in generalizations of this type of argument to Hilbert modular varieties. A key aspect of this application is the fact that, for $GL_2$, $q$-expansions of Hecke eigenforms are closely related to Hecke eigenvalues and, therefore, to Galois representations. This is a connection that is not yet understood for other groups, such as unitary groups.
### Principles for other groups, including unitary groups
In the case of unitary groups or symplectic groups, which admit Shimura varieties, the story described above largely generalizes. Their locally symmetric spaces have an algebraic structure, admit a moduli interpretation, and have integral models. We describe these models in Section \[shvars-section\]. One can define automorphic forms in a way similar to how one defines modular forms, and they have an algebro-geometric interpretation as sections of certain vector bundles. We give more details on this in Section \[classautforms-section\]. It is also possible to talk about $p$-adic automorphic forms by constructing a (higher-dimensional) Igusa tower over the ordinary locus. These notions are made precise in Section \[padic-section\]. However, it is not clear what the best analogue of the $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle would be, in this level of generality.
There are $q$-expansion principles, or partial results in this direction, in a number of cases. For Siegel modular forms, i.e. automorphic forms on symplectic groups, there is an algebraic $q$-expansion principle in [@CF]. By [@hida Corollary 8.17], there is a $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle for Siegel modular forms. By [@lan Proposition 7.1.2.14], there is an algebraic $q$-expansion principle for scalar-valued automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(a, a)$ for any positive integer $a$. As mentioned in the last paragraph of [@hida], there is a $p$-adic $q$-expansion principle for automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(n,n)$. The proofs of all of these $q$-expansion principles rely on the existence of cusps, whose formal neighborhoods have canonical coordinates and on the irreducibility of the underlying moduli space (i.e. a Shimura variety or Igusa tower).
For automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(a, b)$ with $a\neq b$, the underlying geometry of the associated moduli spaces prevents the existence of a $q$-expansion principle, because these spaces have no cusps (whose formal neighborhoods have canonical coordinates). In the case of automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(a, b)$, when the corresponding Shimura varieties are non-compact, the usual $q$-expansion is replaced by a Fourier-Jacobi expansion, a generalization of the Fourier expansion, in which the coefficients are themselves functions formed from theta-functions. Nevertheless, there is an algebraic [*Fourier-Jacobi Principle*]{} for unitary groups [@lan Proposition 7.1.2.14]. (This Fourier-Jacobi Principle gives the algebraic $q$-expansion principle for unitary groups of signature $(a, a)$.)
While it is natural to ask for a “$p$-adic Fourier-Jacobi expansion principle” for unitary groups of arbitrary signature, a slightly different - but analogous - principle, a “Serre-Tate expansion principle” follows more naturally from the existing literature. The main result of this paper is the formulation and proof of the Serre-Tate expansion principle (in Theorem \[STexpprinciple-thm\]). Algebraic $q$-expansions and algebraic Fourier-Jacobi expansions are expansions of a modular (or automorphic) form at the boundary of the Shimura variety. On the other hand, a Serre-Tate expansion is the expansion of a modular form at an ordinary CM point. There is a canonical choice of coordinates for the local ring at the ordinary point; these are called [*Serre-Tate deformation coordinates*]{}. Roughly speaking our main result (stated precisely in Theorem \[STexpprinciple-thm\]) says that given suitable conditions on the prime $p$ (namely, when $p$ splits completely in the reflex field), if $f$ is an automorphic form on a unitary group and for each irreducible component $C$ of the associated Igusa tower, a Serre-Tate expansion of $f$ at some CM point in $C$ is $0$, then $f$ vanishes identically on the Igusa tower. The proof relies on Hida’s description of the geometry of the Igusa tower. The key point is, again, the irreducibility of the Igusa tower.
Anticipated applications {#antapp-section}
------------------------
As noted above, the use of $q$-expansion principles in the construction of $p$-adic families of modular forms is well-established. In [@kaCM], Katz used the $q$-expansion principle for Hilbert modular forms to study congruences between values of different Hilbert modular forms, which led to the construction of certain $p$-adic families of Hilbert modular forms. Similarly, in [@apptoSHL], the second author used the $q$-expansion principle to construct $p$-adic families of automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(a, a)$ for all positive integers $a$. Katz’s $p$-adic families of Hilbert modular forms are the main ingredient in his construction of $p$-adic $L$-functions for CM fields [@kaCM]. Analogously, the second author constructed the $p$-adic families of automorphic forms in [@apptoSHL] to complete a step in the construction of $p$-adic $L$-functions (for unitary groups) proposed in [@HLS].
We plan to use the Serre-Tate expansion principle in Theorem \[STexpprinciple-thm\] analogously to how the $q$-expansion principle is used in contexts in which $q$-expansions exist. More precisely, in a joint paper in preparation, we are using the Serre-Tate expansion principle introduced in this paper to construct $p$-adic families of automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(a, b)$ with $a\neq b$. As explained in [@emeasurenondefinite], the lack of such a principle in the literature was an obstacle faced by the second author in her effort to extend her results on $p$-adic families of automorphic forms to unitary groups of arbitrary signature. This paper eliminates that obstacle and fills in a hole in the literature. We also are using the expository portion of this paper as part of the foundation for our construction of these families.
One advantage of expansions around CM points over $q$-expansions is that they can be used for compact as well as non-compact Shimura varieties. The Serre-Tate expansion has been used before by Hida (for example, to define his idempotent in [@hida]) and also appears in work of Brooks [@brooks] (for Shimura curves) and Burungale and Hida [@BH] (for Hilbert modular varieties) with applications to special values of $p$-adic $L$-functions.
In a more speculative direction, we note the potential for applications to homotopy theory. Certain $p$-adic families of modular forms, studied in terms of their $q$-expansions, were used to defined an invariant (the [*Witten genus*]{}) in homotopy theory [@hopkins94; @hopkinsICM; @AHR]. The Witten genus is a $p$-adic modular form valued invariant that occurs in the theory of [*topological modular forms*]{}. Recently, there have been attempts to construct an analogue of the Witten genus in the theory of [*topological automorphic forms*]{}, where there is conjecturally an invariant taking values in the space of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups of signature $(1, n)$ [@beh]. Vanishing theorems analogous to the $q$-expansion principle will likely play an analogously important role in this context.
Structure of the paper {#paperstructure-section}
----------------------
We now provide a brief overview of the paper. Section \[shvars-section\] introduces Shimura varieties for unitary groups and the associated moduli problem. We work with these Shimura varieties throughout most of the paper. Section \[classautforms-section\] reviews the theory of classical automorphic forms on unitary groups, from several perspectives. Section \[padic-section\] introduces Hida’s geometric theory of $p$-adic automorphic forms (i.e. over the ordinary locus). This section includes details about the Igusa tower, as well as the space of $p$-adic automorphic forms (defined as global sections of the structure sheaf over the Igusa tower). Section \[ST-section\] covers the main results of this paper, namely the [*[Serre-Tate ]{}expansion principle*]{}, an analogue of the $q$-expansion principle, for $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups of arbitrary signature. We are using this result in a paper in preparation that constructs families of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups of arbitrary signature. Finally, Section \[section on pullbacks\] discusses how Serre-Tate expansions behave with respect to pullbacks, as an example of the kind of application we have in mind to computational aspects of $p$-adic automorphic forms on unitary groups.
Notation and conventions {#notation-section}
------------------------
We now establish some notation and conventions that we will use throughout the paper.
First, we establish some notation for fields. Fix a totally real number field ${K}^+$ and an imaginary quadratic extension ${F}$ of ${\bQ}$. Define ${K}$ to be the composition of ${K}^+$ and ${F}$. Let $c$ denote complex conjugation on ${K}$, i.e. the generator of $\Gal({K}/{K}^+)$. We denote by ${\Sigma}$ the set of complex embeddings of ${K}^+$, and we denote by ${\Sigma_K}$ the set of complex embeddings of ${K}$. We typically use $\tau$ to denote an element of ${\Sigma}$, and for each $\tau \in {\Sigma}$, we fix an extension $\tilde\tau$ of $\tau$ to $K$, i.e. $\tilde \tau$ is an element of ${\Sigma_K}$. A reflex field will be denoted by ${E}$ (with subscripts to denote different reflex fields when there is more than one reflex field appearing in the same context). Given a local or global field $L$, we denote the ring of integers in $L$ by $\mathcal{O}_L$. We write $\bA$ to denote the adeles over ${\bQ}$, we write $\bA^\infty$ to denote the adeles away from the archimedean places, and we write $\bA^{\infty,p}$ to denote the adeles away from the archimedean places and $p$.
Fix a rational prime $p$ that splits as $p=w\cdot w^c$ in the imaginary quadratic extension ${F}/\mathbb{Q}$. We make this assumption in order to ensure that our unitary group at $p$ is a product of (restrictions of scalars of) general linear groups. Instead, we could assume that every place of ${K}^+$ above $p$ splits in the quadratic extension ${K}/{K}^+$ and choose a CM type for ${K}$. In addition, we restrict our attention to the case when the prime $p$ is *unramified* in $K$. This ensures that the Shimura varieties we consider have smooth integral models over ${\cO_{{E},(p)}}$ (where ${\cO_{E}}$ is the ring of integers in the reflex field ${E}$ of these Shimura varieties) when no level structure at $p$ is imposed.
To help the reader keep track of each setting, we adhere to the following conventions for fonts used to denote schemes, integral models, and formal completions throughout the paper. Schemes over $\bQ$ are in normal font, their integral models are in mathcal font, and their formal completions are in mathfrak font.
Unitary Shimura varieties {#shvars-section}
=========================
In this section, we introduce unitary Shimura varieties. In Section \[unitarygroups-section\], we introduce PEL data and conventions for unitary groups, with which we work throughout the paper. Section \[PELmoduli-section\] introduces the PEL moduli problem, and Section \[abvc-section\] specializes to the setting over ${\bC}$. In our exposition, we follow [@kottwitz] and [@lan].
PEL data and unitary groups {#unitarygroups-section}
---------------------------
The following definition of the PEL datum follows [@lan Section 1.2], and it is an integral version of the datum in [@kottwitz Section 4].
By a [*PEL datum*]{}, we mean a tuple $\left({K}, c, L, \langle, \rangle, h\right)$ consisting of
- the CM field ${K}$ equipped with the involution $c$ introduced in Section \[notation-section\],
- an ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}$-lattice $L$, i.e. a finitely generated free ${\bZ}$-module with an action of ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}$,
- a non-degenerate Hermitian pairing $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle:L\times L\to \mathbb{Z}$ satisfying $\langle k\cdot v_1,v_2 \rangle=\langle v_1,k^c\cdot v_2 \rangle$ for all $v_1, v_2\in L$ and $k\in {\mathcal{O}_{K}}$,
- an $\mathbb{R}$-algebra endomorphism $$h:\mathbb{C}\to \mathrm{End}_{{\mathcal{O}_{K}}\otimes_\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{R}}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R})$$ such that $(v_1,v_2)\mapsto \langle v_1,h(i)\cdot v_2\rangle$ is symmetric and positive definite and such that $\langle h(z) v_1, v_2\rangle = \langle v_1, h(\overline{z})v_2 \rangle$.
Furthermore, for considering the moduli problem over a $p$-adic ring and for defining $p$-adic automorphic forms, we require
- [$L_p:=L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Z}_p$ is self-dual under the alternating Hermitian pairing $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_p$ on $L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}_p$.]{}
To the PEL datum $\left({K}, c, L, \langle, \rangle, h\right)$, we associate algebraic groups $GU= GU\left(L, \langle, \rangle\right)$, $U=U\left(L, \langle, \rangle\right)$, and $SU=SU\left(L, \langle, \rangle\right)$ defined over ${\bZ}$, whose $R$-points (for any ${\bZ}$-algebra $R$) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
GU(R)&:=\left\{(g,{\nu})\in \mathrm{End}_{{\mathcal{O}_{K}}\otimes_\mathbb{Z}R}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}R) \times R^\times\mid\langle g\cdot v_1,g\cdot v_2\rangle ={\nu}\langle v_1,v_2\rangle\right\}\\
U(R)&:=\left\{g\in \mathrm{End}_{{\mathcal{O}_{K}}\otimes_\mathbb{Z}R}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}R) \mid\langle g\cdot v_1,g\cdot v_2\rangle =\langle v_1,v_2\rangle\right\}\\
SU(R)&:=\left\{g\in U(R) \mid \det g=1\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\nu}$ is called a [*similitude factor*]{}. In the following, for $R=\bQ$ or ${\bR}$, we also write $$GU_+(R):=\left\{(g,{\nu})\in GU(R)\mid {\nu}>0\right\}.$$
Moreover, given a PEL datum $\left({K}, c, L, \langle, \rangle, h\right)$, we define the ${\bR}$-vector space with an action of ${K}$ $$\begin{aligned}
V:=L\otimes_{{\bZ}}{\bR}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $h_\bC=h\times_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$ gives rise to a decomposition $V\otimes_{{\bR}}\mathbb{C}=V_1\oplus V_2$ (where $h(z)\times 1$ acts by $z$ on $V_1$ and by $\bar{z}$ on $V_2$). We have decompositions $V_1 = \oplus_{\tau\in{\Sigma_K}} V_{1, \tau}$ and $V_2 = \oplus_{\tau\in{\Sigma_K}}V_{2, \tau}$ [induced from the decomposition of $K\otimes_{\bQ} \bC = \oplus_{\tau \in \Sigma_K} \bC$ where only the $\tau$-th $\bC$ acts nontrivially on $V_{1,\tau} \oplus V_{2,\tau}$, acting via the standard action on $V_{1,\tau}$.]{} As defined in [@lan Definition 1.2.5.2], the [*signature*]{} of $\left(V, \langle, \rangle, h\right)$ is the tuple of pairs $\left({{a_+}}_\tau, {{a_-}}_\tau\right)_{\tau\in{\Sigma_K}}$ such that ${{a_+}}_\tau = \dim_{\bC}V_{1, \tau}$ and ${{a_-}}_\tau = \dim_{\bC}V_{2, \tau}$ for all $\tau\in{\Sigma_K}$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
n={{a_+}}_\tau+{{a_-}}_\tau.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $n$ is independent of $\tau$ and furthermore $a_{\pm\tau} = a_{\mp\tau^c}$.
In order to define automorphic forms of non scalar weight in Section \[classautforms-section\] and \[padic-section\], we define the algebraic group over $\bZ$ $$\Levin :=\prod\limits_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde\tau}} \times \GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde\tau}},$$ where ${\widetilde{\tau}} \in {\Sigma_K}$ is a previously fixed lift of $\tau \in {\Sigma}$. Note that $\Levin_\bC$ can be identified with the Levi subgroup of $U({\bC})$ that preserves the decomposition $V_\bC=V_1\oplus V_2$. This identification also works over $\bZ_p$, as we will see in Section [\[Igusalevel\]]{}.
Moreover, using the decomposition $\bC \otimes \bC = \bC \oplus \bC$ of $\bR$-modules (where $z \in \bC$ acts on the first summand by $z$ and on the second summand by ${\overline}z$) we define $ \mu: \bC {\rightarrow}V_\bC \text{ by } z \mapsto h_\bC(z,1)$. (Compare [@Milne Section 12].) Then the [*reflex field*]{} is defined to be the field of definition of the $GU(\bC)$-conjugacy class of $\mu$ (or equivalently as the conjucagy class of $V_1$). Henceforth, we denote the reflex field by $E$ (note that $E\subset {\bC}$).
PEL moduli problem {#PELmoduli-section}
------------------
The goal of this section is to introduce PEL-type unitary Shimura varieties from a moduli-theoretic perspective. We will restrict our attention to cases where these Shimura varieties have no level structure and good reduction at $p$. For more details, see [@kottwitz Section 5] or [@lan Section 1.4].
We now define a moduli problem for abelian varieties equipped with extra structures (more precisely, polarizations, endomorphisms and level structure) and which will be representable by unitary Shimura varieties that have integral models. For each open compact subgroup ${\mathcal{U}}\subset GU(\mathbb{A}^\infty)$, consider the moduli problem $$(S,s)\mapsto \{{\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}\}$$ which assigns to every connected, locally noetherian scheme $S$ over $E$ together with a geometric point $s$ of $S$ the set of tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$, where
- $A$ is an abelian variety over $S$ of dimension $g:=[K^+:\mathbb{Q}]\cdot n$,
- ${i}:K\hookrightarrow \mathrm{End}^0(A):=(\mathrm{End}(A))\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}$ is an embedding of $\mathbb{Q}$-algebras,
- ${\lambda}: A\to A^\vee$ (where $A^\vee$ denotes the dual abelian variety) is a polarization satisfying $\lambda \circ i(k^c)=i(k)^\vee \circ \lambda$ for all $k\in K$,
- ${{\alpha}}$ is a $\pi_1(S,s)$-invariant ${\mathcal{U}}$-orbit of $K\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}\mathbb{A}^\infty$-equivariant isomorphisms $$L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{A}^\infty {\buildrel\sim\over\to}V_fA_s,$$ which takes the Hermitian pairing $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ on $L$ to an $(\mathbb{A}^\infty)^\times$-multiple of the $\lambda$-Weil pairing on the rational (adelic) Tate module $V_fA_s$.
Note that $\mathrm{Lie}\ A$ is a locally free $\cO_S$-module of rank $g$ and has an induced action of $K$ via $i$. The tuple ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ must satisfy Kottwitz’s *determinant condition*: $$\mathrm{det}(K|V_1)=\mathrm{det}_{\cO_S}(K|\mathrm{Lie}\ A).$$ Here, by $\mathrm{det}(K|V_1)$ we denote the element in $E[K^\vee]=\Sym(K^\vee)\otimes_\bQ E$, for $K^\vee$ the $\bQ$-vector space dual to $K$, defined by $k\mapsto \mathrm{det}_{{\bC}}(k|V_1)$, for all $k\in K$. By definition of the reflex field, $\mathrm{det}(K|V_1)\in E[K^\vee]\hookrightarrow {\bC}[K^\vee]$. Similarly, $\mathrm{det}_{\cO_S}(K|\mathrm{Lie}\ A)$ denotes the element in $\cO_S[K^\vee]=\Sym(K^\vee)\otimes_\bQ \cO_S(S)$ defined by $k\mapsto \mathrm{det}_{\cO_S}(k|\mathrm{Lie}\ A)$, for all $k\in K$. The determinant condition is an equality of elements in $\cO_S[K^\vee]$, after taking the image of $\mathrm{det}(K|V_1)$ under the structure homomorphism of $E$ to $\cO_S(S)$.
Two tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ and $\left(A',{i}',{\lambda}',{\alpha}'\right)$ are equivalent if there exists an isogeny $A\to A'$ taking ${i}$ to ${i}'$, ${\lambda}$ to a rational multiple of ${\lambda}'$, and ${\alpha}$ to ${\alpha}'$. We note that the definition is independent of the choice of geometric point $s$ of $S$. We can extend the definition to non-connected schemes by choosing a geometric point for each connected component.
If the compact open subgroup ${\mathcal{U}}$ is neat (in particular, if it is sufficiently small) as defined in [@lan Definition 1.4.1.8], then this moduli problem is representable by a smooth, quasi-projective scheme ${M}_{\mathcal{U}}/E$.
From now on, assume that ${\mathcal{U}}={\mathcal{U}}^p{\mathcal{U}}_p$ is neat and that ${\mathcal{U}}_p\subset GU\left(\mathbb{Q}_p\right)$ is hyperspecial. We can construct an integral model of $M_{\mathcal{U}}$ by considering an integral version of the above moduli problem. To a pair $(S,s)$, where $S$ is now a scheme over ${\cO_{{E},(p)}}$, we assign the set of tuples $\left(A,{i},{\lambda}, {\alpha}^p\right)$, where
- $A$ is an abelian variety over $S$ of dimension $g$,
- $i:{\cO_{K,(p)}} \hookrightarrow (\mathrm{End}(A))\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}$ is an embedding of $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}$-algebras
- $\lambda: A\to A^\vee$ is a prime-to-$p$ polarization satisfying $\lambda \circ i(k^c)=i(k)^\vee \circ \lambda$ for all $k\in \cO_K$,
- $\alpha^p$ is a $\pi_1(S,s)$-invariant ${\mathcal{U}}^p$-orbit of $K\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}\mathbb{A}^{\infty,p}$-equivariant isomorphisms $$L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{A}^{\infty,p} {\buildrel\sim\over\to}V^p_fA_s,$$ which takes the Hermitian pairing $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ on $L$ to an $(\mathbb{A}^{\infty,p})^\times$-multiple of the $\lambda$-Weil pairing on $V^p_fA_s$ (the Tate module away from $p$).
In addition, the tuple ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ must satisfy Kottwitz’s *determinant condition*: $$\mathrm{det}({\mathcal{O}_{K}}|V_1)=\mathrm{det}_{\cO_S}({\mathcal{O}_{K}}|\mathrm{Lie}A).$$ Here, the determinant condition is an equality of elements in $\cO_S[{\mathcal{O}_{K}}^\vee]$, after taking the image of $\mathrm{det}({\mathcal{O}_{K}}|V_1)\in ({\cO_{{E},(p)}})[{\mathcal{O}_{K}}^\vee]$ under the structure homomorphism of ${\cO_{{E},(p)}}$ to $\cO_S$, for ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}^\vee$ the dual ${\bZ}$-module of ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}$.
Two tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ and $\left(A',{i}',{\lambda}',{\alpha}'\right)$ are equivalent if there exists a prime-to-$p$ isogeny $A\to A'$ taking ${i}$ to ${i}'$, ${\lambda}$ to a prime-to-$p$ rational multiple of ${\lambda}'$ and ${\alpha}$ to ${\alpha}'$.
This moduli problem is representable by a smooth, quasi-projective scheme $\cM_{\mathcal{U}}$ over ${\cO_{{E},(p)}}$. (See, for example, page 391 of [@kottwitz] for a discussion of representability and smoothness. The representability is reduced to the Siegel case, proved in [@mumford], while the smoothness follows from Grothendieck-Messing deformation theory.) We have a canonical identification $$M_{\mathcal{U}}=\cM_{\mathcal{U}}\times_{\mathrm{Spec}\ ({\cO_{{E},(p)}})}\mathrm{Spec}\ E,$$ which can be checked directly on the level of moduli problems. As the level ${\mathcal{U}}^p$ varies, the inverse system of Shimura varieties $\cM_{\mathcal{U}}$ has a natural action of $GU(\mathbb{A}^{\infty,p})$. (More precisely, $g\in GU(\mathbb{A}^{\infty, p})$ acts by precomposing the level structure $\alpha$ with it.) Since our interest is in the $p$-adic theory, we will fix and suppress the level ${\mathcal{U}}$ starting from Section \[padic-section\].
Abelian varieties and Shimura varieties over ${\bC}$ {#abvc-section}
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we specialize to working over ${\bC}$. Our goal is to sketch how the set $M_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathbb{C})$ of complex points of $M_{\mathcal{U}}$ is naturally identified with the set of points of a finite union of locally symmetric complex varieties corresponding to $(GU,h)$. (For more details, see [@kottwitz Section 8].)
We remark that what we show is merely a bijection of sets. Proving that the Shimura varieties corresponding to $(GU,h)$ are moduli spaces of abelian varieties over ${\bC}$ would also require matching the complex structures on the two sides.
### Abelian varieties over ${\bC}$
Recall that the $\bC$-points of an abelian variety $A/{\bC}$ are of the form $V(A)/\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is a $\bZ$-lattice in a complex vector space $V(A)$. Any abelian variety over $\bC$ admits a polarization; since $V(A)/\Lambda$ comes from a complex abelian variety $A$, it is also polarizable, i.e. there exists a nondegenerate, positive definite Hermitian form $$\lambda_{\bC}: V(A)\times V(A) \rightarrow \bC \quad \mbox{s.t. } \lambda_{\bC}(\Lambda,\Lambda) \subset \bZ.$$ We call each such Hermitian form $\lambda_{\bC}$ a [*polarization*]{} of $V(A)/\Lambda$. It may be better to think of a polarization as an alternating form $\lambda_{\bR}: V(A) \times V(A) \rightarrow \bR$ satisfying $\lambda_\bR(iu,iv) = \lambda_\bR(u,v)$ for all $u,v \in V(A)$ and $$\lambda_{\bC}(u,v) = \lambda_{\bR}(u,iv) + i\lambda_{\bR}(u,v).$$ It is enough to characterize a pair $(A,\lambda_{\bC})$, where $A$ is an abelian variety of dimension $g$, by considering the following triple:
1. the free $\bZ$-module $\Lambda = H_1(A,\bZ)$ of rank $2g$
2. the $\bR$-algebra homomorphism $\bC \rightarrow \End_{\bR}(\Lambda \otimes \bR) = \End_{\bR}(H_1(A,\bR)) = \End_{\bR}(\Lie A)$ describing the complex structure on $\Lie A$ (so $V(A):=\Lambda\otimes \bR$, endowed with this complex structure)
3. the alternating form on $\Lambda=H_1(A,\bZ)$ induced by $\lambda_{\bC}$ denoted by $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ after identifying $A(\bC) \cong \Lie A(\bC)/H_1(A,\bZ)$
### Shimura varieties over ${\bC}$ {#moduli-section}
Recall that, associated to the PEL datum, we have the ${\bR}$-vector space $V=L\otimes_\bZ{\bR}$, which is endowed with an action of $K$ and the complex structure defined by $h$. (Note that the complex structure depends uniquely on $h(i)\in \End_{K\otimes_\bQ{\bR}}(V)$.)
Let $\fh$ denote the set of elements $I\in \End_{K\otimes_\bQ{\bR}}(V)$ which satisfy
1. $I^2 = -1$
2. $I^{c} = -I$
3. $(w,v) \mapsto {\left\langle}w,Iv{\right\rangle}$ is a positive or negative definite form on $V$
4. the $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-structures on $V$ defined by $I$ and $h(i)$ are isomorphic.
In [@kottwitz Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2], Kottwitz shows that the set $\fh$ is equal to $ GU(\bR)/{C}_{h}$, for ${C}_h$ the stabilizer of $h(i)$ in $GU(\bR)$, and that it can be identified with a finite union of copies of the symmetric domain for the identity component of $GU({\bR})$.
For ${\mathcal{U}}\subset GU(\bA^\infty)$ a neat open compact subgroup, we define the quotient $$X_{{\mathcal{U}}} = GU(\bQ)\bs (GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}\times \fh).$$ We sketch how the set of complex points of $M_{\mathcal{U}}$ corresponds to a disjoint union of finitely many copies of $X_{{\mathcal{U}}}$.
By definition, the set $M_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC) $ parametrizes equivalence classes of tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ where
1. $A$ is an abelian variety over $\bC$,
2. ${i}: K \hookrightarrow \End^0(A)$ is an embedding of $\bQ$-algebras,
3. ${\lambda}: A \rightarrow A^{\vee}$ is a polarization satisfying ${\lambda}\circ i(b^c) = i(b)^{\vee} \circ{\lambda}$ for all $b \in K$,
4. ${\alpha}$ is a ${\mathcal{U}}$-orbit of isomorphisms of skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces (in the sense of Kottwitz, i.e. preserving the pairing only up to scalar) $L \otimes_{\bZ} \bA^\infty \cong H_1(A,\bA^\infty)$.
In addition, the tuple ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ must satisfy the determinant condition.
Every equivalence class of tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ satisfying the above restrictions gives rise to an element $GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}\times \fh$ as follows. The existence of the equivalence class of isomorphisms ${\alpha}$ implies that the skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces $L_\bQ:=L\otimes_{\bZ}\bQ$ and $H = H_1(A,\bQ)$ are isomorphic over any finite place of $\bQ$. We conclude in particular that $H_1(A,\bQ)$ and $L_\bQ$ have the same dimension over $K$. By [@kottwitz Lemma 4.2], $H_{\bR}$ and $V=L_\bQ \otimes_\bQ \bR$ are isomorphic as skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces if and only if they are isomorphic as $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules. The natural complex structure on $H_{\bR}\cong {\rm Lie}(A)$ gives a decomposition of $H_{\bC}$ as $H_1\oplus H_2$, and the determinant condition implies that $H_1$ is isomorphic to $V_1$ as $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules. Thus, in order to deduce that $H_{\bR}$ and $V$ are isomorphic as $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules it suffices to prove that $V_2$ and $H_2$ are isomorphic as $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules. Note that if we denote by $W_\tau$ the ${\bC}$-subspace where $K$ acts via $\tau$, for $\tau:K\hookrightarrow {\bC}$ a complex embedding ($\tau\in\Sigma_K$) and $W$ any $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-module, then two $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules $W,W'$ are isomorphic if and only if $\dim_{\bC}W_\tau=\dim_{\bC}W'_\tau$, for all $ \tau\in\Sigma_K$. Let $\tau\in\Sigma_K$. The determinant condition implies that $\dim_{\bC}V_{1,\tau}=\dim_{\bC}H_{1,\tau}$, the decompositions $V_{\bC}=V_1\oplus V_2$ and $H_{\bC}= H_1\oplus H_2$ imply $\dim_{\bC}V_{\tau}+\dim_{\bC}V_{\tau^c}= \frac{1}{2}(\dim_{\bC}V_{1,\tau}+\dim_{\bC}V_{2,\tau^c}+\dim_{\bC}V_{1,\tau^c}+\dim_{\bC}V_{2,\tau})=\dim_{\bC}V_{1,\tau}+\dim_{\bC}V_{2,\tau},$ and $\dim_{\bC}H_{\tau}+\dim_{\bC}H_{\tau^c}= \dim_{\bC}H_{1,\tau}+\dim_{\bC}H_{2,\tau},$ and the equality $\dim_K L_\bQ=\dim_K H$ implies $\dim_{\bC}V_{\tau}+\dim_{\bC}V_{\tau^c}=\dim_{\bC}H_{\tau}+\dim_{\bC}H_{\tau^c}$. We deduce that $\dim_{\bC}V_{2,\tau}=\dim_{\bC}H_{2,\tau}$ for all $\tau\in\Sigma_K$, i.e. that $H_2$ and $V_2$ are also isomorphic as $K\otimes_\bQ{\bC}$-modules. We conclude that the skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces $H$ and $L_\bQ$ are isomorphic over any place $v$ of $\bQ$.
When the Hasse principle holds, this implies the existence of an isomorphism of skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces between $H$ and $L_\bQ$. In general, there are $$\left|\ker^1(\bQ,GU):=\ker\left(H^1(\bQ,GU){\rightarrow}\prod\limits_{v \text{ place of } \bQ} H^1(\bQ_v,GU) \right)\right|$$ isomorphism classes $L^{(i)}$ of skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces isomorphic to $L_\bQ$ at every place of $\bQ$ (and let $L^{(1)}=L_\bQ$).
Let $1\leq i \leq |\ker^1(\bQ,GU)|$. We define $GU^{(i)}$ to be the unitary similitude group over $\bQ$ defined by $L^{(i)}$ (so in particular, $GU^{(1)} = GU$). Choose local isomorphisms $L_{\bQ_v}\cong L^{(i)}_{\bQ_v}$ for all places $v$ of $\bQ$, and let $GU^{(i)}(\bQ)$ act on $GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}\times\fh$ via the induced isomorphisms $GU^{(i)}_{\bQ_v}\cong GU_{\bQ_v}$. We define $X^{(i)}_{{\mathcal{U}}} = GU^{(i)}(\bQ)\bs (GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}\times \fh)$, and we define $M^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$ to be the subset of $M_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$ parameterizing tuples such that $H$ is isomorphic to $L^{(i)}$. Thus, $M_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})=\coprod_{i} M^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$. We show that $M^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$ naturally identifies with $X^{(i)}_{{\mathcal{U}}} $.
Let $i$, where $1\leq i \leq |\ker^1(\bQ,GU)|$, be such that $H$ and $L^{(i)}$ are isomorphic skew-Hermitian $K$-vector spaces, and choose an automorphism ${\alpha}_{\bQ}: H{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}L^{(i)}$. Then, the automorphism $({\alpha}_{\bQ} \otimes \bI_{\bA^\infty}) \circ {\alpha}$ of $L^{(i)} \otimes_\bQ \bA^\infty$ defines an element of $GU(\bA^\infty)$, but since ${\alpha}$ is only well-defined up to its orbit in ${\mathcal{U}}$, such an isomorphism determines an element of $GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}$. Under ${\alpha}_\bQ$, the complex structure on $H_1(A,\bR)$ defines a complex structure on $V$, which is conjugate to $h$ by an element in $GU({\bR})$, i.e., an element in $\fh$.
Therefore, each class of tuples ${\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}$ along with a choice of isomorphism ${\alpha}_{\bQ}$ determines an element of $GU(\bA^\infty)/{\mathcal{U}}\times \fh$. Forgetting the isomorphism ${\alpha}_{\bQ}$ is equivalent to taking the quotient by the left action of $GU^{(i)}(\bQ)$. Thus, to each point of $M^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$ we associated a point on $X^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}$, and this map is in fact a bijection.
Note that in [@kottwitz Sections 7 and 8] Kottwitz shows that under our assumptions (case A in loc. cit.) if $n$ is even the Hasse principle holds, and if $n$ is odd the natural map $\ker^1(\bQ,Z)\to \ker^1(\bQ,GU)$, for $Z$ the center of $GU$, is a bijection, and furthermore that the subvarieties $M^{(i)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC})$ are all isomorphic to $M^{(1)}_{\mathcal{U}}({\bC}) = X_{{\mathcal{U}}}$.
For the later sections, we will denote a connected component of $M_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$ (or equivalently, of $X_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$) as $S_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$. Note that any two connected components are isomorphic as complex manifolds.
Classical automorphic forms {#classautforms-section}
===========================
In this section we will first recall the classical definition of automorphic forms on unitary groups over $\bC$ following [@Shimura], and then describe equivalent viewpoints that let us generalize to work over base rings other than $\bC$.
Classical definition of complex automorphic forms on unitary groups. {#autformsC-section}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For the moment, suppose $a_{+\tilde\tau}a_{-\tilde\tau}\neq 0$ for all $\tau \in {\Sigma}$. Consider the domain ${\cH}$ for $GU_+(\bR):$ $${\cH}= \prod_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} {\cH}_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\times {{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}} \mbox{ with } {\cH}_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\times {{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}} = \{ z \in \Mat_{{{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\times {{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}(\bC) \, | \, 1-{}^tz^cz \mbox{ is positive definite} \}.$$ Note that $\Isom_{\cO_K\otimes_\bZ \bR}(L \otimes_\bZ \bR) \simeq \GL_n(\cO_K \otimes \bR) \simeq \GL_n(\prod_{\tau \in \Sigma}\bC) \simeq \prod_{\tau \in \Sigma} \GL_n(\bC)$. We use this identification to write $g \in GU_+(\bR)$ as $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a_{g,\tau} & b_{g,\tau} \\ c_{g,\tau} & d_{g,\tau} \end{smallmatrix}\right)_{\tau \in \Sigma} \in GU_{+}(\bR)$, where $a_{g,\tau} \in \GL_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}(\bC)$ and $d_{g,\tau} \in \GL_{{{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}(\bC)$. Then the action of $g$ on ${\cH}$ is given by $$gz = ((a_{g,\tau}z_{\tau}+b_{g,\tau})(c_{g,\tau}z_{\tau}+d_{g,\tau})^{-1})_{\tau \in \Sigma} \, \mbox{ for } \, z=(z_{\tau})_{\tau \in \Sigma} \in \prod_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} {\cH}_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\times {{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}.$$ By [@Shimura 12.1], $\cH$ is the irreducible (Hermitian) symmetric domain for $SU(\bR)$. By the classification of Hermitian symmetric domains and [@Milne2 Corollary 5.8], ${\cH}$ is uniquely determined by the adjoint group of a connected component of $GU(\bR)$. Recall from Section \[moduli-section\] that we can identify $\fh$ with a finite union of copies of the symmetric domains for the identity component of $GU({\bR})$. Hence $\fh$ can be identified with a finite (disjoint) union of copies of $\cH$.
In order to define the desired transformation properties that automorphic forms should satisfy, we need to introduce a few more definitions. Using the above notation, for $g \in GU_+(\bR)$ and $z=(z_\tau)_{\tau \in{\Sigma}} \in {\cH}$ the *factors of automorphy* for each $\{\tilde{\tau},\tilde{\tau}^c\} \subset \Sigma_K$ above $\tau \in \Sigma$ are defined by $$\mu_{\tilde{\tau}}(g,z):=c_{g,\tau}z_\tau + d_{g,\tau} \mbox{ and } \mu_{\tilde{\tau}^c}(g,z) := {\overline}b_{g,\tau} {^t z_\tau} + {\overline}a_{g,\tau},$$ and the *scalar factors of automorphy* are $$j_\tau(g,z):=\det(\mu_\tau(g,z)) \mbox{ for } \tau \in {\Sigma_K}.$$
So far, we have considered the case in which $a_{+\tilde\tau}a_{-\tilde\tau}\neq 0$. Now, suppose $a_{+\tilde\tau}a_{-\tilde\tau}=0$. In this case, ${\cH}_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\times {{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}$ is defined to be the element $0$, with the group acting trivially on it. Following [@Shimura Section 3.3], if $a_{-\tilde\tau}=0$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\tilde\tau^c}(g, z)&=\overline{g}\\
\mu_{\tilde\tau}(g, z)&=1\\
j_\tau(g, z) &=1,\end{aligned}$$ and if $a_{+\tilde\tau}=0$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\tilde\tau}(g, z) &= g\\
\mu_{\tilde\tau^c}(g, z) & = 1\\
j_\tau(g, z) &= \det(g).\end{aligned}$$
By [@shunitary Equation (1.19)], for all $\tau \in \Sigma$ and $g \in GU_+(\bR)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\det(\mu_{\tilde{\tau}^c}(g,z)) = \det\left(g \right)^{-1}\nu\left(g\right)^{a_{+,\tilde{\tau}}}\det(\mu_{\tilde{\tau}}(g,z)).\end{aligned}$$
Define $$M_g(z):=(\mu_{\tilde{\tau}^c}(g,z),\mu_{\tilde{\tau}}(g,z))_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \quad \in \prod_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \Mat_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde{\tau}}\times{{a_+}}_{\tilde{\tau}}} \times \Mat_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde{\tau}}\times{{a_-}}_{\tilde{\tau}}}$$ If ${\rho}: \Levin(\bC) = \prod\limits_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde\tau}}(\bC) \times \GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde\tau}}(\bC) {\rightarrow}\GL(X)$ is a rational representation into a finite-dimensional complex vector space $X$, $f: {\cH}{\rightarrow}X$ a map and $g \in GU_+(\bR)$, then denote by $f||_{\rho}g: {\cH}{\rightarrow}X$ and $f|_{\rho}g: {\cH}{\rightarrow}X$ the maps given by $$\begin{aligned}
(f||_{\rho}g)(z)&:={\rho}(M_g(z))^{-1}f(gz)\\
f|_{\rho}g&:= f||_{\rho}\left(\nu(g)^{-1/2}g\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $z\in {\cH}$. Note that for all $g\in U(\bR)$, $$\begin{aligned}
f|_{\rho}g &= f||_{\rho}g.\end{aligned}$$
Associated to an $\cO_F$-lattice $L_F$ in $L\otimes_\bZ \bQ$ and an integral $\cO_F$-ideal $\fc$, we define the subgroup $$\Gamma(L_F,\fc):=\{ g \in GU_+(\bQ) \, | \, {^tL_F}g={^tL_F} \mbox{ and } {^tL_F}(1-g) \subset \fc {^tL_F} \} .$$ Then a *congruence subgroup* $\Gamma$ of $GU_+(\bQ)$ is a subgroup of $GU_+(\bQ)$ that contains $\Gamma(L_F, \fc)$ as subgroup of finite index for some choice of $(L_F, \fc)$ as above.
\[def-first-autom-forms\] Let $\Gamma$ be a congruence subgroup of $GU_+(\bQ)$, $X$ a finite-dimensional complex vector space and ${\rho}: \Levin(\bC) {\rightarrow}\GL(X)$ a rational representation. A function $f: {\cH}{\rightarrow}X$ is called a *(holomorphic) automorphic form* of weight ${\rho}$ with respect to $\Gamma$ if it satisfies the following properties
1. $f$ is holomorphic,
2. $f||_{\rho}\gamma = f$ for every $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$,
3. if $\Sigma$ consists of only one place $\tau$ and $(a_{+\tilde\tau},a_{-\tilde\tau})=(1,1)$, then $f$ is holomorphic at every cusp.
We will call a function $f:{\cH}{\rightarrow}X$ that satisfies property (2), but not necessarily (1) and (3) an *automorphic function*.
\[remark-Koecher\] Note that if we are not in the case in which both $\Sigma$ consists of only one place $\tau$ and $(a_{+\tilde\tau},a_{-\tilde\tau})=(1,1)$, then Koecher’s principle implies that an automorphic form is automatically holomorphic at the boundary. (See [@lankoecher Thm. 2.5] for a very general version.)
Sometimes, in the definition of an automorphic form, the second condition of Definition \[def-first-autom-forms\] is replaced by $f|_{\rho}\gamma = f$ for every $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$. The condition that arises from geometry, though, is $f||_{\rho}\gamma = f$. Since our main results and proofs are geometric (and since we want this definition of automorphic forms to agree with the geometric definitions we give later), we require $f||_{\rho}\gamma = f$ instead of $f|_{\rho}\gamma = f$ in this paper.
### Weights of an automorphic form {#Section-weights}
The irreducible algebraic representations of $\Levin =\prod_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde\tau}} \times \GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde\tau}}$ over $\bC$ are in one to one correspondence with dominant weights of a maximal torus $T$ (over $\bC$). More precisely, let $T$ be the product of the diagonal tori $T_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}} \times T_{{{a_-}}_{{{\tilde \tau}}}}$ for $\tau \in {\Sigma}$. For $1 \leq i \leq {{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}+{{a_-}}_{{{\tilde \tau}}}$, let $\eps^{\tau}_i$ in $X(T):=\Hom_\bC(T,\bG_m)$ be the character defined by $$T(\bC) = \prod_{\sigma \in {\Sigma}} T_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \sigma}}}(\bC) \times T_{{{a_-}}_{{{\tilde \sigma}}}}(\bC) \ni \diag(x^{\sigma}_1, \hdots, x^{\sigma}_{{{a_+}}_{{\tilde \sigma}}+{{a_-}}_{{\tilde \sigma}}})_{\sigma \in {\Sigma}} \mapsto x^\tau_i \in \bG_m(\bC).$$ These characters form a basis of the free $\bZ$-module $X(T)$, and we choose $\Delta=\{ \alpha^{\tau}_i := \eps^{\tau}_i - \eps^{\tau}_{i+1} \}_{\tau \in {\Sigma}, 1 \leq i < {{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}+{{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}, i \neq {{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}$ as a basis for the root system of $\Levin$. Then the [*dominant weights*]{} of $T$ with respect to $\Delta$ are $X(T)_+=\{ \kappa \in X(T) \, | \, {\left\langle}\kappa, \check{\alpha} {\right\rangle}\geq 0 \, \forall \alpha \in \Delta \}$, and using the above basis of $X(T)$ they can be identified as follows: $$X(T)_+ \cong \{(n^{\tau}_1,\hdots, n^{\tau}_{{{a_+}}_{{{\tilde \tau}}}+{{a_-}}_{{{\tilde \tau}}}})_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \in \prod\limits_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \bZ^{{{a_+}}_{{{\tilde \tau}}} + {{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}} : n^{\tau}_i \geq n^{\tau}_{i+1} \forall i \neq {{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}\}.$$ For such a dominant weight $\kappa$, let $\rho_{\kappa}: \Levin_{\bC} \rightarrow M_{\rho}$ denote the irreducible algebraic representation of highest weight $\kappa$. (See, for example, [@Jantzen Part II. Chapter 2].) We call $f$ an automorphic form of weight $\kappa$, where $\kappa \in X(T)_+$, if $f$ is an automorphic form of weight $\rho_{\kappa}$.
In view of later generalizations, note that $\rho_\kappa$ can be defined as an algebraic (i.e. schematic) representation of the algebraic group $\Levin$ over the integers $\bZ$. More precisely, let $T$ be the maximal split torus of $\Levin$ extending the diagonal torus over $\bC$ constructed above and note that $\Hom_\bZ(T,\bG_m)=\Hom_\bC(T,\bG_m)$, i.e. we can view $\kappa \in X(T)_+$ as a character of $T$ defined over $\bZ$. Let $B$ be a Borel subgroup containing $T$ (corresponding to upper triangular matrices in $\Levin$) and $B^-$ the opposite Borel, and denote by $N$ and $N^-$ the unipotent radicals of $B$ and $B^-$, respectively. Then $\kappa$ can be viewed as a character of $B^-$ acting trivially on $N^-$ via the quotient $B^- \twoheadrightarrow T$, and the universal representation $\rho_\kappa$ of highest weight $\kappa$ is given by $$\Ind_{B^-}^\Levin (-\kappa) = \{ f: \Levin/N^- \rightarrow \bA^1 \, | \, f(ht) = \kappa(t)^{-1}f(h), t \in T\},$$ where $\bA^1$ is the affine line and on which $\Levin$ acts via $$\Levin \ni h: f(x) \mapsto \rho_{\kappa}(h)f(x) = f(h^{-1}x),$$ see [@Jantzen]. This representation is irreducible of highest weight $\kappa$ over any field of characteristic zero.
### Unitary domains and moduli problems
We will now reformulate Definition \[def-first-autom-forms\] in order to generalize it in Section \[classical-aut-forms\]. We quickly recall the correspondence between quadruples described in Section \[moduli-section\] and points of $\cH$.
Fix a PEL datum $(K,c,L,\langle,\rangle,h)$ and a neat open compact subgroup ${\mathcal{U}}\subset GU(\bA^\infty)$; let ${M}_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$ denote the complex Shimura variety of level ${\mathcal{U}}$ associated to the PEL datum discussed in Section \[moduli-section\], and let $S_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$ be a connected component in $M^{(1)}_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$. Recall that $V = L \otimes_{\bZ} \bR$. We now describe the identification between elements $z \in \Gamma\backslash \cH$ and abelian varieties ${\underline{A}}\in S_{\cU}^{}(\bC)$ given by [@Shimura Chapter I]. Shimura defines for $z \in \cH$ an $\bR$-linear isomorphism $p_z: V \rightarrow \bC^g$ which induces a Riemann form on $\bC^g$: $$E_z(p_z(x),p_z(y)) = \langle x,y\rangle \quad x,y \in V.$$ This implies that $A_z = \bC^g/p_z(L)$ is an abelian variety together with a polarization ${\lambda}_z$ corresponding to $E_z$. For $k \in K$, define ${i}_z(k)$ to be the element of $\End_{\bQ}(A_z)$ induced by the action of $h(k_{{\tau}})$ [acting on $V_{\tau}$]{} and let ${\alpha}_z$ denote the $\cU$-orbit of isomorphisms $V \otimes \bA^\infty \cong H_1(A_z,\bA^\infty)$ induced by $p_z$. Altogether, $p_z$ gives rise to the Riemann form $E_z$, the following commutative diagram: $$\label{structure-diagram}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & L \ar[r] \ar[d] & V \ar[r]\ar[d] & V/L \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \Lambda \ar[r] & \bC^g \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & 0,
}$$ and ${\underline{A}}_z := (A_z,{i}_z,{\lambda}_z,{\alpha}_z)$. Shimura [@Shimura Theorem 4.8] (together with [@Milne Proposition 4.1]) further proves that
\[thm-shimura\] For each $z \in \cH$, ${\underline}A_z \in S_{{\mathcal{U}}}^{}(\bC)$ for some neat open ${\mathcal{U}}$. Conversely, if ${\underline{A}}\in S_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$ for some ${\mathcal{U}}$, then there is a $z \in \cH$ such that ${\underline{A}}$ is equivalent to ${\underline}A_z$. Furthermore ${\underline}A_z$ and ${\underline}A_w$ for $z,w \in {\cH}$ are equivalent if and only if $w=\gamma z$ for some $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathcal{U}}:= {\mathcal{U}}\cap GU_+(\bQ).$
### Second definition of classical automorphic functions
For ${\underline{A}}\in S_{\cU}^{}(\bC)(\bC)$, let ${\underline{\Omega}}= H^1(A,\bZ) \otimes \bC$ which has a decomposition into ${\underline{\Omega}}^{\pm}$ depending on the (induced) action of $h(i)$ on ${\underline{\Omega}}$. Set $${{\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}^\pm}_\tau=\Isom_\bC(\bC^{{{a_{\pm}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}},{\underline{\Omega}}_\tau^\pm) \quad \mbox{ and } \quad {\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}=\bigoplus_{\tau \in {\Sigma}}({{\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}^+}_\tau \oplus {{\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}^-}_\tau).$$ The group $\GL_{{{a_{\pm}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}(\bC)$ acts on ${{\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}^\pm}_\tau$ by $$(g.f)(x)=f({{^tg}}x) \, \, \mbox{ for } g \in \GL_{{{a_{\pm}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}(\bC), f \in {{\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}^\pm}_\tau, x \in \bC^{{{a_{\pm}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}},$$ which induces a (diagonal) action of $\Levin(\bC)$ on ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}$.
For $z \in \cH$, the map $p_z$ induces a choice of basis on $H_1(A_z,\bZ)$ via the identification with $p_z(L)$, which by duality induces a choice of basis $\cB_z$ of ${\underline{\Omega}}$. This is equivalent to giving an element $\l_z$ of ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{z}}}$.
\[lemma-second-def-easy\] Let ${\rho}: \Levin(\bC) {\rightarrow}\GL(X)$ be a rational representation. Then there exists a one-to-one correspondence between automorphic functions of weight ${\rho}$ with respect to $\Gamma_{\mathcal{U}}$ and the set of functions $F$ from pairs $({\underline}A, l)$, where ${\underline}A \in S_{\cU}^{}(\bC)$ and $l \in {\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}$, to $X$ satisfying $$\label{eqn-F-transformation}
F({\underline}A, gl)={\rho}({{^tg}})^{-1}F({\underline}A, l) \mbox{ for all } g \in \Levin(\bC).$$ The bijection is given by sending a function $F$ to the automorphic function $f_F: z \mapsto F({\underline}A_z, l_z)$.
(sketch) We will first show that the map $F \mapsto (f_F: z \mapsto F({\underline}A_z, l_z))$ is well defined and afterwards construct an inverse for it. To do the former, let $z \in {\cH}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}$. We need to show that $F({\underline}A_z, l_z)={\rho}(M_\gamma(z))^{-1}F({\underline}A_{\gamma z}, l_{\gamma z})$. It follows from [@Shimura page 27] that ${{^tM_\gamma(z)}}$ maps $p_{\gamma z}(L)$ to $p_{z}(L)$ and defines an isomorphism between ${\underline}A_{\gamma z}$ and ${\underline}A_{z}$. Note that under this isomorphism, $l_{\gamma z}$ of ${\underline{\Omega}}$ gets mapped to ${{^tM_\gamma(z)}}^{-1} l_z$. Hence using property (\[eqn-F-transformation\]), we obtain $$F({\underline}A_{\gamma z},l_{\gamma z})=F({\underline}A_z, {{^tM_\gamma(z)}}^{-1}l_z)={\rho}(M_\gamma(z))F({\underline}A_z, l_z)$$ as desired.
We define the inverse of $F \mapsto f_F$ as follows: Let $f$ be an automorphic function of weight ${\rho}$ with respect to $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}$, and $({\underline}A, l)$ where ${\underline{A}}\in S_{\cU}^{}(\bC)$ and $l \in {\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}$. Then, by Proposition \[thm-shimura\], there exists $z \in {\cH}$ such that ${\underline}A_z$ is isomorphic to ${\underline}A$, and there exists a unique $g \in \Levin(\bC)$ such that $l=gl_z$. We define $F_f({\underline}A, l)={\rho}({{^tg}})^{-1}f(z)$. By the transformation property of automorphic function we obtain analogously to above that $f \mapsto F_f$ is well-defined and $F_f$ satisfies (\[eqn-F-transformation\]). Moreover, $f \mapsto F_f$ is obviously an inverse of $F \mapsto f_F$.
Automorphic functions of weight ${\rho}$ with respect to congruence subgroups $\Gamma$ that strictly contains $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ can be characterized in the same style as follows:
\[lemma-second-def\] Let ${\rho}: \Levin(\bC) {\rightarrow}\GL(X)$ be a rational representation, and $\Gamma$ a congruence subgroup of $GU_+(\bQ)$ containing $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}} = {\mathcal{U}}\cap GU_+(\bQ)$. Then there exists a one to one correspondence between automorphic functions of weight ${\rho}$ with respect to $\Gamma$ and the set of functions $F$ from pairs $({\underline}A, l)$, where ${\underline}A = {\left(A, {i}, {\lambda}, {\alpha}\right)}\in S_{{\mathcal{U}}}^{}(\bC)$ and $l \in {\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}$, to $X$ satisfying $$F({\underline}A, gl)={\rho}({{^tg}})^{-1}F({\underline}A, l) \mbox{ for all } g \in \Levin(\bC),$$ and such that for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and $z \in {\cH}$, we have $$\label{gamma-invariance}
F({\underline}A_z, l_z)={\rho}(M_\gamma(z))^{-1}F({\underline}A_{\gamma z}, l_{\gamma z}).$$ It suffices to check condition (\[gamma-invariance\]) for a set of representatives of $\Gamma/\Gamma_{\mathcal{U}}$.
This lemma follows easily from Lemma \[lemma-second-def-easy\] and Definition \[def-first-autom-forms\].
### Algebraic definition of classical automorphic functions
Finally, we would like to view automorphic forms as functions on abelian varieties on $S_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$. For this, we define the *contracted product* ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}, \rho}}={\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}\times^{\rho}X$ of ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}$ and $X$ to be the product ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}}}\times X$ modulo the equivalence relation given by $\left(l, v \right)\sim\left(gl,{\rho}({{^tg}})^{-1}v \right)$ for $g \in \Levin(\bC)$. Note that for $g \in GU_+(\bQ)$, the identification $H_1(A_z,\bZ)\otimes \bC =\bC^g = H_1(A_{g z},\bZ)\otimes \bC$ induces an identification $\iota_g: {\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{z}}} {\rightarrow}{\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{g z}}}$, and we can define the isomorphism $i_{g}:{\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{z}, \rho}} {\rightarrow}{\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{g z}, \rho}}$ by $(l, v) {\rightarrow}(\iota_g(l),{\rho}(M_g(z))v)$. Note that $i_g$ is the identity for $g \in \Gamma_{\cU}$. It is an easy exercise to see that Lemma \[lemma-second-def\] can be reformulated as follows.
\[lemma-equivalent-def3\] Let ${\rho}: \Levin(\bC) {\rightarrow}\GL(X)$ be a rational representation, and $\Gamma$ a congruence subgroup of $GU_+(\bQ)$ containing $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}$. Then there exists a one-to-one correspondence between automorphic functions of weight ${\rho}$ and level $\Gamma$ and the set of functions ${\widetilde{F}}$ from ${\underline}A \in S_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\bC)$ to ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}, \rho}}$ satisfying $$\label{gamma-invariance-three}
i_\gamma \left( {\widetilde{F}}({\underline}A_z) \right)={\widetilde{F}}({\underline}A_{\gamma z}) \mbox{ for all } z \in {\cH}, \gamma \in \Gamma.$$
\[rmk-equivalent-def3\] Note that by Proposition \[thm-shimura\] giving a function ${\widetilde{F}}$ from $S_{{\mathcal{U}}}^{}(\bC)$ to ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}, \rho}}$ satisfying (\[gamma-invariance-three\]) is the same as giving a global (point-theoretic) section of the vector bundle ${\cE_{{\underline{A}}_{z}, \rho}}$ over $\Gamma\backslash {\cH}$.
(Classical) algebraic automorphic forms {#classical-aut-forms}
---------------------------------------
In Section \[autformsC-section\], we considered automorphic forms over $\bC$. Building on the discussion from Section \[autformsC-section\], we now consider automorphic forms over other base rings. The approach in this section is similar to the approach in [@EDiffOps Section 2.5] and [@kaCM Section 1.2]. Note that [@EDiffOps] only considers the case in which the signature is $({{a_+}}_{\tau},{{a_-}}_{\tau})_{\tau \in {\Sigma_K}}$ with ${{a_+}}_{\tau}={{a_-}}_{\tau}$ for every $\tau \in {\Sigma_K}$, but the definitions from [@EDiffOps Section 2.5] carry over to the general case with only trivial modifications. In order not to worry about the holomorphy conditions at cusps, we exclude the case of $\Sigma =\{ \tau \}$ with $(a_{+{{\tilde \tau}}},a_{-{{\tilde \tau}}})=(1,1)$ from the discussion in this section, compare Remark \[remark-Koecher\].
For any neat open compact subgroup ${\mathcal{U}}$, consider the integral model $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}}}/{\cO_{{E},(p)}}$ introduced in Section \[PELmoduli-section\]. For any scheme $S$ over $\Spec({\cO_{{E},(p)}})$, we put $$\begin{aligned}
\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},S}:=\cM_{{\mathcal{U}}}\times_{{\cO_{{E},(p)}}}S.\end{aligned}$$ When $S = \Spec(R)$ for a ring $R$, we will often write $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},R}$ instead of $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\Spec(R)}$. [If $\bW$ denotes the ring of Witt vectors associated to $\overline{\bF}_p$, then consider $\cM_{\cU,\bW}$ (note that since $p$ splits completely, we can base change to $\bW$). In the sequel, we consider (locally noetherian) schemes $S$ over $\bW$. [Note that instead of working over ${\mathbb{W}}$, we could also work over $\cO_{E',(p)}$ in this section, where $E'$ is a finite extension of $E$ that contains $\tau(K)$ for all $\tau \in \Sigma_K$.]{}]{}
For any $S$-point ${\underline{A}}= (A,{i},{\lambda},{\alpha}^{p})$ of $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}$, let ${\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S}$ denote the locally free ${\bW \otimes \cO_K}$-module defined as the pullback via the identity section of the relative differentials. We have a [natural]{} decomposition ${\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S} = \bigoplus_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} ({\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S,{{\tilde \tau}}}^+ \bigoplus {\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S,{{\tilde \tau}}}^-)$ where ${\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S,{{\tilde \tau}}}^{\pm}$ is rank ${{a_+}}_{{\tilde \tau}}$ and ${{a_-}}_{{\tilde \tau}}$, respectively. [Note that the element $x \in \cO_K$ acts on ${\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S,{{\tilde \tau}}}^+$ (resp. ${\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S,{{\tilde \tau}}}^-$) via [${{\tilde \tau}}(x)$]{} (resp. [${{\tilde \tau}}^c(x)$]{}). [(Here, we view [${{\tilde \tau}}$]{} as an embedding of $K$ which factors through ${\rm Frac}(\bW)$)]{}.]{} Define $${\cE_{{\underline{A}}/S}}^\pm :=\bigoplus_{\tau\in {\Sigma}}\Isom_{\mathcal{O}_S}\left(\mathcal{O}_S^{{{a_{\pm}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}, {\underline{\Omega}}_{{\underline{A}}/S, \tau}^\pm\right) \qquad
\mbox{and} \qquad
{\cE_{{\underline{A}}/S}}:={\cE_{{\underline{A}}/S}}^+\oplus{\cE_{{\underline{A}}/S}}^-,$$ respectively. Let $R$ be [a ${\mathbb{W}}$]{}-algebra, and consider an algebraic representation $\rho$ of $\Levin_R$ into a finite free $R$-module $M_{\rho}$.
\[algauto-defi1\] An automorphic form of weight $\rho$ and level ${\mathcal{U}}$ defined over $R$ is a function $f$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)\mapsto f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)\in (M_\rho)_{R'}
\end{aligned}$$ defined for all $R$-algebras $R'$, ${\underline{A}}$ $\in \cM_{{\mathcal{U}}}(R')$, and ${\ell}\in{\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R'}}$, such that all of the following hold:
1. [$f\left({\underline{A}}, \alpha{\ell}\right) = \rho\left(\left({ }^t\alpha\right)^{-1}\right)f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)$ for all $\alpha\in\Levin\left(R'\right)$ and all ${\ell}\in{\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R'}}$]{}
2. [The formation of $f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)$ commutes with extension of scalars $R_2\rightarrow R_1$ for any $R$-algebras $R_1$ and $R_2$. More precisely, if $R_2\rightarrow R_1$ is a ring homomorphism of $R$-algebras, then $$\begin{aligned}
f\left({\underline{A}}\times_{R_1}{R_2}, {\ell}\otimes_{R_1} 1\right) = f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)\otimes_{R_1} 1_{R_2}\in (M_\rho)_{R_2}
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
In order to give a different equivalent definition (Definition \[algauto-defi2\] below), we define for any algebraic representation $\rho$ of $\Levin_R$ into a finite free $R$-module $M_{\rho}$ and $R$-algebra $R'$ $$\begin{aligned}
\cE_{({\underline{A}}/R',\rho)}=\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R'}\times^{\rho}(M_\rho)_{R'}:=\left(\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R'}\times(M_\rho)_{R'}\right)/\left({\ell}, m\right)\sim\left(g{\ell}, \rho({ }^tg^{-1})m\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $g \in \Levin(R')$ acts on $\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R'}$ by precomposing with ${ }^tg$.
\[algauto-defi2\] An automorphic form of weight $\rho$ and level ${\mathcal{U}}$ defined over a [${\mathbb{W}}$]{}-algebra $R$ is a function $\tilde{f}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{A}}\mapsto \tilde{f}({\underline{A}})\in\cE_{({\underline{A}}/R',\rho)}
\end{aligned}$$ defined for all $R$-algebras $R'$ and ${\underline{A}}\in\cM_{{\mathcal{U}}}(R')$ such that the formation of $\tilde{f}({\underline{A}})$ commutes with extension of scalars $R_2\rightarrow R_1$ for any $R$-algebras $R_1$ and $R_2$. More precisely, if $R_2\rightarrow R_1$ is a ring homomorphism of $R$-algebras, then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}\left({\underline{A}}\times_{R_1} R_2\right) = \tilde{f}\left({\underline{A}}\right)\otimes_{R_1}1_{R_2}.
\end{aligned}$$
The equivalence between Definition \[algauto-defi1\] and Definition \[algauto-defi2\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}({\underline{A}}) = \left({\ell}, f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all abelian varieties ${\underline{A}}/R$ (corresponding to $\cM(R)$) and $\ell\in\cE_{{\underline{A}}/R}$.
Finally, we want to view automorphic forms as global sections of a certain sheaf. In order to do so, let ${\cA}= \left(A,{i},{\lambda}, {\alpha}^{p}\right)^{\univ}$ denote the universal abelian variety over $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}$, and define the sheaf $$\cE=\cE_{\mathcal{U}}:= \bigoplus_{\tau\in {\Sigma}}{\underline{\Isom}}_{\mathcal{O}_{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}}}\left(\mathcal{O}_{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}}^{{{{a_+}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}, {\underline{\Omega}}_{{\cA}/{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}}}}, \tau}^+\right)
\oplus \bigoplus_{\tau\in {\Sigma}}{\underline{\Isom}}_{\mathcal{O}_{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}}}\left(\mathcal{O}_{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}}^{{{{a_-}}}_{{\tilde \tau}}}, {\underline{\Omega}}_{{\cA}/{\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}}, \tau}^-\right),$$ i.e. for every open immersion $S \hookrightarrow \cM_{{\mathcal{U}},\bW}$, we set $\cE_{\mathcal{U}}(S)=\cE_{{\cA}_S/S}$. Moreover, for any algebraic representation $\rho$ of $\Levin_R$ over a free finite $R$-module $M_\rho$, we define the sheaf $\cE_{\rho}=\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\rho} := \cE \times^{\rho} M_{\rho}$, i.e. for each open immersion $\Spec R' \hookrightarrow \cM_{U,\bW}$, set $\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\rho}(R')=\cE_{({\cA}_{R'}/R',\rho)}$.
\[algauto-defi3\] An automorphic form of weight $\rho$ and level ${\mathcal{U}}$ defined over $R$ is a global section of the sheaf $\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\rho}$ on $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},R}$.
When we are working with a representation $\rho$ which are uniquely determined by its highest weight $\kappa$, we shall sometimes write $\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\kappa}$ or $\cE_\kappa$, in place of $\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\rho}$.
Usually automorphic forms are defined over a compactification of $\cM_{{\mathcal{U}},R}$, but in our case, i.e. excluding the case of $\Sigma$ consisting only of one place $\tau$ and $(a_{+\tau},a_{-\tau})=(1,1)$, both definitions are equivalent by Koecher’s principle.
### Comparison with classical definition of complex automorphic forms
Having defined algebraic automorphic forms over general base rings, we will show that in the special case of the base ring being $\bC$ the definition coincides with the classical definition of complex automorphic forms given in Section \[autformsC-section\].
For an integer $N$, we define ${\mathcal{U}}_N$ to be a compact open subgroup of $GU(\bA^\infty)$ such that $$GU_+(\bQ) \cap {\mathcal{U}}_N = \Gamma(N) := \{(g,\nu) \in GU_+(\bQ) : g \equiv 1 \mod N\}.$$
\[prop-comparison\] Let $N$ be a large enough integer so that ${\mathcal{U}}_N$ is neat, and let $\rho$ be an algebraic representation of $\Levin$ over $\bC$. Then there is a bijection between the (algebraic) automorphic forms of weight $\rho$ defined in Definition \[algauto-defi3\] as global sections of $\cE_\rho$ on ${{{M}}_{{\mathcal{U}}_N}}(\bC)$ and a finite set of holomorphic automorphic forms of weight $\rho$ with respect to $\Gamma(N)$ as defined in Definition \[def-first-autom-forms\] in Section \[autformsC-section\].
(sketch) From the the classification of Hermitian symmetric spaces mentioned in Section \[autformsC-section\], one can deduce that ${M}^{(i)}_{{\mathcal{U}}_N}(\bC)$ (as defined in §\[moduli-section\]) is isomorphic to a finite union of copies of $\Gamma \backslash {\cH}$. By GAGA and Lemma \[lemma-equivalent-def3\] together with Remark \[rmk-equivalent-def3\], we conclude that the global sections of $\cE_\rho=\cE_{{\mathcal{U}}, \rho}$ on ${{M}_{{\mathcal{U}}_N}}({\bC})$ are in one-to-one correspondence with a finite set of holomorphic automorphic forms of weight $\rho$ with respect to $\Gamma(N)$, one for each connected component of $M_{{\mathcal{U}}_N}^{(i)}(\bC)$ for all $i$.
$p$-adic theory {#padic-section}
===============
Section \[Igusalevel\] introduces the Igusa tower, a tower of finite étale Galois coverings of the ordinary locus of $\cM_{\mathcal{U}}$, which we denote by $\cM$ from now on, since we fix the neat level ${\mathcal{U}}$ throughout the rest of the paper. Section \[padicaut-section\] introduces $p$-adic automorphic forms, which arise as global sections of the structure sheaf of the Igusa tower.
We are mainly following [@hida Section 8] and [@hidairreducibility].
The Igusa tower over the ordinary locus {#Igusalevel}
---------------------------------------
Recall that our Shimura varieties with hyperspecial level at $p$ admit integral models $\cM$ over $\cO_{E,(p)}$. These Shimura varieties have a neat level away from $p$, but we suppress it from the notation since the tame level won’t affect the geometry of our integral models. As we will see below, the geometry of the integral models $\cM$ is governed by the $p$-divisible group of the universal abelian variety over $\cM$.
In order to guarantee that the ordinary locus (defined below) over the special fiber of $\cM$ is nonempty, we make the following assumption: the prime $p$ splits completely in the reflex field $E$ (in [@wedhorn] Wedhorn proves that such an assumption is both necessary and sufficient). In this case, the ordinary locus is open and dense in the special fiber of $\cM$. Choose a place $P$ of $E$ above $p$ and let $E_P$ be the corresponding completion of $E$, with ring of integers $\cO_{E_P}$ and residue field $k$. By abuse of notation, we will still denote the base change of $\cM$ to $\cO_{E_P}$ by $\cM$. Let $S$ be a scheme of characteristic $p$.
An abelian variety $A/S$ of dimension $g$ is ordinary if for all geometric points $s$ of $S$, the set $A[p](s)$ has $p^g$ elements.
For every abelian variety $A/S$, the Hasse invariant $\mathrm{Ha}_{p-1}(A/S)$ is a global section of $\omega_{A/S}^{\otimes (p-1)}$, where $\omega_{A/S}$ is the top exterior power of the pushforward to $S$ of the sheaf of invariant differentials on $A$. It is easy to show that an abelian variety $A$ is ordinary if and only if $\mathrm{Ha}(A/S)$ is invertible. (We now sketch an argument for this, as in [@scholze Lemma III.2.5]: the Hasse invariant, which corresponds to pullback along the Verschiebung isogeny, is invertible if and only if Verschiebung is an isomorphism on tangent spaces, which happens if and only if Verschiebung is finite etale. A degree computation shows that this is equivalent to the condition that $A $ be ordinary.) We define the ordinary locus $${\overline{\cM}^{\mathrm{ord}}}\subset \overline{\cM}:= \cM\times_{\cO_{E_P}} k$$ to be the complement of the zero set of the Hasse invariant. Since $p$ splits completely in $E$, the nonemptiness of ${\overline{\cM}^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ follows from [@wedhorn]. In fact, Wedhorn proves something stronger, namely that ${\overline{\cM}^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ is dense in the special fiber $\overline{\cM}$. We also define the ordinary locus ${\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ over $\cO_{E_P}$ to be the complement of the zero set of a lift of some power of the Hasse invariant.
In addition, we define ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ over ${\mathbb{W}}$ to be a connected component of ${\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}_{\mathbb{W}}:= {\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}\times_{\cO_{E_P}}{\mathbb{W}}$. (Recall that $p$ splits completely in $E$, so the base change to ${\mathbb{W}}$ makes sense.) In other words, ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ is the ordinary locus of one connected component $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{W}}$.
We note that we could define the ordinary locus in an alternate way, using the stratification of $\overline{\cM}$ in terms of the isogeny class of the $p$-divisible group $\cG:=\cA_{\overline{\cM}}[p^\infty]$, where $\cA_{\overline{\cM}}$ denotes the universal abelian variety over $\overline{\cM}$. The isogeny class of the $p$-divisible group $\cG$ (equipped with all its extra structures) defines a stratification of $\overline{\cM}$ with locally closed strata, which is called the *Newton stratification*. The ordinary locus, corresponding to the constant isogeny class $(\mu_{p^\infty})^g\times (\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p)^g$, is the unique open stratum.
Let $\cA:=\cA_{{\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}}$ be the universal ordinary abelian variety over ${\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}$. Pick a ${\mathbb{W}}$-point $x$ of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$, with an $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-point $\bar x \in {\cS^{\rm ord} }$ below it. We can identify $L_p$ (defined as in Section \[unitarygroups-section\]) with the $p$-adic Tate module of the $p$-divisible group $\cG_x$, i.e. the $p$-adic Tate module of $\cA_x$. Choose such an identification $L_p\simeq T_p\cA_x[p^\infty]$, compatible with the $\cO_K$-action and with the Hermitian pairings. The kernel of the reduction map $$T_p\cA_x[p^\infty]\to T_p\cA_{\bar{x}}[p^\infty]^{\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}}$$ corresponds to an $\cO_K$-direct summand of $\cL \subset L_p$. Note that the lattice $\cL$ is independent of the choice of $x$ inside the connected component ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$, and hence the different connected components of ${\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ can be labeled by lattices $\cL$. Moreover, using the self-duality of $L_p$ under the Hermitian pairing $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and the compatibility with the Weil-pairing, we can identify the dual $\cL^\vee$ of $\cL$ with the orthogonal complement of $\cL$ inside $L_p$.
\[explicitdecomposition\] By considering the primes in ${K}^+$ above $p$ individually, we can write down an explicit formula for $\cL$, using the fact that each such prime splits from ${K}^+$ to $K$. The exact formula for $\cL$ as an $\cO_K$-module will depend on the set of signatures of the unitary similitude group $GU(\mathbb{R})$. More precisely, recall that for each embedding $\tau : {K}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}$, $\left({{a_+}}_\tau,{{a_-}}_\tau\right)$ is the signature of $GU$ at the infinite place $\tau$. Choose an isomorphism $\iota_p:\mathbb{C}{\buildrel\sim\over\to}\mathbb{\bar Q}_p$. By composing with $\iota_p$, each $\tau$ determines a place of ${K}$ above $p$. Let $p=\prod_{i=1}^r \mathfrak{p}_i$ be the decomposition of $p$ into prime ideals of ${K}^+$. Each $\mathfrak{p}_i$ splits in $K$ as $\mathfrak{p}_i=\mathfrak{P}_i\mathfrak{P}^c_i$, where $\mathfrak{P}_i$ lies above the prime $w$ of $F$. The $i$-term of $L_p$ (obtained from the decomposition $\cO_K\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Z}_p=\bigoplus_{i=1}^r (\cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}\oplus \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}^c_i}})$) can be identified with $$\cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}^n\oplus \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}^c_i}}^n.$$ Then the determinant condition implies that $$\cL \simeq \bigoplus_{i=1}^r(\cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}^{{{a_+}}_{\tau_i}}\oplus \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}^c_i}}^{{{a_-}}_{\tau_i}}),$$ where $\tau_i$ is a place inducing $\mathfrak{P}_i$. Note that there is a natural decomposition $\cL=\cL^+\oplus \cL^-$, coming from the splitting $p=w\cdot w^c$. Also note that $\Levin\left(\mathbb{Z}_p\right)\cong\prod_{i=1}^r \left( GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tau_i}}( \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}})\times GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tau_i}}( \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}^c_i}})\right)$ can be identified with the $\cO_K$-linear automorphism group of $\cL$, which induces a natural action of $\Levin$ on the dual $\cL^\vee$ of $\cL$ (by precomposing with the inverse) and on all other spaces defined in terms of $\cL$.
Now, we introduce the [*Igusa tower*]{} over the component ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$. For $n \in \bN$, consider the functor $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_{n}: \left\{\mathrm{Schemes}/{\cS^{\rm ord} }\right\}\rightarrow\left\{\mathrm{Sets}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ that takes an ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$-scheme $S$ to the set of ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}$-linear closed immersions $$\label{equation-Igusa-structure}
\cL \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{p^n} \hookrightarrow \cA_S[p^n],$$ where $\cA_S:=\cA_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}\times_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}S$. This functor is representable by an ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$-scheme, which we also denote by $\mathrm{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_{n}$. Let ${\mathbb{W}}_m:={\mathbb{W}}/p^m{\mathbb{W}}$, and for each $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1}$, define ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_m := {\cS^{\rm ord} }\times_{{\mathbb{W}}}{\mathbb{W}}_m$. Then ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_{n,m}:={\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n \times_{\mathbb{W}}{\mathbb{W}}_m$ is a scheme over ${\mathbb{W}}_m$, whose functor takes an ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_m$-scheme $S$ to the set of ${\mathcal{O}_{K}}$-linear closed immersions $$\cL \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{p^n} \hookrightarrow \cA_S[p^n].$$ For each $n\geq 1$, $\mathrm{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_{n,m}$ is a finite étale and Galois covering of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_m$ whose Galois group is the group of $\cO_K$-linear automorphisms of $\cL^\vee/p^n\cL^\vee$. (See Section 8.1.1 of [@hida] for a discussion of representability and of the fact that these Igusa varieties are finite étale covers of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_m$: the key point is that $\cL^\vee/p^n\cL^\vee$ is an étale sheaf.)
We also define the formal scheme ${\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n$ to be the formal completion of ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n$ along the special fiber ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_{{\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}}$, i.e. as a functor from {${\cS^{\rm ord} }$-schemes on which $p$ is nilpotent} to {Sets}, we have ${\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n=\varinjlim_{m}{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_{n,m}$.
This formal scheme is a finite étale and Galois cover of $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$, the formal completion of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ along its special fiber. As we let $n$ vary, we obtain a tower of finite étale coverings of $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$, called the *Igusa tower*. The Galois group of the whole Igusa tower over $\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}$ can be identified with $\Levin(\mathbb{Z}_p)$.
The inverse limit of formal schemes $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_n$ also exists as a formal scheme, which we denote by $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}$. The point is that $(\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1}}$ is a projective system of formal schemes, with affine transition maps, so the inverse limit exists in the category of formal schemes. (See, for example, [@fargues Proposition D.4.1].) This is a pro-finite étale cover of $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$, with Galois group $\Levin(\mathbb{Z}_p)$.
We now give a different way of thinking about the Igusa tower. Let $\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ be the universal abelian variety over $\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}$. For $p$-divisible groups over $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$ there is a connected-étale exact sequence, so it makes sense to define the connected part $\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^\infty]^\circ$ of $\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^\infty]$. Then the formal completion $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_n$ can be identified with the formal scheme $\mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}(\cL \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{p^n}, \mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\circ)$. Using the duality induced by the Hermitian pairing on $L_p$ and by $\lambda$ on $\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^\infty]$ (and noting that duality interchanges the connected and étale parts), we can further identify $\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}_n$ with the formal scheme $\mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}\left(\cL^{\vee}/p^n\cL^{\vee}, \mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}\right)$. This is finite étale over $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$.
### Irreducibility
In this section, we show that the Igusa tower $\{{\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n\}_{n \in \bN}$, or equivalently $\{\mathrm{Ig}_n^{\mathrm{ord}}\}_{n \in \bN}$, is not irreducible, but we also sketch how one can pass to a partial $SU$-tower that is irreducible.
As explained above, ${\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n$ can be identified with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Igusastr}
\mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}}\left(\cL^{\vee}/p^n\cL^{\vee}, \mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Such an isomorphism of sheaves on $\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}$ induces an isomorphism of the top exterior powers of these sheaves, so there is a morphism $$\det: \mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}}\left(\cL^{\vee}/p^n\cL^{\vee}, \mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}\right)\to \mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}}\left(\wedge^{\mathrm{top}}(\cL^{\vee}/p^n\cL^{\vee}), \wedge^{\mathrm{top}}(\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}})\right).$$ Hida [@hidairreducibility] shows that the sheaf $\wedge^{\mathrm{top}}(\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}})$ on $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$ is isomorphic to the constant sheaf $\cO_K/p^n\cO_K$. This gives an isomorphism $$\mathrm{Isom}_{\mathfrak{S}^\mathrm{ord}}\left(\wedge^{\mathrm{top}}(\cL^{\vee}/p^n\cL^{\vee}), \wedge^{\mathrm{top}}(\mathfrak{A}_{\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}}[p^n]^\mathrm{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}})\right){\buildrel\sim\over\to}(\cO_K/p^n\cO_K)^\times$$ and shows that the full Igusa tower $\{\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord}}_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is not irreducible.
As $n$ varies, the determinant morphisms above are compatible. Let $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}$ be the inverse image of $(1)_{n \in \bN} \in ((\cO_K/p^n\cO_K)^\times)_{n \in \bN}$ under $\det$.
(Hida) $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}$ is a geometrically irreducible component of ${\mathfrak{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}$.
(sketch) One proof of this statement can be found in [[@hidairreducibility Sections 3.4-3.5]]{}; we merely sketch the argument here.
It is [sufficient to show]{} that $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n$ is irreducible [for each $n$]{}. This is an étale cover of $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$, the formal completion of the smooth irreducible variety ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ over ${\mathbb{W}}$ along its special fiber. One of Hida’s strategies [(in, for example, [@hidairreducibility Section 3.4])]{} for proving the irreducibility of the étale cover in this situation is [to consider]{} a compatible group action of a product $\cG_1\times \cG_2$ on $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n$ and $\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}},$ in such a way that $\cG_1\subset \mathrm{Aut}(\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}})$ fixes and $\cG_2\subset \mathrm{Aut}(\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n/\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}})$ acts transitively on the connected components of $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n$. The group $\cG_1$ can be identified with the finite adelic points $SU(\mathbb{A}^\Sigma)$ away from certain bad places $\Sigma$ containing $p$. This group will not have any finite quotient and therefore will preserve the connected components of the Igusa tower. The group $\cG_2$ can be identified with the Levi subgroup $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p):= \Levin(\mathbb{Z}_p) \cap SU(\mathbb{Z}_p)$, where $\Levin(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ is as in Remark \[explicitdecomposition\]. The action of $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ on the connected components is transitive, since $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n/\mathfrak{S}^{\mathrm{ord}}$ is [a]{} $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p/p^n\mathbb{Z}_p)$-torsor via the action on the Igusa level structure.
Following Hida’s argument, we choose a base point $x_0$ on the Igusa tower. Hida considers the group $\cT_{{x_0}}$ generated by $\cG_1$ and the stabilizer of $x_0$ in $\cG_1\times\cG_2$. In [@hidairreducibility Section 3.5], he shows one can choose the point $x_0$ such that $\cT_{{x_0}}$ is dense in $\cG_1\times \cG_2$, which amounts to choosing a point whose stabilizer has $p$-adically dense image in $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p)$. This density is obtained as a by-product of the fact that the abelian variety with structures corresponding to the point $x_0$ has many extra endomorphisms over $\mathbb{Q}$ and the fact that $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p)\cap SU(\mathbb{Q})$ is dense in $\Levi_1(\mathbb{Z}_p)$. On one hand, $\cT_{{x_0}}$ is dense in a group acting transitively on the connected components of $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n$; on the other hand, $\cT_{{x_0}}$ fixes the connected components by definition. This shows that $\mathfrak{Ig}^{\mathrm{ord},SU}_n$ has only one connected component to start with and, therefore, that it is irreducible. [In fact, Hida shows that one can take $x_0$ to be a CM point; this is the entire subject of [@hidairreducibility Section 3.5].]{}
$p$-adic automorphic forms {#padicaut-section}
--------------------------
In order to define $p$-adic automorphic forms, we define the global sections $$V_{n,m} = H^0({\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_{n,m},\cO_{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_{n,m}}),$$ and let $V_{\infty,m}:=\varinjlim_n V_{n,m}$ and $V:=V_{\infty,\infty}:=\varprojlim_m V_{\infty,m}$.
The space $V$ is endowed with a left action of $\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, $f\mapsto g\cdot f$, induced by the natural right action of $g \in \Levin ({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ on the Igusa tower by $g\cdot f :=g^*(f)=f\circ g$. For any point $x=(x_n) \in ({{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n({\mathbb{W}}))_{n \in \bN}$, where $x_{n+1}$ maps to $x_n$ under the projection, if $\underline{A}=\underline{\cA}_{x}$ denotes the associated abelian scheme over ${\mathbb{W}}$ endowed with additional structures, and $\iota_x:\mu_{p^\infty}\otimes \cL\hookrightarrow A[p^\infty]$ denotes the Igusa structure of infinite level on $A$, then for any $g\in\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ the image of $x$ under the morphism $g $ is the point $x^g=(x^g_n) \in ({{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n({\mathbb{W}}))_{n \in \bN}$ corresponding to the data of the abelian scheme [$\underline{A}$ (with the associated additional structures)]{}, together with the Igusa structure of infinite level $\iota_{x^g}=\iota_x\circ (1\otimes g)$.
\[defi-pforms\] We call $V^N :=V_{\infty,\infty}^{N(\bZ_p)}$ the [*space of $p$-adic automorphic forms*]{}.
It is worth noting that taking invariants by $N(\bZ_p)$ commutes with both direct and inverse limits, thus we could define $V^N$ also as $\varprojlim_m \varinjlim_n V_{n,m}^{N}$ with $V_{n,m}^{N}:=V_{n,m}^{N(\bZ_p)}$.
\[rmk-k2\] In Definition \[defi-pforms\], we have defined $p$-adic automorphic forms over the non-compactified Shimura variety. Typically, $p$-adic automorphic forms are defined over the compactified Shimura variety by constructing sheaves on any toroidal compactification of $\cM$ which descend to the minimal compactification of $\cM$ and are canonically identified with $\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\rho}$ when restricted to $\cM$. (See §8.3.5 of [@lan4].) For the present paper, we are interested in local properties of automorphic forms, namely their local behavior at ordinary CM points. Thus, compactifications have no bearing on the main results of this paper. Furthermore, by Koecher’s Principle (see Remark \[remark-Koecher\]), so long as we are not in the case in which both $\Sigma$ consists of only one place and the signature is $(1, 1)$, both definitions agree.
### Comparison of automorphic forms and $p$-adic automorphic forms. {#lcan}
We now construct an embedding of the global sections of automorphic vector bundles on the connected component ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ of the ordinary locus into $V^N$, our newly constructed space of $p$-adic automorphic forms.
Let $n\geq m$. Recall that each element $f\in V_{n, m}^N$ can be viewed as a function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pformasrule-equ}
\left({\underline{A}}, j\right)\mapsto f\left({\underline{A}}, j\right)\in {\mathbb{W}}_m,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\underline{A}}$ consists of an abelian variety $A/{\mathbb{W}}_m$ together with a polarization, an endomorphism, and a level structure, and an $\cO_K$-linear isomorphism $j: A[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(\bZ/p^n\bZ)\otimes{\cL}^\vee$.
Recall that each element $g$ in $\Levin(\bZ/p^n\bZ)$ acts on elements $f$ in $V_{n,m}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
(g\cdot f)({\underline{A}}, j) := f({\underline{A}}, g j).\end{aligned}$$
We may view each element $f\in H^0\left({\cS^{\rm ord} }_{m}, {\cE_{\kappa}}\right)$ as a function $$\begin{aligned}
({\underline{A}}, {\ell})\mapsto f({\underline{A}}, {\ell})\in \Ind_{B^-}^\Levin\left(-\kappa\right)_{{\mathbb{W}}_m},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\underline{A}}$ is as in Equation , ${\ell}\in \Isom_{\cO_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m}}(\bZ/p^n\bZ \otimes \cL^{\vee},{\underline{\Omega}}_{\cA/{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m})$ and $\bA^1$ is the affine line, satisfying $f\left({\underline{A}}, g{\ell}\right) = \rho_\kappa\left(\left({ }^tg\right)^{-1}\right)f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)$ for all $g\in\Levin\left({\mathbb{W}}_m\right)$. (Compare with Definition \[algauto-defi1\].) Equivalently, we may view $f$ as a function $$\begin{aligned}
({\underline{A}}, {\ell})\mapsto f({\underline{A}}, {\ell})\in \Ind_B^\Levin\left(\kappa\right)_{{\mathbb{W}}_m} = \{ f: \Levin_{{\mathbb{W}}_m}/N_{{\mathbb{W}}_m} \rightarrow \bA^1_{{\mathbb{W}}_m} : f(ht) = \kappa(t)f(h), t \in T\}\end{aligned}$$ that satisfies $f\left({\underline{A}}, g{\ell}\right) = \rho\left(g\right)f\left({\underline{A}}, {\ell}\right)$ for all $g\in\Levin\left({\mathbb{W}}_m\right)$, where the action of $\Levin$ on $\Ind_B^{\Levin}(\kappa)_{{\mathbb{W}}_m}$ via $\rho$ is given by $$\Levin \ni h: f(x) \mapsto \rho(h)f(x) = f(h^{-1}x).$$
For $n\geq m$ and $A$ ordinary over ${\mathbb{W}}_m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lie A= \Lie A[p^n]^\circ.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for the universal abelian variety ${\cA}$, we have (compare [@kaST Section 3.3-3.4]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LieA-equ}
{\underline{\Omega}}_{{\cA}/{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m} = (\Lie {\cA}){^\vee}= (\Lie {\cA}[p^n]^\circ){^\vee}\cong (T_p({\cA}[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}){^\vee}){^\vee}\cong {\cA}[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}\otimes\cO_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }_{m}}.\end{aligned}$$ By Equation , there is a canonical isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{\Omega}}_{\cA/{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\cA}[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}\otimes\cO_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }_{m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we may view $j: A[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(\bZ/p^n\bZ)\otimes{\cL}^\vee$ as an element of $\Isom_{\cO_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m}}(\bZ/p^n\bZ \otimes \cL^{\vee},{\underline{\Omega}}_{\cA/{\cS^{\rm ord} }_m})$ and each element $f\in H^0\left({{\cS^{\rm ord} }_{m}}, {\cE_{\kappa}}\right)$ yields a function $$\begin{aligned}
\left({\underline{A}}, j \right)\mapsto f\left({\underline{A}}, j \right)\in \Ind_B^\Levin\left(\kappa\right)_{{\mathbb{W}}_m},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\underline{A}}$ and $j$ are as in Equation , satisfying $f\left({\underline{A}}, gj\right) = \rho\left(({}^tg)^{-1}\right)f\left({\underline{A}}, j\right)$ for $g \in \Levin(\bZ/p^n\bZ)$ (due to the action of $g$ on ${\ell}$ by precomposition with ${}^tg$, [as described in]{} Section \[classical-aut-forms\]).
As explained in [@hida Section 8.1.2], there is a unique (up to ${\mathbb{W}}$-unit multiple) $N$-invariant element ${\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}\in \left(\Ind_B^\Levin(\kappa)_{\mathbb{W}}\right){^\vee}= \Hom_{{\mathbb{W}}}(\Ind_B^\Levin(\kappa)_{\mathbb{W}},{\mathbb{W}})$. The element ${\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}$ generates $\left(\left(\Ind_B^\Levin(\kappa)_{\mathbb{W}}\right){^\vee}\right)^N$. We may normalize ${\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}$ so that it is evaluation at the identity in $\Levin$.
Now, we define a map of functions that turns out to be a map of global sections $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{n,m}: H^0\left({{\cS^{\rm ord} }_{m}}, {\cE_{\kappa}}\right)&\quad \rightarrow \quad V_{n,m}^N[\kappa]\\
f&\quad \mapsto \quad \tilde{f}: ({\underline{A}}, j) \mapsto {\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}(f({\underline{A}}, j)),\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{n,m}^N[\kappa]$ denotes the $\kappa$-eigenspace of the torus. Note that for each $b\in B(\bZ/p^n\bZ)$, $$\begin{aligned}
(b\tilde{f})({\underline{A}}, j) &= \tilde{f}({\underline{A}}, bj)\\
&= {\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}(f({\underline{A}}, bj))\\
& = f({\underline{A}}, bj)(1)\\
&=\rho\left(({}^tg)^{-1}\right) f({\underline{A}}, j)(1)\\
& = f({\underline{A}}, j)({}^tb)\\
&= \kappa(b)f({\underline{A}}, j)(1)=\kappa(b){\ell_{\mathrm{can}}}(f({\underline{A}}, j)),\end{aligned}$$ for all ${\underline{A}}$ and $j$ as in Equation . So $\tilde{f}$ is indeed in $V_{n,m}^N[\kappa] \subset V_{n,m}$.
We therefore have a map $$\Psi_\kappa:H^0\left({{\cS^{\rm ord} }}, {\cE_{\kappa}}\right)\rightarrow V^N[\kappa],$$ where $V^N[\kappa]$ denotes the $\kappa$-eigenspace of the torus, [and we define $$\Psi=\oplus_{\kappa}\Psi_\kappa: \oplus_\kappa H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },{\cE_{\kappa}}) {\rightarrow}V^N.$$ ]{}
This map yields an embedding.
[[@hida Section 8.1.3, p. 335]]{}\[ten\] The map $\Psi$ is injective.
While it is not the subject of this paper, it is natural to ask about results on the density of classical automorphic forms within the space of $p$-adic automorphic forms. Because our main theorems do not use such density results in our arguments, we refer the reader to [@hida Chapter 8] and [@HLTT Lemma 6.1]. Additionally, it is also true by [@scholze Theorem IV.3.1] that classes in the completed cohomology of Shimura varieties are also $p$-adically interpolated from classical automorphic forms. This statement is stronger than all previous results, since it also applies to torsion classes which contribute to completed cohomology.
Serre-Tate expansions {#ST-section}
=====================
The goal of this section is to establish a $p$-adic analogue of the $q$-expansion principle for automorphic forms as a consequence of Hida’s irreducibility result for the Igusa tower.
Classically, $q$-expansions arise by localization at a cusp, i.e., the $q$-expansion of a scalar-valued form $f$ is the image of $f$ in the complete local ring at the cusp, regarded as a power series in $q$, for $q$ a canonical choice of the local parameter at the cusp. In these terms, the $q$-expansion principle states that localization is injective, and it is an immediate consequence of the fact that the space is connected. Alternatively, when working over the whole Shimura variety, it becomes necessary to choose a cusp on each connected component, and consider all localizations at once.
In this paper, we work over a connected component of $\cM$, and we replace cusps with integral ordinary CM points (i.e. points of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ defined over ${\mathbb{W}}$ corresponding to abelian varieties with complex multiplication). The crucial observation is that given an integral ordinary CM point $x_0$, the choice of a lift $x$ of $x_0$ to the Igusa tower uniquely determines a choice of [Serre-Tate ]{}local parameters at $x_0$, i.e. $x$ defines an isomorphism of the $p$-adic completion of the complete local ring at $x_0$ with a power series ring over ${\mathbb{W}}$. We call the power series corresponding to the localization at $x$ of an automorphic form its $t$-expansion, for $t$ denoting the [Serre-Tate ]{}local parameters.
[By]{} abuse of notation, we denote by $g:{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}\rightarrow {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}$ the action of $g\in\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ on the Igusa tower described in Section \[padicaut-section\], and we write $\otimes$ in place of $\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}_p}$ for the tensor product over ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$.
Localization {#local-section}
------------
Let ${\bar x}_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ be a geometric point, and let $x_0\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$ be any integral lift of ${\bar{x}}_0$. (Without loss of generality, we may chose $x_0$ to be a CM point, or even the canonical CM lift of ${\bar{x}}_0$; see Remark \[CMlift\].) We write ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{x_0}$ for the formal completion of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ at $x_0$. Then $${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{x_0}={\rm Spf}( {\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }, x_0})$$ where ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }, x_0}$ is a $p$-adically complete local ring.
More explicitly, ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }, x_0}$ can be constructed as follows. For each $m\geq 1$, we write $x_{0,m}$ for the reduction of $x_0$ modulo $p^m$, regarded as a point of $\cS_m^{\rm ord}:={\cS^{\rm ord} }\times_{\mathbb{W}}{\mathbb{W}}/p^m{\mathbb{W}}$ (in particular, ${\bar{x}}_0=x_{0,1}$). Let $\cO^{\wedge}_{\cS^{\rm ord}_m,x_0}$ denote the completed local ring of $\cS^{\rm ord}_m$ at $x_{0,m}$. Then, the local ring ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ can be identified with $\varprojlim_m \cO^\wedge_{\cS^{\rm ord}_m,x_0}$. Alternatively, ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ can also be identified with $\cO^{\wedge}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },{\bar{x}}_0}$, the completed local ring of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ at ${\bar x}_0$.
Let $x\in {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$ denote a compatible system of integral points $x=\left(x_n\right)_{n\geq 0}$ on the Igusa tower $\{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ above $x_0$; i.e. for each $n\geq 0$, $x_n$ is an integral point in ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n$, ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_0={\cS^{\rm ord} }$, with $x_n$ mapping to $x_{n-1}$ under the natural projections. Given the point $x_0$ of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$, the choice of a point $x$ of ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}$ lying above $x_0$ is equivalent to the choice of an Igusa structure of infinite level (i.e. of compatible closed immersions as in Equation on the corresponding ordinary abelian variety.
For all $m$, as $n$ varies, the natural finite étale projections $j=j_{n,m}:{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n, m}\rightarrow \cS^{\rm ord}_m$ induce a compatible system of isomorphisms $$j^*_{x}: \cO^{\wedge}_{\cS^{\rm ord}_m,x_0}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\cO^{\wedge}_{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n ,m},x_n}$$ which allow us to canonically identify $\cO^\wedge_{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}},x}:=\varprojlim_m \varinjlim_n \cO^{\wedge}_{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n,m},x_{n}}$ with ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$.
Given $x_0\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$, let $\bar{x}_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ denote its reduction modulo $p$. We observe that, as a consequence of the fact that the morphisms in the Igusa tower are étale, the reduction modulo $p$ gives a canonical bijection between the points on the Igusa tower above $x_0$ and those above ${\bar{x}}_0$. Moreover, if we denote by $\bar{x}\in {\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$, $\bar{x}=(\bar{x}_n)_{n\geq 0}$, the reduction of $x$ modulo $p$, then the previous isomorphisms agree with the compatible system of isomorphisms $ j_{n,{\bar x}_n}^*: \cO^{\wedge}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },{\bar{x}}_0}\rightarrow \cO^{\wedge}_{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n},\bar{x}_{n}} $.
Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$, lying above $x_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$. We define $${{\rm loc}}_x:V\to {\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$$ as the localization at $x$ composed with ${j^*_x}^{-1}$.
By abuse of language, we will still refer to ${{\rm loc}}_x(f)\in {\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ as the localization of $f$ at $x$, for all $f\in V$. Furthermore, with abuse of notation, we will still denote by ${{\rm loc}}_x$ the restriction of ${{\rm loc}}_x$ to $V^N$ (resp. $V^N[\kappa]$, for any weight $\kappa$).
We compare localizations at different points of the Igusa tower. Recall that given a point $x \in {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$, the set of all points of the Igusa tower above $x_0=j(x)\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$ is a principle homogeneous space for the action of $\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$.
\[Leviaction\] Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$. For any $g\in\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ and $f\in V$, we have $${{\rm loc}}_{x^g}(f)={{\rm loc}}_{x}\left(g\cdot f \right).$$
In particular, if $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ and $f\in V^N[\kappa]$, for a weight $\kappa$, we have $${{\rm loc}}_{x^g}(f)=\kappa(g){{\rm loc}}_{x}\left(f\right).$$
For all $g\in\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ and $x\in {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$, the morphism $g:{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}\rightarrow {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}$ induces an isomorphism of complete local rings $g^*:\cO^\wedge_{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}, x^g}\rightarrow \cO^\wedge_{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}, x}$, $\phi\mapsto \phi\circ g$. Then, the first statement follows from the definition given the equality ${j^*_{x^g}}^{-1}={j^*_{x}}^{-1}\circ g^*$. The second statement is an immediate consequence of the first one, given that for all $f\in V^N[\kappa]$ and $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ we have $g\cdot f=\kappa(g)f$.
\[propq\] Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$. For any weight $\kappa$, the map ${{{\rm loc}}}_x:V^N[\kappa]\rightarrow {\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ is injective.
Were the Igusa covers ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n$ irreducible over ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$, the statement would immediately follow. As it happens ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}_n$ is not irreducible, thus a priori the vanishing under the localization map ${{\rm loc}}_x$ only implies the vanishing on the connected component containing $x$. Yet, as the torus $T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)\subset \Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ acts transitively on the connected components of ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}$ over ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$, it suffices to prove that for all $f\in V^N[\kappa]$, the identity ${{\rm loc}}_x(f)=0$ implies ${{\rm loc}}_{x^g}(f)=0$ for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$. The last statement follows immediately from the second part of Lemma \[Leviaction\].
We note that for a general function $f\in V$ the above statement is false. Yet, by the same argument, Lemma \[Leviaction\] implies the following weaker statement for all $f\in V$.
\[generalq\] Let $x\in {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$, lying above $x_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$. For any $f\in V$, if ${{\rm loc}}_{x}(g\cdot f)\in {\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ vanishes for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, then $f=0$.
Serre-Tate coordinates {#\ST thy}
----------------------
It follows from the smoothness of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ that for any ${\mathbb{W}}$-point $x_0$ the ring ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$ is (non-canonically) isomorphic to a power series ring over ${\mathbb{W}}$. The goal of this section is to explain how Serre-Tate theory implies that for $x$ a lift of $x_0$ to ${\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}$, the ring $\cO^\wedge_{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}},x}$ is canonically isomorphic to a ring of power series over ${\mathbb{W}}$.
We recall Serre-Tate theory following [@kaST]. The first theorem describes the deformation space of an ordinary abelian variety, and the second explains how to address the lifting of additional structures (such as a polarization and extra endomorphisms). As an application we deduce a description of the ring ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$, for any $x_0\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$.
We introduce some notation. Let $A$ be an ordinary abelian variety over ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$, of dimension $g$. The [*physical Tate module*]{} of $A$, $T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$, is the Tate module of the maximal étale quotient of $A[p^\infty]$, i.e $$T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})=\varprojlim_nA[p^n]({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})=\varprojlim_nA[p^n]^{{\mbox{\it{\'et}}}}({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}).$$ As $A$ is ordinary, $T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ is a free $\bZ_p$-module of rank $g$. Like above, we denote by $A^\vee$ the dual abelian variety, and we denote by $T_pA^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ the physical Tate module of $A^\vee$.
Let $R$ be an Artinian local ring, with residue field ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$. We denote by $\mathfrak{m}_R$ the maximal ideal of $R$. A [*lifting*]{} (or [*deformation*]{}) of $A$ over $R$ is a pair $(\cA/R,j)$, consisting of an abelian scheme $\cA$ over $R$, together with an isomorphism $j:\cA\otimes_R {\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}\rightarrow A$. By abuse of notation we sometimes simply write $\cA/R$ for the pair $(\cA/R,j)$. To each lifting $(\cA/R,j),$ as explained in [@kaST Section 2.0, p. 148], Serre and Tate associated a $\bZ_p$-bilinear form $$q_{\cA/R} :T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_pA^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\bG}_m(R)=1+\mathfrak{m}_R.$$
\[[@kaST] Theorem 2.1, p. 148\]\[ST-theorem\] Let the notation be as above.
1. The map $(\cA/R,j)\mapsto q_{\cA/R}$ is a bijection from the set of isomorphism classes of liftings of $A$ over $R$ to the group ${\rm Hom}_{\bZ_p}(T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_pA^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m(R))$.
2. The above construction defines an isomorphism of functors between the deformation space $\cM_{A/{\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}}$ and ${\rm Hom}_{\bZ_p}(T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_pA^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m)$.
In the following we refer to the above isomorphism as the [*[Serre-Tate ]{}isomorphism*]{}.
Let $A$ and $B$ be ordinary abelian varieties over ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$, and let $f:A\rightarrow B$ be an ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$-isogeny. We write $f^\vee: B^\vee\rightarrow A^\vee$ for the dual isogeny. A theorem of Drinfield ([@kaST Lemma 1.1.3, p.141]) proves that for any Artinian local ring $R$, and pair of liftings $(\cA/R,j_{\cA})$,$(\cB/R,j_{\cB})$ of $A,B$ respectively, if there exists an isogeny $\phi:\cA\rightarrow \cB$ lifting $f$ (i.e. satisfying $f=j_{\cB}\circ (\phi\otimes 1_{{\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}}) \circ j_{\cA}^{-1}$), then $\phi$ is unique. Yet, in general such a lifting of $f$ will not exists. Theorem \[thmcon\] gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of $\phi$ in terms of the [Serre-Tate ]{}isomorphism.
\[thmcon\] Let the notation be as above. Given $\cA$ and $\cB$ lifting $A$ and $B$, respectively, over an Artinian local ring $R$. A morphism $f:A\rightarrow B$ lifts to a morphism $\cA\rightarrow \cB$ if and only if $q_{\cA/R}\circ (1\times f^\vee)=q_{\cB/R}\circ (f\times 1)$.
We apply the above results in our setting, adapting to our context the arguments in [@hida Sections 8.2.4 and 8.2.5]. (In loc. cit, Hida deals respectively with the cases of Siegel varieties and of the unitary Shimura varieties over a quadratic imaginary field in which $p$ splits.)
Let $\cO_{{K}, p} := \cO_K\otimes_{\bZ}{\bZ}_p$. Recall that under our assumptions $p$ splits completely in $K$. I.e., we have $\cO_{K,p}=\prod_{i=1}^r \cO_{K_{\fP_i}}\times \prod_{i=1}^r \cO_{K_{\fP^c_i}}$, where $\cO_{K_{\fP_i}}\simeq{{\mathbb Z}}_p$ and $\cO_{K_{\fP^c_i}}\simeq{{\mathbb Z}}_p$ for all $i$.
Let $\bar{x}_0\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ be an ordinary point, and $\underline{A}:=\underline{\cA}_{\bar{x}_0}$ be the associated abelian variety over ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$, together with its additional structures. Then, the physical Tate module $T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ of $A$ is a free $\cO_{K,p}$-module, and the prime-to-p polarization $\lambda $ of $A$ induces a conjugate-linear isomorphism $T_p(\lambda):T_p(A)({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}){\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_pA^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$. We deduce that $$T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})=\left(\oplus_{i=1}^r T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\right)\oplus\left(\oplus_{i=1}^r T_{\fP^c_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\right)$$ and that $T_p(\lambda)$ induces a ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$-linear isomorphism between $T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ and $T_{\fP_i}A^\vee({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$. Finally, we recall that the formal completion ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}$ of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$ at $\bar{x}_0$ represents the deformation problem naturally associated with the moduli problem. This observation allows us to canonically identify ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}$ with the closed subspace of the deformation space $\cM_{A/{\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}}$ consisting of all deformations of $A$ which are (can be) endowed with additional structures (a polarization and an $\cO_K$-action) lifting those of $A$. We deduce the following description of ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}$.
\[STthm\] Let the notation be as above.
The map $x\mapsto q_x:=(1\times T_p(\lambda))\circ q_{\cA_x}$, from ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}$ to ${\rm Hom}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_p}(T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m)$, induces an isomorphism between ${{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}$ and $\oplus_{i=1}^r{\rm Hom}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_p}(T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m)$.
For any local Artinian ring $R$ and $x\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }(R)$, lifting $\bar{x}_0$, let $q_x$ denote the ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$-bilinear form defined in the statement $$q_x=(1\times T_p(\lambda))\circ q_{\cA_x}:T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\mathbb G}_m(R).$$
By Theorem \[thmcon\] the additional structures on $A$ (namely, the polarization and the $\cO_K$-action respectively) lift to $\cA_x$ if and only if $q_x$ is symmetric and $c$-hermitian.
Indeed, let ${\rm sw}:T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ denote the map ${\rm sw}(v,w)=(w,v)$, for all $v,w\in T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$. Then, given any abelian variety $\cA$ lifting $A$, $q_{{\cA}^\vee} =q_{\cA} \circ {\rm sw}$. Also, note that since the polarization $\lambda $ has degree prime-to-$p$ then the induced maps on the physical Tate modules satisfy the condition $T_p(\lambda^\vee)=T_p(\lambda)^{-1}$. We deduce that the polarization $\lambda$ of $A$ lifts to $\cA_x$ if and only if $q_{\cA_x}\circ (1\times T_p(\lambda^\vee))=q_{\cA_x^\vee}\circ (T_p(\lambda)\times 1)$, or equivalently if and only if $q_x=q_x\circ {\rm sw}$. Similarly, for all $b\in\cO_K$, let $i(b)$ denote the action on $A$. We deduce that the action of $\cO_K$ on $A$ lifts to $\cA$ if and only if $q_{\cA_x}\circ (1\times i(b)^\vee)=q_{\cA_x}\circ (i(b)\times 1)$, for all $b\in\cO_{K}$, or equivalently if and only if $q_{x}(1\times i(b^c))=q_{x}(i(b) \times 1)$, because $\lambda\circ i(b^c)=i(b)^\vee\circ \lambda$ by definition. (Recall Section \[PELmoduli-section\].)
For all $i,j=1,\cdots ,r$, let the forms $q_{x,i,j}:T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_j^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\bG}_m(R)$ and $q_{x,i,j,c}:T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_j}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\bG}_m(R)$ denote the restrictions of $q_x$. Then, since $q_x$ is symmetric, for all $i,j=1,\cdots ,r$, we have $q_{x,i,j}=q_{x,j,i,c}\circ {\rm sw},$ where with abuse of notation we still write ${\rm sw}$ for its restriction $T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_j^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow T_{\fP_j^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$. Furthermore, since $q_x$ is $c$-hermitian, we deduce that for all $i\neq j$ the forms $q_{x,i,j}$ and $q_{x,i,j,c}$ necessarily vanish. Thus, $$q_x=(\oplus_{i=1}^rq_{x,i,i})\oplus (\oplus_{i=1}^rq_{x,i,i}\circ {\rm sw}).$$ In particular, the form $q_x$ is uniquely determined by its restrictions $$q_{x, i,i} :T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\bG}_m(R),$$ for $i=1, \dots r$. To conclude we observe that any collection $(q_i)_{i=1,\dots , r}$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$-bilinear morphisms, $q_i: T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\times T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\bG}_m(R)$, extends uniquely to a symmetric $c$-hermitian bilinear form $q:T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\rightarrow \hat{\mathbb G}_m(R)$, namely $q=(\oplus_{i=1}^rq_{i})\oplus(\oplus_{i=1}^r q_{i}\circ {\rm sw})$.
\[CMlift\] As a consequence of the [Serre-Tate ]{}theory, we see that any point ${\bar{x}}_0\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ always lifts to a point $x_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$. In fact, it even admits a canonical lift $y_0$, namely the one corresponding to the form $q=0$. The abelian variety $\cA_{y_0}$ is the unique deformation of $\cA_{\bar{x}_0}$ to which all endomorphisms lift. Thus, in particular, $\cA_{y_0}$ is a CM abelian variety with ordinary reduction. The point $y_0$ is called the canonical CM lift of ${\bar{x}}_0$.
We finally describe how the choice of an Igusa structure (of infinite level) on $\underline{A}=\underline{\cA}_{x_0}$ determines a choice of local parameters.
We consider the $\cO_{K,p}$-modules introduced in Section \[Igusalevel\]: $$\cL=\cL^+\oplus \cL^-\simeq \oplus_{i=1}^r(\cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}^{a_{\tau_i+}}\oplus \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}^c_i}}^{a_{\tau_i-}}),$$ where the decomposition comes from the splitting $p=w\cdot w^c$, and for each $i=1,\dots ,r$, $\tau_i$ is a place inducing $\mathfrak{P}_i$. For each $i$, we write $\cL^+_{i}\subset \cL^+$ for the submodule corresponding to the place $\tau_i$, $\cL^+_i\simeq \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}^{a_{\tau_i+}}$. Similarly, we define $\cL^-_{i}\subset \cL^-$, $\cL_i^-\simeq \cO_{K_{\mathfrak{P}_i}}^{a_{\tau_i-}}$. Then, $\cL^+=\oplus_{i=1}^r \cL^+_i$ and $\cL^-_i=\oplus_{i=1}^r \cL^-_i$.
We define the $\cO_{K,p}$-module $$\cL^2\simeq\oplus_{i=1}^r \cL^+_i\otimes \cL^-_i$$ naturally regarded as a submodule of $\cL\otimes\cL$. \[STthy\]
\[propbeta\] Let $x_0\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$. Each point $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$ above $x_0$ determines a unique isomorphism $$\beta_x: {{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}\rightarrow {\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \cL^2.$$ In particular, for each $x$ we have an isomorphism of local rings $$\beta^*_x: {\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes(\cL^2)^\vee{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }, x_0} \, ,$$ [where ${\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes(\cL^2)^\vee$ denotes the complete ring corresponding to the formal scheme ${\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \cL^2$, i.e. a choice of basis of $(\cL^2)^\vee$ yields an isomorphism ${\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes(\cL^2)^\vee \simeq {\mathbb{W}}[[t_j \, | \, 1 \leq j \leq \sum_{i=1}^r{a_{\tau_i+}a_{\tau_i-}}]]$.]{}
The choice of an Igusa structure of infinite level $\iota=\iota_x:\mu_{p^\infty}\otimes \cL\hookrightarrow A[p^\infty]$ is equivalent to the choice of an $\cO_{K,p}$-linear isomorphism $T_p(\iota^\vee):T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}) {\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\cL^{\vee}$. We observe that by linearity $$T_p(\iota^\vee)(T_wA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}))=(\cL^+)^{\vee} \text{ and } T_p(\iota^\vee)(T_{w^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}))=(\cL^-)^{\vee}.$$ More precisely, $T_p(\iota^\vee)$ induces isomorphisms $T_{\fP_i}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\simeq (\cL_i^+)^{\vee}$ and $T_{\fP_i^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\simeq(\cL^-_i)^{\vee}$, for all $i=1, \dots ,r$. The isomorphism $\beta_x$ is defined as the composition of the [Serre-Tate ]{}isomorphism in proposition \[STthm\] with the inverses of the trivializations induced by $T_p(\iota^\vee)$, while $\beta^*_x$ is the corresponding ring homomorphism, for $t$ the canonical parameter on ${\hat{\bG}}_m$.
Let $\mathbb I$ denote the identity on ${\mathbb{W}}[[t]]$. For all $g\in\Levin ({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, we write ${\mathbb I}\otimes g$ for the natural left ${\mathbb{W}}$-linear action on $ {\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes(\cL^2)^\vee$.
As in Lemma \[Leviaction\], the action of $\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ on the points of the Igusa tower lying above $x_0$ allows us to compare the above construction for different points $x$.
\[Leviaction2\] For all $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$ and $g\in\Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, we have $$\beta^*_{x^g}=\beta^*_x\circ ({\mathbb I}\otimes g).$$
The statement follows immediately from the definition since $\iota_{x^g}=\iota_x\circ (1\otimes g)$ .
Given a point $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$, for any $f\in V$ we define the $t$-expansion of $f$ at the point $x$ as $$f_x(t):= {\beta^*_{x}}^{-1}({{\rm loc}}_{x} (f)).$$
\[Leviaction3\] Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$. For all $g\in \Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ and $f\in V$ we have $$f_{x^g}(t)= ({\mathbb I}\otimes g^{-1} ) (g\cdot f)_x(t).$$
The statement follows from Lemmas \[Leviaction\], \[Leviaction2\] combined.
Finally, we can state an appropriate analogue of the $q$-expansion principle for $p$-adic automorphic forms.
\[STexpprinciple-thm\] Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$. For any weight $\kappa$ and any $f\in V^N[\kappa]$, the $t$-expansion $f_x(t)$ vanishes if and only if $f$ vanishes.
The statement follows from Prositions \[propq\] and \[propbeta\] combined.
Furthermore, by combining Propositions \[generalq\] and \[propbeta\] together we deduce the following weaker statement for all $f\in V$.
\[generalt\] Let $x\in{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}({\mathbb{W}})$. For any $f\in V$, if $(g\cdot f)_{x}(t)\in {\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes (\cL^2)^\vee $ vanish for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, then $f=0$.
As an immediate consequence of Proposition \[generalt\] we obtain the following corollary.
\[cong\] For each $m\in \bN$, given two $p$-adic automorphic forms $f,f'$ of any weight $\kappa,\kappa'$ respectively, we have that $f\equiv f' (\mod p^m)$ if and only if $$\kappa(g)f_x(t)\equiv\kappa'(g) f'_x(t)\, (\mod p^m)$$ for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$.
A crucial advantage of Hida’s realization of (vector-valued) automorphic forms as function on the infinite Igusa tower is that one can define congruences between forms without any restriction on their weights. The $t$-expansion principle as stated above implies that those congruence relations can be detected by the coefficients of the associated power series, as in the classical setting. Indeed, for $f$ a vector-valued automorphic form of weight $\kappa$, one may also consider the localization of $f$ at a point $x_0$ of ${\cS^{\rm ord} }$. Such a localization is an element in a free module $M_\kappa$ over ${\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },x_0}$, with rank depending on the weight $\kappa$. Even with canonical choices of trivializations of the modules $M_\kappa$’s, such an approach only allows to detect congruences when the two ranks agree, e.g. when the difference among the weights is parallel, i.e. equals $(n^\tau, \hdots, n^\tau)_{\tau \in \Sigma}$ in the notation of Section \[Section-weights\]. This restriction is not necessary for the above corollary.
Restriction of $t$-expansions {#section on pullbacks}
=============================
As an example of how [Serre-Tate ]{}coordinates may be used to understand certain operators on $p$-adic automorphic forms, we consider the case of the restriction map from our unitary Shimura variety to a lower dimensional unitary Shimura subvariety, i.e. the pullback map on global sections of the automorphic sheaves.
Description of the geometry
---------------------------
We start by introducing the PEL data defining this setting. We maintain the notation introduced in Section \[unitarygroups-section\].
Let $L=\oplus_{i=1}^s W_i$ be a self-dual decomposition of the lattice $L$. We denote by ${\langle, \rangle}_i$ the pairing on $W_i$ induced by $\langle,\rangle$ on $L$, and define $GU_i=GU(W_i,\langle, \rangle_i)$, a unitary group of signature $\left({{a_+}}_{\tau,i},{{a_-}}_{\tau,i}\right)_{\tau \in \Sigma_K}$. Then, the signatures $\left({{a_+}}_{\tau,i},{{a_-}}_{\tau,i}\right)_{i=1,\dots ,s}$ form a partition of the signature $\left({{a_+}}_{\tau},{{a_-}}_{\tau}\right)$.
We define $G'\subset \prod_iGU_i$ to be the subgroup of elements with the same similitude factor; i.e. if $\nu_i:GU_i\to \bG_m$ denote the similitude factors, then $G'=\nu^{-1}(\bG_m)$, for $\nu=\prod_i\nu_i$ and $\bG_m\subset \bG_m^s$ embedded diagonally. Then, there is a natural closed immersion $G'\rightarrow GU$ of algebraic groups which is compatible with the partition of the signature. That is, the above data defines a morphism of Shimura data $(G',X')\rightarrow (GU,X)$, for $X$ (resp. $X'$) the $GU(\bR)$- (resp. $G'(\bR)$-) conjugacy class of the homomorphism $h:\mathbb{C}\to \mathrm{End}_{K\otimes_\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{R}}(L\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R})$, where the map $G'\rightarrow GU$ is a closed immersion.
As in section \[unitarygroups-section\], let $\Levin$ be $\prod\limits_{\tau \in {\Sigma}} \GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde\tau}} \times \GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde\tau}}$, which can be identified with a Levi subgroup of $U$ over $\bZ_p$. Similarly, we define $\Levin'$ to be $\prod\limits_{\tau \in {\Sigma}, 1 \leq i \leq s} \GL_{{{a_+}}_{\tilde\tau,i}} \times \GL_{{{a_-}}_{\tilde\tau,i}}$ corresponding to the partition $\left({{a_+}}_{\tau,i}, {{a_-}}_{\tau,i}\right)_{i=1,\dots ,s}$ of the signature $(a_{+\tau},a_{-\tau})$, which can be identified over $\bZ_p$ with a Levi subgroup of $G' \cap U$. Note that we have a closed immersion $\Levin' {\rightarrow}\Levin$ that comes from the natural inclusion of $G'$ in $GU$ over $\bZ_p$. We let $B'$ be the intersection of the Borel $B \subset \Levin$ with $\Levin'$, and (by abuse of notation) we denote by $N$ and $N'$ the ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$-points of the unipotent radicals of the Borel subgroups $B$ and $B'$, respectively. Then $N'=N\cap \Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$. Furthermore, we may identify the maximal torus $T$ of $\Levin$ with a maximal torus $T'$ in $\Levin'$. Note that for any character $\kappa$ of $T=T'$, if $\kappa$ is dominant in $ X^*(T)$, then it is also dominant in $X^*(T')$, but the converse is false in general.
The morphism of Shimura data $(G',X')\rightarrow (GU,X)$ described above defines a morphism of Shimura varieties, $\theta: M'\hookrightarrow M,$ from the Shimura variety $M'$ associated with $G'$ into the Shimura variety $M$ associated with $GU$, which is a closed immersion since $G'\rightarrow GU$ is a closed immersion ([@deligne Thm 1.15]). The morphism $\theta$ extends to a map between the canonical integral models (which with abuse of notation we still denote by $\theta$) $$\theta: \cM'\hookrightarrow \cM.$$ A point $x$ in $\cM$ is in the image of $\theta$ if and only if the corresponding abelian variety $\underline{\cA}_x$ decomposes as a cartesian product of abelian varieties, with dimensions and additional structures prescribed by the above data.
We describe an example. Let $K=F$ be a quadratic imaginary field, $V_n$ be an $n$-dimensional $\cO_F$-lattice equipped with a Hermitian pairing $\langle, \rangle$, and assume that the associated group $GU_n=GU(V_n,\langle, \rangle)$ has real signature $(1,n-1)$. We fix the partition $\{(1,n-2), (0,1)\}$ of the signature $(1,n-1)$, and we realize $V_{n-1}$ as a direct summand of $V_n$. We choose a neat level $\Gamma$ hyperspecial at $p$ and denote by ${{\rm Sh}}_n$ the simple Shimura variety of level $\Gamma$ associated with $GU_n$. ${{\rm Sh}}_n$ is a classifying space for polarized abelian varieties of dimension $n$, equipped with a compatible action of $\cO_F$. We write $\cA_n$ for the universal abelian scheme on ${{\rm Sh}}_n$. Then, for each elliptic curve $E_0/{{\mathbb Z}}_p$ with complex multiplication by $\cO_{{F}}$ (corresponding to the choice of a connected component of the $0$-dimensional Shimura variety associated with $GU(0,1)$), the morphism $\theta$ is defined by $\theta^*\cA_n=\cA_{n-1}\times E_0$, and its image $\theta({{\rm Sh}}_{n-1})$ is a divisor in ${{\rm Sh}}_n$.
We now assume that $p$ splits completely in all the reflex fields $E_i$ (and thus also in $E$), where $E_i$ is the reflex field for the integral model $\cM_i$ associated with the group $GU_i$. Then the ordinary loci $\cM^{\rm ord}_i$, $\cM^{' \rm ord}$ and ${\cM^{\mathrm{ord}}}$ are non-empty. In particular, a split abelian variety $A=\prod_iA_i$ is ordinary if and only if each of its constituents $A_i$ are ordinary.
Each connected component $\cS'$ of $\cM'$ can be identified with a product of connected components $\cS_i$ of $\cM_i$. We choose a connected component $\cS'$ of $\cM'$, and identify $\cS'=\prod_{i=1}^s \cS_i$. Then, there is a unique connected component $\cS $ of $\cM$ such that $\theta(\cS')\subset \cS$. We write $\cS^{\rm ord}_i$ (resp. ${{\cS^{'\rm ord} }}$ and $ {\cS^{\rm ord} }$) for the ordinary locus of $\cS_i$ (resp. $\cS'$ and $\cS$). Thus, $\theta({\cS^{'\rm ord} })\subset {\cS^{\rm ord} }$, and we may identify ${\cS^{'\rm ord} }=\prod_i\cS^{\rm ord}_i$. Corresponding to our choice of connected components, there are two $\cO_{F,p}$-linear decompositions $\cL^+=\oplus_{i=1}^s\fL^+_i$ and $\cL^-=\oplus_{i=1}^s\fL^-_i$, the ranks of the summands determined by the partition $\left({{a_+}}_i=\sum_{\tau \in \Sigma}{{a_+}}_{{\widetilde{\tau}},i},{{a_-}}_i=\sum_{\tau \in \Sigma}{{a_-}}_{{\widetilde{\tau}},i}\right)_{i=1,\dots ,s}$ of the signature $(a_+=\sum_{\tau \in \Sigma}{{a_+}}_{{\widetilde{\tau}}},a_-=\sum_{\tau \in \Sigma}{{a_-}}_{{\widetilde{\tau}}})$. For each $i=1,\dots, s$, we write $\fL_i=\fL_i^+\oplus \fL_i^-$. Thus, $\cL=\oplus_{i=1}^s\fL_i$.
For every level $n\geq 1$, the homomorphism $\theta:{\cS^{'\rm ord} }=\prod_i\cS^{\rm ord}_i\to{\cS^{\rm ord} }$ lifts canonically to a compatible system of homomorphisms $\Theta=(\Theta_{n})_n$, among the Igusa towers, $$\Theta_n: \mathrm{Ig}_n^{' \mathrm{ord}}:=\prod_i{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n,i} \rightarrow {{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n,$$ where ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_{n,i}$ denotes the $n$-th level of the Igusa tower over ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_i$, for each $i=1, \dots , s$.
For each $i=1,\dots ,s$, let $\underline{\cA}_i$ denote the universal abelian scheme over ${\cS^{\rm ord} }_i$, and $\iota_i:\mu_{p^n}\otimes\fL_i \hookrightarrow \cA_i[p^n]$ denote the universal Igusa structure of level $n$ on $\cA_i$. By the universal property of ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n$ [(i.e. using the fact that the Igusa tower represents the functor classifying ordinary points with additional structure)]{}, constructing a morphism $\Theta_n$ lifting $\theta$ is equivalent to defining an Igusa structure of level $n$ on the abelian scheme $\theta^*\underline{\cA}=\prod_i\underline{\cA}_i$ over ${\cS^{'\rm ord} }$. We define $\iota:\mu_{p^n}\otimes\cL \hookrightarrow \theta^*\cA[p^n]$ as $\iota=\oplus_{i=1}^s \iota_i$.
For each integer $n\geq 0$, the morphism $\Theta_n$ defines a closed embedding of the Igusa covers over ${\cS^{'\rm ord} }$, $$\mathrm{Ig}_n^{' \mathrm{ord}}\hookrightarrow {\cS^{'\rm ord} }\times_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n.$$ Indeed, since both projections $\mathrm{Ig}_n^{' \mathrm{ord}}\to{\cS^{'\rm ord} }$ and ${\cS^{'\rm ord} }\times_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n \to {\cS^{'\rm ord} }$ are finite and étale, it suffices to check that the map is one-to-one on points. Given a point $x_0$ of ${\cS^{'\rm ord} }$, corresponding to a split ordinary abelian variaty $\underline{A}=\prod_i \underline{A}_i$. A point $x$ of ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n$, lying above $x_0$, is in the image of $\Theta_n$ if and only if the corresponding Igusa structure $\iota_x:\mu_{p^n}\otimes\cL \hookrightarrow A[p^n]$ satisfies the conditions $\iota_x(\mu_{p^n}\otimes\fL_i)\subset A_i[p^n]$, for all $i=1, \dots , s$. Then, $\iota_x=\oplus_i \iota_{x,i}$, for $\iota_{x,i}:\mu_{p^n}\otimes\fL_i \to A_i[p^n]$ the restrictions of $\iota_x$, i.e. there is a unique point $y\in \mathrm{Ig}_n^{' \mathrm{ord}}$ such that $\Theta_n(y)=x$.
We observe that, for non-trivial partitions of the signature $(a_{+\tau},a_{-\tau})_{\tau \in {\Sigma_K}}$, such a closed immersion is not an isomorphim. In fact, given a point $x$ in $\Theta_n( \mathrm{Ig}_n^{' \mathrm{ord}})\subset{\cS^{'\rm ord} }\times_{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n$, for any $g\in \Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, the point $x^g$ is in the image of $\Theta_n$ if and only if $g\in \Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$.
Restriction of automorphic forms
--------------------------------
For $\kappa$ a dominant character of $T$, let $\rho_\kappa$ denote the irreducible representation of $\Levin_{\bZ_p}$ with highest weight $\kappa$ described in Section \[Section-weights\]. Similarly, for $\kappa'$ a dominant character of $T'$, let $\rho'_{\kappa'}$ denote the irreducible representation of $\Levin'_{\bZ_p}$ with highest weight $\kappa'$.
Assume that the restriction of $\rho_\kappa$ from $\Levin_{\bZ_p}$ to $\Levin'_{\bZ_p}$ has an irreducible [quotient]{} isomorphic to $\rho'_{\kappa'}$ (e.g., when $\kappa'=\kappa$), and fix a projection $\pi_{\kappa,\kappa'}:\rho_\kappa\to\rho'_{\kappa'}$. If $\kappa'=\kappa ^\sigma$ for some $\sigma$ in the Weyl group $W_\Levin(T)$, then we choose $\pi_{\kappa,\kappa'}$ to satisfy the equality $\ell_{\rm can}^\kappa=\ell_{\rm can}^{\kappa'}\circ \pi_{\kappa,\kappa'}\circ g_\sigma$, where $g_\sigma\in N_\Levin(T)({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ is a lifting of $\sigma$, and where we view $\ell_{\rm can}^\kappa$ as a functional on the space of $\rho_\kappa$ by identifying the space of $\rho_\kappa$ with the space of $\Ind_B^H(\kappa)$ on which $H$ acts by the usual left translation action (described in Section \[Section-weights\]) precomposed with transpose-inverse. In other words, $\ell_{\rm can}^\kappa$ is the unique (up to multiple) $N^-$-invariant functional on $\rho_\kappa$.
Recall that $\cE_\kappa=\cE_{{\mathcal{U}},\kappa}$ denotes the automorphic sheaf of weight $\kappa$ over $\cM$, as defined in Section \[classical-aut-forms\], and denote by $\cE'_{\kappa'}$ the automorphic sheaf of weight $\kappa'$ over $\cM'$. Then, on $\cM'$ we have a canonical morphism of sheaves $r_{\kappa,\kappa'}: \theta^*\cE_\kappa\to \cE'_{\kappa'}$.
We define $${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'}:= r_{\kappa,\kappa'} \circ\theta^* : H^0(\cM,\cE_\kappa) \to H^0(\cM',\theta^*\cE_\kappa) \to H^0(\cM',\cE'_{\kappa'}).$$ We call ${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa '}$ the [*weight $(\kappa,\kappa ')$-restriction*]{}.
In the following, for $\kappa'=\kappa$, we write ${\rm res}_\kappa={\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa '}$ and call it the [*weight $\kappa$-restriction*]{}.
By abuse of notation we still denote by ${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'}$ (and ${\rm res}_\kappa$) the restriction of this map to the space of sections over the ordinary loci; i.e. $${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa' }:= r_{\kappa,\kappa'} \circ \theta^*: H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa) \to H^0({\cS^{'\rm ord} },\theta^*\cE_\kappa) \to H^0({\cS^{'\rm ord} },\cE'_{\kappa'}).$$
Let $V$, $V'$ denote the spaces of global functions of the Igusa towers ${{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}/{\cS^{\rm ord} }$ and ${{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'/{\cS^{'\rm ord} }$, respectively, as introduced in Section \[padicaut-section\]. We write $\Theta^*$ for the pullback on global functions of the Igusa towers, $$\Theta^*:V\to{V'}.$$ In the following, we refer to $\Theta^*$ as [*restriction*]{}. Note that $\Theta $ maps $V^N$ and $V^N[\kappa]$, for any weight $\kappa$, to ${V'}^{N'}$ and ${V'}^{N'}[\kappa]$, respectively. With abuse of notation, we will still denote by $\Theta^*$ the restrictions of $\Theta^*$ to $V^N$ and $V^N[\kappa]$.
Finally, for any $\kappa,\kappa'$, we write $\Psi_\kappa: H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa)\to V^N$ and $\Psi'_{\kappa'}: H^0({\cS^{'\rm ord} },\cE'_{\kappa})\to {V'}^{N'} $ for the inclusions defined in Section \[lcan\].
\[propres\] For $\kappa$ a dominant character of $T$, and any $f\in H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa)$: $$\Theta^*(\Psi_\kappa (f))=\Psi'_\kappa({\rm res}_\kappa (f)).$$
The statement follows from the equality $\Theta^*\circ j^*=j^*\circ \theta^*$, together with the observation that, for any dominant weight $\kappa$ of $T$, the functional $\ell_{\rm can}$ appearing in the definitions of $\Psi_\kappa$ (in Section \[lcan\]) factors by our choice via the projection $\pi_{\kappa,\kappa}: \rho_\kappa\rightarrow \rho'_\kappa$.
Note that if $\kappa'\neq \kappa$, then the maps $\Theta^*\circ \Psi_\kappa $ and $\Psi'_{\kappa'} \circ {\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'} $ do not agree, as a consequence of Proposition \[propres\] and the injectivity of the $\Psi$ (see Proposition \[ten\]). Instead, we have the following result.
\[propres2\] The notation is as above. Assume the weight $\kappa'$ is conjugate to $\kappa$ under the action of the Weil group $W_\Levin(T)$, i.e. $\kappa'=\kappa ^\sigma$ for some $\sigma \in W_\Levin(T)$, and choose $g_\sigma\in N_\Levin(T)({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ lifting $\sigma.$
Then, for all $f\in H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa)$, we have $$\Theta^*(g_\sigma\cdot \Psi_\kappa (f))=\Psi'_{\kappa'} ( {\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'}(f)) .$$
The same argument as in the proof of Proposition \[propres\] applies here, because we chose $\pi_{\kappa,\kappa'}$ such that the functional $\ell_{\rm can}$ appearing in the definition of $\Psi_\kappa $ factors via the map $\pi_{\kappa,\kappa'} \circ g_\sigma : \rho_\kappa \to\rho_\kappa \to \rho'_{\kappa '}$.
Our goal is to give a simple description of $\Theta^*$ in [Serre-Tate ]{}coordinates, and deduce an explicit criterion for the vanishing of the restriction of a $p$-adic automorphic form in terms of vanishing of some of the coefficients in its $t$-expansion.
Let $x_0\in{\cS^{'\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$, $x_0=(x_0^i)_{i=1, \dots , s}$ where $x_0^i\in {\cS^{\rm ord} }_i ({\mathbb{W}})$, for each $i=1, \dots ,s$. We write $\bar{x}_0$ and $\theta(\bar{x}_0)$ for the reductions modulo $p$ of $x_0$ and of $\theta(x_0)\in{\cS^{\rm ord} }({\mathbb{W}})$, respectively. Let $\underline{A}=\underline{\cA}_{\theta(\bar{x}_0)}=\underline{\cA}_{\bar{x}_0}=\prod_i\underline{A}_i$ be the corresponding split ordinary abelian variety over ${\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}$. We deduce that the physical Tate module of $A$ decomposes as $$T_pA({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})=\oplus_i T_p A_i ({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),$$ and by linearity we also have $T_{\fP_j}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})=\oplus_i T_{\fP_j} A_i ({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$, for each $j=1, \dots , r$.
\[STinclusion\] The notation is the same as above. Under the isomorphism in Proposition \[STthm\], $x\mapsto q_x$, the map $ \theta_{\bar{x}_0}: {{\cS^{'\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0}\to {{\cS^{\rm ord} }}_{\theta(\bar{x}_0)}^\wedge$ is the closed immersion corresponding to the collection of the natural inclusions $$\oplus_{i=1}^s{\rm Hom}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_p}(T_{\fP_j}A_i({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_{\fP_j^c}A_i({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m)\subset {\rm Hom}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_p}(T_{\fP_j}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_{\fP_j^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}),\hat{\bG}_m),$$ for $j=1,\ldots , r$.
By the definition of $\theta$, a point $x\in {{\cS^{\rm ord} }}_{\theta(\bar{x}_0)}^\wedge$ is in the image of $\theta_{\bar{x}_0}$ if and only if the corresponding abelian variety $\underline{\cA}_x$ decomposes as a cartesian product of abelian varieties with additional structures, compatibly with the decomposition $\underline{A}=\prod_i\underline{A}_i $. We argue that such a decomposition exists if and only if the endomorphisms $e_i:A\rightarrow A_i\hookrightarrow A$ lift to $\underline{\cA}_x$.
Clearly, if the decomposition lifts to ${\underline}\cA_x$ so do the endomorphisms $e_i$ for all $i=1, \dots , s$. Vice versa, let us assume there exist endomorphism $\tilde{e}_i$ of $\cA_x$ lifting the $e_i$. By Theorem \[thmcon\] the endomorphisms $\tilde{e}_i$ are unique, thus in particular they are orthogonal idempotents (since the $e_i$ are) and the identity of $\cA_x$ decomposes as $1_{\cA_x}=\sum_i \tilde{e}_i$ (lifting the equality $1_A=\sum_i e_i$). We deduce that for each $i$, the image $\cA_i=\tilde{e}_i(\cA_x)$ is an abelian subvariety of $\cA_x$ lifting $A_i$, and $\cA_x=\prod \cA_i$. Furthermore, for each $i$, the additional structures on $\cA_x$ define unique additional structures on $\cA_i$ (by the properties of the cartesian product) which lift those on $A_i$. To conclude, we observe that since such lifts are unique, the decomposition of $\cA_x$ is compatible with the additional structures, i.e. $\underline{\cA}_x=\prod_i \underline{\cA_i}$ lifting the decomposition of $\underline{A}$. Furthermore, such lifting is unique.
Finally, by Theorem \[thmcon\], for each $i=1,\dots , s$, the endomorphism $e_i$ of $A$ lifts to $\cA_x$ if and only if $q_{\cA_x}\circ (1\times e_i^\vee)=q_{\cA_x}\circ (e_i\times 1)$. Equivalently, if and only if $$q_x \circ (1\times e_i)=q_x\circ (e_i\times 1)$$ (recall $q_x=q_{\cA_x}\circ (1\times T_p(\lambda))$ and under our assumption $e_i^\vee\circ \lambda=\lambda\circ e_i$). We deduce that this is the case if and only if for all $j=1, \dots ,r $ and any $i, k=1,\dots , s$, the restriction of the bilinear form $q_x$ to the subspaces $T_{\fP_j}A_i({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p}) \otimes T_{\fP_j^c}A_k({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ of $ T_{\fP_j}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})\otimes T_{\fP_j^c}A({\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p})$ vanishes unless $i=k$.
For each $i=1,\dots ,s$, we define $\cO_{K, p}$-modules $\fL^2_i\subset \fL_i^{\otimes 2}$ similarly to $\cL^2\subset \cL^{\otimes 2}$ in Section \[STthy\]. We consider the $\cO_{K,p}$-module $\fL^2=\oplus_{i =1}^s\fL^2_i$. By the definition $\fL^2$ is a direct summand of $\cL^2$, we write $\epsilon: \fL^2\to \cL^2$ for the natural inclusion.
We choose a point $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$, lying above $x_0$, $(x^i)_i=x$. By Proposition \[propbeta\], associated with the point $x$ on the Igusa tower, we have isomorphisms $${\beta}_x: {{\cS^{'\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\bar{x}}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \fL^2 \text{ and } \beta_{\Theta(x)}:{{\cS^{\rm ord} }}^\wedge_{\theta(\bar{x}_0)}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \cL^2 .$$ For all $i=1,\dots ,s$, we may also consider the isomorphism $\beta_{x^i}:(\cS^{\rm ord}_i)^\wedge_{\bar{x}_0^i}{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \fL_i^2$. Then, ${\beta}_{x}=\oplus_{i=1}^s (\beta_{x^i})_{i=1,\dots, s}$. As before, we denote respectively by ${\beta}^*_x$ and $\beta^*_{\Theta(x)}$ the corresponding ring homomorphisms.
\[above\] The notation is the same as above. The map $\beta_{\Theta(x)}\circ \theta_{\bar{x}_0} \circ {\beta}_x^{-1} $ agrees with the inclusion ${\mathbb I\otimes\epsilon}:{\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \fL^2\to {\hat{\bG}}_m\otimes \cL^2$.
The statement follows from Proposition \[STinclusion\] and Proposition \[propbeta\] combined.
Equivalently, in terms of the local [Serre-Tate ]{}coordinates, Proposition \[above\] states that the two homomorphisms $$\theta_{x_0}^*:{\cR}_{{\cS^{\rm ord} },\theta(x_0)}^\wedge\rightarrow {\cR}_{{\cS^{'\rm ord} },x_0}^\wedge \text{ and }{\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee}: {\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes (\cL^{2})^\vee {\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathbb{W}}[[t]]\otimes (\fL^{2})^\vee$$ satisfy the equality ${\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee}={{\beta}^{*}_x }^{-1}\circ\theta^*_{x_0}\circ \beta^*_{\Theta(x)}$.
\[coro\] The notation is the same as above. For any $f\in V$, we have $$(\Theta^*f)_x (t)=(\mathbb I\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f_{\Theta(x)}(t)).$$
By definition $(\Theta^*f)_x(t)={\beta^*_x}^{-1}\circ {j^*_x}^{-1}((\Theta^* f)_x)$, and $f_{\Theta(x)}(t)= {\beta^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1}\circ {j^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1}(f_{\Theta(x)})$. Also by definition, $j\circ \Theta=\theta\circ j$ and $x_0=j(x)$. Then, for all $f\in V$, $$(\Theta^*f)_x(t)={\beta^*_x}^{-1}\circ {j^*_x}^{-1}((\Theta^* f)_x)= {\beta^*_x}^{-1}\circ {j^*_x}^{-1}\circ \Theta_x^* (f_{\Theta(x)})=
{\beta^*_x}^{-1}\circ \theta_{x_0}^*\circ { j^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1} (f_{\Theta(x)}),$$ and $$(\mathbb I\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f_{\Theta(x)}(t))=
(1\otimes \epsilon^\vee)\circ {\beta^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1}\circ {j^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1}(f_{\Theta(x)}).$$ Thus, the equality ${\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee}\circ {\beta^*_{\Theta(x)}}^{-1}={{\beta}^{*}_x }^{-1}\circ\theta^*_{x_0}$ (following Proposition \[above\]) suffices to conclude.
We observe that the statement in Corollary \[coro\] is equivariant for the action of $\Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$. More precisely, the following equalities hold.
\[Leviaction4\] For any $g\in\Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)\subset \Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$, $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$, and $f\in V$, we have $$(\Theta^*f)_{x^g}(t)=({\mathbb I}\otimes g^{-1})(\Theta^*(g\cdot f))_{x}(t) \text{ and }
({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f_{\Theta(x^g)}(t))=({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee}\circ g^{-1})((g\cdot f)_{\Theta(x)}(t)).$$
Recall that $\epsilon\circ g=g\circ \epsilon$ and $\Theta\circ g=g\circ \Theta$, for all $g\in\Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)\subset \Levin({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$. Thus, for any $x\in{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$, the point $x^g$ is another point of ${{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'$ satisfying $\Theta(x)^g=\Theta(x^g)$, and for all $f\in V$, we have $\Theta^*(g\cdot f)=g\cdot \Theta^*f$. The statement then follows immediately from Proposition \[Leviaction3\].
By the $t$-expansion principle, we deduce the following vanishing criteria.
\[STrestriction\] Let $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$, $f\in H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa)$, for any $\kappa$.
The $\kappa$-restriction ${\rm res}_\kappa (f)$ of $f$ to the subgroup $G'$ vanishes if and only if $$({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(\Psi_\kappa(f)_{\Theta(x)}(t))=0.$$
By Theorem \[STexpprinciple-thm\], ${\rm res}_\kappa (f)$ vanishes if and only if $\Psi'_\kappa ({\rm res}_\kappa (f))_x (t)$ vanishes. On the other hand, Proposition \[propres\] and Corollary \[coro\] combined imply $$\Psi'_\kappa ({\rm res}_\kappa (f))_x (t)=\Theta^*(\Psi_\kappa(f))_x(t)=({\mathbb I}\otimes\epsilon^\vee)( \Psi_\kappa(f)_{\Theta(x)} (t)).$$
\[STrestriction2\] Let $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$, $f\in H^0({\cS^{\rm ord} },\cE_\kappa)$, for any $\kappa$. Let $\kappa'\neq \kappa$ be a dominant weight of $T'$.
Assume $\kappa'=\kappa^\sigma$, for some $\sigma \in W_\Levin (T)$, and choose $g_\sigma\in N_\Levin(T)({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ lifting $\sigma$.
The $(\kappa,\kappa') $-restriction ${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'} (f)$ of $f$ to the subgroup $G'$ vanishes if and only if $$({\mathbb I}\otimes (\epsilon^{\vee}\circ g_\sigma))(\Psi_\kappa(f)_{\Theta(x)^{g_\sigma}}(t))=0.$$
Theorem \[STexpprinciple-thm\] implies that ${\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'} (f)$ vanishes if and only if $\Psi'_{\kappa'} ( {\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'}(f))_x(t )$ vanishes. By combining Proposition \[propres2\] and Corollary \[coro\], we have $$\Psi'_{\kappa'} ( {\rm res}_{\kappa,\kappa'}(f))_x(t )= \Theta^*(g_\sigma \cdot \Psi_\kappa (f))_x(t)=({\mathbb I}\times \epsilon^{\vee})((g_\sigma\cdot \Psi_\kappa (f))_{\Theta(x)}(t)).$$ Finally, Proposition \[Leviaction3\] implies $$(g_\sigma\cdot \Psi_\kappa (f))_{\Theta(x)}(t)
=({\mathbb I}\otimes g_\sigma)(\Psi_\kappa (f)_{\Theta(x)^{g_\sigma}}(t)).$$
Note that, in the above corollary, since $\kappa'\neq \kappa$, $g_\sigma\notin \Levin'({\mathbb{W}})$ and the point $\Theta(x)^{g_\sigma}$ is not in the image of $\Theta$, for any $x\in{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$.
\[generalrest\] Let $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$. Let $f$ be a global function on the Igusa tower $\{{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}_n\}{_{n\geq 0}}$, i.e. $f\in V$. The restriction $\Theta^*f$ of $f$ to the subgroup $G'$ vanishes if and only if $({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})((g\cdot f)_{\Theta(x)}(t))=0$, or equivalently $({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f_{\Theta(x)^g}(t))=0$, for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)=T'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$.
By Proposition \[generalt\], $\Theta^*f$ vanishes if and only if $(g\cdot \Theta^*f)_x(t)$ vanish for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$. From Lemma \[Leviaction4\] and Corollary \[coro\], for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ (recall $T({{\mathbb Z}}_p)\subset \Levin'({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$), we deduce $$(g\cdot \Theta^*f)_x(t)= ({\mathbb I}\otimes g)(\Theta^*f)_{x^g} (t)= ({\mathbb I}\otimes (g\circ \epsilon^\vee))(f_{\Theta(x^g)}(t))= ({\mathbb I}\otimes (g\circ \epsilon^\vee))(f_{\Theta(x)^g}(t))$$ On the other hand, we also have $$(g\cdot \Theta^*f)_x(t)=(\Theta^*(g\cdot f))_x(t)=({\mathbb I}\otimes\epsilon^\vee)(g\cdot f)_{\Theta(x)}(t).$$
Let $x\in {{{\mathrm{Ig}^\mathrm{ord}}}}'({\mathbb{W}})$. Let $r\in \bN$, and let $f,f'$ be two $p$-adic automorphic forms on $GU$ of weights $\kappa,\kappa'$, for any $\kappa, \kappa'$, i.e. $f \in V^N[\kappa], f' \in V^N[\kappa']$. We denote by ${\rm res}_\kappa(f) $ and ${\rm res}_{\kappa'}(f')$ their restrictions to the subgroup $G'$. Then ${\rm res}_\kappa(f) \equiv {\rm res}_{\kappa'}(f')\mod p^r$ if and only if $$\kappa(g)({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f_{\Theta(x)}(t))\equiv \kappa' (g)({\mathbb I}\otimes \epsilon^{\vee})(f'_{\Theta(x)}(t))\, \mod p^r,$$ for all $g\in T({{\mathbb Z}}_p).$
The statement is an immediate consequence of the Corollary \[generalrest\].
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful to L. Long, R. Pries, and K. Stange for organizing the Women in Numbers 3 workshop and facilitating this collaboration. We would like to thank the referee for carefully reading the paper and providing many helpful comments, including suggestions for how to improve the introduction. We would also like to thank M. Harris, H. Hida, and K.-W. Lan for answering questions about $q$-expansion principles. We are grateful to the Banff International Research Station for creating an ideal working environment.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the billiard flow of elastically colliding hard balls on the flat $\nu$-torus ($\nu\ge 2$), and prove that no singularity manifold can even locally coincide with a manifold describing future non-hyperbolicity of the trajectories. As a corollary, we obtain the ergodicity (actually the Bernoulli mixing property) of all such systems, i.e. the verification of the Boltzmann-Sinai Ergodic Hypothesis.'
address: |
The University of Alabama at Birmingham\
Department of Mathematics\
1300 University Blvd., Suite 452\
Birmingham, AL 35294 U.S.A.
author:
- Nándor Simányi
title: |
Singularities and nonhyperbolic manifolds\
do not coincide
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we prove the Boltzmann–Sinai Ergodic Hypothesis for hard ball systems on the $\nu$-torus $\mathbb{R}^\nu/\mathbb{Z}^\nu$ ($\nu\ge 2$) without any assumed hypothesis or exceptional model.
This introduction is, to a large extent, an edited version of some paragraphs of the introductory sections §1 and §2 of my paper [@Sim(2009)]. For a more detailed introduction into the topic of hard ball systems, please see these two sections of [@Sim(2009)].
In a loose form, as attributed to L. Boltzmann back in the 1880’s, the Boltzmann hypothesis asserts that gases of hard balls are ergodic. In a precise form, which is due to Ya. G. Sinai in [@Sin(1963)], it states that the gas of $N\ge 2$ identical hard balls (of “not too big” radius) on a torus $\mathbb{T}^\nu=\mathbb{R}^\nu/\mathbb{Z}^\nu$, $\nu \ge 2$, (a $\nu$-dimensional box with periodic boundary conditions) is ergodic, provided that certain necessary reductions have been made. The latter means that one fixes the total energy, sets the total momentum to zero, and restricts the center of mass to a certain discrete lattice within the torus. The assumption of a not too big radius is necessary to have the interior of the arising configuration space connected.
Sinai himself pioneered rigorous mathematical studies of hard ball gases by proving the hyperbolicity and ergodicity for the case $N=2$ and $\nu=2$ in his seminal paper [@Sin(1970)], where he laid down the foundations of the modern theory of chaotic billiards. The proofs there were further polished and clarified in [@B-S(1973)]. Then Chernov and Sinai extended these results to ($N=2$, $\nu\ge 2$), as well as proved a general theorem on “local” ergodicity applicable to systems of $N>2$ balls [@S-Ch(1987)]; the latter became instrumental in the subsequent studies. The case $N>2$ is substantially more difficult than that of $N=2$ because, while the system of two balls reduces to a billiard with strictly convex (spherical) boundary, which guarantees strong hyperbolicity, the gases of $N>2$ balls reduce to billiards with convex, but not strictly convex, boundary (the latter is a finite union of cylinders) – and those are characterized by a weak hyperbolicity.
Further development has been due mostly to A. Krámli, D. Szász, and the present author. We proved the hyperbolicity and ergodicity for $N=3$ balls in any dimension [@K-S-Sz(1991)] by exploiting the “local” ergodic theorem of Chernov and Sinai [@S-Ch(1987)], and carefully analyzing all possible degeneracies in the dynamics to obtain “global” ergodicity. We extended our results to $N=4$ balls in dimension $\nu \ge 3$ next year [@K-S-Sz(1992)], and then I proved the ergodicity whenever $N\le\nu$ in [@Sim(1992)-I] and [@Sim(1992)-II]. At that point the existing methods could no longer handle any new cases, because the analysis of the degeneracies became overly complicated. It was clear that further progress should involve novel ideas.
A big step forward was made by D. Szász and myself, when we used the methods of algebraic geometry in [@S-Sz(1999)]. We assumed that the balls had arbitrary masses $m_1,\dots,m_N$ (but the same radius $r$). By taking the limit $m_N\to 0$, we were able to reduce the dynamics of $N$ balls to the motion of $N-1$ balls, thus utilizing a natural induction on $N$. Then algebro-geometric methods allowed us to effectively analyze all possible degeneracies, but only for typical (generic) $(N+1)$-tuples of “external” parameters $(m_1,\dots,m_N,r)$; the latter needed to avoid some exceptional submanifolds of codimension one, which remained unknown. This approach led to a proof of full hyperbolicity (but not yet ergodicity) for all $N\ge2$ and $\nu\ge2$, and for generic $(m_1,\dots,m_N,r)$, see [@S-Sz(1999)]. Later I simplified the arguments and made them more “dynamical”, which allowed me to obtain full hyperbolicity for hard balls with any set of external geometric parameters $(m_1,\dots,m_N,r)$ [@Sim(2002)]. The reason why the masses $m_i$ are considered *geometric parameters* is that they determine the relevant Riemannian metric $$||dq||^2=\sum_{i=1}^N m_i||dq_i||^2$$ of the system. Thus, the complete hyperbolicity has been fully established for all systems of hard balls on tori.
To upgrade the complete hyperbolicity to ergodicity, one needs to refine the analysis of the mentioned degeneracies. For hyperbolicity, it was enough that the degeneracies made a subset of codimension $\ge 1$ in the phase space. For ergodicity, one has to show that its codimension is $\ge 2$, or find some other ways to prove that the (possibly) arising codimension-one manifolds of non-sufficiency are not capable of separating distinct ergodic components. In the paper [@Sim(2003)] I took the first step in the direction of proving that the codimension of exceptional manifolds is at least two: I proved that the systems of $N \ge 2$ balls on a $2$-dimensional torus are ergodic for typical (generic) $(N+1)$-tuples of external parameters $(m_1,\dots,m_N,r)$. The proof again involves some algebro-geometric techniques, thus the result is restricted to generic parameters $(m_1,\dots,m_N;\,r)$. But there was a good reason to believe that systems in $\nu\ge 3$ dimensions would be somewhat easier to handle, at least that was indeed the case in earlier studies.
As the next step, in the paper [@Sim(2004)] I was able to further improve the algebro-geometric methods of [@S-Sz(1999)], and proved that for any $N\ge 2$, $\nu\ge 2$, and for almost every selection $(m_1,\dots,m_N;\,r)$ of the external geometric parameters the corresponding system of $N$ hard balls on $\mathbb{T}^\nu$ is (completely hyperbolic and) ergodic.
Finally, in the paper [@Sim(2009)] I managed to prove the Boltzmann-Sinai Ergodic Hypothesis in full generality (i. e. without exceptional models), by assuming that the so called Chernov-Sinai Ansatz is true for these models.
The Chernov-Sinai Ansatz states that for almost every singular phase point $x\in\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ (with respect to the hypersurface measure of $\mathcal{SR}^+_0$) the forward orbit $S^{(0,\infty)}x$ is sufficient (geometrically hyperbolic). This is the utmost important global geometric hypothesis of the Theorem on Local Ergodicity of [@S-Ch(1987)], see also Condition 3.1 in [@K-S-Sz(1990)].
The only missing piece of the whole puzzle is to prove that no open piece of a singularity manifold can precisely coincide with a codimension-one manifold desribing the trajectories with a non-sufficient forward orbit segment corresponding to a fixed symbolic collision sequence. This is exactly what we prove in our Theorem below.
Formulation and Proof of the Theorem {#main-section}
====================================
Let $U_0\subset \mathbf{M}\setminus\partial\mathbf{M}$ be an open ball, $T>0$, and assume that
\(a) $S^T(U_0)\cap \partial\mathbf{M}=\emptyset$,
\(b) $S^T$ is smooth on $U_0$.
Next we assume that there is a *codimension-one*, smooth submanifold $J\subset U_0$ with the property that for every $x\in U_0$ the trajectory segment $S^{[0,T]}x$ is geometrically hyperbolic (sufficient) if and only if $x\not\in J$. ($J$ is a so called non-hyperbolicity or degeneracy manifold.) Denote the common symbolic collision sequence of the orbits $S^{[0,T]}x$ ($x\in U_0$) by $\Sigma=(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_n)$, listed in the increasing time order, and let the corresponding advances be $\alpha_i=\alpha(e_i)$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$. Let $t_i=t(e_i)$ be the time of the $i$-th collision, $0<t_1<t_2<\dots<t_n<T$.
Finally we assume that for every phase point $x\in U_0$ the first reflection $S^{\tau(x)}x$ *in the past* on the orbit of $x$ is a singular reflection (i. e. $S^{\tau(x)}x \in \mathcal{SR}^+_0$) if and only if $x$ belongs to a codimension-one, smooth submanifold $K$ of $U_0$. For the definition of the manifold of singular reflections $\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ see, for instance, the end of §1 in [@Sim(2009)].
Using all the assumtions and notations above, the submanifolds $J$ and $K$ of $U_0$ do not coincide.
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this theorem. It will be a proof by contradiction, so from now on we assume that $J=K$, and the proof will be subdivided into several lemmas and propositions.
First of all, we assume that the center $x_0$ of the open ball $U_0$ belongs to the exceptional set $J$. During the indirect proof of the theorem, smaller and smaller open balls $U_0$ will be selected to guarantee a regular (smooth and homogeneous) behavior. We note that this can be done, thanks to the algebraic nature of the dynamics.
Observe that the sufficiency of the orbit segments $S^{[0,T]}x$ ($x\in U_0\setminus J$) immediately implies that the collision graph $\mathcal{G}=\left(\{1,2,\dots,N\},\, \{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_n\}\right)$ is connected on the vertex set $\mathcal{V}=\{1,2,\dots,N\}$. Therefore, according to Lemma 2.13 of \[Sim(1992)-II\], the linear map $$\Phi:\; \mathcal{N}_0\left(S^{[0,T]} x\right)\to \mathbb{R}^n$$ defined by $\left(\Phi(w)\right)_i=\alpha_i(w)$ ($i=1,2,\dots,n$) is a linear embedding for every $x\in U_0$. Here $\mathcal{N}_0(S^{[0,T]}x)$ denotes the neutral linear space of the trajectory segment $S^{[0,T]}x$, see Definition 2.5 of [@Sim(2009)]. The image $\Phi\left(\mathcal{N}_0(S^{[0,T]}x)\right)$ will be denoted by ${\overline}{\mathcal{N}}_0(S^{[0,T]}x)$. The sufficiency (geometric hyperbolicity) of a trajectory segment $S^{[0,T]}x$ means that the dimension of the neutral linear space $\mathcal{N}_0(S^{[0,T]}x)$ takes the minimum possible value $1$, see Definition 2.7 in [@Sim(2009)]. Moreover, let $1=k(1)<k(2)<\dots<k(N-1)<n$ be the uniquely defined indices with the property that for every $l$ ($1\le l\le N-1$) the collision graph $\left(\mathcal{V},\, \{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{k(l)}\}\right)$ has exactly $N-l$ connected components, whereas the number of components of $\left(\mathcal{V},\, \{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{k(l)-1}\}\right)$ is $N-l+1$.
We shall call the edges (collisions) $e_{k(1)},\dots,e_{k(N-1)}$ [*essential*]{}.
For every [*non-essential edge*]{} $e_m=\{i(m),j(m)\}$ ($1\le i(m)<j(m)\le N$) we express the relative displacement $$\Delta q^-_{i(m)}(t_m)-\Delta q^-_{j(m)}(t_m) =\alpha_m\left[v^-_{i(m)}(t_m)-v^-_{j(m)}(t_m)\right]$$ as a linear combination of relative velocities of earlier collisions $e_1, e_2,\dots,e_{m-1}$ (with coefficients made up from some masses and advances) precisely as described by the CPF, see Proposition 2.19 in [@S-Sz(1999)]:
$$\label{CPF}
\alpha_m\left[v^-_{i(m)}(t_m)-v^-_{j(m)}(t_m)\right]=\sum_{k=1}^{m-1} \alpha_k \Gamma_k^{(m)}$$
($1\le m\le n$, $e_m$ is not essential), where each $\Gamma_k^{(m)}$ is a linear combination of the relative velocities $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$ and $v^+_{i(k)}-v^+_{j(k)}$, and the coefficients in these linear combinations are fractional linear expressions of the masses $m_{i(k)}$ and $m_{j(k)}$, see the CPF as Proposition 2.19 in [@S-Sz(1999)]. We observe that the solution set of the system of all equations (\[CPF\]) (taken for all $m$ with a non-essential edge $e_m$) is precisely the linear space $\Phi\left(\mathcal{N}_0(S^{[0,T]} x)\right)={\overline}{\mathcal{N}}_0(S^{[0,T]} x)$, having the same dimension as the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_0(S^{[0,T]} x)$, $x\in U_0$.
As follows, we are presenting an indirect proof (a proof by contradiction) by assuming that the nonhyperbolicity manifold $J$ coincides with a past singularity so that no collision takes place between the mentioned singularity and $J$. (Otherwise those collisions between the singularity and $J$ could be added to the symbolic sequence $\Sigma=(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_n))$ as an initial segment.)
Throughout the proof we shall assume that the masses of the elastically interacting balls are equal: $m_1=m_2=\dots=m_N$. As a matter of fact, this assumption is not a serious restriction of generality: it is merely a technical-notational assumption, and the reader can easily re-write the present proof to cover the general case of arbitrary masses. We denote by $d=\nu(N-1)$ the dimension of the configuration space $\mathbf{Q}$.
Following the ideas and notations of §3 of [@S-Sz(2000)], we introduce the following notions and notations.
With every collision $e_k=(i(k),\, j(k))$ ($1\le k\le n$, $1\le i(k)<j(k)\le N$) we associate the real projective space $\mathcal{P}\cong \mathbb{RP}(\nu-1)$ of all orthogonal reflections of the common tangent space $$\label{tangent-space}
\mathcal{Z}=\mathcal{T}\mathbf{Q}=\mathcal{T}_q\mathbf{Q} \\
=\left\{(\delta q_1,\dots,\delta q_N)\in(\mathbb{R}^\nu)^N \big|\;
\sum_{i=1}^N \delta q_i=0\right\}\cong\mathbb{R}^d$$ across all possible tangent hyperlanes $H$ of the cylinder $C_{e_k}$ corresponding to the collision $e_k$. In this way we obtain a map $$\label{definition-Phi}
\Phi:\; S^{d-1}\times \prod_{k=1}^n \mathcal{P}_k \to S^{d-1}$$ which assignes to every $(n+1)$-tuple $$(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_n)\in S^{d-1}\times\prod_{k=1}^n \mathcal{P}_k$$ the image velocity $V_n=V_0g_1g_2\dots g_n$ of $V_0$ under the composite action $g_1g_2\dots g_n$. (Here, by convention, the composition is carried out from the left to the right, and $S^{d-1}$ denotes the unit sphere of $\mathcal{Z}$ in \[tangent-space\].) The space $M_n=S^{d-1}\times\prod_{k=1}^n \mathcal{P}_k$ is called the phase space of the virtual velocity process $(V_0,V_1,\dots,V_n)$, where $V_k=V_0g_1g_2\dots g_k$. Clearly, the velocity process $(V_0,V_1,\dots,V_n)$ uniquely determines the sequence of reflections $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_n$. For any $x\in M_n$ or $x\in U_0$ we denote the velocity $V_k$ by $V_k(x)$. Similarly, $v^+_{i(k)}-v^+_{j(k)}$ denotes the relative velocity of the colliding particles $i(k)$ and $j(k)$ right after the collision $e_k=(i(k),\, j(k))$ ($1\le i(k)<j(k)\le N$), and the definition of the pre-collision relative velocity $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$ is analogous, $k=1,2,\dots,n$. Thus we get a natural projection $$\label{projection}
\Pi:\; U_0\to M_n$$ by taking $\Pi(x)=(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_n(x))$ for $x=(q(x),\, v(x))\in U_0$, where $V_0(x)=v(x)$.
What is coming up is a local analysis in a small, open ball neighborhood $B_0\subset M_n$ of the base point $(V_0(x_0);\, g_1(x_0),\dots,g_n(x_0))$. We begin with a useful definition.
\[projection-definition\] The projections $R_k:\; \mathcal{Z}\to \mathbb{R}^\nu$ ($k=1,2,\dots,n$) are defined by the equation $$R_k(\delta q)=\delta q_{i(k)}-\delta q_{j(k)}$$ for $\delta q\in \mathcal{Z}$, where $\mathcal{Z}$ is the tangent space of $\mathbf{Q}$ in (\[tangent-space\]).
The Connecting Path Formula (\[CPF\]) together with the results of [@S-Sz(2000)] and [@Sim(2002)] yield the following results.
\[DDP\] For any integer $m$, $2\le m\le n$, the neutral space $$\mathcal{N}_{t_1+0}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})=\mathcal{N}_{1}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})$$ is determined by the *directions* of all relative velocities $v^-_{i(l)}-v^-_{j(l)}$, $v^+_{i(l)}-v^+_{j(l)}$ ($2\le l\le m-1$), and by the directions of $v^+_{i(1)}-v^+_{j(1)}$ and $v^-_{i(m)}-v^-_{j(m)}$. *This property will be called the Direction Determination Principle, or DDP.* As a consequence, all the neutral spaces $$\mathcal{N}_{k}=\mathcal{N}_{k}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})=\mathcal{N}_{t_k+0}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})$$ ($0\le k\le m$) are determined by the relative velocities listed above and by $v^-_{i(1)}-v^-_{j(1)}$, $v^+_{i(m)}-v^+_{j(m)}$. We note that the neutral spaces $\mathcal{N}_{k}$ are connected to each other via the equations $\mathcal{N}_{l}=\mathcal{N}_{k}\cdot g_{k+1}\cdot\dots\cdot g_l$ for $k<l$, and the reflection $g_s$ is (locally) determined by the directions of the relative velocities $v^-_{i(s)}-v^-_{j(s)}$ and $v^+_{i(s)}-v^+_{j(s)}$, $1\le s\le m$.
Observe that for any tangent vector $\delta q=(\delta q_1,\dots,\delta q_N)\in\mathcal{Z}$ the relation $\delta q\in \mathcal{N}_1(V_0;\, g_1,\dots,g_{m})$ holds true if and only if for every $k$, $2\le k\le m$, the vector $R_k(\delta q\cdot g_2\cdot g_3\cdot\dots\cdot g_{k-1})$ is parallel to the relative velocity vector $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$, and $R_1(\delta q)$ is parallel to $v^+_{i(1)}-v^+_{j(1)}$.
\[variations\] Use the notions and notations of the previous proposition, except that here we allow the values $0$ and $1$ for the number of collisions $m$. We claim that for fixed *directions* of all relative velocities $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$ and $v^+_{i(k)}-v^+_{j(k)}$ ($k=1,2,\dots,m$) and for a given reference time $t_s+0$ ($0\le s\le m$, $t_0=0$) all possible space and velocity variations $\delta q$ and $\delta v$ are precisely the elements of the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_{s}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})$.
Induction on $m$. The statement is obviously true for $m=0$, since in this case $\mathcal{N}_{0}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})=\mathcal{Z}$, the tangent space of the configuration space.
Assume now that $m\ge1$ and the claim is true for all smaller numbers of collisions. Clearly it is enough to prove the proposition for the case $s=m-1$. The fixed directions of $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$ and $v^+_{i(k)}-v^+_{j(k)}$ for $k=1,2,\dots,m-1$ mean that the possible values of either $\delta q$ or $\delta v$ are precisely the elements of the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_{m-1}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m-1})$. If, in addition, we also fix the direction of $v^-_{i(m)}-v^-_{j(m)}$, then this leaves for us the space $\mathcal{N}_{m-1}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})$ as the set of all available values for $\delta v$. Furthermore, by also fixing the direction of $v^+_{i(m)}-v^+_{j(m)}$ (i. e. also fixing the reflection $g_m$) restricts the space of available values for $\delta q$ to the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_{m-1}(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_{m})$.
\[typ-dim\] For every $m$, $1\le m\le n$, the generic ($\operatorname{\Longleftrightarrow}$minimal) dimension (both in measure-theoretical and topological senses) of the neutral spaces $$\mathcal{N}_0(V_0;\, g_1,\dots,g_{m})$$ on the phase space $M_{m}$ is equal to the generic ($\operatorname{\Longleftrightarrow}$minimal) value of $$\text{dim}\mathcal{N}_0(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),g_2(x),\dots,g_{m}(x))$$ for all $x\in U_0$. (Key Lemma 3.19 in [@Sim(2002)].)
The value of this typical dimension will be denoted by $\Delta(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{m})$. Plainly, it only depends on the symbolic sequence $(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{m})$.
The value of $\text{dim}\mathcal{N}_0(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{m}(x))$ for typical $x\in J$ (either in measure-theoretical or in topological sense) will be denoted by $\Delta_J(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{m})$. By selecting the open balls $B_0$ and $U_0$ ($B_0\subset M_n$, $U_0\subset \mathbf{M}$, $U_0=\Pi^{-1}(B_0)$) small enough we may (and shall) assume that for every integer $m$, $1\le m\le n$, $$\label{typ-dim1}
\text{dim}\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y);\, g_1(y),\dots,g_{m}(y)\right)
=\Delta(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{m}) \quad \forall y\in B_0\setminus\tilde{J},$$
$$\label{typ-dim2}
\text{dim}\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y);\, g_1(y),\dots,g_{m}(y)\right)
=\Delta_J(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{m}) \quad \forall y \in \tilde{J},$$
where $\tilde{J}\subset B_0$ is an analytic submanifold of $B_0$ with $J=\Pi^{-1}(\tilde{J})$.
\[key-lemma-corollary\] (A corollary of the proof of Key Lemma 3.19 of [@Sim(2002)].) Let $1\le m\le n$, and $\mathcal{N}^* \subset\mathcal{Z}$ be a given subspace with $\mathcal{N}^*\cap\left\{V_m(x)\big|\; x\in U_0\right\}\ne\emptyset$. We claim that the typical (i. e. minimal) value of $$\text{dim}\left[\mathcal{N}^*\cap\mathcal{N}_m(V_m;\, g_{m+1},g_{m+2},\dots,g_n)\right]$$ for $V_m\in\mathcal{N}^*$ and $g_k\in\mathcal{P}_k$ ($m+1\le k\le n$) is equal to the typical (i. e. minimal) value of $$\text{dim}\left[\mathcal{N}^*\cap\mathcal{N}_m(V_m(x);\, g_{m+1}(x),g_{m+2}(x),\dots,g_n(x))\right]$$ for $x\in U_0$ with $V_m(x)\in\mathcal{N}^*$.
The proof of this statement can be obtained from the proof of Key Lemma 3.19 of [@Sim(2002)], hence it is omitted.
Now it is time to bring up the definition of the “critical index” $n_0$.
\[n-zero\] The “critical index” $n_0$ is the unique positive integer $n_0$, $1\le n_0\le n$, with the property that for any $x\in U_0$
1. the directions of the relative velocities $v_{i(k)}^-(x)-v_{j(k)}^-(x)$, $v_{i(k)}^+(x)-v_{j(k)}^+(x)$, $k=1,2,\dots,n_0$, determine in $M_n$ if $\Pi(x)\in\tilde{J}$, whereas
2. the directions of the relative velocities $v_{i(k)}^-(x)-v_{j(k)}^-(x)$, $v_{i(k)}^+(x)-v_{j(k)}^+(x)$, $k=1,2,\dots,n_0-1$, do not determine yet in $M_n$ if $\Pi(x)\in\tilde{J}$.
The precise meaning of the notions above is the following: The manifolds $\mathcal{W}_{n_0}=\mathcal{W}_{n_0}(x)\subset U_0$ that are defined by fixing the directions of all the relative velocities listed in (i) (which form a smooth foliation of the local neighborhood $U_0$ if $U_0$ is chosen small enough) are either subsets of $J$ or they are disjoint from it, whereas the manifolds $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}=\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(x)$ that are defined by fixing the directions of all the relative velocities listed in (ii) (which also form a smooth foliation of the local neighborhood $U_0$ for small enough $U_0$) are transversal to $J$.
Apply Proposition \[key-lemma-corollary\] to $m=n_0$, $$\mathcal{N}^*=\mathcal{N}_m\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),g_2(x),\dots,g_{n_0}(x)\right)$$ ($x\in U_0$) to realize that the directions of the relative velocities listed above in (i) also determine if the phase point $(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_n)\in M_n$ belongs to $\tilde{J}$ or not. In the free velocity process $(V_0;\, g_1,g_2,\dots,g_n)\in M_n$ there is absolutely no constraint on the velocities, other than that each $g_k$ is an orthogonal reflection across a hyperplane determined by $e_k=(i(k),\, j(k))$. Because of this, the only way that the relative velocities listed above in (i) determine the status of $(V_0;\, g_1,\dots,g_n)\in\tilde{J}$ is that a minor $\mathcal{M}$ (determinant of a square submatrix) of the system (\[CPF\]) with maximum column index $n_0$ vanishes. Observe that the $n_0$-th column of the system of CPFs (\[CPF\]), i.e. the coefficients of the unknown $\alpha_{n_0}$ in (\[CPF\]), depend on the pair of velocities $$r(x)=\left(v^-_{i(n_0)}(x)-v^-_{j(n_0)}(x),\, v^+_{i(n_0)}(x)-v^+_{j(n_0)}(x)\right)$$ linearly (they are certain linear combinations of some coordinates of the two components of $r(x)$), hence the minor $\mathcal{M}$ also depends linearly on $r(x)$, and $(V_0;\, g_1,\dots,g_n)\in\tilde{J}$ means that the solution set of (\[CPF\]) is atypically big. Using these two observations and the Direction Determination Principle (DDP) of Proposition \[DDP\] we obtain a useful description of the membership relation $x\in J$ as follows.
\[belongs-to-hyperplane\] For any $x\in U_0$ the relation $x\in J$ holds true if and only if the pair of relative velocities $$\label{def-r}
r(x):=\left(v^-_{i(n_0)}(x)-v^-_{j(n_0)}(x),\, v^+_{i(n_0)}(x)-v^+_{j(n_0)}(x)
\right) \in \mathbb{R}^\nu\times\mathbb{R}^\nu=\mathbb{R}^{2\nu}$$ belongs to a hyperplane $H(x)\subset\mathbb{R}^{2\nu}$ depending analytically on the directions $$\text{dir}(v^-_{i(k)}(x)-v^-_{j(k)}(x)), \quad
\text{dir}(v^+_{i(k)}(x)-v^+_{j(k)}(x))$$ of the indicated relative velocities for $k=1,2,\dots,n_0-1$.
In order to make the mechanism discussed in Proposition \[belongs-to-hyperplane\] more transparent, below we provide the reader with a brief analysis of the special example $\Sigma=(e_1,\,e_2,\,e_3)$ with $e_1=(1,2)$, $e_2=(1,3)$, and $e_3=(2,3)$. Since the relevant observation times for this sequence are $t_1$ and $t_2$ separating the first two and the second and third collisions, respectively, in this example we will consequently denote the velocities and space perturbations observed at time $t_1$ with a superscript $-$, whereas the velocities and space perturbations observed at time $t_2$ will be distinguished by a superscript $+$. (This is somewhat in contrast with the earlier notations, but here they come rather handy.)
The neutrality equations with respect to $e_1$ and $e_2$, along with the preservation of the center of mass are $$\alpha_1(v_1^--v_2^-)=\delta q_1^--\delta q_2^-,$$ $$\alpha_2(v_1^--v_3^-)=\delta q_1^--\delta q_3^-,$$ $$\delta q_1^-+\delta q_2^-+\delta q_3^-=0.$$ From these equations we immediately get $$\delta q_1^-=\frac{1}{3}\alpha_1(v_1^--v_2^-)+\frac{1}{3}\alpha_2(v_1^--v_3^-),$$ $$\delta q_2^-=-\frac{2}{3}\alpha_1(v_1^--v_2^-)+\frac{1}{3}\alpha_2(v_1^--v_3^-),$$ $$\delta q_3^-=\frac{1}{3}\alpha_1(v_1^--v_2^-)-\frac{2}{3}\alpha_2(v_1^--v_3^-).$$ By using the transformation equations through $e_2$ and the neutrality with respect to this collision $$\delta q_2^+=\delta q_2^-,$$ $$\delta q_1^-+\delta q_3^-=\delta q_1^++\delta q_3^+,$$ $$(\delta q_1^+-\delta q_3^+)-(\delta q_1^--\delta q_3^-)=\alpha_2\left[(v_1^+-v_3^+)-(v_1^--v_3^-)\right]$$ one easily expresses the quantity $\delta q_2^+-\delta q_3^+$ as follows: $$\delta q_2^+-\delta q_3^+=-\alpha_1(v_1^--v_2^-)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_2
\left[(v_1^--v_3^-)+(v_1^+-v_3^+)\right].$$ Note that the linear coordinates $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ independently parametrize the two-dimensional neutral space $\mathcal{N}_0(x;\,e_1,e_2)$. From the last equation we see that the non-hyperbolicity $x\in J$ holds true precisely when the vectors $v_1^--v_2^-$ and $(v_1^--v_3^-)+(v_1^+-v_3^+)$ are parellel. This parallelity condition defines a subspace $H$ for the vector $r(x)=(v_1^--v_3^-,\, v_1^+-v_3^+)$ with codimension $\nu-1$, which codimension is $1$ exactly when $\nu=2$. (In the case $\nu\ge 3$ there is nothing to prove; the codimension is already big enough.)
The next result tells us that the collision $e_{n_0}$ decreases the dimension of the neutral space.
\[nzero-essential\] $$\Delta(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n_0})<\Delta(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n_0-1}).$$
Proof by contradiction: assume that $\Delta(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0})=\Delta(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0-1})$. This assumption means that the actual CPF of (\[CPF\]) (in which $m=n_0$) can be dropped from the whole system without affecting the solution set. Furthermore, by making the standard reduction $\alpha_{n_0}=0$ for the advance $\alpha_{n_0}$ (which can be done by modifying the solution by adding to it a solution with all advances equal, and this chops off the dimension of the solution set by $1$) we can completely drop the $n_0$-th column from the system of CPFs (\[CPF\]). This shows that the two relative velocity components of $r(x)$ in (\[def-r\]) have no effect on the solution set in question, and this contradicts to the properties (i)–(ii) of the critical index $n_0$ listed in Definition \[n-zero\].
The upcoming lemma tells us that the critical collision $e_{n_0}$ does not distinguish between the points of $J$ and of $U_0\setminus J$.
\[no-distinguish\] $$\Delta(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n_0})=\Delta_J(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n_0}).$$
Again a proof by contradiction: assume that $\Delta(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0})<\Delta_J(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0})$. According to Proposition \[DDP\], the neutral space $$\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)$$ is determined by the directions of the relative velocities $v^-_{i(l)}(x)-v^-_{j(l)}(x)$ and $v^+_{i(l)}(x)-v^+_{j(l)}(x)$ for $l=1,2,\dots,n_0-1$, whereas, according to (ii) of Definition \[n-zero\], these relative velocities do not determine whether $x\in J$. On the other hand, the projection $$R_{n_0}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)\right]$$ of this neutral space onto $\delta q_{i(n_0)}-\delta q_{j(n_0)}$ determines if $x\in J$ is true or not. To see this we note that, due to the assumption $\Delta(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0})<\Delta_J(e_1,\dots,e_{n_0})$, for the points $x\in U_0\setminus J$ the dimension of $$R_{n_0}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),g_2(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)\right]$$ (which is $$\text{dim}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)\right]-
\text{dim}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0}(x)\right)\right]+1)$$ is larger than the similar dimension for the points $x\in J$. This, in turn, means that the directions of the relative velocities $v^-_{i(l)}(x)-v^-_{j(l)}(x)$ and $v^+_{i(l)}(x)-v^+_{j(l)}(x)$ ($l=1,2,\dots,n_0-1$) determine if $x\in J$ is true or not, thus violating property (ii) of $n_0$ listed in Definition \[n-zero\].
Finishing the proof of the Theorem {#finishing-theorem}
==================================
First we present the closing part of the proof by assuming that $\nu=2$. We remind the reader that the entire proof of the Theorem is a proof by contradiction, so the coincidence (in a neighborhood $U_0$) of $J$ and the past-singularity $K$ is assumed all along. Right after that we present the proof for the case $\nu\ge 3$, which is just slightly more difficult technically than the case $\nu=2$. Thus, for now we assume that $\nu=2$.
Consider an arbitrary point $y_0\in J$. Let $\tau<0$ be the unique number such that
1. $S^\tau y_0=y^* \in \mathcal{SR}^+_0$,
2. $S^{(\tau,0)}y_0\cap \partial\mathbf{M}=\emptyset$.
Here $\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ denotes the set of all singular reflections given with their outgoing (post-singularity) velocity.
Select and fix a vector $w_0$, $w_0\perp v(y^*)$, such that $$\label{w-nought}
w_0\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)\setminus
\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0}(y^*)\right).$$ This is possible, due to lemmas \[nzero-essential\]–\[no-distinguish\]. Next we consider a smooth curve $\gamma_0(s)$, $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$, $\gamma_0(0)=y^*$, $\gamma_0(s)\in\mathcal{SR}^+_0$, as follows:
*Case A. If the singularity at $y^*$ is a double collision (a corner of the configuration space)*
1. $v(\gamma_0(s))=\dfrac{v(y^*)+s\cdot w_0}{||v(y^*)+s\cdot w_0||}$,
2. $q(\gamma_0(s))=q(\gamma_0(0))=q(y^*)$
for $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$.
*Case B. If the singularity at $y^*$ is a tangency*
1. $v(\gamma_0(s))=\dfrac{v(y^*)+s\cdot w_0}{||v(y^*)+s\cdot w_0||}$,
2. $q(\gamma_0(s))=q(y^*)+\alpha\cdot w_0+\beta\cdot v(\gamma_0(s)))$
($|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$) so that the relation $\gamma_0(s)\in\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ still holds true. We note that the orders of magnitude of the correction parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are $\alpha=\text{O}(s^2)$, $\beta=\text{O}(s)$, as a simple geometric observation shows.
Fix a time $t^*$, $t_{n_0-1}(y^*)<t^*<t_{n_0}(y^*)$, and investigate the image $S^{t^*}(\gamma_0(s))=\gamma^*(s)$ of the curve $\gamma_0$ under the $t^*$-iterate of the billiard flow. More precisely, let us focus our attention on the projection $$\label{divergent}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(q_{i(n_0)}(\gamma^*(s))-q_{j(n_0)}(\gamma^*(s)),\, v_{i(n_0)}(\gamma^*(s))-v_{j(n_0)}(\gamma^*(s))\right) \\
&=({\overline}{q}(s),\, {\overline}{v}(s))\in\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ and on the lines $$\label{lines}
L(s):=\left\{{\overline}{q}(s)+t\cdot {\overline}{v}(s)\big|\; t\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\subset\mathbb{R}^2.$$
The following proposition directly follows from the definition (\[w-nought\]) of $w_0$ and from the definition of the curve $\gamma_0\subset\mathcal{SR}^+_0$.
\[rotation\] The lines $L(s)$ rotate about a point $A$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$ in Case A, whereas they are tangential to a given ellipse of $\mathbb{R}^2$ in Case B.
\[degeneracy-warning\] We should note here that there is an exceptional subcase of Case B when the ellipse also degenerates to a point, just like in Case A. This is the situation when the singularity at $y^*$ is a tangency but the projection $R_0(w_0)$ is parallel to the outgoing relative velocity $v^+_{i(0)}-v^+_{j(0)}$ of the two particles $i(0)$ and $j(0)$ colliding tangentially at time zero. However, this degeneracy of the ellipse does not cause any problem in the proof, for it is treated as the degeneracy in Case A.
We also note that in all of the cases above the directions of the lines $L(s)$ are properly changing at a non-zero rate, thanks to our choice of $w_0$ with $$w_0\not\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0}(y^*)\right).$$
We remind the reader that, according to Proposition \[belongs-to-hyperplane\], the vectors $$r(\gamma_0(s))=\left({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s)\right)$$ belong to a given hyperplane $H(\gamma_0(0))=H(y^*)$ of $\mathbb{R}^4$ not depending on the parameter $s$. Here $$\label{v-plus}
{\overline}{v}^+(s):=v^+_{i(n_0)}(\gamma_0(s))-v^+_{j(n_0)}(\gamma_0(s))$$ denotes the outgoing $(i(n_0),j(n_0))$ relative velocity right after the collision $e_{n_0}=(i(n_0),j(n_0))$. The reason why the hyperplanes $H(\gamma_0(s))$ are independent of $s$ is the following: Both the space and velocity perturbations $q(\gamma_0(s))-q(\gamma_0(0))$ and $v(\gamma_0(s))-v(\gamma_0(0))$ belong to the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)$ and, futhermore, they are proportional to each other. One proves by a standard “continuous induction” that these properties remain true all the way until time $t^*$, thus the (incoming and outgoing) relative velocities of the collisions $g_1, g_2,\dots,g_{n_0-1}$ are independent of the perturbation parameter $s$.
The proof of the Theorem will be complete as soon as we prove our
\[no-hyperplane\] Let $C_1\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be an ellipse, possibly degenerated to a single point, $C_2\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be a circle, so that none of $C_1$ or $C_2$ is lying inside the other one, i. e. they have at least two common tangent lines. Suppose that $L(s)$, $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$, is a smooth family of oriented lines in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the direction vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. $L(s)$ is tangent to $C_1$ at the point of contact $A(s)$, and at $A(s)$ the direction vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$ agrees with a given orientation of $C_1$ (if $C_1$ is not a point),
2. $L(s)$ intersects $C_2$ in two points, out of which the one whose position vector makes the smaller inner product with ${\overline}{v}(s)$ is denoted by $B(s)$,
3. $\dfrac{d}{ds}\alpha\left({\overline}{v}(s)\right)>0$ for all $s$, $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$.
Here $\alpha({\overline}{v}(s))$ denotes the direction angle of the vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$. Finally, let ${\overline}{v}^+(s)$ be the mirror image of ${\overline}{v}(s)$ under the orthogonal reflection across the tangent line of the circle $C_2$ at the point $B(s)$.
We claim that there is no hyperplane $H\subset\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ containing all the points $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))$ for $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$.
A simple geometric inspection. We can assume, without restricting generality, that $\Vert{\overline}{v}(s)\Vert =1$. We prove the proposition in the case when $C_1$ and $C_2$ have at least two common, non-parallel tangent lines. The proof for the exceptional case, when this hypothesis is not satisfied, can be done with some modifications, which we will show below right after completing the proof by using the hypothesis.
First of all, we can assume that the lines $L(s)$ depend on the parameter $s$ analytically. Then one can analytically extend the family of lines $L(s)$ to an interval of parameters $I=[a,b]\supset (-{\varepsilon}_0,{\varepsilon}_0)$ by preserving all properties (i)–(iii) above so that $L(a)$ and $L(b)$ are non-parallel and tangent to the circle $C_2$. If there was a hyperplane $H\subset\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ containing all points $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))$ for $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$ then, by the reason of analyticity, the same containment $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))\in H$ would be true for all $s$, $a\le s\le b$. Now we have that $$\begin{aligned}
& ({\overline}{v}(a),\, {\overline}{v}(a))\in H, \\
& ({\overline}{v}(b),\, {\overline}{v}(b))\in H,
\end{aligned}$$ so $H$ contains the diagonal $\left\{(x,x)\big|\; x\in\mathbb{R}^2\right\}$ and, consequently, the difference vectors $x-y$ for all $(x,y)\in H$ are parallel to each other. But this is impossible, for the difference vectors ${\overline}{v}^+(s)-{\overline}{v}(s)$ can obviously rotate as $s$ varies in the parameter interval.
Finally, we show how to proceed in the case when ${\overline}{v}(a)$ and ${\overline}{v}(b)$ are parallel, i. e. ${\overline}{v}(b)=-{\overline}{v}(a)$. We assume, contrary to the claim of the proposition, that there exists a hyperplane $H\subset\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\times\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ containing all vectors $({\overline}{v}(s),\,{\overline}{v}^+(s))$, $s\in I$. We take the limit $$\lim_{s\to a^+} (s-a)^{-1/2}\left[({\overline}{v}(s),\,{\overline}{v}^+(s))-({\overline}{v}(a),\,{\overline}{v}^+(a))\right]
=(0,\,\xi)\in H,$$ where $\xi\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\xi\ne 0$, $\xi\perp{\overline}{v}(a)$. This shows that for every $s\in I$ the vector $$\eta(s)={\overline}{v}(s)-\langle{\overline}{v}^+(s), {\overline}{v}(a)\rangle\cdot{\overline}{v}(a)$$ has the property that $(\eta(s), 0)\in H$. The vectors $\eta(s)$ ($s\in I$) must be mutually parallel, otherwise the three-dimensional subspace $H$ of $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\times\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ would be equal to $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\times\langle\xi\rangle$, which would mean that all outgoing vectors ${\overline}{v}^+(s)$ are parallel to $\xi$, but this is clearly not the case.
Denote the common line containing all the vectors $\eta(s)$ by $\mathcal{L}$. Clearly $\mathcal{L}$ is not parallel to the vector ${\overline}{v}(a)$. We claim that $\mathcal{L}\perp{\overline}{v}(a)$. Indeed, the vectors ${\overline}{v}(s)$, $s\in I$, fill out one half of the unit circle, thus in the case $\mathcal{L}\not\perp{\overline}{v}(a)$ there would be a parameter value $s$, $a<s<b$, such that $\text{dist}({\overline}{v}(s),\, \eta(s))>1$, which is impossible, for $$\text{dist}({\overline}{v}(s),\, \eta(s))=\left|\langle{\overline}{v}^+(s),\, {\overline}{v}(a)\rangle\right|\le 1.$$ The fact $\mathcal{L}\perp{\overline}{v}(a)$, however, implies that $\langle{\overline}{v}^+(s)-{\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}(a)\rangle=0$ for all $s\in I$, which is clearly a contradiction, since the nonzero difference vectors ${\overline}{v}^+(s)-{\overline}{v}(s)$ are parallel to the rotating collision normal.
Finally, we complete the proof of the Theorem in the (somewhat more difficult) case $\nu\ge 3$, as follows.
We consider an arbitrary phase point $y_0\in J$, select the time $\tau<0$ and, correspondingly, the phase point $y^*=S^\tau y_0$ just as before. Furthermore, the selection of a suitable tangent vector $w_0$ of (\[w-nought\]), the construction of the smooth curve $\gamma_0(s)\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ ($|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$), the selection of the separating time $t^*$, the construction of the vectors $$({\overline}{q}(s),\, {\overline}{v}(s))\in\mathbb{R}^\nu\times\mathbb{R}^\nu$$ of (\[divergent\]) and the construction of the lines $$L(s):=\left\{{\overline}{q}(s)+t\cdot {\overline}{v}(s)\big|\; t\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\subset\mathbb{R}^\nu$$ of (\[lines\]) are similar to what we did above in the case $\nu=2$, but now we have to exercise more care in the selection of the neutral tangent vector $w_0$ of (\[w-nought\]), see below.
Suppose, for a moment, that we have already chosen a suitable tangent vector $$w_0\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)\setminus
\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0}(y^*)\right)$$ of (\[w-nought\]).
The counterpart of Proposition \[rotation\] is
\[counterpart\_prop\] All the lines $L(s)$ ($|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$) lie in the same two-dimensional affine subspace $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}(y^*,w_0)$ of $\mathbb{R}^\nu$. These lines rotate about a point $A$ of $\mathcal{P}$ in Case A, whereas they are tangential to a given ellipse $C_1$ of $\mathcal{P}$ in Case B.
\[degeneracy-warning-2\] We note that here Remark \[degeneracy-warning\] again applies.
Consider the smallest linear subspace $S=S(y^*,w_0)\subset\mathbb{R}^\nu$ of $\mathbb{R}^\nu$ containing the affine plane $\mathcal{P}$. Clearly the dimension of $S$ is $3$ or $2$. By algebraic reasons there are two possibilities: Either the space $S=S(y^*,w_0)$ is $3$-dimensional for a typical pair $(y^*,w_0)$ ($y^*=S^\tau y_0\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+$, $y_0\in U_0$, $w_0\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)$, $w_0\perp v(y_0)$), and in this situation we can assume that $\text{dim}S(y^*,w_0)=3$ [*always*]{} in our local analysis by choosing a small enough open set $U_0$, or $\text{dim}S(y^*,w_0)=2$ for [*all*]{} such considered pairs. The next lemma shows that the latter case is actually impossible.
\[high-dim\] It is not possible that $\text{dim}S(y^*,w_0)=2$ for every $y^*\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ ($y^*=S^\tau y_0$, $y_0\in U_0$) and for every $$w_0\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)\setminus
\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0}(y^*)\right),$$ $w_0\perp v(y^*)$.
By way of contradiction, assume that $\text{dim}S(y^*,w_0)=2$ is always the case. This means that the velocities of the phase points $y^*$ can be rotated along the curves $\gamma_0(s)\subset\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ in such a way that we obtain an $n_0$-th collision with a collision normal vector parallel to the relative velocity of the colliding particles $i(n_0)$ and $j(n_0)$. (A so called “head-on collision”.) It is clear that the foliation of the manifold $\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ into the curves $\gamma_0(s)$ can be chosen to be smooth. Furthermore, in order to reach a head-on collision from a given phase point $y^*\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+\cap U_0$ via the curve $\gamma_0(s)$ (with $\gamma_0(0)=y^*$) it may be necessary to leave the small-sized local neighborhood $U_0$ in which we are working. During the perturbation along the curve $\gamma_0(s)$ the times $t_k=t(e_k)$ of the collisions $e_k$ ($k=1,2,\dots, n_0-1$) also change, and this could change the symbolic collision structure of the considered orbit segments. To avoid this problem, during the considered perturbations along the curves $\gamma_0(s)$ we delete all hard core potentials of unduly arising new collisions, i. e. we allow two particles to freely overlap each other if they would produce a collision not in the prescribed symbolic sequence $(e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n_0-1})$. (A so called phantom dynamics.)
The above mean that the phase points $y^*\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ with head-on collisions $e_{n_0}$ form a codimension-one submanifold inside $\mathcal{SR}_0^+$. However, this is impossible, since the singularity manifold $\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ can be smoothly foliated by convex, local orthogonal manifolds, see §4 in [@K-S-Sz(1990)], and this shows that the codimension in $\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ of the set of phase points $y^*$ with a head-on collision $e_{n_0}$ is $\nu-1$, which is now at least $2$, a contradiction.
Therefore, we may and we shall assume that the phase point $y^*=S^\tau y_0\in\mathcal{SR}_0^+$ is chosen (and fixed) in such a way that for the typical selection of $w_0$ in (\[w-nought\]) it is true that $\text{dim}S(y^*,w_0)=3$.
It is clear that the vector $$r(\gamma_0(s))=\left({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s)\right)$$ varies in the $5$-dimensional linear subspace $$\mathcal{P}'\times S\subset\mathbb{R}^\nu\times\mathbb{R}^\nu$$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2\nu}$, where $\mathcal{P}'=\mathcal{P}'(y^*,w_0)$ is the $2$-dimensional linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^\nu$ parallel to $\mathcal{P}$.
Let us focus on the hyperplane $H(\gamma_0(s))=H(y^*)$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2\nu}$, defined as before. For the proof of the fact $H(\gamma_0(s))=H(\gamma_0(0))$ please see the paragraph containing (\[v-plus\]). The fact that the velocities $V_0(x),V_1(x),\dots,V_{n_0-1}(x)$ do not determine if the relation $x\in J$ is true or not, has the following consequence.
\[good\_neutral\] For every singular phase point $y^*$ the neutral vector $w_0$ of \[w-nought\] can be chosen in such a way that the hyperplane $H(\gamma_0(s))=H(y^*)$ does not contain the subspace $\mathcal{P}'\times S$, i. e. $\text{dim}\left[(\mathcal{P}'\times S)\operatorname{\cap}H(y^*)\right]=4$.
The propery $\text{dim}\left[(\mathcal{P}'\times S)\operatorname{\cap}H(y^*)\right]=4$ is an open property and the system in which it is defined is algebraic, so either this property holds on an open set with full measure inside the singularity manifold (and then we can assume that it holds for every singular phase point in the local neighborhood $U_0$ that is chosen suitably small), or this property holds nowhere on the singularity manifold. In the indirect proof below we will assume the latter.
A proof by contradiction. Assume that for every singular phase point $y^*$ (in $U_0$) and for every choice $$w_0\in\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)\setminus
\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0}(y^*)\right)$$ the set containment $$\mathcal{P}'(w_0)\times S(w_0)\subset H=H(y^*)\subset\mathbb{R}^\nu \times \mathbb{R}^\nu$$ is true. (The phase point $y^*=S^\tau y_0$ is now fixed.) This means that $$\label{P-part}
\bigcup_{w_0\in \mathcal{N}_0} \mathcal{P}'(w_0)\times\{0\}\subset H,$$ and $$\label{S-part}
\bigcup_{w_0\in \mathcal{N}_0} \{0\}\times S(w_0)\subset H,$$ where $\mathcal{N}_0=\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)$. Here is now the key observation: If we fix the manifold $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$, that is, all the [*directions*]{} of all the relative velocities $v^-_{i(k)}-v^-_{j(k)}$ and $v^+_{i(k)}-v^+_{j(k)}$ ($1\le k\le n_0-1$) for a phase point $y^*\in U_0$ and let all the other data vary then, according to Propositions \[DDP\] and \[variations\], we also fix the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_0=\mathcal{N}_0\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)$, and at any time $t^*$ between $t_{n_0-1}$ and $t_{n_0}$ the data $\delta q$ and $\delta v$ vary in the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)$, which is also determined by the manifold $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$, see again Proposition \[DDP\]. Therefore, the set containment relations (\[P-part\])–(\[S-part\]) mean that $$\label{everything-in-H}
\begin{aligned}
& R_{n_0}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\, g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)\right] \\
& \times \text{span}\left\{q_{i(n_0)}-q_{j(n_0)},\, R_{n_0}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(x);\,
g_1(x),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(x)\right)\right]\right\}\subset H.
\end{aligned}$$ for any phase point $x\in U_0\cap\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$. We note here that not only the first factor of the Cartesian product of (\[everything-in-H\]) is constant on $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$, but the second one, as well. The reason for this is that on $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$ the possible variations of the vector $q_{i(n_0)}-q_{j(n_0)}$ belong to the space $R_{n_0}\left[\mathcal{N}_{n_0-1}\left(V_0(y^*);\, g_1(y^*),\dots,g_{n_0-1}(y^*)\right)\right]$, see Proposition \[variations\].
The last set containment means that for any $x\in U_0\cap\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y^*)$ it is true that $r(x)\in H(x)=H(y^*)$, so $x\in J$ for all such $x$, according to Proposition \[belongs-to-hyperplane\]. However, this contradicts to the fact that for the phase points $y\in U_0$ the manifolds $\mathcal{W}_{n_0-1}(y)$ are transversal to $J$, see Definition \[n-zero\].
Our proof of the Theorem will be completed as soon as we prove the following counterpart of Proposition \[no-hyperplane\].
\[counterpart\_geometry\] Let $\mathcal{P}'$ be a $2$-dimensional linear subspace of the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}'+x_0$ a coset of $\mathcal{P}'$ not containing $0$, $C_2\subset\mathbb{R}^3$ be the unit sphere of $\mathbb{R}^3$, $C_1\subset\mathcal{P}$ be an ellipse in $\mathcal{P}$, possibly degenerated to a single point. Assume that the unit sphere $C_2$ intersects the affine plane $\mathcal{P}$ in a circle $C$ and none of $C_1$ and $C$ lies completely inside the other one. Suppose that $L(s)$, $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$, is a smooth family of oriented lines in $\mathcal{P}$ with the direction vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. $L(s)$ is tangent to $C_1$ at the point of contact $A(s)$, and at $A(s)$ the direction vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$ agrees with a given orientation of $C_1$ (if $C_1$ is not a point),
2. $L(s)$ intersects $C$ in two points, out of which the one whose position vector makes the smaller inner product with ${\overline}{v}(s)$ is denoted by $B(s)$,
3. $\dfrac{d}{ds}\alpha\left({\overline}{v}(s)\right)>0$ for all $s$, $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$.
Here $\alpha({\overline}{v}(s))$ denotes the direction angle of the vector ${\overline}{v}(s)$. Finally, let ${\overline}{v}^+(s)$ be the mirror image of ${\overline}{v}(s)$ under the orthogonal reflection across the tangent plane of the unit sphere $C_2$ at the point $B(s)$.
We claim that there is no ($4$-dimensional) hyperplane $H\subset \mathcal{P}'\times\mathbb{R}^3$ containing all the points $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))$ for $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$.
In the proposition above the space $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^3$ plays the role of the space $S$ of Proposition \[good\_neutral\].
Very similar to the proof of Proposition \[no-hyperplane\]. We assume again that $C_1$ and $C_2$ possess at least two non-parallel tangent lines. (Otherwise the argument discussing the parallelity case ${\overline}{v}(b)=-{\overline}{v}(a)$ in the proof of Proposition \[no-hyperplane\] applies here with obvious modifications, which are left to the reader.) We can also assume that the lines $L(s)$ depend on the parameter $s$ analytically, and this analytic family of lines $L(s)\subset\mathcal{P}$ is already extended to a parameter interval $I=[a,b]\supset(-{\varepsilon}_0,{\varepsilon}_0)$ by keeping the properties (i)—(iii) above, so that $L(a)$ and $L(b)$ are non-parallel and tangent to the circle $C=\mathcal{P}\cap C_2$. Suppose there is a hyperplane $H$ in the $5$-dimensional space $\mathcal{P}'\times\mathbb{R}^3$ containing all the points $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))$ for $|s|<{\varepsilon}_0$. By reasons of analyticity, the same membership relation $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))\in H$ is true for all $s\in I$. The relations $({\overline}{v}(a),\, {\overline}{v}(a))\in H$, $({\overline}{v}(b),\, {\overline}{v}(b))\in H$ imply that $H$ contains the diagonal $\left\{(v,v)\big|\; v\in \mathcal{P}'\right\}$, which diagonal is the kernel of the linear map $\Psi:\; H\to \mathbb{R}^3$, $\Psi(v_1,v_2)=v_1-v_2$. Therefore, since $\text{dim}H=4$ by our assumption, we get that $\text{dim}\Psi(H)\le 2$. However, for the points $({\overline}{v}(s),\, {\overline}{v}^+(s))$, $a<s<b$, the lines spanned by the vectors ${\overline}{v}(s)-{\overline}{v}^+(s)$ fill out a (nonempty) open part of a circular cone of $\mathbb{R}^3$, which cannot be the part of any subspace with dimension $\le 2$, so the proposition and our non-coincidence theorem are now proved.
Proof of the Boltzmann-Sinai Ergodic Hypothesis\
for all hard ball systems {#conclusion}
================================================
We carry out an induction on the number $N$ of elastically interacting balls. For $N=2$ this is the classic result of Sinai and Chernov [@S-Ch(1987)]. Suppose that $N>2$ and the result (ergodicity, the Chernov-Sinai Ansatz, and complete hyperbolicity, implying the Bernoulli mixing property, see [@C-H(1996)] and [@O-W(1998)]) has been proved for all systems of hard balls (of equal masses) on the flat $\nu$-torus $\mathbb{T}^\nu$ with the number of balls less than $N$. According to Theorem 6.1 of [@Sim(1992)-I], for almost every singular phase point $x\in\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ the forward orbit $S^{(0,\infty)}x$ of $x$
1. contains no singularity, and
2. contains infinitely many connected collision graphs following each other in time.
By Corollary 3.26 of [@Sim(2002)] such forward orbits $S^{(0,\infty)}x$ are sufficient (geometrically hyperbolic), unless the phase point $x$ belongs to a countable family $J_1,\, J_2,\, \dots$ of exceptional, codimension-one, smooth, non-hyperbolicity manifolds studied right here in this paper. By our Theorem, all these exceptional manifolds $J_k$ intersect $\mathcal{SR}^+_0$ in zero-measured subsets of $\mathcal{SR}^+_0$, and this proves the Chernov-Sinai Ansatz for our current system with $N$ balls. Finally, the Theorem of [@Sim(2009)] gives us that the considered $N$-ball system is also ergodic, completely hyperbolic, hence Bernoulli mixing.
Special thanks are due to N. I. Chernov and D. Dolgopyat for their illuminating questions and remarks.
[S-Sz(1999)]{}
Bunimovich, L. A., Sinai, Ya. G.: *On the fundamental theorem of dispersing billiards*, Math. Sb. **90** (1973), 415–431.
Chernov, N. I., Haskell, C.: *Nonuniformly hyperbolic K-systems are Bernoulli*, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. **16** (1996), 19–44.
Krámli, A., Simányi, N., Szász, D.: *A “Transversal” Fundamental Theorem for Semi-Dispersing Billiards*, Commun. Math. Phys. **129** (1990), 535–560.
Krámli, A., Simányi, N., Szász, D.: *The K–Property of Three Billiard Balls*, Annals of Mathematics **133** (1991), 37–72.
Krámli, A., Simányi, N., Szász, D.: *The K–Property of Four Billiard Balls*, Commun. Math. Phys. **144** (1992), 107-148.
Ornstein, D., Weiss, B.: *On the Bernoulli Nature of Systems with Some Hyperbolic Structure*, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. **18** (1998), 441–456.
Sinai, Ya. G., Chernov, N. I.: *Ergodic properties of certain systems of 2–D discs and 3–D balls*, Russian Math. Surveys **42:3** (1987), 181-207.
Simányi, N.: *The K-property of N billiard balls I*, Invent. Math. **108** (1992), 521–548.
Simányi, N.: *The K-property of N billiard balls II*, Invent. Math. **110** (1992), 151–172.
Simányi, N.: *The Complete Hyperbolicity of Cylindric Billiards*, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. **22** (2002), 281–302.
Simányi, N.: *Proof of the Boltzmann-Sinai Ergodic Hypothesis for Typical Hard Disk Systems*, Invent. Math. **154:1** (2003), 123-178.
Simányi, N.: *Proof of the Ergodic Hypothesis for Typical Hard Ball Systems*, Annales Henri Poincaré **5** (2004), 203-233.
Simányi, N.: *Conditional proof of the Boltzmann-Sinai ergodic hypothesis*, Invent. Math. **177** (2009), 381–413.
Sinai, Ya. G.: *On the Foundation of the Ergodic Hypothesis for a Dynamical System of Statistical Mechanics*, Soviet Math. Dokl. **4** (1963), 1818-1822.
Sinai, Ya. G.: *Dynamical Systems with Elastic Reflections*, Russian Math. Surveys **25:2** (1970), 137–189.
Simányi, N., Szász, D.: *Hard ball systems are completely hyperbolic*, Annals of Mathematics, **149** (1999), 35–96.
Simányi, N., Szász, D.: *Non-integrability of Cylindric Billiards and Transitive Lie Group Actions*, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. **20** (2000), 593–610.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper explores an overlapped-multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antenna architecture and a spectrum sharing algorithm via null space projection (NSP) for radar-communications coexistence. In the overlapped-MIMO architecture, the transmit array of a collocated MIMO radar is partitioned into a number of subarrays that are allowed to overlap. Each of the antenna elements in these subarrays have signals orthogonal to each other and to the elements of the other subarrays. The proposed architecture not only improves sidelobe suppression to reduce interference to communications system, but also enjoys the advantages of MIMO radar without sacrificing the main desirable characteristics. The radar-centric spectrum sharing algorithm then projects the radar signal onto the null space of the communications system’s interference channel, which helps to avoid interference from the radar. Numerical results are presented which show the performance of the proposed waveform design algorithm in terms of overall beampattern and sidelobe levels of the radar waveform and finally shows a comparison of the proposed system with existing collocated MIMO radar architectures.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'HRadar.bib'
title: 'Overlapped-MIMO Radar Waveform Design for Coexistence With Communication Systems'
---
Introduction
============
Modern wireless communication systems have evolved towards higher throughput within limited bandwidth in order to accommodate the growing demand for high-volume data streams, such as video broadcasting. The tremendous growth of data services via broadband wireless access (BWA) has resulted in scarcity of wireless bandwidth in recent years. This has prompted government entities like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to explore options for new bandwidth and reassign underused spectrum. They are interested in sharing spectrum previously used and reallocating some of the bandwidth that had been assigned to Department of Defense (DoD). Recently in its $2010$ Fast Track Report, NTIA proposed to share the $3550-3650$ MHz band between military radars and commercial BWA communication systems [@NTIA10]. According to the NTIA report, this band is under-utilized and is favorable for BWA standards such as LTE to coexist with radars.
However, coexistence will require mitigation of electromagnetic interferences (EMI) from one to another. In this case, it will be mostly dominated by radar EMI. Cellular wireless devices and base stations transmit on the order of milliwatts and microwatts, whereas radars transmit up to megawatts. Quite naturally we are here focusing on designing radar waveforms to avoid EMI to communications systems.
\[sec:introduction\]
Related Work
------------
The concepts of MIMO radar are getting attention nowadays as they can have better performance than legacy radar systems to identify more targets with higher angular resolution [@Li2009]. In MIMO radar, multiple waveforms are transmitted via multiple transmit antenna elements and reflected signals from the targets are received by multiple receive antennas. In [@Hassanien2010], authors have proposed a different kind of MIMO radar that they called Phased-MIMO radar. In Phased-MIMO radar, waveforms are transmitted from a MIMO radar where antenna elements are partitioned into multiple subarrays and the elements are allowed to overlap among subarrays. The benefit of this formulation over conventional MIMO radar is its higher coherent processing gain and overall suppressed sidelobes.
The idea of projecting signals onto the null space of an interference channel, in order to avoid interference, is a well-studied topic in the cognitive radio research community [@YiICC2010; @NoamICC2012]. An interference channel’s null space is calculated at the transmitter either by exploiting channel reciprocity using its second order statistics [@YiICC2010] or by blindly estimating the null space, if no cooperation exists between resource sharing nodes [@NoamICC2012]. However, for MIMO radar systems this idea of null space projection (NSP) was first proposed in [@Shabnam2012GC], which was followed by an array of papers [@KhawarICNC14; @Awais_Spatial; @KAC14ICC] where authors studied the NSP-based spectrum sharing approach for various radar-communications scenarios to avoid interference on communications system.
Our Contributions
-----------------
In this paper, we extend the previous work of radar signal projection onto the null space of the interference channel between radar and communication systems in order to avoid interference to communications systems [@Shabnam2012GC; @KhawarICNC14; @Awais_Spatial]. The previous work considers a coexistence scenario where MIMO radar operates in the same band as a MIMO communications system. We extend this approach and consider a different MIMO radar formulation that we call the overlapped-MIMO radar. In the overlapped-MIMO architecture, the transmit array of a collocated MIMO radar is partitioned into a number of subarrays that are allowed to overlap. Each of the antenna elements in these subarrays have signals orthogonal to each other and to the elements of the other subarrays. The proposed architecture not only provides better sidelobe suppression to reduce the interference to communications systems, but also enjoys the advantages of MIMO radar without sacrificing the main desirable characteristics. The radar-centric spectrum sharing algorithm is then combined with this overlapped-MIMO radar formulation that enables the radar signal to project onto the null space of the interference channel of the communications system.
Our contributions in this paper are as follows:
- We introduce a new formulation of MIMO radar, called overlapped-MIMO radar, where the transmit array of the radar is partitioned into a number of subarrays that are allowed to overlap. We derive an analytical model of the architecture to establish the validity of our proposal. Through numerical results and simulation, we show that this architecture results in better sidelobe suppression than conventional radar, which improves the coexistence between radar and communications systems.
- We extend the spectrum sharing scenario of [@Shabnam2012GC] between a MIMO radar and a communications system to spectrum sharing between an overlapped-MIMO radar and a communications system. This extension gives rise to a different coexistence scenario as the overall beampattern of this radar waveform is significantly different from conventional MIMO radar.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II builds the foundation of spectrum sharing architecture between MIMO radar and MIMO communications system. Section III discusses the preliminaries of collocated MIMO radar. Section IV introduces the overlapped-MIMO radar. Section V presents the NSP projection algorithm. Section VI discusses the simulation setup and provides quantitative results along with discussion. Section VII concludes the paper.
Spectrum Sharing Architecture {#sec:spectrum}
=============================
In this paper, we consider a scenario where a collocated MIMO radar with $M_T$ transmit and $M_R$ receive antennas coexists in the same band with a MIMO communications system with $N_T$ transmit and $N_R$ receive antennas.
In this case, the received signal at the receiver terminal of the communications system can be written as
$$\label{S2EQ1}
\mathbf{y_{C}}(t) = \mathbf{H_{I}}^{N_R \times M_T} \mathbf{x_{Radar}} (t) + \mathbf{H}^{N_R \times N_T} \mathbf{x_{C}} (t) + \mathbf{n}(t)$$
where $\mathbf{x_{Radar}} (t)$ is transmitted radar signal, $\mathbf{x_{C}} (t)$ is transmitted communications signal, $\mathbf{H_I}$ is $N_R \times M_T$ interference channel between radar and communications system, $\mathbf{H}$ is $N_R \times N_T$ channel between transmitter and receiver of the communications system, $\mathbf{n}(t)$ is additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN).
We assume that both the radar and communications system are working in a friendly environment, cooperating with each other and sharing information. Information is shared under an agreement that each system will seek to avoid causing interference to the other.
In this paper we investigate a radar-centric design approach. In our radar-centric design, we assume that the ICSI of the communications system is available at the radar terminal and the goal of the MIMO radar is to develop its own radar waveform that will avoid interference to the communications system. A typical coexistence scenario is shown in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\_share\].
![A possible spectrum sharing scenario between a radar mounted on a ship and an on shore communications system.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum_share"}](dyspan.eps){width="3.2in"}
Collocated MIMO Radar {#sec:MIMO}
=====================
In this section, we derive the preliminaries of the collocated MIMO radar system. The MIMO radar considered in this paper is collocated, which means transmit and receive antennas are assumed to be close to each other in space (possibly the same array) [@Li2009]. The number of antenna elements in transmit and receive array are assumed as $M_T$ and $M_R$.
Let $\boldsymbol{\phi}(t)$ be the waveform emitted from the MIMO radar, which is defined as
$$\label{S3EQ1}
\boldsymbol{\phi} (t) =
\begin{bmatrix}
{\phi}_1(t) & {\phi}_2(t) & \cdots & {\phi}_{M_T}(t)
\end{bmatrix}^{T}$$
where $t$ is the time index within the radar pulse and $(\cdot)^T$ denotes the transpose. Note that the $m$th transmit antenna emits the $m$th element of the vector $\boldsymbol{\phi} (t)$, which is $\phi_{m} (t)$. We assume that each element of the transmitted waveform is orthogonal to each other, and the overall waveform satisfies the orthogonality principle
$$\label{S3EQ2}
\int_{T_0} \boldsymbol{\phi} (t) \boldsymbol{\phi}^{H} (t) dt = \mathbf{I}_{M_T}$$
where $T_0$ is the radar pulse width, $(\cdot)^H$ stands for the Hermitian transpose and $\mathbf{I}_{M_T}$ is the $M_T \times M_T$ identity matrix.
The transmitter waveform is steered towards a specific target (or source) direction. Assuming $\mathbf{a}(\theta)$ is the actual transmit steering vector of size $M_T \times 1$ associated with the direction $\theta$ for a uniform linear array (ULA), then
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{S3EQ3}
\mathbf{a} (\theta) &=& \begin{bmatrix} a_1(\theta) & a_2(\theta) & \cdots & a_{M_T}(\theta) \end{bmatrix}^{T} \\ \notag
&=& \begin{bmatrix} 1 & e^{-j 2 \pi d_T \sin\theta} & \cdots & e^{-j 2 \pi d_T (M_T - 1) \sin\theta} \end{bmatrix}^{T} \notag \end{aligned}$$
where the first element of $\mathbf{a}(\theta)$ is the reference element $a_{1} (\theta) = 1$, $m$th element is $a_{m} (\theta) = e^{-j 2 \pi d_T m \sin\theta}$, and $d_{T}$ is the inter-element spacing measured in wavelength for the array. So, the waveform is steered with the steering vector and finally the transmitted signal vector can now be written in a compact vector form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S3EQ4}
\mathbf{x_{Radar}} (t) &=& \mathbf{a} (\theta) \odot \boldsymbol{\phi} (t) \\ \notag
&=& \begin{bmatrix} a_1(\theta){\phi}_1(t) & a_2(\theta){\phi}_2(t) & \cdots & a_{M_T}(\theta){\phi}_{M_T}(t) \end{bmatrix} \\ \notag
&=& \begin{bmatrix} x_1(t) & x_2(t) & \cdots & x_{M_T}(t) \end{bmatrix} \notag \end{aligned}$$
where $\odot$ is the Hadamard (element-wise) product.
The $M_R \times 1$ snapshot vector received by the receive antenna array can be modeled as
$$\label{S3EQ5}
\mathbf{y_{Radar}} (t) = \mathbf{y_{s}} (t) + \mathbf{y_{i}} (t) + \mathbf{n} (t)$$
where $\mathbf{y_{s}} (t)$ is the target/source signal, $\mathbf{y_{i}} (t)$ is a jamming/interference signal, and $\mathbf{n} (t)$ is AWGN.
Under the single point target/source assumption, the received signal at the radar can be written as
$$\label{S3EQ6}
\mathbf{y_{s}} (t) = \beta_{s} ( \mathbf{a}^{T}(\theta_{s})\boldsymbol{\phi}(t) ) \mathbf{b}(\theta_{s})$$
where $\theta_{s}$ is the target/source direction, $\beta_{s}$ is complex-valued reflection coefficient of the focal point $\theta_{s}$ (that includes channel effect and propagation loss), and $\mathbf{b}(\theta)$ is the $M_R \times 1$ receive steering vector associated with the direction $\theta$.
The returned signal from $m$th transmitted waveform can be found by matched-filtering the received signal to each of the waveforms $\{\phi_{m} (t)\}^{M_T}_{m=1}$, i.e.,
$$\label{S3EQ7}
\mathbf{y_{m}} (t) = \int_{T_0} \mathbf{y_{Radar}} (t) {\phi}^{*}(t) dt \quad m=1,\cdots,M_T$$
where $(\cdot)$ stands for the conjugate operation. Then, the virtual data vector of size $M_T M_R \times 1$ can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{S3EQ8}
\mathbf{y_{v}} &=& \left[ \mathbf{y}_{1}^T \mathbf{y}_{2}^T \cdots \mathbf{y}_{M_T}^T \right]^T \\ \notag
&=& \beta_{s} \mathbf{a} (\theta_{s}) \otimes \mathbf{b} (\theta_{s}) + \mathbf{y_{i+n}} \notag\end{aligned}$$
where $\otimes$ is the Kronker product operator and $\mathbf{y_{i+n}}$ is combined component of interference and noise. Hence, the target/source signal component can be written as
$$\label{S3EQ9}
\mathbf{y_{s}} = \beta_{s} \mathbf{v} (\theta_{s})$$
where $\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{a} (\theta_{s}) \otimes \mathbf{b} (\theta_{s}) $ is the $M_T M_R \times 1$ virtual steering vector associated with a virtual array of $M_T M_R$ elements.
For a ULA, the $(m_t M_R + m_r)$th entry of the virtual array steering vector $\mathbf{v }(\theta )$ can be expressed as
$$\label{S3EQ10}
\mathbf{v}_{\left[ m_t M_R + m_r \right]} (\theta) = e^{-j 2 \pi ( m_t d_T \sin\theta + m_r d_R \sin\theta )}$$
where $m_t = 0, \cdots, M_T-1$ and $m_r = 0, \cdots, M_R-1$. For $d_T = M_R d_R$, the virtual array steering vector simplifies to [@Chen2008]
$$\label{S3EQ11}
\mathbf{v}_{\left[ \varsigma \right]} (\theta) = e^{-j 2 \pi \varsigma d_R \sin\theta }$$
where $\varsigma = m_t M_R + m_r = 0,1, \cdots, M_T M_R - 1$, which means that an $M_T M_R$ effective aperture array can be obtained by using $M_T + M_R$ antennas [@Hassanien2010]. Note that in this case, the resulting virtual array is a ULA of $M_T M_R$ elements spaced $d_R$ wavelength apart from each other.
Proposed Overlapped-MIMO Radar {#sec:O-MIMO}
==============================
In this section, we introduce a new formulation of MIMO antenna arrays called overlapped-MIMO where we partition the array into multiple overlapped subarrays. One of the advantages of this approach is that it allows us to beamform transmit and receive arrays. The key idea behind this approach is to partition the transmit arrays into $K$ subarrays where $1\leq K \leq M_T$, which are allowed to overlap [@Hassanien2010]. The overlapped-MIMO radar formulation is shown in Fig. \[fig:omimoblock\].
![A block diagram of the overlapped-MIMO radar formulation.[]{data-label="fig:omimoblock"}](OMIMOBlock3.eps){width="3.2in"}
The complex envelope of the signal at the output of the $k$th subarray can be expressed as
$$\label{S4EQ1}
s_k = \sqrt{\frac{M_T}{K}} \boldsymbol{\phi}_{k} (t) \odot \boldsymbol{w}_{k} \quad k = 1,\cdots, K$$
where both $\boldsymbol{\phi}_{k}$ and $\boldsymbol{w}_{k}$ are $M_m \times 1$ vectors. The latter one has a unit-norm complex vector with $M_m$ beamforming weights. The former one is a waveform vector with $M_m$ orthogonal waveforms. Note that here $M_m$ is the number of antenna elements is each subarray and is defined as $M_m = M_{T} - K + 1$. Each of the orthogonal waveforms, $\phi(t)^{m}_{k}$ is a transmitted signal which can be modeled as
$$\phi^{m}_{k} = Q(t) e^{j 2 \pi (mk/T_0)t}
\label{eq:phmimo02}$$
where $Q(t)$ is the pulse shape of duration $T_{0}$, $m = 1, \cdots , M_m$ and $k = 1, \cdots , K$ [@He2010].
The reflected signal from a target located at direction $\theta$ in the far-field can be expressed as
$$r(t,\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sqrt{\frac{M_T}{K}} \beta(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \displaystyle \sum^{K}_{k=1} \sum^{M_m}_{m=1} w^{m}_{k} {\phi}^{m}_{k} (t) d^{m}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$$
where $\beta(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the reflection coefficient (constant), and $d^{m}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the waveform diversity vector, which is defined as $\displaystyle{e^{-j \tau^{m}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\theta})}}$ where $\tau^{m}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the time required for the wave to travel from the first element to the next element.
The received complex vector of the array observation can be written as
$$\mathbf{y_{Radar}} (t) = r(t,\boldsymbol{\theta}_s) \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_s) + \sum^{D}_{i} r(t,\boldsymbol{\theta}_i) \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_i) + \boldsymbol{n}(t)$$
where $D$ is the number of interfering signals, $\mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is the receive steering vector of size $M_R \times 1$ associated with direction $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, and $\boldsymbol{n}(t)$ is AWGN. Following equations (\[S3EQ7\]) and (\[S3EQ8\]), by match-filtering $ \mathbf{y_{Radar}} (t)$ to each of the waveforms $\left\{\phi^{m}_{k}\right\}^{M_m,K}_{m=1,k=1}$ we can obtain $M_m K M_R \times 1$ virtual data vectors as
$$\mathbf{y_{v}} = \sqrt{\frac{M_T}{K}} \beta_{s} \mathbf{u} (\theta_{s}) + \sum^{D}_{i} \sqrt{\frac{M_T}{K}} \beta_{i} \mathbf{u} (\theta_{i}) + \boldsymbol{n}(t)$$
where $\mathbf{u} (\theta) = (\mathbf{c} (\theta) \odot \mathbf{d} (\theta)) \otimes \mathbf{b} (\theta)$ is the $M_m K M_R \times 1$ virtual steering vector, intermediate vector $c=\left\{w^{m}_{k}a^{m}_{k}\right\}^{M_m,K}_{m=1,k=1}$ of size $M_m K \times 1$, and waveform diversity vector $d=\left\{\exp{{-j \tau^{m}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\theta})}}\right\}^{M_m,K}_{m=1,k=1}$ of size $M_m K \times 1$ [@Chen2008].
In the case of non-adaptive beamforming, the corresponding beamformer weight vectors are given for the $k$th transmitting subarray as
$$\mathbf{w}_k = \frac{\mathbf{a}_k (\theta_{s})}{\left\|\mathbf{a}_k (\theta_{s})\right\|} = \frac{\mathbf{a}_k (\theta_{s})}{\sqrt{M_T-K+1}}$$
where $k = 1,2, \cdots, K$. They are given for the receiving subarrays as
$$\mathbf{w}_d = (\mathbf{c}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_s) \odot \mathbf{d}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_s)) \otimes \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_s)$$
Let $G(\theta)$ be the normalized overall beampattern
$$\label{EQ:BP}
G(\theta) = \frac{| \mathbf{w}^{H}_d \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol\theta)|^{2}}{| \mathbf{w}^{H}_d \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol\theta_s)|^{2}} = \frac{| \mathbf{u}^H(\boldsymbol\theta_s) \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol\theta)|^2}{\left\| \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol\theta_s)\right\|^4}$$
For the special case of a ULA, we have $\mathbf{a}^{H}_{1}(\boldsymbol\theta) \mathbf{a}_{1} (\boldsymbol\theta_s) = \cdots = \mathbf{a}^{H}_{K}(\boldsymbol\theta) \mathbf{a}_{K} (\boldsymbol\theta_s)$. Using equation (\[EQ:BP\]), the beampattern of the overlapped-MIMO radar for a ULA with overlapped partitioning of $K$ transmit subarrays can expressed as
$$G_K(\theta) = \frac{\left| \mathbf{a}^{H}_{K}(\boldsymbol\theta_s) \mathbf{a}_{K}(\boldsymbol\theta) \left[\left(\mathbf{d}(\boldsymbol\theta_s) \otimes \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol\theta_s)\right)^{H} \left(\mathbf{d}(\boldsymbol\theta) \otimes \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol\theta)\right)\right]\right|^2}{\left\|\mathbf{a}^{H}_{K}(\boldsymbol\theta_s)\right\|^4 \left\|\mathbf{d}(\boldsymbol\theta_s) \otimes \mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol\theta_s) \right\|^4 }$$
Proposed Radar-Centric Spectrum Sharing {#sec:NSP}
=======================================
In this section, we introduce a radar-centric projection algorithm which projects the overlapped-MIMO radar signal onto the null space of the communication interference channel via the null space projection (NSP) technique proposed in [@Awais_Spatial]. The algorithm requires us to have CSI in advance, which can be obtained in a number of ways and conveyed to the radar via mutual cooperation between the communication and radar systems [@Shabnam2012GC; @KhawarICNC14; @Awais_Spatial].
The proposed algorithm works as follows. The radar receives $\mathbf{H}$, the CSI between radar and communication channels at the beginning. It then calculates the number of null spaces available to project, which is $M_T-N_R$. It then calculates the projection channel matrix $\mathbf{P}$ and finally creates a new radar signal $\mathbf{\hat{x}_{Radar}}$. If $\mathbf{H}$ is the channel matrix and $\mathbf{P}$ is the projection matrix onto the null space of $\mathbf{H}$, then the overlapped-MIMO radar waveform projected onto the null space of $\mathbf{H}$ to avoid interference from radar can be written as
$$\mathbf{\hat{x}_{Radar}} (t) = \mathbf{P} \mathbf{x_{Radar}} (t).$$
Projection Matrix
-----------------
Let channel $\mathbf H \in \mathbf{F}^{m \times n}$ for $\mathbf{F} = \mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbf{F} = \mathbb{C}$. We want a projection $\mathbf P \in \mathbf{F}^{n \times n}$ of a maximum rank such that it satisfies
- $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{P} = 0$
- $\mathbf{P}^2 = \mathbf{P}$
Let the SVD of channel $\mathbf{H}$ be $\mathbf{H} = \mathbf{U} \boldsymbol\Sigma \mathbf{V}^{*}$, where $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are unitary or orthogonal, depending on $\mathbf{F}$, of order $m$ and $n$, respectively, and
$\boldsymbol\Sigma = diag (\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\cdots, \sigma_k) \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n},$ $k=\min{(m,n)}$
:
where $\sigma_{1} \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_{p} > \sigma_{p+1} = \cdots \sigma_{k} = 0.$
:
Let $\boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} = diag (\sigma^{'}_1, \sigma^{'}_2,\cdots, \sigma^{'}_n) \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ such that
$$\sigma^{'}_i =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } i \leq p \\
1 & \text{if } i > p
\end{cases}$$
Note that $\boldsymbol\Sigma \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} = 0$ and $\left(\boldsymbol\Sigma^{'}\right)^2 = \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'}$.
Now, we define projection $\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{V} \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} \mathbf{V}^{*}$ and check the desired properties:
- $\boldsymbol\Sigma \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} = 0$
- $(\boldsymbol\Sigma^{'})^2 = \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'}$
- $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{U} \boldsymbol\Sigma \mathbf{V}^{*} \mathbf{U} \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} \mathbf{V}^{*} = 0$
- $\mathbf{P}^2 = \mathbf{V} \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} \mathbf{V}^{*} \mathbf{V} \boldsymbol\Sigma^{'} \mathbf{V}^{*} = \mathbf{P}$
So $\mathbf{P}$ is the desired projection.
Optimal Subarray Size
---------------------
We run into two possible scenarios: (1) $M_T\leq N_R$ and (2) $M_T > N_R$. For first scenario where we have $M_T\leq N_R$, we cannot use the NSP method. However, a possible solution to this problem is using overlapped-MIMO as it increases the effective number of transmit arrays, thus making NSP possible. In this case, the effective transmit array aperture, $M_{\epsilon}$ is equal to $(M_T - K + 1)K$, which is greater than $N_R$. Note that $M_{\epsilon}$ is essentially the number of the virtual arrays in the transmitter of the radar. Hence, the overlapped-MIMO radar results in a total virtual array of size $\left( (M_T - K + 1)K \right) M_R$. On the other hand, if we have $M_T > N_R$, NSP is possible for $M_T-N_R$ dimensions. However, even in this case the performance can be increased using overlapped-MIMO since it increases the effective number of transmit arrays.
In order to maximize the impact of the projection presented we have to select a value for the number of subarrays $K$ that maximizes $M_{\epsilon}$
$$K = \arg\max_{K} \left( M_{\epsilon} \right)$$
where $M_{\epsilon} = \left(M_T - K + 1\right)K$.
The number of subarrays $K$ in the overlapped array can be optimized by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S5EQxx}
\frac{\partial}{\partial K} \left(M_{\epsilon}\right) &=& 0 \\ \notag
\frac{\partial}{\partial K} \Big(\left(M_T - K + 1\right)K\Big) &=& 0 \\ \notag
M_T - 2K + 1 &=& 0 \\ \notag
K &=& \left\lfloor \frac{M_T + 1}{2} \right\rfloor \notag \end{aligned}$$
where $\left\lfloor \cdot \right\rfloor$ stands for the floor operation as $K$ should be integer.
Simulation Results {#sec:results}
==================
We simulate an overlapped-MIMO radar. We assume a ULA with $M_T = 20$ antenna elements at the transmitter. At the receiver, we also assume $M_R=20$ antennas. In both cases the space between elements is $d_T=0.5$, meaning adjacent antenna elements are half a wavelength apart. The signal passes through a Rayleigh distributed channel and is subject to AWGN. Each antenna element is omnidirectional. We assume the target of interest is at $\theta_s=15^{o}$ and two interfering signals are located at directions $-30^{o}$ and $-10^{o}$. For the overlapped-MIMO radar we used $5$ subarrays, meaning $K=5$. Output SINRs are computed using $100$ independent simulations.
Figure \[fig:omimo\] shows the overall beampattern for four different MIMO radar formulations: (1) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =1$ (meaning $1$ subarray), (2) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =5$, (3) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =10$ and (4) MIMO radar with $K =20$ (pure MIMO). Here the overlapped-MIMO radars have two different orientations of $5$ and $10$ overlapped subarrays and each subarray has $11$ and $16$ antenna elements respectively. We can observe that the overlapped-MIMO with $K=1$ and MIMO radars have exactly the same overall transmit/receive beampatterns. However, the overlapped-MIMO radar has significantly improved sidelobe suppression compared to the beampattern of the pure MIMO radar (or $1$ subarray).
![Overall beampattern using conventional transmit-receive beamformer where the total number of elements is $M_T = 20$, the number of overlapped subarrays is $K = 5$ and $K = 10$ respectively, the number of elements in each subarray is $\left(M_T - K + 1\right) = 16$ and $\left(M_T - K + 1\right) = 11$ respectively, and $d_T = 0.5$ wavelength.[]{data-label="fig:omimo"}](omimo.eps){width="3.2in"}
Figure \[fig:omimonsp\] shows the overall beampattern for four different MIMO radar formulations with NSP algorithm: (1) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =1$ plus NSP (meaning $1$ subarray), (2) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =5$ plus NSP, (3) overlapped-MIMO radar with $K =10$ plus NSP and (4) MIMO radar with $K =20$ plus NSP (meaning pure MIMO). We observe that the projection algorithm has reduced sidelobe suppression as expected. Note that it is still providing encouraging suppression in compared to pure MIMO radar. However, the primary benefits are at the communications side since this NSP algorithm minimizes interference form the radar to the communications system and thus, enables the two to coexist.
![Overall beampattern using conventional transmit-receive beamformer and NSP where the total number of elements is $M_T = 20$, the number of overlapped subarrays is $K = 5$ and $K = 10$ respectively, the number of elements in each subarray is $\left(M_T - K + 1\right) = 16$ and $\left(M_T - K + 1\right) = 11$ respectively, and $d_T = 0.5$ wavelength.[]{data-label="fig:omimonsp"}](omimonsp.eps){width="3.2in"}
The final experiment considers the number of subarrays, $K$, in the transmitter of the overlapped-MIMO radar that maximizes the benefit for the radar in terms of sidelobe suppression. Note that the radar has most significant impact when the number of virtual arrays, $M_{\epsilon}$, on transmitter side is maximized (see equation \[S5EQxx\]). Fig. \[fig:KMax\] shows the impact of varying the number of subarrays $K$ from $1$ to $M_T$ on $M_{\epsilon}$. For $M_T = 20$, $K = 11$ or $K = 12$ results in the highest impact. This knowledge enables determining the structure of overlapping subarrays. The plot of $K$ for $M_T = 10$ and $M_T = 15$ are shown in the same figure to provide a comparative view. This graph enables picking a value for $K$ (the number of subarrays in the overlapped-MIMO structure) that maximizes the virtual antenna array size, thus enhancing the amount of sidelobe suppression in radar beampattern, while retaining the dimension needed for NSP.
![The number of subarrays, $K$, in a overlapped-MIMO radar is varied from $1$ to $M_T$ and the resulting effective virtual transmitter array number, $M_{\epsilon}$ is observed for three different transmit antenna sizes, i.e., $M_T = 10$, $M_T = 15$ and $M_T = 20$.[]{data-label="fig:KMax"}](KMax.eps){width="3.2in"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper has explored an overlapped-MIMO antenna architecture and a spectrum sharing algorithm via null space projection (NSP) for radar-communications coexistence. In the overlapped-MIMO architecture, the transmit array of the radar is partitioned into a number of subarrays that are allowed to overlap. Each of the antenna elements in these subarrays have signals orthogonal to each other and to the elements of the other subarrays. The advantage of such architecture is to have a larger *effective* transmit array with increased diversity gain. This formulation also improves overall sidelobe suppression compared to a conventional MIMO radar making it suitable for coexisting with communications system.
Further, we introduced a radar-centric spectrum sharing algorithm that projects the radar signal onto the null space of the communications system’s interference channel, which helps to avoid interference from the radar. Note that such null space projection is only possible when the physical number of transmit antennas of the radar is greater than the number of receive antennas of the communications system.
Analytical models for the waveform of the overlapped-MIMO radar and the NSP algorithm are derived in this paper. Simulations of the coexistence scenario were presented too. Through analytical derivation and as well, simulation results, we were able to show that the proposed overlapped-MIMO and NSP algorithms outperform conventional schemes and enable radar-communications system coexistence in the same band. We found that the overlapped-MIMO architecture achieves more than $20$ dB sidelobe suppression above conventional MIMO radar when there are $20$ physical antenna elements in the radar system. We also observed that, in a similar setup, even though NSP degrades suppression, it still retains more than $10$ dB additional sidelobe suppression compared to conventional MIMO radar while reducing interference to the communications system.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors would like to thank Awais Khawar for useful discussions on the projection-based spectrum sharing algorithm.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a unified framework for determining the congruences on a number of monoids and categories of transformations, diagrams, matrices and braids, and on all their ideals. The key theoretical advances present an iterative process of stacking certain normal subgroup lattices on top of each other to successively build congruence lattices of a chain of ideals. This is applied to several specific categories of: transformations; order/orientation preserving/reversing transformations; partitions; planar/annular partitions; Brauer, Temperley–Lieb and Jones partitions; linear and projective linear transformations; and partial braids. Special considerations are needed for certain small ideals, and technically more intricate theoretical underpinnings for the linear and partial braid categories.
*Keywords*: Categories; semigroups; congruences; ${\mathscr H}$-congruences; lattices; ideals; chains of ideals; diagram categories; partition categories; Brauer categories; Temperley-Lieb categories; Jones categories; transformation categories; linear categories; projective linear categories; partial braid categories.
MSC: 20M20 (primary), 08A30, 15A04, 18B40, 20M10, 20M50.
author:
- 'James East[^1] and Nik Ruškuc[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Congruence lattices of ideals in categories and (partial) semigroups'
---
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
A congruence on an algebraic structure is an equivalence relation compatible with its operations. Congruences are therefore in one-one correspondence with quotient structures, and are the kernels of homomorphisms/representations. The set ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ of all congruences on a structure $S$ is a (complete, algebraic) lattice, called the congruence lattice of $S$. For some structures, congruences can be described by means of special substructures, such as normal subgroups of groups, or ideals of rings, but this is not the case in general.
The structures we are mostly concerned with here are (small) categories, viewed as sets of morphisms equipped with the (partial) operation of composition. In fact, it is both convenient and necessary to broaden our scope to the wider class of partial semigroups, which may be thought of as categories in which identities need not exist at every object. As special cases, monoids and semigroups occur when there is only a single object.
The last 70 years have seen many important studies of congruence lattices of monoids and semigroups. Arguably the most influential is Mal’cev’s seminal paper [@Malcev1952], which completely classifies the congruences on the full transformation monoid $\T_X$: i.e., the monoid of all self-maps of the set $X$, under composition. In the case of finite $X$, congruences are elegantly described in terms of the ideals of $\T_X$, and the normal subgroups of the symmetric groups ${\mathcal{S}}_n$, $n\leq|X|$. Mal’cev’s follow-up paper [@Malcev1953] carries out the same program for the full linear monoid ${\mathcal{M}}_n(\F)$, consisting of all $n\times n$ matrices over the field $\F$ (equivalently, linear transformations of an $n$-dimensional vector space over $\F$). The description here is more elaborate than for $\T_X$, but still involves ideals and normal subgroups, this time of appropriate general linear groups. A crucial structural feature shared by the monoids $\T_X$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_n(\F)$ is that their ideals form chains under inclusion.
Mal’cev’s two papers [@Malcev1952; @Malcev1953] set the direction for a number of subsequent studies, and his ideas and techniques have been developed and extended to many other important families of monoids; see for example [@Aizenstat1962; @FGJ2009; @FGJ2005; @ABG2016; @Fernandes2001; @Liber1953; @MSS2000; @Scheiblich1973; @Sutov1961; @Sutov1961_2; @EMRT2018; @ER2018; @Klimov1977]. To the authors’ knowledge, much less is known about congruences on categories. For example, it seems that the congruences of categories of (finite) sets and mappings have not previously been classified. Accordingly, one of the main motivations for the current work is to initiate the study of congruence lattices of categories and partial semigroups, including categories of (partial) mappings, partitions/diagrams, linear transformations, and (partial) braids. Categories of mappings and (linear) transformations are of course among the most fundamental and well-studied categories. Diagram and braid categories play a crucial role across an entire spectrum of mathematical and scientific disciplines, including classical groups, representation theory, topology, theoretical physics, knot theory, logic, invariant theory, combinatorics, theoretical computer science and many more [@BH2019; @HR2005; @Brauer1937; @TL1971; @Jones1994; @Jones2001; @Jones1994_a; @Jones1987; @Jones1983_2; @GL1998; @Abramsky2008; @DP2013; @DW2000; @BS2011; @KX2001; @Xi1999; @Wenzl1988; @Wilcox2007; @Martin2015; @Kauffman1990; @Kauffman1987; @BD1995; @Stroppel2005; @LZ2017; @LZ2012; @LZ2015; @Martin1991; @Martin1994; @Martin2008; @JS1993; @Baez1994; @VZ1998; @FY1989; @BN1996].
The second source of motivation for the present work is to do with ideals. We have already noted that the ideals of a semigroup are crucially involved in its congruences. On the other hand, any such ideal is a semigroup in its own right, and many interesting studies have investigated the ideals of important families of monoids [@EG2017; @DEG2017; @Gray2008; @Howie1990; @Gray2007; @YY2004; @Howie1978; @Klimov1977; @Malcev1953]. In fact, Mal’cev’s paper [@Malcev1953] classified the congruences on all ideals of the linear monoid ${\mathcal{M}}_n(\F)$, including ${\mathcal{M}}_n(\F)$ itself. Congruences on ideals of the full transformation semigroups $\T_X$ were described some years later by Klimov [@Klimov1977]. Formally, Mal’cev’s classification of the congruences on $\T_X$ [@Malcev1952] is a special case of Klimov’s result. In actual fact, however, Klimov’s proof relies crucially on Mal’cev’s classification: to understand the congruences on the ideals, it was necessary to first understand the congruences on the semigroup itself.
To the best of our knowledge, no further results exist classifying the congruences on ideals of natural semigroups. Here we give such classifications for (many) other families of semigroups. In fact, we do so in far greater generality, classifying the congruences on all ideals of many *categories* of mappings, partitions/diagrams, linear transformations, and braids. In several cases, the congruences on the whole category were not previously known, even in the special case of monoids.
The approach we develop works in the opposite direction to Klimov’s, as described above. In all of our applications, the category $U$ in question is the union of an ascending chain of ideals, $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$, of order-type at most $\om$. The goal is to classify the congruences on each ideal $I_r$, and to describe the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$. However, rather than starting with $U$ itself, and then (somehow) deducing results about the ideals $I_r$, we start at the other end with the smallest ideal(s). In each case, we find that the congruences on the first few ideals are characterised by great freedom; in some extreme cases, every equivalence is a congruence. There is then a certain “cut-off” ideal $I_k$ (generally with $k\leq2$), whose congruences are far more restricted and well behaved, and from which point it is possible to iteratively compute the congruences of the ideals $I_{k+1},I_{k+2},\ldots$, building up eventually to the entire category $U$. In this way, classifying congruences of ideals can be seen as integral to computing the congruences of $U$ itself, and to providing an explanation for the structure of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(U)$.
In Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\], \[sect:L\] and \[sect:IB\], we carry out the above program for some thirty important families of categories and monoids. In each case we classify the congruences on every ideal, including the category/monoid itself, and completely describe the corresponding lattices. Each such classification is obtained by applying general theoretical results, proved in Sections \[sect:Pre\]–\[sect:chains\] and \[sect:H\].
Let us now give a more detailed summary of the contents of the paper.
As mentioned above, Sections \[sect:Pre\]–\[sect:chains\] are theoretical in nature, and underpin the computations undertaken in the remainder of the paper. Section \[sect:Pre\] contains background on categories and partial semigroups, and their ideals and congruences. Basic definitions are given in Section \[subsect:S\], and then a number of general congruence constructions are outlined in Section \[subsect:EMRT\], adapting and extending the theory developed in [@EMRT2018] to the categorical context. Several useful lemmas are proved in Section \[subsect:tricks\].
Section \[sect:IE\] concerns ideal extensions, the main result being Theorem \[thm:E6\]. This theorem shows how the congruence lattice of an extension $T$ of $S$ may be described in terms of the so-called liftable congruences on $S$ and the normal subgroups of a certain group in $T{\setminus}S$, under a series of natural, albeit technical, assumptions. We introduce and analyse these assumptions in Section \[subsect:properties\], and discuss liftable congruences in Section \[subsect:lift\]. Theorem \[thm:E6\] is then proved in Section \[subsect:IE\], where we also describe how to visualise the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ in terms of the above-mentioned data; see in particular Remarks \[rem:E1\] and \[rem:E3\], and Figures \[fig:E1\]–\[fig:E32\].
The results of Section \[sect:IE\] are then applied in Section \[sect:chains\] to prove a number of results concerning congruences on certain general classes of partial semigroups, and on their ideals. Such a partial semigroup $U$ is the union of an ascending chain of ideals $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$, of order-type at most $\om$. The main results of Section \[sect:chains\] describe the congruences on each ideal $I_r$, including $U$ itself. Sections \[subsect:PRB\]–\[subsect:small\] do this for “small” $r$; see Propositions \[prop:PRB\], \[prop:small\_ideal\], \[prop:small01\] and \[prop:small012\]. Section \[subsect:chains\] deals with “large” $r$, the main result being Theorem \[thm:E2\]. This theorem assumes that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ is known, and well-behaved, for a certain “cut-off” value $k$ (which is always very small in our applications), and shows how to construct ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$, for $r\geq k$, out of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ and a sequence of groups $G_{k+1},G_{k+2},\ldots$ outside of $I_k$. A crucial consequence of the theorem is that the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$, for $r>k$, is obtained by stacking on top of the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ copies of the lattices of normal subgroups of $G_{k+1},G_{k+2},\ldots$ in a way made precise in Remark \[rem:E2\]; see especially Figure \[fig:E2\]. This “stacking mechanism” is one of the most important advances of the paper, and it can be seen in many of the lattice diagrams, such as Figures \[fig:T\], \[fig:QT\], \[fig:P\], \[fig:QP\], \[fig:TL\], \[fig:J\] and more. The meaning of the colours in such lattice diagrams, and other visualisation conventions, are discussed in Section \[subsect:viscon\].
Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\] present a sequence of applications of the general theory developed in Sections . We begin in Section \[sect:T\] with the transformation category $\T=\T(\C)$. Here $\C$ is a set of non-empty finite sets, and $\T$ consists of all mappings between members of $\C$. We give the definitions in Section \[subsect:defnT\], and then in Section \[subsect:prelimT\] establish certain multiplicative properties that will be used to verify the relevant assumptions listed in Sections \[sect:IE\] and \[sect:chains\]; most importantly, $\T$ is a chain of ideals $I_1\subset I_2\subset\cdots$ as in Definition \[defn:chain\]. All of this will enable an application of Theorem \[thm:E2\] (and Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small01\]) in the category $\T$, culminating in Theorem \[thm:T\], which completely describes the congruences on $\T$, and on all of its ideals. The congruences of the minimal ideal $I_1$ have rather different behaviour to those of the larger ideals $I_r$ ($r\geq2$); this can be seen by comparing parts \[T1\] and \[T2\] of Theorem \[thm:T\], and also by examining Figure \[fig:T\], which pictures the congruence lattices of relatively small ideals of $\T$. In the above language, $I_2$ is the cut-off ideal from which the stacking mechanism kicks in. In the case that $\C$ consists of a single set of size $n$, the category $\T$ is simply the full transformation semigroup of degree $n$, and so we recover the results of Mal’cev [@Malcev1952] for $r=n$, and of Klimov [@Klimov1977] for arbitrary $r$. In Section \[subsect:QT\] we consider several subcategories of $\T$, which we call “planar and annular reducts”; these consist of transformations preserving and/or reversing the order or orientation on the underlying sets; such mappings may also be characterised geometrically in terms of certain graphs with no crossings in a given planar or cylindrical region. The main result here is Theorem \[thm:QT\], which describes the congruences on these reduct categories and on their ideals; see also Figure \[fig:QT\]. In Section \[subsect:OtherT\] we discuss how to obtain similar results for several other categories of (partial) mappings.
The applications considered in Sections \[sect:P\]–\[sect:J\] all concern certain diagram categories. The largest of these, the partition category ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}(\C)$, is treated in Section \[sect:P\]. The structure of Section \[sect:P\] closely parallels that of Section \[sect:T\]. We give the definitions in Section \[subsect:defnP\], prove the requisite multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimP\], showing in particular that ${\mathcal P}$ is again a chain of ideals $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$. In Section \[subsect:P\] we prove the main result, Theorem \[thm:P\], which classifies the congruences on ${\mathcal P}$ and on all of its ideals; Figure \[fig:P\] depicts the congruence lattice of a sufficiently large ideal. This time the congruences for the smallest *two* ideals, $I_0$ and $I_1$, must be described separately (using Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small\_ideal\]), and the stacking mechanism kicks in at $I_2$. In Section \[subsect:QP\] we classify the congruences of planar and annular reducts of ${\mathcal P}$, and of the ideals of these reducts; see Theorem \[thm:QP\] and Figure \[fig:QP\]. In Section \[subsect:PB\] we indicate how the methods of Section \[sect:P\] also apply to other subcategories of ${\mathcal P}$, namely the partial Brauer category and its planar and annular reducts, including the Motzkin category.
Section \[sect:B\] concerns the Brauer category $\B=\B(\C)$, another natural subcategory of the partition category. The ideals of $\B$ do not form a chain in general, so the general machinery developed in Sections \[sect:IE\] and \[sect:chains\] does not immediately apply. However, it is possible to split the category $\B$ into even and odd parts, in a way made precise in Section \[subsect:defnB\], and we may then restrict our attention to these even and odd subcategories, in which ideals do form chains, $I_0\subset I_2\subset\cdots$ and $I_1\subset I_3\subset\cdots$. After proving the required multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimB\], we treat the odd and even cases in Sections \[subsect:Bodd\] and \[subsect:Beven\], respectively, the main results being Theorems \[thm:Bodd\] and \[thm:Beven\]; see also Figures \[fig:Bodd\]–\[fig:B4\]. There are substantial differences between the even and odd cases, including the height at which the stacking mechanism kicks in.
The planar and annular reducts of $\B$ include well-known categories such as the Temperley–Lieb and Jones categories, $\TL$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$. Unlike the situation with the transformation and partition categories, however, it is not possible to simply modify the arguments for $\B$ to work for its reducts. Accordingly, we treat the planar and annular reducts of $\B$ in Sections \[sect:TL\] and \[sect:J\], respectively. The main results of Section \[sect:TL\] are Theorems \[thm:TLodd\], \[thm:TLeven\] and \[thm:TLpmeven\], concerning the Temperley–Lieb and anti-Temperley–Lieb categories; see also Figure \[fig:TL\]. The main results of Section \[sect:J\] are Theorems \[thm:Jodd\] and \[thm:Jeven\], concerning the Jones and anti-Jones categories; see also Figures \[fig:J\]–\[fig:Jpmeven\]. Again, each of these categories splits into even and odd parts, which exhibit rather different behaviour. Many of the arguments of Sections \[sect:TL\] and \[sect:J\] require a fairly intricate geometrical analysis, due to the planarity constraints.
By taking $\C$ to be a single set of size $n$, and taking $r=n$, we obtain new proofs of the main results of [@EMRT2018] as special cases of the theorems presented in Sections \[sect:P\]–\[sect:TL\]. The (annular) Jones monoids were not considered in [@EMRT2018].
While the remaining categories considered in the paper are still chains of ideals, some of them fail to satisfy certain assumptions built into the general machinery developed in Section \[sect:chains\]. Thus, in Section \[sect:H\] we undertake another theoretical development, proving more general results that will allow us to treat our remaining examples. The main idea is that of a so-called ${\mathscr H}$-congruence, by which we mean a congruence contained in Green’s ${\mathscr H}$-relation. The ${\mathscr H}$-congruences of a certain class of partial semigroups are classified in Section \[subsect:H\]; see Proposition \[prop:ThN\]. Returning to chains of ideals in Section \[subsect:chains2\], we prove the main result, Theorem \[thm:E4\], which is a strengthening of Theorem \[thm:E2\] to a wider class of chains of ideals. We also prove Theorem \[thm:E5\], which is a simplification of Theorem \[thm:E4\] particularly suited to our remaining examples.
Section \[sect:L\] concerns certain categories of linear transformations, namely the linear and projective linear categories, $\LL=\LL(\C)$ and $\PL=\PL(\C)$, defined with respect to a set $\C$ of finite-dimensional vector spaces over an arbitrary fixed field $\F$. Following the structure of previous sections, we give definitions in Section \[subsect:defnL\], establish multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimL\], and then prove the main results in Sections \[subsect:L\] and \[subsect:PL\]. Theorem \[thm:L\] describes the congruences on the linear category $\LL$, and on all of its ideals; Theorem \[thm:PL\] does the same for the projective linear category $\PL$. While the general results of Section \[sect:chains\] are sufficient to treat $\PL$, we need the stronger results of Section \[sect:H\] for $\LL$. Crucially, the ${\mathscr H}$-congruences on $\LL$ and its ideals involve certain sequences of normal subgroups of (centres of) general linear groups of degrees bounded by the supremum of the dimensions of the spaces from $\C$. Section \[subsect:visual\_L\] explains how to visualise the congruence lattices of ideals of $\LL$. These lattices are far more complicated than for any of the categories considered in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\]; see especially Figures \[fig:GLM27\] and \[fig:GLM37\], and compare these to Figures \[fig:T\], \[fig:QT\], \[fig:P\], \[fig:QP\]–\[fig:B4\], and so on. As a special case of our results on $\LL$, we obtain Mal’cev’s classification [@Malcev1953] of the congruences on the ideals of the full linear monoid ${\mathcal{M}}_n(\F)$.
Finally, Section \[sect:IB\] applies the general results of Section \[sect:H\] to categories $\IB=\IB(\C)$ of partial braids, the main result being Theorem \[thm:IB\]. This time, ${\mathscr H}$-congruences correspond to sequences of normal subgroups of (pure) braid groups of appropriate dimensions. As a special case, we obtain a classification of the congruences of the inverse braid monoid $\IB_n$ [@EL2004]; to the best of our knowledge, such a classification has never before been established.
Before we begin, we briefly fix notation for some standard mathematical concepts. We work in standard ZFC set theory; see for example [@Jech2003]. We write ${\mathbb{N}}=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ for the set of natural numbers, and $\om$ for the first infinite ordinal/cardinal (which may of course be identified with ${\mathbb{N}}$). For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we write $[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, interpreting $[0]=\emptyset$.
For a group $G$, we write $H\leq G$ and $N\normal G$ to indicate that $H$ is a subgroup and $N$ a normal subgroup. The set ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ of all normal subgroups of $G$ is a complete lattice under inclusion. The meet of a family $N_q\normal G$, $q\in Q$, is their intersection, $\bigwedge_qN_q=\bigcap_qN_q$; the join $\bigvee_qN_q=\big\la\bigcup_qN_q\big\ra$ is the (normal) subgroup generated by their union.
If $\si$ is an equivalence relation on a set $X$, we will write $x\mathrel\si y$ or $(x,y)\in\si$ to indicate $\si$-equivalence of $x,y\in X$. If $Y\sub X$ is a union of $\si$-classes, we write $Y/\si$ for the set of all $\si$-classes contained in $Y$. For any $Y\sub X$, we write $\si{{\restriction}}_Y=\si\cap(Y\times Y)$ for the restriction of $\si$ to $Y$. The set $\Eq(X)$ of all equivalences on $X$ is a lattice under inclusion. The meet of a family $\si_q\in\Eq(X)$, $q\in Q$, is their intersection; the join of the family is the transitive closure of their union. When $X=[n]$ for some $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we will sometimes write $\Eq_n=\Eq(X)$. We adopt similar conventions for other families of lattices, groups, etc. Thus, for example, we will write ${\mathcal{S}}_X$ for the symmetric group on the set $X$, and in particular write ${\mathcal{S}}_n={\mathcal{S}}_X$ when $X=[n]$; we write $\A_n$ for the alternating group.
Categories and partial semigroups {#sect:Pre}
=================================
This section contains preliminary material on categories and partial semigroups, and their ideals and congruences. The basic definitions are given in Section \[subsect:S\], where we also prove some preliminary results. In Section \[subsect:EMRT\] we adapt and extend a number of constructions and results of [@EMRT2018 Section 3] to the context of partial semigroups. In Section \[subsect:tricks\], we prove several lemmas that will be used frequently in the sequel.
Preliminaries {#subsect:S}
-------------
We follow [@DE2018], slightly adapting notation to suit our purposes. A *partial semigroup* is a 5-tuple $(S,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$, where $S$ and $\C$ are sets, $\bd$ and $\br$ are mappings $S\to \C$, and $\cdot$ is a partial binary operation $(x,y)\mt x\cdot y$ such that, for all $x,y,z\in S$,
$x\cdot y$ is defined if and only if $\br(x)=\bd(y)$, in which case $\bd(x\cdot y)=\bd(x)$ and $\br(x\cdot y)=\br(y)$,
if $x\cdot y$ and $y\cdot z$ are defined, then $(x\cdot y)\cdot z=x\cdot (y\cdot z)$. We usually abbreviate $x\cdot y$ to $xy$. The elements of $\C$ are called *objects*, and the elements of $S$ *morphisms*. For $A,B\in \C$ we write $S_{A,B}=\set{x\in S}{\bd(x)=A,\ \br(x)=B}$, and call these *hom-sets*. For $A\in \C$, we write $S_A=S_{A,A}$, noting that these are (possibly empty) semigroups under the induced operation; we call these *endomorphism semigroups*. Any semigroup is trivially a partial semigroup with $|\C|=1$. If the set $\C$, the functions $\bd,\br$, and the operation $\cdot$ are clear from context, we will often refer to “the partial semigroup $S$” instead of “the partial semigroup $(S,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$”.
We say that a partial semigroup $S$ is a *(small) category* if there exist elements $e_A\in S_A$ (${A\in\C}$) such that, for all $A,B\in\C$ and $x\in S_{A,B}$, $e_A\cdot x=x=x\cdot e_B$. In a category, the endomorphism semigroups $S_A$ are monoids (with identities $e_A$), and the elements of $S_A$ that are invertible with respect to the identity $e_A$ are called *units* (or *automorphisms*). As explained in [@DE2018], any partial semigroup $S$ embeds in a category $\Sone$ in an obvious way; the category $\Sone$ is simply $S$ with as many identities adjoined as required.
An element $x$ of a partial semigroup $S$ is an *idempotent* if $x=x^2$; note that this forces $\bd(x)=\br(x)$. An element $x\in S$ is *regular* if $x=xax$ for some $a\in S$; note that this forces $\bd(a)=\br(x)$ and $\br(a)=\bd(x)$, and note that with $b=axa$ we have $x=xbx$ and $b=bxb$. We say $S$ itself is regular if all of its elements are regular; all of the partial semigroups we consider in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:IB\] will be regular categories.
For subsets $U,V$ of a partial semigroup $S$, we write $$UV = \set{uv}{u\in U,\ v\in V,\ \br(u)=\bd(v)}$$ for the (possibly empty) set of all well-defined products $uv$, where $u\in U$ and $v\in V$. We extend this in the obvious way to products of more than two sets, and write $uV$ for $\{u\}V$, and so on.
A non-empty subset $I$ of a partial semigroup $S$ is an *ideal* if $IS$ and $SI$ are both contained in $I$, in which case we also say that $S$ is an *ideal extension* of $I$. For $x\in S$, the set $S^1xS^1$ is an ideal of $S$, called the *principal ideal generated by $x$*. An ideal is certainly a partial semigroup in its own right, with the same set of objects as $S$. Ideals of categories need not be categories themselves due to the absence of some identities at some objects.
Green’s ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$, ${\mathscr J}$, ${\mathscr H}$ and ${\mathscr D}$ relations on a partial semigroup $S$ will play an important role in all that follows. For $x,y\in S$, we have $$(x,y)\in{\mathscr R}\iff xS^1=yS^1 \COMMa
(x,y)\in{\mathscr L}\iff S^1x=S^1y \COMMa
(x,y)\in{\mathscr J}\iff S^1xS^1=S^1yS^1 .$$ Note that the first of these says that $x$ and $y$ are ${\mathscr R}$-related if and only if $x=ya$ and $y=xb$ for some $a,b\in\Sone$. We also define ${\mathscr H}={\mathscr R}\cap{\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr R}\vee{\mathscr L}$ to be the meet and join of ${\mathscr R}$ and ${\mathscr L}$ in the lattice of equivalence relations on $S$; as in [@DE2018 Lemma 2.6], we have ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr R}\circ{\mathscr L}={\mathscr L}\circ{\mathscr R}$. If $x\in S$, and if ${\mathscr K}$ is any of ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$, ${\mathscr J}$, ${\mathscr H}$ or ${\mathscr D}$, we write $K_x = \set{y\in S}{(x,y)\in{\mathscr K}}$ for the ${\mathscr K}$-class of $x$; note that $K_x$ was denoted $[x]_{\mathscr K}$ in [@DE2018]. We will sometimes write $x\mathrel{\mathscr K}y$ in place of $(x,y)\in{\mathscr K}$. We will also frequently use the pre-order $\leqJ$ defined for $x,y\in S$ by $$x\leqJ y \iff x\in S^1yS^1.$$ Since ${\mathscr J}= {\leqJ}\cap{\geqJ}$, this induces a partial order $\leq$ on the set $S/{\mathscr J}$ of ${\mathscr J}$-classes of $S$: $$J_x \leq J_y \iff x\leqJ y.$$
It will often be important to distinguish Green’s relations, classes, etc., on different partial semigroups. Thus, we will at times write ${\mathscr R}^S$, $R_x^S$, and so on, to emphasise the partial semigroup $S$. Of special significance will be the case in which $S$ is contained in a partial semigroup $T$. Here, if ${\mathscr K}$ is any of Green’s relations, we have ${\mathscr K}^S\sub{\mathscr K}^T{{\restriction}}_S$, but the reverse inclusion need not hold in general. If the reverse inclusion does hold, so that in fact ${\mathscr K}^S={\mathscr K}^T{{\restriction}}_S$, we say that Green’s ${\mathscr K}$ relation on $S$ is *simply inherited* from $T$. If $S$ is regular, then ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr H}$ are simply inherited from any $T$ containing $S$ (cf. [@Sandwich1 Lemma 1.8]), but ${\mathscr D}$ and ${\mathscr J}$ might not be. We will see in Lemma \[lem:SD\], however, that all of Green’s relations are simply inherited if $S$ is a regular *ideal* of $T$.
As in [@CPbook Section 2.3], if $x\in S$ is regular, then so too is every element of $D_x$, so we refer to the latter as a *regular ${\mathscr D}$-class*. If $x=xax$, then $x$ is ${\mathscr R}$-related to $xa$, and ${\mathscr L}$-related to $ax$, with $xa$ and $ax$ both being idempotents. The ${\mathscr H}$-class of an idempotent is a group; group ${\mathscr H}$-classes of ${\mathscr D}$-related idempotents are all isomorphic to each other.
The next simple lemma will be useful frequently. For the statement and proof, we say an element $x$ of a partial semigroup is *self-divisible* if $x\in xS\cap Sx$: i.e., if $x=ux=xv$ for some $u,v\in S$. For example, any regular element of a partial semigroup is self-divisible, and every element of a category is self-divisible.
\[lem:SD\] If $S$ is a partial semigroup in which every element is self-divisible (in particular, if $S$ is regular or is a category), and if $T$ is an ideal extension of $S$, then the following hold:
\[SD1\] If ${\mathscr K}$ denotes any of Green’s relations, then ${\mathscr K}^S={\mathscr K}^T{{\restriction}}_S$.
\[SD2\] If ${\mathscr K}$ denotes any of Green’s relations, then every ${\mathscr K}^S$-class of $S$ is a ${\mathscr K}^T$-class of $T$.
\[SD3\] Every ideal of $S$ is an ideal of $T$.
We begin with \[SD2\]. Let $x\in S$. Since $K_x^S\sub K_x^T$ for all ${\mathscr K}$, we need only show the reverse inclusion.
Beginning with ${\mathscr K}={\mathscr R}$, let $y\in R_x^T$. So $x=ya$ and $y=xb$ for some $a,b\in T^1$. Since $S$ is an ideal, $y=xb$ gives $y\in S$. Let $u,v\in S$ be such that $x=xu$ and $y=yv$. Then $x=y(va)$ and $y=x(ub)$. Since $va,ub\in S$ (as $S$ is an ideal), this shows that $(x,y)\in{\mathscr R}^S$: i.e., that $y\in R_x^S$.
The proof for ${\mathscr K}={\mathscr L}$ is dual, and the proof for ${\mathscr K}={\mathscr J}$ is similar. For ${\mathscr H}$, we have $H_x^T=R_x^T\cap L_x^T=R_x^S\cap L_x^S=H_x^S$, and for ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr R}\circ{\mathscr L}$, $$D_x^T = \bigcup_{y\in R_x^T}L_y^T = \bigcup_{y\in R_x^S}L_y^T = \bigcup_{y\in R_x^S}L_y^S = D_x^S.$$
This follows from \[SD2\].
Let $I$ be an ideal of $S$. Since every element of $S$ is self-divisible, we have $I=IS$ and $S=ST$, from which it follows that $IT=(IS)T=I(ST)=IS=I$. Similarly, $TI=I$.
Congruences {#subsect:EMRT}
-----------
Throughout this section, $(S,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$ will denote a fixed partial semigroup. Following [@MacLane1998 p. 52] (see also [@Kelly1964]), a *congruence* on $S$ is an equivalence relation $\si$ on $S$ such that for all $x,y,a\in S$
1. \[C1\] $\phantom{[}(x,y)\in\si \implies [\bd(x)=\bd(y)$ and $\br(x)=\br(y)]$,
2. \[C2\] $[(x,y)\in\si$ and $\br(a)=\bd(x)] \implies (ax,ay)\in\si$,
3. \[C3\] $[(x,y)\in\si$ and $\bd(a)=\br(x)] \implies (xa,ya)\in\si$.
Condition \[C1\] says that $\si$ only identifies elements within fixed hom-sets $S_{A,B}$; \[C2\] says that $\si$ is *left-compatible* with the partial product in $S$; \[C3\] is dual to \[C2\], and concerns *right-compatibility*. For each $A\in\C$, the restriction $\si{{\restriction}}_{S_A}$ of $\si$ to an endomorphism semigroup $S_A$ is a semigroup congruence on $S_A$. The set ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ of all congruences on $S$ is a complete lattice under containment, called the *congruence lattice of $S$*, and is a sublattice of $\Eq(S)$, the lattice of all equivalence relations on $S$. In particular, the meet of any family of congruences is their intersection, and the join is the transitive closure of their union.
The trivial relation $$\De_S=\bigset{(x,x)}{x\in S}$$ is clearly a congruence. The universal relation $\nabla_S=S\times S$ is not a congruence in general, as condition \[C1\] will be violated if $S$ has more than one non-empty hom-set. Instead, the largest congruence on $S$ is $$\nab_S = \bigset{(x,y)\in S\times S}{\bd(x)=\bd(y),\ \br(x)=\br(y)}.$$ It is called the *universal* or *full* congruence, and its equivalence classes are the hom-sets $S_{A,B}$ ($A,B\in\C$). For $x,y\in S$, we will also write $x\comp y$ to indicate that $(x,y)\in\nab_S$: i.e., that $x$ and $y$ belong to a common hom-set. For any relation $\si$ on $S$, we define $$\wt\si = \si\cap\nab_S = \bigset{(x,y)\in\si}{x\sim y}.$$ For example, two elements of $S$ are $\wt{\mathscr R}$-related if they are ${\mathscr R}$-related and belong to a common hom-set.
For a set of pairs $\Om\sub \nab_S$, we write $\Om_S^\sharp$ (or $\Om^\sharp$ if the context is clear) for the congruence on $S$ generated by $\Om$: i.e., the smallest congruence on $S$ containing $\Om$. If $\Om=\big\{(x,y)\big\}$ contains just a single pair, we write $\cg xy_S$ for $\Om_S^\sharp$; again, we will often abbreviate this to $\cg xy$.
Another simple family of congruences comes from ideals. If $I$ is an ideal of $S$, then the *Rees congruence* $R_I=R_I^S$ is defined by $$R_I = \nab_I\cup\De_S = \bigset{(x,y)\in S\times S}{x=y\text{ or } [x,y\in I \text{ and } x\comp y]}.$$ The $R_I^S$ notation will be used when there may be potential for confusion as to the semigroup in which $I$ is an ideal, and $R_I$ when no such confusion is likely.
Further congruences arise from a number of constructions described in [@EMRT2018 Section 3]. These were originally formulated in the context of (ordinary) semigroups, but the constructions and proofs work without difficulty for partial semigroups.
We say a ${\mathscr J}$-class $J$ of $S$ is *stable* if for all $x\in J$ and $a\in S$, $$(x,xa)\in{\mathscr J}\implies (x,xa)\in{\mathscr R}\AND (x,ax)\in{\mathscr J}\implies (x,ax)\in{\mathscr L}.$$ As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.10], any stable ${\mathscr J}$-class is in fact a ${\mathscr D}$-class.
Suppose $D$ is a stable, regular ${\mathscr J}$-class of $S$. Let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D$, and let $N\normal G$ be a normal subgroup. We define the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_N = S^1(N\times N)S^1\cap(D\times D)
&= \bigset{(axb,ayb)}{x,y\in N,\ a,b\in S^1,\ axb,ayb\in D}.\end{aligned}$$ As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.17], $\nu_N$ is an equivalence, and is contained in ${\mathscr H}$. We claim that in fact, $$\label{eq:nu}
\nu_N = D(N\times N)D\cap(D\times D).$$ Indeed, with ($\supseteq$) being obvious, suppose $x,y\in N$ and $a,b\in S^1$ are such that $axb,ayb\in D$. Then, writing $e$ for the identity element of $G$, we have $$J_x = J_{axb} = J_{aexb} \leq J_{ae} \leq J_e = J_x,$$ so that $J_{ae}=J_x$; this gives $ae\in J_x=D$. A similar argument shows that $eb\in D$. Since $(axb,ayb)=\big((ae)x(eb),(ae)y(eb)\big)$, this completes the proof of .
The significance of is that while $D$ could be a ${\mathscr J}$-class of multiple partial semigroups, the relation $\nu_N$ depends only on $N$ and $D$, and not on the containing partial semigroup.
If $D$ (the stable, regular ${\mathscr D}$-class of $S$, as above) happens to be a ${\mathscr J}$-class of a partial semigroup $T$ containing $S$, then $D$ is still stable in $T$. Indeed, suppose $x\in D$ and $a\in T$ are such that $(x,xa)\in{\mathscr J}^T$ (i.e., $xa\in D$). Fix any right identity $e\in D$ for $x$ (which exists because $D$ is regular). Since $$J_x^T = J_{xa}^T = J_{xea}^T \leq J_{ea}^T \leq J_e^T = J_x^T \implies J_{ea}^T=J_x^T=D,$$ we have $ea\in D\sub S$. So, since $(x,x(ea))=(x,xa)\in{\mathscr J}^S$ (as $xa\in D$), stability of $D$ in $S$ gives $(x,xa)=(x,x(ea))\in{\mathscr R}^S\sub{\mathscr R}^T$. A dual argument shows that $(x,ax)\in{\mathscr J}^T\implies(x,ax)\in{\mathscr L}^T$.
As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.16], the relations $\nu_N$ do not depend on the choice of the group ${\mathscr H}$-class $G$ in $D$; i.e., if $G_1$ and $G_2$ are group ${\mathscr H}$-classes in $D$, and if $N_1\normal G_1$, then there exists $N_2\normal G_2$ such that $\nu_{N_1}=\nu_{N_2}$.
As in [@EMRT2018 Definition 3.18], an *IN-pair* in $S$ is a pair $(I,N)$, where $I$ is an ideal of $S$, and $N$ is a normal subgroup of a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in some stable, regular ${\mathscr D}$-class that is minimal in the set $(S\setminus I)/{\mathscr J}$. To such an IN-pair, we may associate the relation $$R_{I,N} = R_I \cup \nu_N.$$ As in [@EMRT2018 Propostion 3.23], $R_{I,N}$ is a congruence on $S$. As with Rees congruences, we will write $R_{I,N}^S$ for the congruence $R_{I,N}$ when it is important to emphasise the semigroup $S$.
If the intersection of all the ideals of $S$ is non-empty, then this intersection is the unique minimal (indeed, *minimum*) ideal of $S$. Not every partial semigroup (or even ordinary semigroup) has a minimal ideal, but if it exists, the minimal ideal is always a single ${\mathscr J}$-class. The following constructions from [@EMRT2018] apply only to partial semigroups that have a minimal ideal, so for the rest of Section \[subsect:EMRT\] we assume $S$ has a minimal ideal $M$. We will also assume that $M$ is stable and regular, so in fact, $M$ is a single ${\mathscr D}$-class. (Note that stability of $M$ does not automatically imply regularity of $M$, as is the case for (ordinary) semigroups; cf. [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.11]. For example, if $S$ has a single element $x$ with $\bd(x)\not=\br(x)$, then $M=S$ is not regular, but it is vacuously stable.)
A congruence $\tau$ on $M$ (considered as a partial semigroup in its own right) is called *liftable* (to $S$) if $\tau\cup\De_S$ is a congruence on $S$. As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.12], the following relations are all liftable congruences on $M$: $$\begin{aligned}
\wt{\mathscr L}^M &= \bigset{(x,y)\in M\times M}{x\sim y,\ (x,y)\in{\mathscr L}}, \\
\wt{\mathscr R}^M &= \bigset{(x,y)\in M\times M}{x\sim y,\ (x,y)\in{\mathscr R}}, \\
\wt{\mathscr H}^M &= \bigset{(x,y)\in M\times M}{x\sim y,\ (x,y)\in{\mathscr H}}.\end{aligned}$$ (Since $M$ is a regular ideal, Lemma \[lem:SD\]\[SD1\] gives ${\mathscr K}^M={\mathscr K}{{\restriction}}_M$ for any ${\mathscr K}$.) Clearly $\De_M$ and ${\nab_M=\wt{\mathscr D}^M=\wt{\mathscr J}^M}$ are also liftable, with $\De_M\cup \De_S=\De_S$ and $\nab_M\cup\De_S=R_M$. If $S$ is contained in a partial semigroup $T$ also with $M$ as its minimal ideal, then a congruence on $M$ liftable to $T$ must be liftable to $S$, but the converse need not hold in general. Liftability will be treated in greater generality in Section \[subsect:lift\], and the preceding facts can be viewed as special cases of Lemma \[lem:E2\].
Let $I$ be an ideal of $S$. A map $f:I\to M$ is a *retraction* if
$x\sim xf$ for all $x\in I$,
$(xy)f=(xf)(yf)$ for all $x,y\in I$ with $\br(x)=\bd(y)$, and
$xf=x$ for all $x\in M$. The ideal $I$ is *retractable* if such a retraction exists, in which case there is a unique such retraction (since $M$ is regular); cf. [@EMRT2018 Corollary 3.4]. Moreover, if $x\in I$ and $a,b\in S^1$ are such that the product $axb$ is defined, then as in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 3.3], we have $$\label{eq:axb}
(axb)f = a(xf)b.$$ It follows quickly from that if ${\mathscr K}$ is any of Green’s relations, $(x,y)\in{\mathscr K}\implies(xf,yf)\in{\mathscr K}$ for any $x,y\in I$.
If $I$ is retractable, and if $\tau$ is a liftable congruence on $M$, then as in [@EMRT2018 Proposition 3.8], and writing $f:I\to M$ for the unique retraction, the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\th_{I,\tau} &=\bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{(xf,yf)\in\tau}\cup\De_S
\intertext{is a congruence on $S$, which we will again denote by $\th_{I,\tau}^S$ when necessary. In the case that $I=M$ (which is obviously retractable), we have $\th_{M,\tau}=\tau\cup\De_S$. With respect to the liftable congruences $\wt{\mathscr L}^M$, $\wt{\mathscr R}^M$, $\wt{\mathscr H}^M$ and~$\De_M$ on $M$ mentioned above, there is a family of congruences associated to a retractable ideal $I$, defined by}
\lam_I = \th_{I,\wt{\mathscr L}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr L}}\cup\De_S, \\
\rho_I = \th_{I,\wt{\mathscr R}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr R}}\cup\De_S, \\
\mu_I = \th_{I,\wt{\mathscr H}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr H}}\cup\De_S, \\
\eta_I = \th_{I,\De_M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{xf=yf}\cup\De_S.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\th_{I,\nab_M}$ is simply the Rees congruence $R_I$. If $M$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, then $\mu_I=\eta_I$; this will be the case in all the examples we consider in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:IB\]. As usual, we will denote the above congruences by $\lam_I^S$, $\rho_I^S$, etc., when it is important to emphasise the partial semigroup $S$. Figure \[fig:diamonds2\], ignoring the subscripts $N,N_1,N_2$, shows the relative inclusions of these congruences for a single retractable ideal $I$ (left), and for two retractable ideals $I_1,I_2$ with $I_1\sub I_2$ (right); the joins and meets of these relations may be inferred from the diagrams as well. Note that Figure \[fig:diamonds2\] pictures the generic situation in which all of these congruences are distinct; this is not always the case, however; it depends on whether $M$ is ${\mathscr R}$- and/or ${\mathscr L}$-trivial.
We say an IN-pair $(I,N)$ is *retractable* if $I$ is retractable, and if $Nx$ and $xN$ both have size at most $1$ for all $x\in M$. Since $N$ is contained in a single group ${\mathscr H}$-class, we have $N\times N\subseteq \nab_S$, so that for any $x$ the condition $|Nx|\leq1$ means that either no product $gx$ ($g\in N$) is defined, or else all these products are defined and equal to each other. If $(I,N)$ is retractable, and if $\tau$ is a liftable congruence on $M$, then as in [@EMRT2018 Proposition 3.23], and writing $f:I\to M$ for the unique retraction, the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\th_{I,N,\tau} = \th_{I,\tau}\cup\nu_N &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{(xf,yf)\in\tau}\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S
\intertext{is a congruence on $S$. When $N$ is trivial, we have $\th_{I,N,\tau}=\th_{I,\tau}$. When $I=M$, we have $\th_{M,N,\tau}=\tau\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S$. With respect to the liftable congruences $\wt{\mathscr L}^M$, $\wt{\mathscr R}^M$, $\wt{\mathscr H}^M$ and~$\De_M$ on~$M$ mentioned above, there is a family of congruences associated to a retractable IN-pair $(I,N)$, defined by}
\lam_{I,N} = \th_{I,N,\wt{\mathscr L}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr L}}\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S , \\
\rho_{I,N} = \th_{I,N,\wt{\mathscr R}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr R}}\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S , \\
\mu_{I,N} = \th_{I,N,\wt{\mathscr H}^M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{x\sim y,\ (xf,yf)\in{\mathscr H}}\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S , \\
\eta_{I,N} = \th_{I,N,\De_M} &= \bigset{(x,y)\in I\times I}{xf=yf}\cup\nu_N \cup \De_S .\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\th_{I,N,\nab_M}$ is simply the relation $R_{I,N}$. If $M$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, then $\mu_{I,N}=\eta_{I,N}$. Note that $\eta_{M,N}=\nu_N \cup \De_S$ is contained in ${\mathscr H}$. Again, we will also denote these congruences by $\lam_{I,N}^S$, $\rho_{I,N}^S$, and so on, when required. The various relationships (in terms of inclusions, meets and joins) between the congruences defined above were described in [@EMRT2018 Propositions 3.25–3.29], and these are summarised in Figure \[fig:diamonds2\] for IN-pairs $(I_1,N_1)$ and $(I_2,N_2)$ in the cases that $I_1\cup N_1\sub I_2$, or $I_1=I_2$ and $N_1\sub N_2$.
Useful lemmas {#subsect:tricks}
-------------
We conclude Section \[sect:Pre\] with several basic results concerning the kinds of relations and congruences discussed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\]. They will be used frequently.
\[lem:D\_trick\] Let $\si$ be a congruence on a partial semigroup $S$. Suppose $R_I\sub\si$ for some ideal $I$ of $S$, and that there exists a pair $(x,y)\in\si$ with $y\in I$. Then, writing $K=S^1xS^1$ for the principal ideal of $S$ generated by $x$, we have $R_K\sub\si$.
Since $R_I\sub\si$, it suffices to show that every element of $K$ is $\si$-related to an element of $I$. To do so, let $u\in K$ be arbitrary. Then $u=axb$ for some $a,b\in S^1$. We then have $(u,ayb)\in\si$, with $ayb\in I$.
The next three lemmas concern retractable ideals, IN-pairs, and liftable congruences.
\[lem:Sretract\] Suppose $S$ is a partial semigroup with a stable, regular minimal ideal $M$. If $S$ is itself retractable, then every congruence on $M$ is liftable to $S$.
Let $\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(M)$, and let $f:S\to M$ be the retraction. Let $(x,y)\in\si$ and $a\in S$ be arbitrary. We must show that $$\br(a)=\bd(x)\implies(ax,ay)\in\si \AND \bd(a)=\br(x)\implies(xa,ya)\in\si.$$ By symmetry, we may just do the first, so suppose $\br(a)=\bd(x)$. Since $x,ax\in M$, we have ${ax=(ax)f=(af)(xf)=(af)x}$; similarly $ay=(af)y$. But then ${(ax,ay)=\big((af)x,(af)y\big)\in\si}$ since $af\in M$ and $\si$ is a congruence on $M$.
\[lem:INretract\] Suppose $S$ is a partial semigroup with a stable, regular, ${\mathscr H}$-trivial minimal ideal $M$. If an IN-pair $(I,N)$ is such that $I\cup N$ is contained in a retractable ideal of $S$, then $(I,N)$ is retractable.
Let $D$ be the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr D}$-class of $S$ containing $N$. Then $I\cup D$ is an ideal of $S$ (by minimality of $D$ in $(S{\setminus}I)/{\mathscr J}$), and is the smallest ideal of $S$ containing $I\cup N$. Thus, by assumption, $I\cup D$ is contained in a retractable ideal, and is hence itself retractable. Let $f:I\cup D\to M$ be the retraction. Let $x\in M$. We must show that $Nx$ and $xN$ both have size at most $1$. By symmetry, we just do this for $Nx$, so suppose this set is non-empty. Let $a,b\in N$. We must show that $ax=bx$. Since $(a,b)\in{\mathscr H}$, it follows from that $(af,bf)\in{\mathscr H}$, so that $af=bf$ since $M$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. Using this, and again, we have $$ax = (ax)f = (af)x= (bf)x = (bx)f = bx. \qedhere$$
\[lem:mu\_trick\] Suppose $S$ is a partial semigroup with a stable, regular minimal ideal $M$, and that $I$ is a retractable ideal of $S$. Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on $S$, and that there exists $(x,y)\in\si$ with $x\in I$ and $y\in M$. Suppose also that the principal ideal $K=S^1xS^1$ is regular. Then $\eta_K\sub\si$. In particular, if $M$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, then $\mu_K\sub\si$.
Let $u\in K$ with $u=axb$. Since $\mu_K=\eta_K$ if $M$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, we may prove the lemma by showing that $(u,uf)\in\si$, where $f:I\to M$ is the retraction. Let $z=ayb$, noting that $z\in M$ (as $y\in M$), and that $(u,z)=(axb,ayb)\in\si$. Since $u\in K$ is regular, we have $u=uhu$ for some $h\in S$. Let $v=uhzhu$, again noting that $v\in M$. Since $(u,z)\in\si$, we have $(u,v)=(uhuhu,uhzhu)\in\si$, so we may complete the proof by showing that $(uf,v)\in\sigma$.
Since $uf$ and $v$ both belong to $M$, and since $u$ and $hzhu$ both belong to $I$, we have $$uf\mathrel{\mathscr J}v = vf = (uhzhu)f = (uf)\cdot(hzhu)f.$$ Stability then gives $uf\mathrel{\mathscr R}(uf)\cdot(hzhu)f = v$. Now let $e\in M$ be a left identity for $uf$ (which exists because $M$ is regular). Since $(v,uf)\in{\mathscr R}$, as just shown, $e$ is also a left identity for $v$; i.e., $v=ev$. But then $uf = e(uf) = (ef)(uf) = (eu)f = eu$, and so $(uf,v)=(eu,ev)\in\si$, as $(u,v)\in\si$. As noted above, this completes the proof.
The remaining lemmas concern the $\nu_N$ relations.
\[lem:nu\_trick\] Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on a partial semigroup $S$, and that $\si{{\restriction}}_D\sub{\mathscr H}$ for some stable, regular ${\mathscr J}$-class $D$ of $S$. Let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D$, and let $e$ be the identity of $G$. Then $\si{{\restriction}}_D=\nu_N$ for the normal subgroup $N=\set{g\in G}{(e,g)\in\si}$ of $G$.
It is a routine matter to check that $N\normal G$, so the proof will be complete if we can show that $\si{{\restriction}}_D=\nu_N$. In what follows, if $g\in G$, we will write $g^{-1}$ for the inverse of $g$ in $G$.
Suppose first that $(u,v)\in\nu_N$. So $u,v\in D$ and $(u,v)=(cpd,cqd)$ for some $c,d\in S^1$ and $p,q\in N$. By definition of $N$, we have $(e,qp^{-1})\in\si$, so also $(p,q)=(e\cdot p,qp^{-1}\cdot p)\in\si$. But then $(u,v)=(cpd,cqd)\in\si$ as well, and so $(u,v)\in\si{{\restriction}}_{D}$.
Conversely, suppose $(u,v)\in\si{{\restriction}}_{D}$. By assumption, we have $(u,v)\in{\mathscr H}$. Let $H$ be the ${\mathscr H}$-class containing $u$ and $v$. By Green’s Lemma (see [@DE2018 Lemma 2.7]), there exist $c,d,c',d'\in S$ such that the maps $H\to G:h\mt chd$ and $G\to H:g\mt c'gd'$ are mutually inverse bijections, and we may assume (since $G=H_e$ and $(u,e)\in{\mathscr D}$) that $cud=e$. From $(u,v)\in\si$ it follows that $(e,cvd)=(cud,cvd)\in\si$, and since $cvd\in G$, it follows from the definition of $N$ that $cvd\in N$. But then $(u,v) = (c'\cdot e\cdot d',c'\cdot cvd\cdot d') \in\nu_N$.
We will generally use the next lemma without explicit reference.
\[lem:nuN\] Let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in some stable, regular ${\mathscr J}$-class of a partial semigroup $S$, and let $e$ be the identity of $G$.
\[nuN1\] For any $N\normal G$, we have $N=\set{g\in G}{(e,g)\in\nu_N}$.
\[nuN2\] For any $N_1,N_2\normal G$, we have $N_1\leq N_2 \iff \nu_{N_1}\sub\nu_{N_2}$.
Let $D$ be the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr J}$-class of $S$ containing $G$, and let ${I=S^1DS^1{\setminus}D}$ be the ideal consisting of all elements of $S$ strictly $\leqJ$-below $D$. Then $(I,N)$ is an IN-pair, so we may consider the congruence $R_{I,N}$. Since $R_{I,N}{{\restriction}}_D=\nu_N\sub{\mathscr H}$, Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] gives ${N=\set{g\in G}{(e,g)\in R_{I,G}}=\set{g\in G}{(e,g)\in R_{I,G}{{\restriction}}_D}=\set{g\in G}{(e,g)\in\nu_N}}$.
In the previous argument, it is possible that $I=\emptyset$, which occurs when $D$ is in fact the minimal ideal of $S$. In this case, we replace $R_{I,N}=\nab_I\cup\nu_N\cup\De_S$ by $\nu_N\cup\De_S$, which is itself a congruence; cf. [@EMRT2018 Remark 3.22].
The forward implication follows immediately from the definitions. For the reverse, using part \[nuN1\], $g\in N_1 \implies (e,g)\in\nu_{N_1}\sub\nu_{N_2} \implies g\in N_2$.
Recall that ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ denotes the (complete) lattice of normal subgroups of a group $G$. If we have some collection $N_q$ ($q\in Q$) of normal subgroups of $G$, then their join $\bigvee_{q\in Q}N_q$ in ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ is the least common upper bound of the $N_q$, and is precisely the subgroup of $G$ generated by the union $\bigcup_{q\in Q}N_q$. When $Q=\{q_1,\ldots,q_k\}$ is finite, this join is just the product $N_{q_1}\cdots N_{q_k}$. The meet of the $N_q$ (the greatest common lower bound) is simply their intersection.
\[lem:nu\_joins\] Let $N_q$ ($q\in Q$) be a collection of normal subgroups of a group ${\mathscr H}$-class $G$ in some stable, regular ${\mathscr J}$-class $D$ of a partial semigroup $S$. Then $$\bigvee_{q\in Q} \nu_{N_q}=\nu_N \AND \bigcap_{q\in Q} \nu_{N_q}=\nu_{N'},$$ where $N=\bigvee_{q\in Q}N_q$ and $N'=\bigcap_{q\in Q}N_q$.
We just prove the statement concerning joins, as the other is similar. Again let $I$ be the ideal $S^1DS^1{\setminus}D$, and note that $(I,N_q)$ is an IN-pair for each $q$. Since each $R_{I,N_q}$ is contained in $R_{I,G}=\nab_I\cup{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_D\cup\De_{S{\setminus}(I\cup D)}$, so too is the join $$\si=\bigvee_{q\in Q}R_{I,N_q}=\nab_I\cup\bigvee_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}\cup\De_{S{\setminus}(I\cup D)}.$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] that $\bigvee_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}=\si{{\restriction}}_D=\nu_N$ for some $N\normal G$. We must show that $N=\bigvee_{q\in Q}N_q$: i.e., that $N$ is the least upper bound of the $N_q$ in ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$. The following argument uses Lemma \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN2\] several times.
Since $\nu_N=\bigvee_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}$, we have $\nu_{N_q}\sub\nu_N$, and hence $N_q\leq N$, for all $q\in Q$; i.e., $N$ is an upper bound for the $N_q$. Now suppose $N''\normal G$ is an arbitrary upper bound for the $N_q$; the proof will be complete if we can show that $N\leq N''$. But for any $q\in Q$ we have $N_q\sub N''$, and so $\nu_{N_q}\sub\nu_{N''}$. It follows that $\nu_N=\bigvee_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}\sub\nu_{N''}$, which gives $N\leq N''$, as required.
\[rem:nu\_lattice\] It follows from Lemmas \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN2\] and \[lem:nu\_joins\] that the set $\set{\nu_N}{N\normal G}$ is a (complete) sublattice of $\Eq(D)$, and is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$. Moreover, if $I$ is any ideal of $S$ for which $D$ is minimal in $(S{\setminus}I,\leqJ)$, then the sublattice $\set{R_{I,N}}{N\normal G}$ of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ is also isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$.
Ideal extensions {#sect:IE}
================
This section and the next are central to the paper. In them we develop a general iterative mechanism that will enable us to compute the congruence lattices in a swift and uniform way for a number of concrete classes of partial semigroups and all their ideals. The key to our approach is viewing our partial semigroups as constructed by a succession of ideal extensions. In the current section we focus on the general situation of a partial semigroup $S$ and an ideal extension $T$ of $S$ by a single ${\mathscr J}$-class, and we ask how to obtain ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ from ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$. In Section \[subsect:properties\] we abstract a number of technical properties shared by most of our subsequent examples (but see also Section \[sect:H\] for more). The key idea with these properties is that, while technical in nature, they ought to be concerning objects that are simpler than congruences; typically, and ideally, they will be phrased just in terms of multiplication. In Section \[subsect:lift\] we introduce the concept of a liftable congruence, and prove that the set $\LiftCong ST$ of all congruences of $S$ liftable to $T$ is a complete sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$. The culmination is then Theorem \[thm:E6\] in Section \[subsect:IE\], which describes ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ as an extension of $\LiftCong ST$. In Section \[sect:chains\] we turn to the iterative aspect of the construction, and show what happens when we repeatedly apply Theorem \[thm:E6\] to a partial semigroup that is a chain of ideals.
Generation and separartion properties {#subsect:properties}
-------------------------------------
We begin with our programme outline above, and identify a handful of abstract technical properties that the majority of our subsequent applications will turn out to possess; further such properties will be discussed in Section \[sect:H\]. The first requires the existence of a maximum ${\mathscr J}$-class:
\[defn:Dmax\] We say that a partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$ if it has a maximum (greatest) ${\mathscr J}$-class, and if this ${\mathscr J}$-class is regular and stable. This ${\mathscr J}$-class is then in fact a ${\mathscr D}$-class, and will be denoted by $D_T$.
Our second property concerns the generation of the full congruence:
\[defn:ngen\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ if $T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, and if for any $x\in D_T$ and any $y\in T{\setminus}H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, we have $\cg xy_T=\nab_T$.
The property ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ can be interpreted as saying that every pair that could theoretically generate $\nab_T$ in fact does so. Indeed, up to symmetry, and writing $S$ for the ideal $T{\setminus}D_T$, the pairs $(x,y)$ not covered by the definition are those where $x,y\in S$, or where $(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_T$. Either of those generate a congruence contained in $R_{S,G}^T\subsetneq\nab_T$, where $G$ is some group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D_T$. More formally, we have:
\[lem:dmax\_ngen\] Suppose the partial semigroup $T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, let $S$ be the ideal $T{\setminus}D_T$, and let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D_T$. Then ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ holds if and only if every non-universal congruence is contained in $R_{S,G}^T$; i.e., $R_{S,G}^T$ is the top element of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T){\setminus}\{\nab_T\}$.
Next we have the first of three *separation properties*; the second will be given shortly in Definition \[defn:Sepb\], and the third much later in Definition \[defn:Sepz\]. Roughly speaking, we consider a pair ${(x,y)\in S\times S}$ with $x\sim y$ to be *separated* if $x$ and $y$ are not related under one or more of Green’s relations. Each separation property stipulates that certain separated pairs generate congruences containing other pairs separated in specified ways.
\[defn:Sep\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and the following hold:
1. \[S1\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in S$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_S$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$,
2. \[S2\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in D_T\setminus H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_T$ and $y'\in S$,
3. \[S3\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in H_x^T{\setminus}\{x\}$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_S $ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$.
As it stands, the property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ does not fulfil our requirement that it concerns objects of simpler nature than congruences. Fortunately, in all of the applications studied in Sections , we have a property stronger than ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$, where the pair $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ can be assumed to have one of the forms $(ax,ay)$, $(ay,ax)$, $(xa,ya)$ or $(ya,xa)$.
\[defn:Mult\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and the following hold:
1. \[M1\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in S$ with $x\sim y$, there exist $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_S$ and $ayb\in S{\setminus}H_{axb}^S$,
2. \[M2\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in D_T\setminus H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_T$ and $ayb\in S$,
3. \[M3\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in H_x^T{\setminus}\{x\}$, there exists $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_S $ and $ayb\in S{\setminus}H_{axb}^S$.
The categories studied in Sections \[sect:L\] and \[sect:IB\] do not have the full ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ property. Nevertheless, they do satisfy the following weaker version.
\[defn:Sepb\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and conditions \[S1\] and \[S2\] from Definition \[defn:Sep\] hold.
We also have the corresponding weaker version of ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(T)}$:
\[defn:Multb\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\flat(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and conditions \[M1\] and \[M2\] from Definition \[defn:Mult\] hold.
In Section \[sect:H\], we will introduce intermediate conditions ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(T)}$ and ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(T)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sepz\] and \[defn:Multz\]. The relative strengths of these separation and multiplication properties are summarised as follows: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.2]
\node[above] () at (0,1.4) {${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(T)}$};
\node[above] () at (2,1.4) {${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(T)}$};
\node[above] () at (4,1.4) {${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\flat(T)}$};
\node[above] () at (0,0) {${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$};
\node[above] () at (2,0) {${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(T)}$};
\node[above] () at (4,0) {${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$};
\foreach \x/\y in {1/0,3/0,1/1.4,3/1.4} {\node[above] () at (\x,\y+.1) {$\Rightarrow$};}
\foreach \x/\y in {0/.65,2/.65,4/.65} {\node[above] () at (\x,\y+.1) {$\Downarrow$};}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ The next lemma gives a sufficient condition for ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ to hold. The condition is not necessary, however; cf. Propositions \[prop:small01\] and \[prop:small012\].
\[lem:sepb\_ngen\] Let $T$ be a partial semigroup. If ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$ and ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T{\setminus}D_T)}$ both hold, then so too does ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$.
Write $S=T{\setminus}D_T$. Let $x\in D_T$ and $y\in T{\setminus}H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, and let $\si=\cg xy_T$. We must show that $\si=\nab_T$.
1 Suppose first that $y\in S$. By \[S1\], there exists $(x',y')\in\si$ such that $x'\in D_S$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$. By ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(S)}$, we have $\nab_S=\cg{x'}{y'}_S\sub\cg{x'}{y'}_T\sub\si$, and so $R_S^T=\nab_S\cup\De_{D_T}\sub\si$. Since $(x,y)\in\si$ with $x\in D_T$ and $y\in S$, Lemma \[lem:D\_trick\] gives $\nab_T=R_T^T\sub\si$, so that $\si=\nab_T$.
2 If $y\not\in S$, then in fact $y\in D_T{\setminus}H_x^T$. By \[S2\] there exists $(x'',y'')\in\si$ such that $x''\in D_T$ and $y''\in S$. The pair $(x'',y'')\in\si$ then satisfies the assumptions of Case 1, so by that case we have $\nab_T=\cg{x''}{y''}_T\sub\si$, whence $\si=\nab_T$.
Liftable congruences {#subsect:lift}
--------------------
The next key idea is that of a liftable congruence:
\[defn:lift\] If $S$ is a partial semigroup, and if $T$ is an ideal extension of $S$, we say a congruence $\si$ on $S$ is *liftable* to $T$ if $\si\cup\De_T$ is a congruence on $T$, or equivalently if $\si=\tau{{\restriction}}_S$ for some congruence $\tau$ on $T$. We write $\LiftCong ST$ for the set of all congruences on $S$ liftable to $T$.
Clearly $\De_S$ and $\nab_S$ are liftable to any ideal extension, and we have $\LiftCong SS=S$. First we show that liftable congruences form a sublattice of all congruences:
\[lem:lift\] If $S$ is a partial semigroup, and if $T$ is an ideal extension of $S$, then $\LiftCong ST$ is a complete sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$.
Let $\si_i$ ($i\in I$) be an arbitrary family of congruences on $S$, each liftable to $T$. Then each $\si_i\cup\De_T=\si_i\cup\De_{T{\setminus}S}$ is a congruence on $T$, and $$\Big( \bigcap_{i\in I}\si_i \Big) \cup \De_{T{\setminus}S} = \bigcap_{i\in I}(\si_i \cup \De_{T{\setminus}S}) \AND
\Big( \bigvee_{i\in I}\si_i \Big) \cup \De_{T{\setminus}S} = \bigvee_{i\in I}(\si_i \cup \De_{T{\setminus}S})$$ are both congruences on $T$.
We conclude by showing that certain congruences described in Section \[subsect:EMRT\] are always liftable.
\[lem:E2\] Let $S$ be a partial semigroup with a stable, regular minimal ideal, and suppose $T$ is an ideal extension of $S$ such that every ideal of $S$ is an ideal of $T$. Then each of the following congruences of $S$ is liftable to $T$:
\[c1\] $R_I^S$, for some ideal $I$ of $S$,
\[c2\] $R_{I,N}^S$, for some IN-pair $(I,N)$ of $S$,
\[c3\] $\lam_I^S$, $\rho_I^S$, $\mu_I^S$ or $\eta_I^S$, for some retractable ideal $I$ of $S$,
\[c4\] $\lam_{I,N}^S$, $\rho_{I,N}^S$, $\mu_{I,N}^S$ or $\eta_{I,N}^S$, for some retractable IN-pair $(I,N)$ of $S$. In particular, if every congruence on $S$ has one of the above forms, then $\LiftCong ST={\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$.
By Lemma \[lem:SD\]\[SD3\], the assumption that every ideal of $S$ is an ideal of $T$ holds if every element of $S$ is self-divisible, and so in particular if $S$ is regular or a category.
By assumption, $I$ is an ideal of $T$, and we have $R_I^S\cup\De_T=R_I^T$.
Let $D$ be the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr J}^S$-class of $S$ containing $N$, and let $G$ be the group ${\mathscr H}^S$-class with $N\normal G$. Now, $I$ and $I\cup D$ are both ideals of $S$ (since $D$ is minimal in $(S{\setminus}I)/{\mathscr J}^S$), and hence these are also ideals of $T$. It follows that $I$ and $I\cup D$ are both unions of ${\mathscr J}^T$-classes; so too therefore is $D$. But $D$ is a single ${\mathscr J}^S$-class; thus, since ${\mathscr J}^S\sub{\mathscr J}^T$, it follows that $D$ is a single ${\mathscr J}^T$-class. As we observed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\], $D$ is then a stable, regular ${\mathscr J}^T$-class, so it follows that $(I,N)$ is an IN-pair in $T$ as well, so that $\nu_N^S=\nu_N^T$; cf. . It follows that $R_{I,N}^S\cup\De_T=R_{I,N}^T$ is a congruence on $T$.
These proofs follow the same pattern as \[c2\], making use of the following facts: the minimal ideal of $S$ is also the minimal ideal of $T$; any retractable ideal (or IN-pair) of $S$ is also retractable in $T$. We have $\lam_I^S\cup\De_T=\lam_I^T$ and $\lam_{I,N}^S\cup\De_T=\lam_{I,N}^T$, as appropriate, with similar expressions for the other kinds of congruences.
Congruences on ideal extensions {#subsect:IE}
-------------------------------
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section, Theorem \[thm:E6\] below, which concerns an ideal extension $T$ of a partial semigroup $S$ by a single stable, regular ${\mathscr D}$-class $D_T$. Part \[E6i\] of the theorem describes all of the congruences contained in $R_{S,G}^T$, where $G$ is a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in $D_T$. Parts \[E6ii\] and \[E6iii\] use this to describe the entire lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ under increasingly stronger assumptions.
The statement of Theorem \[thm:E6\] refers to congruences $\tau_N=(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S$, where $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. Thus, $\tau_N$ is the restriction to $S$ of the congruence on $T$ generated by $\nu_N$. From $$\nu_N\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_T}\sub (R_{S,N}^T)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_T}= R_{S,N}^T{{\restriction}}_{D_T}=\nu_N,$$ we have $(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_T}=\nu_N$. Since also $(\tau_N)_T^\sharp \sub R_{S,N}^T \sub \nab_S\cup{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_T}$, it follows that $$\label{eq:tau_N}
(\nu_N)_T^\sharp = (\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S\cup(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_T} = \tau_N\cup\nu_N.$$
\[thm:E6\] Suppose $T$ is a partial semigroup such that ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$ holds. Let $S$ be the ideal $T\setminus D_T$, let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}^T$-class contained in $D_T$, and for $N\normal G$ define $\tau_N=(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S$.
\[E6i\] The interval $[\De_T,R_{S,G}^T]$ in the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ is given by
$\phantom{{\operatorname{Cong}}(T)}[\De_T,R_{S,G}^T] = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in\LiftCong ST,\ N\normal G,\ \tau_N\sub\si}$.
\[E6ii\] If ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ holds, then
$\phantom{[\De_T,R_{S,G}^T]}{\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in\LiftCong ST,\ N\normal G,\ \tau_N\sub\si} \cup \{\nab_T\}$.
\[E6iii\] If ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ and ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(S)}$ hold, then
$\phantom{[\De_T,R_{S,G}^T]}{\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \bigset{\si\cup\De_{D_T}}{\si\in\LiftCong ST} \cup \bigset{R_{S,N}^T}{N\normal G} \cup \{\nab_T\}$.
Beginning with the backwards inclusion, suppose $\si\in\LiftCong ST$ and $N\normal G$ are such that $\tau_N\sub\si$, and put $\th=\si\cup\nu_N$. Since $\th$ is the union of equivalence relations on disjoint sets, it is an equivalence. Let $(x,y)\in\th$, and suppose $a\in T$. To complete the proof that $\th$ is a congruence, we must show that $$\br(a)=\bd(x) \implies (ax,ay)\in\th \AND \bd(a)=\br(x) \implies (xa,ya)\in\th.$$ By symmetry it is enough to do only the first of these, so suppose $\br(a)=\bd(x)$. If $(x,y)\in\si$, then ${(ax,ay)\in\si\cup\De_T\sub\th}$ since $\si\cup\De_T$ is a congruence on $T$. If $(x,y)\in\nu_N$, then by we have $(ax,ay)\in(\nu_N)_T^\sharp=\tau_N\cup\nu_N\sub\si\cup\nu_N=\th$.
Conversely, suppose $\th$ is a congruence on $T$, and that $\th\sub R_{S,G}^T$. Let $\si=\th{{\restriction}}_S$. Since $\si\cup\De_{D_T}=\th\cap R_S^T$ is a congruence on $T$ (as both $\th$ and $R_S^T$ are), it follows that $\si\in\LiftCong ST$. Since $\th\sub R_{S,G}^T=\nab_S\cup{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_T}$, we have $\th=\th{{\restriction}}_S\cup\th{{\restriction}}_{D_T}=\si\cup\nu_N$ for some $N\normal G$, using Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] in the last step. We also have $\tau_N=(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S\sub\th_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S=\th{{\restriction}}_S=\si$.
This follows immediately from \[E6i\] and Lemma \[lem:dmax\_ngen\].
Since ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ implies ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$, and since ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$ and ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(S)}$ together imply ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:sepb\_ngen\]), part \[E6ii\] applies. To complete the proof, it is enough to show that for $N\normal G$, $$\tau_N = \begin{cases}
\De_S &\text{if $N=\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}$}\\
\nab_S &\text{if $N\not=\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}$.}
\end{cases}$$ The first is clear, since $\nu_{\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}}=\De_{D_T}$. For the second, suppose $N\not=\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}$, and let $x,y\in N$ be distinct, noting that $(x,y)\in\nu_N$. Then $x,y\in D_T$, $x\sim y$ and $y\in G{\setminus}\{x\}=H_x^T{\setminus}\{x\}$. By \[S3\], there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_S$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$. By ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(S)}$, we have $\nab_S=\cg{x'}{y'}_S\sub\cg{x'}{y'}_T\sub\cg xy_T\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$, so that $\nab_S\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_S=\tau_N$, whence $\tau_N=\nab_S$.
\[rem:tau\_N\] With the notation of Theorem \[thm:E6\], note that for $N\normal G$, the congruence $(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$ is the transitive closure of the relation $$\bigset{(axb,ayb)}{(x,y)\in\nu_N,\ a,b\in T,\ \br(a)=\bd(x),\ \bd(b)=\br(x)}.$$ In fact, since every pair from $\nu_N$ is of the form $(cud,cvd)$ for some $u,v\in N$ and $c,d\in T$, it quickly follows that $(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$ is the transitive closure of the set $$T(N\times N)T = \bigset{(axb,ayb)}{x,y\in N,\ a,b\in T,\ \br(a)=\bd(x),\ \bd(b)=\br(x)}.$$
\[rem:E1\] Consider $T$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6iii\], and let $$\Si_1 = \bigset{\si\cup\De_{D_T}}{\si\in\LiftCong ST}
\AND
\Si_2 = \bigset{R_{S,N}^T}{N\normal G}.$$ Then the following are all easily checked:
$\Si_1$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ and is isomorphic to $\LiftCong ST$.
$\Si_2$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ and is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$, the lattice of normal subgroups of $G$ (cf. Remark \[rem:nu\_lattice\]).
$\Si_1$ has bottom element $\De_T=\De_S\cup\De_{D_T}$ and top element $R_S^T=\nab_S\cup\De_{D_T}$.
$\Si_2$ has bottom element $R_S^T=R_{S,\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}}^T$ and top element $R_{S,G}^T$.
The only remaining congruence on $T$ is $\nab_T$, which sits directly above $R_{S,G}^T$ in the lattice (cf. Lemma \[lem:dmax\_ngen\]). Informally, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ is obtained by taking $\LiftCong ST$, stacking ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ on top of it and identifying their respective top and bottom elements, and finally adding $\nab_T$ on top of that. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:E1\]. In this figure and coming ones, the trivial congruence and all Rees congruences are depicted as solid vertices, while all other congruences have a white background. The choice of colours will be explained in Section \[subsect:viscon\].
(0,0) to \[bend left=80\] (0,4) to \[bend left=80\] (0,0); (0,4) to \[bend left=80\] (0,7) to \[bend left=80\] (0,4); (0,7) – (0,8); in [0,4,7,8]{} [(-2,)–(-.5,);]{} in [0,4,8]{} in [7]{} /in [0/\_T,4/R\_S\^T,7/R\_[S,G]{}\^T,8/\_T]{} [() at (-2,) [$\y$]{};]{} (2,0)–(2,4); (2,7)–(2,4); () at (2,2) [$\Si_1\cong\LiftCong ST$]{}; () at (2,5.5) [$\Si_2\cong{\mathcal{N}}(G)$]{};
\[rem:E3\] When $T$ satisfies the weaker assumptions of Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\], as opposed to those of part \[E6iii\], the structure of the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ tends to be more complex. Nevertheless, much can still be said.
First, the order in the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ is easily described in terms of the orders in $\LiftCong ST$ and ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$, as we clearly have $$\si_1\cup\nu_{N_1} \sub \si_2\cup\nu_{N_2} \iff \si_1\sub\si_2 \text{ and } N_1\leq N_2.$$ In other words, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T){\setminus}\{\nab_T\}$ is a sublattice of the direct product $\LiftCong ST\times{\mathcal{N}}(G)$. This sublattice is proper in general, as not all pairs $(\sigma, N)$ give rise to a congruence $\si\cup\nu_N$ on $T$. It is therefore possible to view ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T){\setminus}\{\nab_T\}$ as consisting of pairwise-disjoint *layers* $$\Lam(N) = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in\LiftCong ST,\ \tau_N\sub\si},$$ indexed by $N\normal G$. Clearly, $\Lam(N)$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$, and is isomorphic to the interval $[\tau_N,\nab_S]$ in the lattice $\LiftCong ST$; the bottom and top elements of $\Lam(N)$ are $\nu_N^\sharp=\tau_N\cup\nu_N$ (cf. ) and $\nab_S\cup\nu_N=R_{S,N}^T$, respectively. In particular, since $\tau_{\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}}=\De_S$, we see that $\Lam\big(\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}\big)$ is isomorphic to $\LiftCong ST$ itself.
Given $N_1,N_2\in{\mathcal{N}}(G)$, there is a comparison $\th_1\sub\th_2$ for some $\th_1\in\Lam(N_1)$ and $\th_2\in\Lam(N_2)$ if and only if $N_1\leq N_2$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN2\]), in which case we must have $\th_1=\si_1\cup\nu_{N_1}$ and $\th_2=\si_2\cup\nu_{N_2}$ with $\si_1\sub\si_2$. Thus, if $N_1\lneq N_2$, then $\Lam(N_1)\cup\Lam(N_2)$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$, and for each $\si\in[\tau_{N_2},\nab_S]$, we have $\si\cup\nu_{N_1}\subsetneq\si\cup\nu_{N_2}$. Figure \[fig:E31\] shows the Hasse diagram of the sublattice $\Lam(N_1)\cup\Lam(N_2)$, in the case that $N_1\lneq N_2$ and $\tau_{N_1}\subsetneq\tau_{N_2}$.
Figure \[fig:E32\] shows the entire lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$, for $T$ as in Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\], in the case that ${\mathcal{N}}(G)=\big\{\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\},N_1,N_2,G\big\}$ with $N_1$ and $N_2$ incomparable, with the associated congruences $\tau_{N_1}$ and $\tau_{N_2}$ incomparable as well, and with $\tau_G\not=\nab_S$.
7
0
2 (2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(3.5,4.5)–(1,2)–(0,3)–(0,2)–(2,0); (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); () at (2.2,-.3) [$\De_S$]{}; () at (1.3,1.7) [$\tau_{N_1}$]{}; () at (1.7,3.8) [$\tau_{N_2}$]{}; () at (2.3,6.2) [$\nab_S$]{}; (2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,2)–(2,0); (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); /in [1/2,2/4]{} /in [2/0,2/6]{}
(1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); /in [2/4,3/5,1/5,2/6]{} [(,)–(+,+);]{} (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2+,4+)–(3+,5+)–(2+,6+)–(1+,5+)–(2+,4+); () at (1.3,1.7) [$\tau_{N_1}\cup\nu_{N_1}$]{}; () at (1.6,3.75) [$\tau_{N_2}\cup\nu_{N_1}$]{}; () at (2.8+,6.2+) [$\nab_S\cup\nu_{N_2}=R_{S,N_2}^T$]{}; () at (3.5,6.15) [$\nab_S\cup\nu_{N_1}=R_{S,N_1}^T$]{}; () at (1.2+,3.9+) [$\tau_{N_2}\cup\nu_{N_2}$]{}; (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2+,4+)–(3+,5+)–(2+,6+)–(1+,5+)–(2+,4+); /in [1/2,2/4,2/6,2+/6+,2+/4+]{}
0
2
3
(2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(2.5,2.5)–(2,3)–(1,2)–(0,3)–(0,2)–(2,0); (1,2)–(2,3)–(.5,4.5)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,3)–(3.5,4.5)–(4,4)–(2.5,2.5)–(2,3); (2,3)–(3.5,4.5)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(.5,4.5)–(2,3); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,2)–(2,0); (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2.5,2.5)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(.5,4.5)–(2.5,2.5); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); () at (2.2,-.3) [$\De_S=\tau_{\{{\operatorname{id}}_G\}}$]{}; () at (1.3,1.7) [$\tau_{N_1}$]{}; () at (2.9,2.3) [$\tau_{N_2}$]{}; () at (1.7,3.8) [$\tau_{G}$]{}; () at (2.3,6.2) [$\nab_S$]{}; /in [1/2,2/4,2.5/2.5]{} /in [2/0,2/6]{}
(2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2,6)–(2,7); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); /in [2/4,1/5,3/5,2/6]{} [(-,-)–(,);]{} (2,4.5) circle(.1); /in [2/4,1/5,3/5,2/6]{} [(,)–(-,-);]{} (1,3.5) circle(.1); (.5,3.75) circle(.1); (.5,3.25) circle(.1); (-.5,4.25) circle(.1); (4-1,3.5) circle(.1); (4-.5,3.75) circle(.1); (4-.5,3.25) circle(.1); (4+.5,4.25) circle(.1);
(1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2);
(2.5,2.5)–(4,4)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(.5,4.5)–(2.5,2.5); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2.5,2.5)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(.5,4.5)–(2.5,2.5);
/in [1/2,0/3,0/4,2/6,3.5/4.5]{} [(,)–(+,+);]{} /in [2.5/2.5,4/4,2/6,.5/4.5]{} [(,)–(+,+);]{} /in [2/4,1/5,3/5]{} [(+,+)–(,)–(+,+);]{} (2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(2.5,2.5)–(2,3)–(1,2)–(0,3)–(0,2)–(2,0); (1,2)–(2,3)–(.5,4.5)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2,3)–(3.5,4.5)–(4,4)–(2.5,2.5)–(2,3); (2,3)–(3.5,4.5)–(3,5)–(2,4)–(1,5)–(.5,4.5)–(2,3); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (1,2)–(3.5,4.5)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,3)–(1,2); (2.5,2.5)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(.5,4.5)–(2.5,2.5); (2,4)–(3,5)–(2,6)–(1,5)–(2,4); (2,0)–(4,2)–(4,4)–(2,6)–(0,4)–(0,2)–(2,0); /in [1/2,2/4,2.5/2.5]{} /in [2/0,2/6]{}
/in [1/2,2/4,2/6]{}
/in [2/4,2.5/2.5,2/6]{}
/in [2/4,2/6]{} /in [2/7]{}
Chains of ideals {#sect:chains}
================
We now use the theory from the previous section to describe the congruences of partial semigroups that are obtained by repeated extensions by single maximum ${\mathscr J}$-classes.
\[defn:chain\] A *chain of ideals* of *height* $\xi$, where $\xi$ is an ordinal from the set $\{1,2,3,\ldots,\om\}$, is a stable, regular partial semigroup $U$ whose ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes form a chain of order type $\xi$; i.e., $U/{\mathscr J}= {\set{D_q}{0\leq q<\xi}}$ and $D_0<D_1<\cdots$.
The ideals of any partial semigroup $S$ are in one-one correspondence with the non-empty downward-closed sets in $(S/{\mathscr J},\leq)$. Thus, the ideals of $U$ as in Definition \[defn:chain\] are precisely the sets
$I_r = D_0\cup D_1\cup\cdots\cup D_r$ for each $0\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om = U = D_0\cup D_1\cup\cdots$ in the case that $\xi=\om$. These ideals form a chain $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$, which justifies the nomenclature. Since each $D_q$ is regular and stable, each ideal $I_r$ is also regular and stable; hence Lemma \[lem:SD\] applies, and tells us the following:
Green’s relations on each $I_r$ are simply inherited from the corresponding relations on $U$, so we may dispense with superscripts when discussing these relations on $U$ and its ideals.
For finite $0\leq q\leq r$, $D_q$ is a (stable, regular) ${\mathscr D}$-class of $I_r$.
Every ideal of $I_r$ is an ideal of $U$, and hence the ideals of $I_r$ are precisely the $I_q$ with $0\leq q\leq r$.
It follows that each $I_r$ is a chain of ideals in its own right; its height is $r+1$ when $r<\omega$, and $\omega$ when $r=\xi=\omega$. Note that if $\xi=\om$, then the partial semigroup $U$ does not have a maximum (top) ${\mathscr J}$-class, even though every proper ideal of $U$ does.
This section develops the general theory of congruences of chains of ideals. When applied in the remaining sections to certain specific classes of chains of ideals, it will enable us to compute, in one fell swoop, the congruence lattice of $U$ and of all its ideals $I_r$, for all $U$ belonging to the class. Furthermore, these computations will be uniform across different classes, and the strategy underlying them is as follows. There will be some (small) value $k$ such that, roughly speaking:
congruences on ideals $I_r$ ($r<k$) are characterised by great “freedom” (e.g., in some cases all possible equivalence relations are congruences; cf. Remark \[rem:T2\] and Figure \[fig:T\]); while
congruences on ideals $I_r$ ($r\geq k$) are more “constrained”, and they all arise from one of the constructions discussed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\] (or a variation thereof; cf. Section \[sect:H\]);
more specifically, for sufficiently large $r$, the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ will be obtained by stacking on top of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ the normal subgroup lattices of maximal subgroups of the ${\mathscr D}$-classes $D_{k+1},D_{k+2},\dots$; cf. Figure \[fig:E2\].
The most significant contribution of this section is a description of this “stacking process” which we give in Section \[subsect:chains\]. Sections \[subsect:PRB\]–\[subsect:small\] are devoted to techniques for computing the congruence lattices of “short” chains of ideals, which will be used to determined the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ for $r\leq k$. Section \[subsect:viscon\] discusses visualisation conventions that will be used when depicting congruence lattices in specific categories and their ideals in the remainder of the paper.
Congruences on chains of ideals {#subsect:chains}
-------------------------------
The first main result of this section describes the congruences on a chain $U$ of ideals and all its sufficiently large ideals, modulo a description of the congruences on some fixed ideal $I_k$, and subject to certain assumptions as listed in Section \[subsect:properties\].
\[thm:E2\] Let $U$ be a chain of ideals of height $\xi$, with $D_r$ and $I_r$ as in Definition \[defn:chain\] and the discussion following it. For each $0\leq q<\xi$ let $G_q$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D_q$. Suppose there exists $0\leq k<\xi$ such that the following hold: $$\LiftCong{I_k}U={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)\COMMA {\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_k)}\COMMA {\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}\ \text{for all}\ k<r<\xi.$$ Then for any $r\geq k$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \bigset{\si\cup\De_{I_r}}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)} \cup \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{k\leq q<r,\ N\normal G_{q+1}} \cup \{\nab_{I_r}\}.$$
First note that all of the listed relations are congruences on $I_r$. Indeed, the relations of the form $\si\cup\De_{I_r}=(\si\cup\De_U){{\restriction}}_{I_r}$ are congruences because $\LiftCong{I_k}U={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$, and those of the form $R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}$ because each $(I_q,N)$ is an IN-pair in $I_r$.
To complete the proof, we must show that every congruence on $I_r$ has one of the forms listed in the theorem.
We first prove the statement for every $r\in [k,\xi)$. The proof is by induction, and the anchor $r=k$ is obvious. Now fix some $k<r<\xi$, and inductively assume that $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1}) = \bigset{\si\cup\De_{I_{r-1}}}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)} \cup \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}}{k\leq q<r-1,\ N\normal G_{q+1}} \cup \{\nab_{I_{r-1}}\}.$$ By inspecting the congruences just listed (or by assumption if $r=k+1$), we see that ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_{r-1})}$ holds. Since also ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$ holds by assumption, Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6iii\] applies to $T=I_r$ and $S=I_{r-1}$, and it tells us that $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \bigset{\tau\cup\De_{D_r}}{\tau\in\LiftCong{I_{r-1}}{I_r}} \cup \bigset{R_{I_{r-1},N}^{I_r}}{N\normal G_r} \cup \{\nab_{I_r}\}.$$ We also have $\LiftCong{I_{r-1}}{I_r}={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1})$. Indeed, every congruence on $I_{r-1}$ listed above lifts to $I_r$: those of the form $\si\cup\De_{I_{r-1}}$ because $\LiftCong{I_k}U={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$, and those of the form $R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}$ because of Lemma \[lem:E2\]. To complete the inductive step, it remains to check that $\tau\cup\De_{D_r}$ is one of the congruences listed in the theorem for each $\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1})$. But this is clear:
If $\tau=\si\cup\De_{I_{r-1}}$ for some $\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$, then $\tau\cup\De_{D_r}=\si\cup\De_{I_r}$.
If $\tau=R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}$ for some $k\leq q<r-1$ and $N\normal G_{q+1}$, then $\tau\cup\De_{D_r}=R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}$.
If $\tau=\nab_{I_{r-1}}$, then $\tau\cup\De_{D_r}=R_{I_{r-1}}^{I_r}=R_{I_{r-1},\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_r}\}}^{I_r}$. This completes the inductive step, and hence Step 1 as well.
We now consider the final case $r=\xi=\om$. Let $\tau$ be an arbitrary congruence on $U=I_{\om}$. We must show that $\tau$ has one of the forms listed in the theorem.
Suppose first that $\tau$ is contained in the Rees congruence $R_{I_t}^{U}$ for some $k\leq t<{\om}$. Then $\tau=\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_t}\cup\De_U$. Since $t<\om$, we know the possible forms of the congruence $\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_t}$, and it is easy to check (as above) that for each such form, $\tau=\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_t}\cup\De_U$ has one of the desired forms.
Now suppose $\tau$ is not contained in any of the Rees congruences $R_{I_t}^{U}$ ($k\leq t<\om$). We claim that $\tau$ must contain each of these Rees congruences. Before we prove the claim, note that it will then follow that $\tau$ contains $R_{I_k}^{U}\cup R_{I_{k+1}}^{U}\cup\cdots=\nab_U$, so that in fact $\tau=\nab_U$.
To prove the claim, fix some $k\leq t<\om$. Since $\tau$ is not contained in $R_{I_t}^{U}$, we may fix some $(x,y)\in\tau{\setminus}R_{I_t}^U$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $x\in D_u$ and $y\in D_v$ where $u\geq v$. So $x,y\in I_u$, and since $(x,y)\in\tau{\setminus}R_{I_t}^U$, we have $u>t$. Since $u<\om$, we have $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{u}) = \bigset{\si\cup\De_{I_{u}}}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)} \cup \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_{u}}}{k\leq q<u,\ N\normal G_{q+1}} \cup \{\nab_{I_{u}}\}.$$ By the form of $(x,y)\in\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_{u}}$, it follows that the congruence $\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_{u}}$ is either $\nab_{I_u}$ or else of the form $R_{I_{u-1},N}^{I_u}$. In either case, $\tau{{\restriction}}_{I_{u}}$ contains $R_{I_{u-1}}^{I_{u}}$, and hence $R_{I_t}^{I_{u}}$. Thus, $\tau$ contains $R_{I_t}^{I_{u}}$, and hence also $R_{I_t}^{I_{u}}\cup\De_U=R_{I_t}^U$, as required.
\[rem:E2\] In the notation of Theorem \[thm:E2\], and for $r\geq k$ and $k\leq q<r$, define the sets $$\Si_1(r)=\bigset{\si\cup\De_{I_r}}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)} \AND \Si_2(r,q) = \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{N\normal G_{q+1}}.$$ Then, similarly to Remark \[rem:E1\], we have the following:
$\displaystyle{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \Si_1(r) \cup \bigcup_{k\leq q<r} \Si_2(r,q) \cup \{\nab_{I_r}\}$.
$\Si_1(r)$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ and is isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$.
$\Si_2(r,q)$ is a sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ and is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G_{q+1})$, the lattice of normal subgroups of $G_{q+1}$.
$\Si_1(r)$ has bottom element $\De_{I_r}$ and top element $R_{I_k}^{I_r}$.
$\Si_2(r,q)$ has bottom element $R_{I_q}^{I_r}$ and top element $R_{I_q,G_{q+1}}^{I_r}$.
The only remaining congruence on $I_r$ is $\nab_{I_r}$. If $r$ is finite, then $\nab_{I_r}$ sits directly above the top element of $\Si_2(r,r-1)$: i.e., $R_{I_{r-1},G_{r}}^{I_r}$. If $r=\om$, then $I_r=U$ and ${\operatorname{Cong}}(U){\setminus}\{\nab_U\}$ has no top element (though of course $\nab_U$ still sits above this entire sublattice). Informally, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ is obtained by successively stacking ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k),{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+1}),{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+2}),\dots$ on top of each other, and adding $\nab_{I_r}$ on top; this is pictured in Figure \[fig:E2\], which gives the Hasse diagram of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ in the case that $r$ is finite. Note that if the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ and ${\mathcal{N}}(G_{q+1})$, $k\leq q<r$, are all chains, then so too is ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$, including when $r=\om$; cf. Figure \[fig:T\].
Note that Theorem \[thm:E2\] says nothing about the congruences on the proper ideals of $I_k$ (i.e., $I_0,\ldots,I_{k-1}$). Nor does it tell us how to compute ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ in the first place. The results of Sections \[subsect:PRB\]–\[subsect:small\] will help us deal with these ideals.
(0,0) to \[bend left=80\] (0,4) to \[bend left=80\] (0,0); (0,4) to \[bend left=80\] (0,6) to \[bend left=80\] (0,4); (0,7) to \[bend left=80\] (0,9) to \[bend left=80\] (0,7); (0,12) to \[bend left=80\] (0,14) to \[bend left=80\] (0,12); (0,6) – (0,7) (0,9)–(0,10) (0,14)–(0,15); (0,10)–(0,12); in [0,4,6,7,9,10,12,14,15]{} [(-2,)–(-.5,);]{} in [0,4,7,10,12,15]{} in [6,9,14]{} /in [ 0/\_[I\_r]{}, 4/R\_[I\_k]{}, 6/R\_[I\_k,G\_[k+1]{}]{}, 7/R\_[I\_[k+1]{}]{}, 9/R\_[I\_[k+1]{},G\_[k+2]{}]{}, 10/R\_[I\_[k+2]{}]{}, 12/R\_[I\_[r-1]{}]{}, 14/R\_[I\_[r-1]{},G\_[r]{}]{}, 15/\_[I\_r]{}, ]{} [() at (-2,) [$\y$]{};]{} (2,0)–(2,4); (2,4)–(2,6); (2,7)–(2,9); (2,12)–(2,14); () at (2,2) [$\Si_1(r)\cong{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$]{}; () at (2,5) [$\Si_2(r,k)\cong{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+1})$]{}; () at (2,8) [$\Si_2(r,k+1)\cong{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+2})$]{}; () at (2,13) [$\Si_2(r,r-1)\cong{\mathcal{N}}(G_{r})$]{};
Partial rectangular bands {#subsect:PRB}
-------------------------
In all of our applications in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:IB\], the minimal ideal will be a stable, regular, ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, ${\mathscr D}$-universal partial semigroup; these are also the ${\mathscr H}$-trivial chains of ideals of height $1$. This section shows how to construct the congruences on such partial semigroups.
Let $\C$ be a set, and suppose that for each $A\in\C$ we have non-empty sets $X_A$ and $Y_A$. Suppose also that for distinct $A,B\in\C$, $X_A\cap X_B=\emptyset=Y_A\cap Y_B$, and put $X=\bigcup_{A\in\C}X_A$ and $Y=\bigcup_{B\in\C}Y_B$. (We do not require $X$ and $Y$ to be disjoint.) Put $$S =X\times Y = \bigcup_{A,B\in\C}(X_A\times Y_B).$$ For $A,B\in\C$ and $x\in X_A$ and $y\in Y_B$, we write $\bd(x,y)=A$ and $\br(x,y)=B$. For $x_1,x_2\in X$ and $y_1,y_2\in Y$ such that $\br(x_1,y_1)=\bd(x_2,y_2)$, we define $(x_1,y_1)\cdot(x_2,y_2)=(x_1,y_2)$. Then $(S,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$ is easily seen to be a partial semigroup. We call such a partial semigroup $S$ a *partial rectangular band*. When $|\C|=1$, we obtain an ordinary rectangular band; cf. [@Howie p. 7].
The hom-sets of the partial rectangular band $S=X\times Y$, as above, are ${S_{A,B}=X_A\times Y_B}$ ($A,B\in\C$), and the endomorphism semigroups are $S_A=S_{A,A}=X_A\times Y_A$ ($A\in\C$); the latter are (ordinary) rectangular bands. It is easy to see that the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $S$ are, respectively, the sets $$\{x\}\times Y\text{ \ for each $x\in X$} \AND X\times\{y\} \text{ \ for each $y\in Y$.}$$ It quickly follows from this that $S$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial and ${\mathscr D}$-universal (hence ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$), and also stable and regular. In fact, the converse holds, as the next result shows. For the statement, we say a partial semigroup $(T,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$ is *without surplus objects* if every $A\in\C$ is in the image of at least one of the $\bd$ or $\br$ maps.
\[lem:PRB\] Let $(T,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$ be an ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, ${\mathscr D}$-universal, stable, regular partial semigroup without surplus objects. For each $A\in\C$, let $X_A=T_A/{\mathscr R}^{T_A}$ and $Y_A=T_A/{\mathscr L}^{T_A}$ be the sets of all ${\mathscr R}^{T_A}$- and ${\mathscr L}^{T_A}$-classes of the endomorphism semigroup $T_A$. Let $X=\bigcup_{A\in\C}X_A$ and $Y=\bigcup_{A\in\C}Y_A$, and let $S=X\times Y$ be the partial rectangular band as constructed above. For $u\in T$, let $u\phi = (R_u\cap T_A,L_u\cap T_B)$, where $A=\bd(u)$ and $B=\br(u)$. Then the mapping $u\mt u\phi$ determines an isomorphism $T\to S$.
We first show that $\phi$ is well defined. To do so, let $u\in T$. We must show that $R_u\cap T_A$ is an ${\mathscr R}^{T_A}$-class of $T_A$, and that $L_u\cap T_B$ an ${\mathscr L}^{T_B}$-class of $T_B$. By symmetry, it suffices to do the former. Since $u$ is regular, we have $u=uvu$ for some $v\in T$, and we put $w=uv$, noting that $w\in T_A$ and $(u,w)\in{\mathscr R}$; i.e., $R_u=R_w$. We will show that $R_u\cap T_A=R_w^{T_A}$. Beginning with the backwards inclusion, let $x\in R_w^{T_A}$. Then $x\in T_A$ and $(x,w)\in{\mathscr R}^{T_A}\sub{\mathscr R}$, and so $x\in R_w\cap T_A=R_u\cap T_A$. Conversely, suppose $y\in R_u\cap T_A=R_w\cap T_A$. Then $y\in T_A$, and we must show that $(y,w)\in{\mathscr R}^{T_A}$. This is clear if $y=w$. Otherwise, since $y\in R_w$, we have $y=wa$ and $w=yb$ for some $a,b\in T$. By comparing domains and ranges, and keeping $y,w\in T_A$ in mind, it is clear that $a,b\in T_A$, which means that $(y,w)\in{\mathscr R}^{T_A}$, as required.
To show that $\phi$ is a homomorphism, suppose $u,v\in T$ are such that the product $uv$ exists. Then we have $u\in T_{A,B}$ and $v\in T_{B,C}$ for some $A,B,C\in\C$, and $\bd(uv)=A$ and $\br(uv)=C$. Since $T$ is ${\mathscr D}$-universal, we have $(uv,u),(uv,v)\in{\mathscr D}$, so stability gives $(uv,u)\in{\mathscr R}$ and $(uv,v)\in{\mathscr L}$; i.e., $R_{uv}=R_u$ and $L_{uv}=L_v$. But then $$\begin{aligned}
(uv)\phi
&= (R_{uv}\cap T_A,L_{uv}\cap T_C) \\
&= (R_u\cap T_A,L_v\cap T_C) = (R_u\cap T_A,L_u\cap T_B)\cdot(R_v\cap T_B,L_v\cap T_C) = (u\phi)\cdot(v\phi).\end{aligned}$$
To show that $\phi$ is surjective, let $(R,L)\in S$. So $R=R_u\cap T_A$ and $L=L_v\cap T_B$ for some $A,B\in\C$, and for some $u,v\in T$ with $\bd(u)=A$ and $\br(v)=B$. Let $a,b\in T$ be such that $u=uau$ and $v=vbv$. Then $(u,ua)\in{\mathscr R}$ and $(v,bv)\in{\mathscr L}$, and we have $ua\in T_A$ and $bv\in T_B$. Since $T$ is ${\mathscr D}$-universal and regular, we have $ua=sbvt$ for some $s,t\in T$, and we must have $s\in T_{A,B}$ (and $t\in T_{B,A}$). Then the product $uasbv$ is defined, and we have $(uasbv,u)\in{\mathscr R}$ and $(uasbv,v)\in{\mathscr L}$ (again by ${\mathscr D}$-universality and stability), and also $\bd(uasbv)=A$ and $\br(uasbv)=B$. But then $$(uasbv)\phi = (R_{uasbv}\cap T_A,L_{uasbv}\cap T_B) = (R_u\cap T_A,L_v\cap T_B) = (R,L).$$
To show that $\phi$ is injective, suppose $u,v\in T$ and $u\phi=v\phi$; i.e., $(R_u\cap T_{\bd(u)},L_u\cap T_{\br(u)}) = (R_v\cap T_{\bd(v)},L_v\cap T_{\br(v)})$. Note that $R_u\cap T_{\bd(u)}$ is a non-empty subset of $T_{\bd(u)}$ (it contains $ua$ for any $a\in T$ with $u=uau$), and similarly for the other three sets. Since $R_u\cap T_{\bd(u)}=R_v\cap T_{\bd(v)}\not=\emptyset$, it follows that $R_u\cap R_v\not=\emptyset$, and so $(u,v)\in{\mathscr R}$. Similarly, $(u,v)\in{\mathscr L}$, and so $(u,v)\in{\mathscr H}$, and $u=v$ by ${\mathscr H}$-triviality.
The next result describes congruences on an (ordinary) rectangular band $X\times Y$; they are entirely determined by pairs of equivalences on $X$ and $Y$. The proof is simple, and is omitted; it also follows from more general results on completely (0-)simple semigroups [@CPbook2 Section 10.7].
\[lem:RB\] Let $S=X\times Y$ be a rectangular band. For a pair of equivalences $\ve_1\in\Eq(X)$ and $\ve_2\in\Eq(Y)$, define the relation $\si_{\ve_1,\ve_2}$ on $S$ by $$\si_{\ve_1,\ve_2} = \bigset{ \big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big)}{(x_1,x_2)\in\ve_1,\ (y_1,y_2)\in\ve_2}.$$ Then
\[RBi\] ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S) = \bigset{\si_{\ve_1,\ve_2}}{\ve_1\in\Eq(X),\ \ve_2\in\Eq(Y)}$,
\[RBii\] ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $\Eq(X)\times\Eq(Y)$.
Here is the corresponding result for partial rectangular bands, where instead of pairs of equivalences, we need to consider sequences of pairs.
\[prop:PRB\] Let $S=X\times Y$ be a partial rectangular band as above. For two $\C$-tuples of equivalences $$\E_1 = (\ve_1^A)_{A\in\C} \in \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(X_A) \AND \E_2 = (\ve_2^A)_{A\in\C} \in \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(Y_A),$$ define the relation $\si_{\E_1,\E_2}$ by $$\si_{\E_1,\E_2} = \bigcup_{A,B\in\C} \bigset{\big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big)\in S_{A,B}\times S_{A,B}}{(x_1,x_2)\in\ve_1^A,\ (y_1,y_2)\in\ve_2^B}.$$ Then
\[PRBi\] ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S) = \bigset{\si_{\E_1,\E_2}}{\E_1 \in \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(X_A) ,\ \E_2 \in \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(Y_A)}$,
\[PRBii\] ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(X_A) \times \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(Y_A)$.
It is routine to verify that such a relation $\si_{\E_1,\E_2}$ is a congruence. Conversely, suppose $\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$. For each $A\in\C$, let $\si_A=\si{{\restriction}}_{S_A}$ be the associated congruence on the rectangular band $S_A$. By Lemma \[lem:RB\] we have $\si_A=\si_{\ve_1^A,\ve_2^A}$ for some equivalences $\ve_1^A\in\Eq(X_A)$ and ${\ve_2^A\in\Eq(Y_A)}$. Put $\E_1 = (\ve_1^A)_{A\in\C}$ and $\E_2 = (\ve_2^A)_{A\in\C}$. We claim that $\si=\si_{\E_1,\E_2}$.
Indeed, suppose first that $\big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big)\in\si$, say with $x_1,x_2\in X_A$ and $y_1,y_2\in Y_B$. Then for any $x\in X_B$ and $y\in Y_A$, we have $$\big( (x_1,y),(x_2,y) \big) = \big( (x_1,y_1)(x,y),(x_2,y_2)(x,y) \big)\in\si_A,$$ and so by definition $(x_1,x_2)\in\ve_1^A$. Similarly, $(y_1,y_2)\in\ve_2^B$, and so $\big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big)\in\si_{\E_1,\E_2}$.
Conversely, suppose $\big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big)\in\si_{\E_1,\E_2}$, say with $x_1,x_2\in X_A$ and $y_1,y_2\in Y_B$, so that $(x_1,x_2)\in\ve_1^A$ and $(y_1,y_2)\in\ve_2^B$. Then for any $x\in X_B$ and $y\in Y_A$, we have $$\big( (x_1,y),(x_2,y) \big)\in\si_{\ve_1^A,\ve_2^A}=\si_A\sub\si \ANDSIM \big( (x,y_1),(x,y_2)\big)\in\si.$$ But then $\big((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\big) = \big((x_1,y)(x_1,y_1)(x,y_1),(x_2,y)(x_1,y_1)(x,y_2)\big)\in\si$.
This follows quickly from \[PRBi\] and the fact that $$\si_{\E_1,\E_2}\sub\si_{\E_1',\E_2'}\quad \Leftrightarrow\quad
\ve_1^A\subseteq\ve_1^B \text{ and } \ve_2^A\subseteq \ve_2^B \text{ for all } A,B\in\C.\qedhere$$
Short retractable chains {#subsect:retract}
------------------------
In many of the applications in Sections \[sect:P\]–\[sect:J\], the minimal ideal is a partial rectangular band (cf. Section \[subsect:PRB\]), and the second smallest ideal is retractable. It turns out that the congruences on such retractable ideals can be uniformly described, in terms of the congruences on the minimal ideal (cf. Proposition \[prop:PRB\]) and the normal subgroups of a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in the other ${\mathscr D}$-class of the ideal. The next statement and proof refer to the congruences $\th_{I,\tau}$ and $\th_{I,N,\tau}$ discussed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\]. Recall that when $I$ is the minimal ideal, $\th_{I,N,\tau}=\tau\cup\nu_N\cup\De_S$.
\[prop:small\_ideal\] Suppose $S$ is a chain of ideals of height 2, with ${\mathscr D}$-classes $D_0<D_1$, where $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. Suppose $S$ is retractable (onto $D_0$). Let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in $D_1$. Assume also that the following condition is satisfied:
For every $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_1{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy$ with $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in D_0$. Then the following hold:
\[small1\] Every congruence on $D_0$ is liftable to $S$, every IN-pair in $S$ is retractable, and we have $${\operatorname{Cong}}(S) = \bigset{\tau\cup\nu_N}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(D_0),\ N\normal G} \cup \bigset{\th_{S,\tau}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(D_0)}.$$
\[small2\] The lattice ordering on ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ is determined by:
$\tau\cup\nu_N\sub\tau'\cup\nu_{N'} \iff \tau\sub \tau'$ and $N\leq N'$,
$\th_{S,\tau}\sub\th_{S,\tau'} \iff \tau\sub\tau'$,
$\tau\cup\nu_N\sub\th_{S,\tau'} \iff \tau\sub\tau'$.
\[small3\] The lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $${\operatorname{Cong}}(D_0) \times {\mathcal{N}}(G)^\top,$$ where ${\mathcal{N}}(G)^\top$ is the lattice obtained by adjoining a new top element $\top$ to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$.
Lemmas \[lem:Sretract\] and \[lem:INretract\] tell us that every congruence on $D_0$ is liftable, and that every IN-pair is retractable. It follows from the results discussed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\] that each of the stated relations is a congruence on $S$ (note that $\tau\cup\nu_N=\th_{D_0,N,\tau}$).
Conversely, let $\si$ be an arbitrary congruence on $S$, and put $\tau=\si{{\restriction}}_{D_0}$. Let $f:S\to D_0$ be the retraction. If $\si\sub R_{D_0,G}$, then it follows from Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6i\] that $\si=\tau\cup\nu_N$ for some $N\normal G$. This leaves us to consider the case in which $\si\not\sub R_{D_0,G}$. Since $R_{D_0,G}=\nab_{D_0}\cup{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}$, there exists a pair $(x,y)\in\si$ with $x\in D_1$ and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr H}$. By the assumption in the statement, we may assume without loss of generality that $y\in D_0$. By Lemma \[lem:mu\_trick\], we have $\mu_S\sub\si$. Now let $u,v\in S$ be arbitrary. Then since $(u,uf),(v,vf)\in\mu_S\sub\si$, we have $$(u,v)\in\si \iff (uf,vf)\in\si \iff (uf,vf)\in\si{{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\tau \iff (u,v)\in\th_{S,\tau},$$ which shows that $\si=\th_{S,\tau}$ in this case.
The first two items are easily checked. For the third, first note that since $(\tau\cup\nu_N){{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\tau$ and $\th_{S,\tau'}{{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\tau'$, we certainly have $\tau\cup\nu_N\sub\th_{S,\tau'} \implies \tau\sub\tau'$. To prove the reverse implication, suppose $\tau\sub\tau'$. Now, $$\tau \cup \nu_N \sub \tau \cup {\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1} \AND \th_{S,\tau'} = \bigset{(x,y)\in S\times S}{(xf,yf)\in\tau'}.$$ Thus, since $\tau\sub\tau'\sub\th_{S,\tau'}$, it suffices to show that ${\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}\sub\th_{S,\tau'}$. To do so, let $(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}$. Since $(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}$, gives $(xf,yf)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\De_{D_0}\sub\tau'$, which gives $(x,y)\in\th_{S,\tau'}$, as desired.
It follows quickly from the previous parts that the mapping ${\operatorname{Cong}}(D_0)\times{\mathcal{N}}(G)^\top\to{\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ given by $(\tau,N)\mt \tau\cup\nu_N$ and $(\tau,\top)\mt\th_{S,\tau}$ is a lattice isomorphism.
Figure \[fig:B4\] gives the Hasse diagram of the congruence lattice of a retractable ideal of the form described in Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] in the specific case of the Brauer category $\B$, defined below. (But note that the ${\mathscr D}$-classes in that example are denoted $D_0<D_2$, and the ideal itself by $I_2=D_0\cup D_2$, for reasons to be explained in Section \[sect:B\].) As explained in Remark \[rem:Beven\], here ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to $\Eq_3\times\Eq_3$, and ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ is a two-element chain.
Short non-retractable chains {#subsect:small}
----------------------------
Recall that we are currently working towards a set-up within which we will be able to characterise the congruences for a range of specific categories and their ideals in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:IB\]. The main tool in doing this is Theorem \[thm:E2\], which highlights the importance of a certain (small) ideal $I_k$. In all our applications in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\], $I_k$ will be the smallest non-retractable ideal in our category. Furthermore, its height (as a chain of ideals) will always be $2$ or $3$. The results of the last two sections will be used to determine ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ for $r<k$. In this section we turn our attention to $I_k$ itself. We will consider separately the cases of height $2$ and $3$, beginning with the former, which is also the simpler of the two. The statement refers to the relations $\wt{\mathscr R}=\set{(x,y)\in{\mathscr R}}{x\sim y}$ and $\wt{\mathscr L}=\set{(x,y)\in{\mathscr L}}{x\sim y}$.
\[prop:small01\] Suppose $T$ is a chain of ideals of height 2, with ${\mathscr D}$-classes $D_0<D_1$, where $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. Let $G$ be a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in $D_1$, and let $e$ be the identity of $G$. Assume also that the following conditions are satisfied:
\[01i\] For every $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_1{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy$ with $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in D_0$.
\[01ii\] For every $x,y\in T$ with $x\sim y$ and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, we have $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
\[01iii\] For every $x,y\in T$ with $x\sim y$ and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, we have $\lam_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
\[01iv\] If $D_0$ is not $\wt{\mathscr R}$-trivial, then for every $x\in G{\setminus}\{e\}$, there exists $a\in D_0$ such that $ae\not=ax$ (with both products defined).
\[01v\] If $D_0$ is not $\wt{\mathscr L}$-trivial, then for every $x\in G{\setminus}\{e\}$, there exists $a\in D_0$ such that $ea\not=xa$ (with both products defined). Then $${\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \{\De_T,\ \lam_{D_0},\ \rho_{D_0},\ R_{D_0}\} \cup \set{R_{D_0,N}}{N\normal G} \cup \{\nab_T\}.$$
We first claim that for any congruence $\si$ on $T$, $$\label{eq:claim}
\si\not\sub\lam_{D_0}\quad \implies \quad \rho_{D_0}\sub\si .$$ Indeed, this is obvious if $D_0$ is $\wt{\mathscr R}$-trivial, for then $\rho_{D_0}=\De_T$, so suppose instead that $D_0$ is not $\wt{\mathscr R}$-trivial. Fix some $(x,y)\in\si{\setminus}\lam_{D_0}$. If $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, then \[01ii\] gives $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy\sub\si$. This leaves us to consider the case in which $(x,y)\in{\mathscr L}$. Since $(x,y)\not\in\lam_{D_0}$, we must have $x,y\in D_1$. If $y\not\in H_x$, then by \[01i\] there exists $(x',y')\in\si$ such that $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in D_0$, and \[01ii\] then gives $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg{x'}{y'}\sub\si$. The remaining case to consider is when $y\in H_x{\setminus}\{x\}$. Here, by Green’s Lemma [@DE2018 Lemma 2.7], there exist $u,v\in T^1$ such that $H_x\to G:h\mt uhv$ is a bijection, and such that $x\mt e$. Then with $z=uyv$, we have $(e,z)=(uxv,uyv)\in\si$, and $z\in G{\setminus}\{e\}$. By \[01iv\], there exists $a\in D_0$ such that $ae\not=az$; since $(e,z)\in\si$, we also have $(ae,az)\in\si$. Now, $$\label{eq:exN}
e,z\in G \implies (e,z)\in{\mathscr H}\implies (e,z)\in{\mathscr R}\implies (ae,az)\in{\mathscr R},$$ since ${\mathscr R}$ is a left congruence. But $ae\not=az$, so since $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, we must have $(ae,az)\not\in{\mathscr L}$. But then \[01ii\] gives $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg{ae}{az}\sub\si$, and is proved.
Next we show that ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ holds. To do so, fix some $x\in D_1$ and $y\in T{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, and put $\si=\cg xy$. We must show that $\si=\nab_T$. By \[01i\] we may assume without loss of generality that $y\in D_0$. We then have $\si\not\sub\lam_{D_0}$ and $\si\not\sub\rho_{D_0}$. By and its dual, it follows that $\si$ contains both $\rho_{D_0}$ and $\lam_{D_0}$, and hence also their join $\lam_{D_0}\vee\rho_{D_0}=R_{D_0}$. Since also $(x,y)\in\si$ with $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_0$, it follows from Lemma \[lem:D\_trick\] that $\nab_T=R_T\sub\si$, and so $\si=\nab_T$, as required.
Now that we have established ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$, it then follows from Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\] that $$\label{eq:claimT}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in\LiftCong{D_0}T,\ N\normal G,\ \tau_N\sub\si} \cup \{\nab_T\}.$$
Next we claim that $$\label{eq:claimI0}
\LiftCong{D_0}T = \{\De_{D_0},\ \lam_{D_0}^{D_0},\ \rho_{D_0}^{D_0},\ \nab_{D_0}\}.$$ Indeed, each of the claimed congruences on $D_0$ is liftable by Lemma \[lem:E2\]. Conversely, consider some ${\si\in\LiftCong{D_0}T}$, and let $\tau=\si\cup\De_{D_1}\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$. Suppose first that $\tau\sub\lam_{D_0}$, so that $\si=\tau{{\restriction}}_{D_0}\sub\lam_{D_0}{{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\lam_{D_0}^{D_0}$.
If $\tau\sub\rho_{D_0}$, then $\tau\sub\lam_{D_0}\cap\rho_{D_0}=\De_T$ (as $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial), and so $\tau=\De_T$, and $\si=\De_{D_0}$.
If $\tau\not\sub\rho_{D_0}$, then $\lam_{D_0}\sub\tau$ by the dual of , and so $\lam_{D_0}^{D_0}\sub\si$, and then $\si=\lam_{D_0}^{D_0}$. Similarly, if $\tau\sub\rho_{D_0}$, then $\si$ is either $\De_{D_0}$ or $\rho_{D_0}^{D_0}$. If $\tau$ is contained in neither $\lam_{D_0}$ nor $\rho_{D_0}$, then $\tau$ contains both $\rho_{D_0}$ and $\lam_{D_0}$, by and its dual, and hence as above, $R_{D_0}\sub\tau$, so that $\nab_{D_0}\sub\si$, meaning that $\si=\nab_{D_0}$. This completes the proof of .
In light of and , we may complete the proof by showing that for $N\normal G$, $$\tau_N = \begin{cases}
\De_{D_0} &\text{if $N=\{e\}$}\\
\nab_{D_0} &\text{if $N\not=\{e\}$.}
\end{cases}$$ Again this is clear for $N=\{e\}$, so suppose otherwise, and let $x\in N{\setminus}\{e\}$ be arbitrary. Now, $(e,x)\in\nu_N\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$ and $(e,x)$ belongs to neither $\lam_{D_0}$ nor $\rho_{D_0}$, so it follows that the congruence $(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$ itself is contained in neither $\lam_{D_0}$ nor $\rho_{D_0}$. As above, it follows that $R_{D_0}\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$, and hence $\nab_{D_0}\sub(\nu_N)_T^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_0}=\tau_N$, so that $\tau_N=\nab_{D_0}$.
\[rem:small01\] The lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ is easily visualised, for $T$ as in Proposition \[prop:small01\]. In general, the sublattice $\{\mu_{D_0}, \lam_{D_0}, \rho_{D_0}, R_{D_0}\}$ forms the usual diamond; the sublattice ${\set{R_{D_0,N}}{N\normal G}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$; and $\nab_T$ sits on top of the latter. See Figure \[fig:small01\]; cf. Figures \[fig:Bodd\], \[fig:TL\] and \[fig:J\].
\[rem:small01\_2\] Proposition \[prop:small01\] simplifies if $D_0$ is $\wt{\mathscr L}$- and/or $\wt{\mathscr R}$-trivial. For example, if $D_0$ is $\wt{\mathscr L}$-trivial, then $\lam_{D_0}=\De_T$, and also $R_{D_0}=\lam_{D_0}\vee\rho_{D_0}=\rho_{D_0}$, in which case the conclusion of the proposition is that $${\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \{\De_T\} \cup \set{R_{D_0,N}}{N\normal G} \cup \{\nab_T\}.$$ Note that assumptions \[01iii\] and \[01v\] are vacuously satisfied when $D_0$ is $\wh{\mathscr L}$-trivial. This simplification will occur in Theorem \[thm:T\], in the second smallest ideal of the transformation category $\T$.
(0,4) to \[bend left=80\] (0,7) to \[bend left=80\] (0,4); (0,7) – (0,8) (0,2)–(1,3)–(0,4)–(-1,3)–(0,2); in [4,7,8]{} [(-2,)–(-.5,);]{} in [4,8]{} in [7]{} /in [4/R\_[D\_0]{},7/R\_[D\_0,G]{},8/\_T]{} [() at (-2,) [$\y$]{};]{} () at (0,2.1) [$\De_T$]{}; () at (-.9,3.2) [$\lam_{D_0}$]{}; () at (1,3) [$\rho_{D_0}$]{}; (2,7)–(2,4); () at (2.2,5.5) [$\cong{\mathcal{N}}(G)$]{};
Here is the result concerning partial semigroups with three ${\mathscr D}$-classes $D_0<D_1<D_2$. Its technical assumptions are more detailed than those of Proposition \[prop:small01\] because of the presence of a non-trivial retraction. Assumption \[012ii\] refers to a relation denoted ${\mathscr L}f^{-1}$; here $f$ is the retraction $S=D_0\cup D_1\to D_0$, and we write $${\mathscr L}f^{-1} = \bigset{(x,y)\in S\times S}{(xf,yf)\in{\mathscr L}}.$$ Similar comments apply to the relation ${\mathscr R}f^{-1}$ in assumption \[012iii\].
\[prop:small012\] Suppose $T$ is a chain of ideals of height 3, with ${\mathscr D}$-classes ${D_0<D_1<D_2}$, where $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. Suppose the ideal $S=D_0\cup D_1$ is retractable, that $f:S\to D_0$ is the retraction, and that property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ holds. Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be group ${\mathscr H}$-classes in $D_1$ and $D_2$, respectively, and write $e$ for the identity of $G_2$. Assume also that the following conditions are satisfied:
\[012i\] For every $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_1{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy$ with $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in D_0$.
\[012ii\] For every $x,y\in T$ with $x\sim y$ and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr L}\cup{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, we have $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
\[012iii\] For every $x,y\in T$ with $x\sim y$ and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr R}\cup{\mathscr R}f^{-1}$, we have $\lam_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
\[012iv\] There exists a retractable IN-pair $(S,H)$ where $H\normal G_2$, and for every $x\in G_2{\setminus}H$, there exist $a,b\in D_0$ such that $ae\not=ax$ and $eb\not=xb$ (with all four products defined). Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \set{\mu_{D_0,N},\ \lam_{D_0,N},\ \rho_{D_0,N},\ R_{D_0,N}}{{}&N\normal G_1} \\[1truemm]
{} \cup \set{\mu_{S,N},\ \lam_{S,N},\ \rho_{S,N},\ R_{S,N}}{{}&N\normal G_2,\ N\leq H} \\[1truemm]
{} \cup \set{R_{S,N}}{{}&N\normal G_2,\ N\nleq H}
\cup \{\nab_T\}.\end{aligned}$$
We begin with two claims that will be used in several of the calculations to follow. There is an obvious dual to the first, but we will not need to state it.
For any $(x,y)\in R_S{\setminus}\lam_S$, we have $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
Indeed, here we have $x,y\in S$ and $(xf,yf)\not\in{\mathscr L}$. It follows from the latter that $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr L}$ (consider the contrapositive; cf. ), and that $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$. So \[012ii\] gives $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy$.
If $x,y\in T$ are distinct, and are such that $x\sim y$, $x\in D_1\cup D_2$, and $(x,y)\not\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}$, then $\mu_S\sub\cg xy$.
Indeed, renaming $x,y$ if necessary, we may assume that $x\geqJ y$. Consider first the case in which $x\in D_1$. Since $x\geqJ y$, we have $y\in S$. By \[012i\], it suffices to assume that $y\in D_0$. Lemma \[lem:mu\_trick\] then gives $\mu_S\sub\cg xy$.
Next suppose $x\in D_2$. Since $x\not=y$, it follows from ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ that there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy$ such that $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}$. This reduces to the previous case, and completes the proof of the claim.
Next we show that ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ holds. To do so, fix some $x\in D_2$ and $y\in T{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, and put $\si=\cg xy_T$. We must show that $\si=\nab_T$. By \[S2\] we may assume in fact that $y\in S$. By Claim 2, we have $\mu_S\sub\si$. Thus, $(y,yf)\in\si$, and so $(x,yf)\in\si$ by transitivity. Since $x\in D_2$ and $y\in S$, \[012ii\] and \[012iii\] apply to the pair $(x,y)\in\si$, and tell us that $\si$ contains $\lam_{D_0}$ and $\rho_{D_0}$, and hence their join, $R_{D_0}$. Since also $(x,yf)\in\si$ with $x\in D_2$ and $yf\in D_0$, Lemma \[lem:D\_trick\] gives $\nab_T=R_T\sub\si$, and so $\si=\nab_T$, as required.
Now that we know ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(T)}$ holds, it then follows from Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\] that $$\label{eq:claimTT}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(T) = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in\LiftCong ST,\ N\normal G_2,\ \tau_N\sub\si} \cup \{\nab_T\}.$$
Next we claim that $$\label{eq:liftST}
\LiftCong ST = \set{\mu_{D_0,N}^S, \lam_{D_0,N}^S, \rho_{D_0,N}^S, R_{D_0,N}^S}{N\normal G_1} \cup \{\mu_{S}^S, \lam_{S}^S, \rho_{S}^S, R_{S}^S\}.$$ To see this, first note that each of the stated relations is a congruence on $S$ by the results of Section \[subsect:EMRT\], and is liftable to $T$ by Lemma \[lem:E2\]. Conversely, suppose $\si\in\LiftCong ST$, and let $\tau=\si\cup\De_{D_2}\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$ and $\th=\si{{\restriction}}_{D_0}\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(D_0)$. We claim that $$\label{eq:claimlr}
\si\not\sub\lam_S^S \quad\implies\quad \rho_{D_0}^S\sub\si.$$ Indeed, if there exists $(x,y)\in\si{\setminus}\lam_S^S$, then since $\si{\setminus}\lam_S^S\sub R_S{\setminus}\lam_S$, it follows from Claim 1 that $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg xy_T\sub\tau=\si\cup\De_{D_2}$, and so $\rho_{D_0}^S=\rho_{D_0}{{\restriction}}_S\sub\si$. As in the proof of , it follows from and its dual that each of the following holds, concerning $\th=\si{{\restriction}}_{D_0}$:
\[a\] If $\si\sub\lam_S^S$ and $\si\sub\rho_S^S$, then $\th=\De_{D_0}$.
\[b\] If $\si\sub\lam_S^S$ and $\si\not\sub\rho_S^S$, then $\th=\lam_{D_0}^{D_0}$.
\[c\] If $\si\not\sub\lam_S^S$ and $\si\sub\rho_S^S$, then $\th=\rho_{D_0}^{D_0}$.
\[d\] If $\si\not\sub\lam_S^S$ and $\si\not\sub\rho_S^S$, then $\th=\nab_{D_0}$. Next, note that if $\si\sub R_{D_0,G_1}^S=\nab_{D_0}\cup{{\mathscr H}}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}$, then we have $\si=\si{{\restriction}}_{D_0}\cup\si{{\restriction}}_{D_1}=\th\cup\nu_N$ for some $N\normal G_1$, using Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] in the last step. It follows that $\si=\mu_{D_0,N}^S$, $\lam_{D_0,N}^S$, $\rho_{D_0,N}^S$ or $R_{D_0,N}^S$, in cases \[a\]–\[d\], respectively.
Now suppose $\si\not\sub R_{D_0,G_1}^S$, and let $(x,y)\in\si{\setminus}R_{D_0,G_1}^S$. Then by symmetry we have $x\in D_1$ and $y\in S{\setminus}H_x$. By Claim 2, it follows that $\mu_S\sub\cg xy_T\sub\tau=\si\cup\De_{D_2}$, and so $\mu_S^S=\mu_S{{\restriction}}_S\sub\si$. Now, $\si$ contains $\th\cup\De_{D_1}$, which is equal to $\De_S$, $\lam_{D_0}^S$, $\rho_{D_0}^S$ or $R_{D_0}^S$, in cases \[a\]–\[d\], respectively. It then follows that $\si$ contains $\mu_S^S\vee(\th\cup\De_{D_1})=\mu_S^S$, $\lam_S^S$, $\rho_S^S$ or $R_S^S$, respectively (cf. Figure \[fig:diamonds2\]). In cases \[b\]–\[d\], it of course follows that $\si=\lam_S^S$, $\rho_S^S$ or $R_S^S$, respectively. In case \[a\], we have $\si\sub\lam_S^S\cap\rho_S^S=\mu_S^S$, and so $\si=\mu_S^S$. This completes the proof of .
In light of and , we may complete the proof by showing that for $N\normal G_2$ we have $$\tau_N = \begin{cases}
\De_S &\text{if $N=\{e\}$}\\
\mu_S^S &\text{if $\{e\}\not=N\leq H$}\\
\nab_S &\text{if $N\nleq H$.}
\end{cases}$$ As usual, this is clear for $N=\{e\}$. For the other two cases, we write $\si=(\nu_N)_T^\sharp$, so that $\tau_N=\si{{\restriction}}_S$.
Suppose first that $\{e\}\not=N\leq H$, and fix some $x\in N{\setminus}\{e\}$, noting that $(e,x)\in\nu_N\sub\si$. Claim 2 gives $\mu_S\sub\cg ex_T\sub\si$, and so $\mu_S^S=\mu_S{{\restriction}}_S\sub\si{{\restriction}}_S=\tau_N$. Conversely, note that $(S,N)$ is retractable as $N\leq H$ and $(S,H)$ is retractable, so that $\mu_{S,N}$ is a congruence on $T$. Since $\nu_N\sub\mu_{S,N}$, we have $\si=(\nu_N)_T^\sharp\sub\mu_{S,N}$, and it follows that $\tau_N=\si{{\restriction}}_S\sub\mu_{S,N}{{\restriction}}_S=\mu_S^S$. Thus, $\tau_N=\mu_S^S$ in this case.
Finally, suppose $N\nleq H$, and fix some $x\in N{\setminus}H$. As in the previous case, we have $\mu_S\sub\si$. By assumption \[012iv\], there exists $a\in D_0$ such that $ae\not=ax$. As in and the discussion immediately after it, we have $(ae,ax)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, so $(ae,ax)\in R_S{\setminus}\lam_S$. Claim 1 then gives $\rho_{D_0}\sub\cg{ae}{ax}_T\sub\si$. Dually, $\lam_{D_0}\sub\si$. It follows that $R_{S}=\lam_{D_0}\vee\rho_{D_0}\vee\mu_{S}\sub\si$, and so $\nab_S=R_S{{\restriction}}_S\sub\si{{\restriction}}_S=\tau_N$, whence $\tau_N=\nab_S$.
\[rem:small012\] The structure of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(T)$, for $T$ as in Proposition \[prop:small012\], is shown in Figure \[fig:small012\].
The sublattice $\Si_1=\set{\mu_{D_0,N},\ \lam_{D_0,N},\ \rho_{D_0,N},\ R_{D_0,N}}{N\normal G_1}$ is isomorphic to the direct product of ${\mathcal{N}}(G_1)$ and the four-element diamond lattice. See the red part of Figure \[fig:small012\].
The sublattice $\Si_2=\set{\mu_{S,N},\ \lam_{S,N},\ \rho_{S,N},\ R_{S,N}}{N\normal G_2,\ N\leq H}$ is isomorphic to the direct product of the interval $\big[\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_2}\},H\big]$ in ${\mathcal{N}}(G_2)$ with the diamond lattice. See the dark blue part of Figure \[fig:small012\].
Congruences from the “top diamond” of $\Si_1$ are covered by those from the “bottom diamond” of $\Si_2$: $\ka_{D_0,G_1}\subset\ka_{S,\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_2}\}}=\ka_S$, where $\ka$ denotes any of $\mu$, $\lam$, $\rho$ or $R$.
The sublattice $\Si_3=\set{R_{S,N}}{N\normal G_2}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G_2)$, and contains the sublattice $\set{R_{S,N}}{N\normal G_2,\ N\leq H}$ of $\Si_2$. See the light blue part of Figure \[fig:small012\].
The universal congruence $\nab_T$ sits above $R_{S,G_2}$, the top element of $\Si_3$. See Figures \[fig:P\], \[fig:QP\], \[fig:Beven\], and especially \[fig:J\]-\[fig:Jpmeven\], for some examples.
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,0)–(-3,0.5); (0.5,0.5)–(-2.5,1); (0.5,1.5)–(-2.5,2); (0,2)–(-3,2.5); (-0.5,1.5)–(-3.5,2); (-0.5,0.5)–(-3.5,1);
(0,0)–(1.5,1); (0.5,0.5)–(2,1.5); (0.5,1.5)–(2,2.5); (0,2)–(1.5,3); (-0.5,1.5)–(1,2.5); (-0.5,0.5)–(1,1.5);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,0)–(1.5,1); (0.5,0.5)–(2,1.5); (0.5,1.5)–(2,2.5); (0,2)–(1.5,3); (-0.5,1.5)–(1,2.5); (-0.5,0.5)–(1,1.5);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,0)–(-3,0.5); (0.5,0.5)–(-2.5,1); (0.5,1.5)–(-2.5,2); (0,2)–(-3,2.5); (-0.5,1.5)–(-3.5,2); (-0.5,0.5)–(-3.5,1);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,2)–(0,4); (-3,2.5)–(-3,4.5); (1.5,3)–(1.5,5); (-1.5,3.5)–(-1.5,5.5);
(-1.5,4.5)–(-1.5,5.5);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0); (0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,2.5)–(0,3)–(0.5,2.5)–(0.5,1.5);
(0,0)–(-3,0.5); (0.5,0.5)–(-2.5,1); (0.5,1.5)–(-2.5,2); (0,2)–(-3,2.5); (-0.5,1.5)–(-3.5,2); (-0.5,0.5)–(-3.5,1);
(0,0)–(1.5,1); (0.5,0.5)–(2,1.5); (0.5,1.5)–(2,2.5); (0,2)–(1.5,3); (-0.5,1.5)–(1,2.5); (-0.5,0.5)–(1,1.5);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,0)–(1.5,1); (0.5,0.5)–(2,1.5); (0.5,1.5)–(2,2.5); (0,2)–(1.5,3); (-0.5,1.5)–(1,2.5); (-0.5,0.5)–(1,1.5);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
(0,0)–(-3,0.5); (0.5,0.5)–(-2.5,1); (0.5,1.5)–(-2.5,2); (0,2)–(-3,2.5); (-0.5,1.5)–(-3.5,2); (-0.5,0.5)–(-3.5,1);
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0);
/in [0/2,0/3]{}
/in [0/0,0/2]{}
/in [0/0,0/2]{}
/in [0/0,0/2]{}
/in [0/2]{} /in [0/0]{}
/in [0/0,0/2]{}
/in [0/0,0/2]{}
/in [0/2]{} /in [0/0]{}
at (0,-0.3) [$\De_T$]{}; at (-3,0.2) [$\lambda_{D_0}$]{}; at (1.8,0.7) [$\rho_{D_0}$]{}; at (-1.4,1.2) [$R_{D_0}$]{};
at (0,2.3) [$\mu_{D_0,G_1}$]{}; at (-3.6,2.8) [$\lambda_{D_0,G_1}$]{}; at (2.1,3.2) [$\rho_{D_0,G_1}$]{}; at (-2.1,3.8) [$R_{D_0,G_1}$]{};
at (0.3,3.7) [$\mu_S$]{}; at (-3.3,4.2) [$\lambda_S$]{}; at (1.8,4.7) [$\rho_S$]{}; at (-1.2,5.2) [$R_S$]{};
at (-0.2,6.3) [$\mu_{S,H}$]{}; at (-3.2,6.8) [$\lambda_{S,H}$]{}; at (1.5,7.3) [$\rho_{S,H}$]{}; at (-1.4,7.8) [$R_{S,H}$]{};
at (-.9,8.6) [$R_{S,G_2}$]{}; at (-1.4,9.8) [$\nab_T$]{};
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0); at (0,-0.3) [$\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_1}\}$]{}; at (0, 2.3) [$G_1$]{}; /in [0/0,0/2]{}
(0,0)–(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,0.5)–(0,0); (0.5,1.5)–(0,2)–(-0.5,1.5)–(-0.5,2.5)–(0,3)–(0.5,2.5)–(0.5,1.5); at (0,-0.3) [$\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_2}\}$]{}; at (0, 2.3) [$H$]{}; at (0, 3.3) [$G_2$]{}; /in [0/0,0/2,0/3]{}
Visualisation conventions {#subsect:viscon}
-------------------------
In what follows we will present a series of applications of our theory. Throughout we will accompany the results with visual representations of the congruence lattices we compute. Their Hasse diagrams will be additionally decorated to emphasise the link with the theory from this section. Here are the main conventions that will be adhered to when representing the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ in the generic case: i.e., for $r\geq k$, in the notation of this section:
Each lattice will consist of two parts: the lower part isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$, and the upper part obtained by stacking the normal subgroup lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+1}),{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+2}),\dots$.
In the upper part, the stacked copies of ${\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+1}),{\mathcal{N}}(G_{k+2}),\dots$ will be highlighted by means of green background, linking back to Figure \[fig:E2\]; see for example Figures \[fig:T\] and \[fig:QT\].
The lower part of the lattice is always one of two types, described either by Proposition \[prop:small01\] or by Proposition \[prop:small012\].
When the lower part is described by Proposition \[prop:small01\], then, referring to Figure \[fig:small01\], there will be no special colours for the bottom diamond, while the sublattice isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(G)$ will have blue background; for an example see Figure \[fig:Bodd\].
When the lower part is described by Proposition \[prop:small012\], the copies of ${\mathcal{N}}(G_1)$, of the sublattice of ${\mathcal{N}}(G_2)$ lying below $H$, and of ${\mathcal{N}}(G_2)$ itself will be indicated by the backgrounds of the same colours as in Figure \[fig:small012\]; for some examples, see Figures \[fig:P\] and \[fig:QP\] (with $H=G_2$) and Figures \[fig:Jeven\] and \[fig:Jpmeven\] (with $H\not=G_2$).
As further useful reference, the vertices corresponding to Rees congruences and the trivial congruence will be solid, while all the other vertices will be typset with a white background.
Transformation categories {#sect:T}
=========================
Many of the most fundamental and well-studied categories consist of sets and various kinds of mappings, and our first applications of the results of Sections \[sect:IE\] and \[sect:chains\] are to several such categories and their ideals. In Section \[subsect:defnT\] we introduce the transformation category $\T=\T(\C)$, which consists of all mappings between sets from $\C$, a non-empty set of finite non-empty sets. In Section \[subsect:prelimT\] we describe Green’s relations in $\T$ and its ideals, introduce a number of important subcategories, and prove a technical result (Lemma \[lem:P2T\]) that will be used to show that $\T$ and its ideals satisfy various properties involved in the statements of the general results from Section \[sect:chains\] (cf. Section \[subsect:properties\]). These preparations done, in Section \[subsect:T\] we come to the first application of the machinery developed in Section \[sect:chains\]: we rapidly and in one fell swoop classify the congruences on $\T$ and on all its ideals, and describe the lattices they form (Theorem \[thm:T\] and Figure \[fig:T\]). In Section \[subsect:QT\] we describe even more rapidly the congruences on the ideals of certain subcategories of $\T$ that we call *planar and annular reducts*. Finally in Section \[subsect:OtherT\] we describe how to do the same for some further categories of mappings.
Definitions and preliminaries on $\T$ {#subsect:defnT}
-------------------------------------
For the duration of Section \[sect:T\], we fix a non-empty set $\C$ of non-empty finite sets; note that $\C$ itself may be infinite. We define the parameter $$\xi = \xi(\C) = {\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}.$$ Here, for a set $\Si$ of cardinals, $\LSUB(\Si)$ denotes the *least strict upper bound* of $\Si$: i.e., the least cardinal that is strictly greater than all members of $\Si$. Note that $\xi$ as above is at least $2$, and could be $\om$ if $\C$ contains arbitrarily large sets.
For $A,B\in\C$ we let $\T_{A,B}$ stand for the set of all functions $\al:A\to B$, and define $$\T = \T(\C)
= \bigset{(A,\al,B)}{A,B\in\C,\ \al\in\T_{A,B}}.$$ For $A,B,C\in\C$, and for $\al\in\T_{A,B}$ and $\be\in\T_{B,C}$, we define $$\bd(A,\al,B)=A \COMMA \br(A,\al,B)=B \COMMA (A,\al,B)\cdot(B,\be,C)=(A,\al\be,C),$$ where $\al\be\in\T_{A,C}$ denotes the composition of $\al$ and $\be$ (performing $\al$ first, then $\be$). Then $$(\T,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$$ is a partial semigroup, indeed a regular category [@Sandwich2 Proposition 2.1], which we call the *transformation category (over $\C$)*. For $A\in\C$, the endomorphism monoid $\T_A=\T_{A,A}$ is the *full transformation semigroup* over $A$. Note that when $\C=\{A\}$ consists of a single finite set, the category $\T$ is simply the full transformation semigroup $\T_A$ [@GMbook]. Thus, every result we prove for the category $\T$ has a natural interpretation as a result concerning finite transformation semigroups.
In order to avoid cumbersome notation, we will identify an element ${(A,\al,B)\in\T}$ with the mapping $\al\in\T_{A,B}$, but we regard the sets $A$ and $B$ as “encoded” in $\al$ via $\bd(\al)=A$ and $\br(\al)=B$.
Green’s relations and multiplicative properties in $\T$ {#subsect:prelimT}
-------------------------------------------------------
For non-empty sets $A,B$, and for a function $\al:A\to B$, we write as usual $$\ker(\al)=\bigset{(x,y)\in A\times A}{x\al=y\al} \COMMA \im(\al) = \set{x\al}{x\in A} \COMMA {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=|{\im(\al)}|$$ for the *kernel*, *image* and *rank* of $\al$. We remark that $\ker(\al)$ uniquely determines $\bd(\al)$, but that $\im(\al) $ does not generally determine $\br(\al)$.
In what follows, we will often use the following result without explicit reference. The proof can be found in [@Sandwich2 Section 4].
\[lem:Green\_T\]
\[GT1\] For $\al,\be\in\T$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff (\bd(\al)=\bd(\be)$ and) $\ker(\al)=\ker(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff \br(\al)=\br(\be)$ and $\im(\al)=\im(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GT2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of $\T$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q(\T) = \set{\al\in\T}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each $1\leq q<\xi$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $D_1<D_2<\cdots$.
\[GT3\] The ideals of $\T$ are the sets
$I_r = I_r(\T) = \set{\al\in\T}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each $1\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om = I_\om(\T) = \T $ in the case that $\xi=\om$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $I_1\subset I_2\subset\cdots$.
\[GT4\] The ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{S}}_q$, the symmetric group of degree $q$.
Thus, $\T$ is a chain of ideals, as in Definition \[defn:chain\], though we note that the indexing on ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes starts at $1$ instead of $0$. Note that $I_1=D_1$ is the minimal ideal of $\T$. By Lemma \[lem:SD\], the ${\mathscr D}$-classes and ideals of an ideal $I_r=I_r(\T)$ are precisely the $D_q$ and $I_q$ with $q\leq r$.
For any $\Om\sub\T$, and for any $1\leq q<\xi$, we write
$D_q(\Om)=D_q\cap\Om$ for the set of transformations from $\Om$ of rank $q$,
$I_q(\Om)=I_q\cap\Om$ for the set of transformations from $\Om$ of rank at most $q$. These notational conventions are for convenience only, and do not mean to imply that the sets $D_q(\Om)$ or $I_q(\Om)$ are themselves ${\mathscr D}$-classes or ideals of $\T$.
Our next goal is to prove a technical result (Lemma \[lem:P2T\] below) that will be used to show, among other things, that certain ideals $I_r$ of $\T$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$, and hence also ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sep\] and \[defn:Mult\]. Since we will also use this lemma in Section \[subsect:QT\] when studying subcategories of $\T$, it will be convenient to first introduce some notation and terminology.
If $\al\in\T$, we write $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$ to indicate that ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q$, $\im(\al)=\{b_1,\ldots,b_q\}$ and $b_i\al^{-1}=A_i$ ($1\leq i\leq q$). Note that from this notation we may infer that $\bd(\al)=A_1\cup\cdots\cup A_q$, but the set $\br(\al)$ is not uniquely determined; thus, it will always be made clear which hom-set $\al$ belongs to.
In what follows, we assume that each set from $\C$ has a fixed total order; we will denote all these orders by $\leq$. Let $\al\in\T_{A,B}$, where $A,B\in\C$, and write $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}$; by this we mean that $A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_k\}$ and $a_1<\cdots<a_k$. We say $\al$ is
*order-preserving* if $a_1\al\leq\cdots\leq a_k\al$,
*order-reversing* if $a_1\al\geq\cdots\geq a_k\al$,
*orientation-preserving* if $a_i\al\leq\cdots\leq a_k\al\leq a_1\al\leq\cdots\leq a_{i-1}\al$ for some $1\leq i\leq k$,
*orientation-reversing* if $a_i\al\geq\cdots\geq a_k\al\geq a_1\al\geq\cdots\geq a_{i-1}\al$ for some $1\leq i\leq k$. Note that order-preserving (or order-reversing) transformations are orientation-preserving (or orientation-reversing), respectively; take $i=1$ in the above definitions. For any subset $\Om\sub\T$, we will write
$\OrdP\Om$ for the set of all order-preserving transformations from $\Om$,
$\OrdR\Om$ for the set of all order-reversing transformations from $\Om$,
$\OrdPR\Om = \OrdP\Om\cup\OrdR\Om$,
$\OriP\Om$ for the set of all orientation-preserving transformations from $\Om$,
$\OriR\Om$ for the set of all orientation-reversing transformations from $\Om$,
$\OriPR\Om = \OriP\Om\cup\OriR\Om$. This notation is not meant to imply that $\OrdP\Om$ and $\OrdR\Om$ are disjoint in general. In fact, ${\OrdP\T\cap\OrdR\T}$ consists of all constant mappings, while ${\OriP\T\cap\OriR\T}$ consists of all orientation-preserving mappings of rank at most $2$.
We also call the elements of $\OrdP\T$ (respectively, $\OrdR\T$, $\OriP\T$ or $\OriR\T$) *planar* (respectively, *anti-planar*, *annular* or *anti-annular*), which explains the choice of the symbols $\mathscr P$ and $\mathscr A$. The reason for these alternative names is as follows. Let $\al\in\T_{A,B}$, write $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}$ and $B=\{b_1<\cdots<b_l\}$, and let $m=\max(k,l)$. We associate to $\al$ the graph with vertex set $A\cup B'$, where $B'=\{b_1'<\cdots<b_l'\}$ is assumed to be disjoint from $A$, and with an edge $\{x,(x\al)'\}$ for each $x\in A$. The transformation $\al$ is then planar (i.e., order-preserving) if and only if this graph can be drawn in the plane $\RRR^2$ with:
vertex $a_i$ at $(i,1)$ for each $1\leq i\leq k$,
vertex $b_i'$ at $(i,0)$ for each $1\leq i\leq l$,
edges all in the rectangle $\bigset{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2}{0\leq x\leq m+1,\ 0\leq y\leq1}$, and
with no edge crossings in the interior of this rectangle. The transformation $\al$ is annular if and only if the above conditions are satisfied, but with the left- and right-hand borders of the rectangle identified to form a cylinder, and with edges allowed to “wrap around” this identified border.
For example, with $A=[9]=\{1<\cdots<9\}$ and $B=[7]=\{1<\cdots<7\}$, consider the transformations $\al,\be\in\T_{A,B}$ given by $$(1\al,\ldots,9\al)=(2,2,3,4,6,6,6,7,7) \AND (1\be,\ldots,9\be)=(6,7,1,1,1,4,5,6,6).$$ By definition, we have $\al\in\OrdP{\T_{A,B}}$ and $\be\in\OriP{\T_{A,B}}$. Graphs representing these transformations, and illustrating the above geometrical conditions, are pictured in Figure \[fig:PT\_AT\]. Two diagrammatic representations of $\be$ are given; in the second, two lines “wrap around” the back of the cylinder.
[[in [1,...,9]{} [ [(,4)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,7]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} /in [ 1/2, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, 5/6, 6/6, 7/6, 8/7, 9/7 ]{} [(,4)–(,0);]{} in [1,...,9]{} [() at (,4.5) [$\x$]{};]{} in [1,...,7]{} [() at (,-.5) [$\phantom{'}\x'$]{};]{} (0.6,2)node\[left\][$\al=$]{};
/in [ 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/4, 7/5, 8/6, 9/6 ]{} [(,4)–(,0);]{} (1,4)–(6,0); (2,4)–(7,0); in [1,...,9]{} [() at (,4.5) [$\x$]{};]{} in [1,...,7]{} [() at (,-.5) [$\phantom{'}\x'$]{};]{} (0.6,2)node\[left\][$\be=$]{}; [[in [1,...,9]{} [ [(,4)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,7]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{}
(0,0) ellipse (4.6 and 1); (-,0)–(-,4)–(,4)–(,0)–(-,0); (-,0)–(-,4) (,4)–(,0); (0,4) ellipse (4.6 and 1); /in [ 1/30, 2/47, 3/62, 4/76, 5/90, 6/104, 7/118, 8/133, 9/150 ]{} [ (U) at (,+4) ; (L) at (,) ; ]{} (U1)–(-,3) (,2)–(L6); (U2)–(-,2) (,1)–(L7); (U3)–(L1); (U4)–(L1); (U5)–(L1); (U6)–(L4); (U7)–(L5); (U8)–(L6); (U9)–(L6); in [ 30, 47, 62, 76, 90, 104, 118, 133, 150 ]{} [ (,+4)circle(.17); ]{} in [ 30, 47, 62, 76, 90, 104, 118 ]{} [ (,)circle(.17); ]{} (0,6)node[$\mathbin{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\equiv$}}$]{};
We will refer to both $\OrdP\T$ and $\OrdPR\T$ as *planar reducts* of $\T$, and to $\OriP\T$ and $\OriPR\T$ as *annular reducts* of $\T$.
As noted above, the main purpose of the next lemma is to ensure that certain ideals $I_r$ of $\T$ (and of its planar and annular reducts) satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$.
\[lem:P2T\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\T_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$ and $r\geq2$.
\[P2Ti\] If $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in\OrdP{I_{r}}$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2Tii\] If $q=r$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in\OrdP{I_{r}}$ such that, renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}]$.}$$
\[P2Tiii\] If $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in\OrdP{I_{r}}$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
For all parts of the proof, we write $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_r \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$, making no assumptions about the ordering on points unless specified. For each $1\leq i\leq r$, we also fix some $a_i\in A_i$.
Since $q<r$, we may assume without loss of generality that $b_1\not\in\im(\be)$. Let $\ga\in\OrdP{\T_A}$ be any (order-preserving) map with image $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1}\}$. Then $\im(\ga\al)=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{r-1}\}$, which gives $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$. But also $\im(\ga\be)\sub\im(\be)$ and $b_1\not\in\im(\be)$, so that $b_1\not\in\im(\ga\be)$. Thus, $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$ and $\im(\ga\al)\not=\im(\ga\be)$, and so $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$. (This of course implies that $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$.)
There are two cases to consider.
Suppose first that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, so that $\im(\al)\not=\im(\be)$. This time we will assume that $b_1<\cdots<b_r$. Since $q=r$ and $\im(\al)\not=\im(\be)$, we have $b_i\not\in\im(\be)$ for some $1\leq i\leq r$.
If $1<i<r$, then take any $\ga\in\OrdP{D_r(\T_B)}$ extending the partial map ${
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$ and for which $b_i\ga^{-1}=\{b_i\}$. Then $\im(\al\ga)=\{b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$, which gives $\al\ga\in D_r$. But also $\im(\be\ga)\sub\im(\ga)=\{b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$ and $b_i\not\in\im(\be\ga)$, which gives $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}$.
Next suppose $i=1$. Renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, we may assume that ${b_1<\min(\im(\be))}$. Then we may take any $\ga\in\OrdP{D_r(\T_B)}$ extending the partial map ${
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$ and such that $b_1\ga^{-1}=\set{x\in B}{x\leq b_1}$. Since $b_1\ga^{-1}$ is disjoint from $\im(\be)$, the desired conclusion follows.
The case in which $i=r$ is symmetrical to the previous case.
Now suppose $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, so that $\ker(\al)\not=\ker(\be)$. We may assume without loss of generality that $(a_1,a_2)\in\ker(\be)$. Then for any $\ga\in\OrdP{\T_A}$ with $\im(\ga)=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$, we have $\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$.
Here we have $\be={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_r \\
b_{1\pi} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_{r\pi}
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$ for some permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r$, and without loss of generality we may assume that $1\pi=r$. We then take any $\ga\in\OrdP{\T_A}$ with $\im(\ga)=\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1}\}$; then $\ga\al,\ga\be\in D_{r-1}$ but $b_r\in\im(\ga\be){\setminus}\im(\ga\al)$, so that $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$.
Congruences on ideals of $\T$ {#subsect:T}
-----------------------------
We now finally arrive at the first application of the theory developed in Section \[sect:chains\], to determine the congruences of an arbitrary transformation category $\T=\T(\C)$ and of all its ideals.
Before we begin, we recall that historically the classification of congruences on $\T$ in the case when $|\C|=1$ (i.e., when $\T$ is the full transformation monoid) was obtained by Mal’cev [@Malcev1952] in 1952, the inaugural result in this area. The congruences on ideals of full transformation monoids were determined by Klimov [@Klimov1977] some 15 years later. It is worth pointing out that Klimov’s classification does not subsume Mal’cev’s, but instead relies on it. By way of contrast, our methods yield a uniform description of congruences for $\T$ and all its ideals together.
For each $1\leq q<\xi$, fix some $X_q\in\C$ with $|X_q|\geq q$; such an $X_q$ exists by definition of $\xi$. Note that it is possible to have $X_{q_1}=X_{q_2}$ with $q_1\not=q_2$; indeed, this is certainly the case if $\C$ contains only one set; moreover, if $\xi$ is finite, then we could take each $X_q$ to be a single fixed set of size $\xi-1$. For each $q$, we write $n_q=|X_q|$, and renaming if necessary, we may in fact assume that $X_q=[n_q]=\{1,\ldots,n_q\}$. For a permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_q$, we define the transformation $\pi^\natural\in\T_{X_q}=\T_{X_q,X_q}$ by $$\pi^\natural = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: \{q,\ldots,n_q\} \\
1\pi \:&\: \cdots \:&\: (q-1)\pi \:&\: q\pi
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}.$$ For $\Om\sub{\mathcal{S}}_q$, we define $\Om^\natural=\set{\pi^\natural}{\pi\in\Om}$. In particular, we define $\G_q={\mathcal{S}}_q^\natural$. This is a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in $D_q$, and its identity is ${\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: \{q,\ldots,n_q\} \\
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}$. Every normal subgroup of $\G_q$ is of the form $N^\natural$ for some $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_q$. So an ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq2$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N^\natural)$ for each $1\leq q<r$ and $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+1}$, and these lead to the congruences $$R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r} = R_{I_q}^{I_r}\cup\nu_{N^\natural}.$$ We will soon see in Theorem \[thm:T\] that these, together with the universal congruence $\nab_{I_r}$, are *all* the congruences on $I_r$ for $r\geq2$. In order that Theorem \[thm:T\] be as transparent as possible, we first provide in Lemma \[lem:nuN\_T\] a concrete description of the $\nu_{N^\natural}$ relations.
To do so, consider two ${\mathscr H}$-related elements $\al,\be\in D_q$. We may then write $$\label{eq:H_T}
\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \AND \be = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \\
b_{1\phi} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_{q\phi}
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} ,$$ for some permutation $\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}_q$, and we define $\phi(\al,\be)=\phi$. Note that $\phi$ depends on the ordering chosen on the $b_i$, so $\phi(\al,\be)$ is only well-defined up to conjugacy in ${\mathcal{S}}_q$. But then it follows that for a normal subgroup $N$ of ${\mathcal{S}}_q$, the property of $\phi(\al,\be)$ belonging to $N$ is independent of the specific ordering. Keeping this in mind we have the following:
\[lem:nuN\_T\] If $1\leq q<\xi$, and if $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_q$, then $\nu_{N^\natural} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}}{\phi(\al,\be)\in N}$.
Let $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$, say with $\al,\be\in\T_{A,B}$, and write $\al,\be$ as in , where $\phi=\phi(\al,\be)$. For each $1\leq i\leq q$, fix some $a_i\in A_i$. Fix some partition $\{B_1,\ldots,B_q\}$ of $B$ such that $b_i\in B_i$ for each $i$. Writing $Q=\{q,\ldots,n_q\}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\ga_1 &= {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: Q \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{q-1} \:&\: a_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \in \T_{X_q,A},
& \de_1 &= {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_{q-1} \:&\: A_q \\
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \in \T_{A,X_q}, \\
\ga_2 &= {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_{q-1} \:&\: B_q \\
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \in \T_{B,X_q},
& \de_2 &= {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q-1 \:&\: Q \\
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_{q-1} \:&\: b_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \in \T_{X_q,B}.\end{aligned}$$ Then since $(\al,\be) = (\de_1{\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural\de_2,\de_1\phi^\natural\de_2)$ and $({\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural,\phi^\natural) = (\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)$, Lemma \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN1\] gives $$(\al,\be)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff ({\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural,\phi^\natural)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff \phi^\natural\in N^\natural \iff \phi\in N. \qedhere$$
We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this section.
\[thm:T\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite non-empty sets, let $\T=\T(\C)$ be the transformation category over $\C$, and keep the above notation.
\[T1\] The minimal ideal $I_1$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular: $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)\cong \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(A).$$
\[T2\] For $r\geq2$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \{\De_{I_r}\}\cup
\set{R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{1\leq q<r,\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+1}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}$$ forms a chain.
The minimal ideal of a stable, regular partial semigroup is always stable, regular and ${\mathscr D}$-universal; since $I_1$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, it is a partial rectangular band, and so ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is indeed described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. For any $A\in\C$, $I_1(\T_A)$ contains only one ${\mathscr R}$-class (as there is only one kernel with one block), and the ${\mathscr L}$-classes of $I_1(\T_A)$ are indexed by the elements of $A$ (one for each image set of size $1$), so the isomorphism of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ with $\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(A)$ is clear, after identifying $I_1$ with the abstract partial rectangular band as in Lemma \[lem:PRB\].
We first consider the ideal $I_2=D_1\cup D_2$. Here we must show that $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2) = \{ \De_{I_2}, R_{I_1}^{I_2}, R_{I_1,\G_2}^{I_2}, \nab_{I_2}\}.$$ But this follows quickly from Proposition \[prop:small01\]. Indeed, since $D_1$ is $\wt{\mathscr L}$-trivial (but not $\wt{\mathscr R}$-trivial), it suffices to verify the following (cf. Remark \[rem:small01\_2\]):
\[Ta\] For every $\al\in D_2$ and $\be\in D_2{\setminus}H_\al$ with $\al\sim\be$, there exists $(\al',\be')\in\cg\al\be_{I_2}$ with $\al'\in D_2$ and $\be'\in D_1$.
\[Tb\] For every $\al,\be\in I_2$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, we have $\rho_{D_1}^{I_2}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_2}$.
\[Tc\] Writing $\G_2=\{\al,\be\}$, there exists $\ga\in D_1$ such that $\ga\al\not=\ga\be$ (with both products defined). Item \[Ta\] follows from Lemma \[lem:P2T\]\[P2Tii\], and \[Tc\] is easily checked (in fact, *any* $\ga$ for which the products are defined has this property). For \[Tb\], let $\al,\be\in I_2$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, say with $\al,\be\in\T_{A,B}$. We may assume without loss of generality that there exists $x\in\im(\al){\setminus}\im(\be)$. Fix some $u\in x\al^{-1}$, and write $y=u\be$, noting that $x\not=y$. Now let $C,D\in\C$, and let $\ga=\binom Ca$ and $\de=\binom Cb$ be arbitrary elements of $D_1(\T_{C,D})$. To complete the proof of \[Tb\], it suffices to show that $(\ga,\de)\in\cg\al\be_{I_2}$. Let $\ve_1=\binom Cu\in\T_{C,A}$, and let $\ve_2$ be any element of $I_2(\T_{B,D})$ such that $x\ve_2=a$ and $y\ve_2=b$. Then $(\ga,\de)=(\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\cg\al\be_{I_2}$.
With the case of $r=2$ established, we now observe the following:
Every congruence on $I_2$ (as above) is of the form listed in Lemma \[lem:E2\], and hence we have $\LiftCong{I_2}{\T}={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$.
Property ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_2)}$ holds by inspection of the four congruences on $I_2$.
Property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$ holds for each $2<r<\xi$; indeed, this follows from Lemma \[lem:P2T\], which as we have already noted implies the stronger property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$ for all such $r$. Thus, Theorem \[thm:E2\] applies (with $k=2$, but again being aware of the different indexing), and the conclusion of that theorem gives precisely the desired description of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$. The fact that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ forms a chain follows from ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ being a chain, and the normal subgroups of $\G_q\cong{\mathcal{S}}_q$ forming a chain for each $q$; cf. Remark \[rem:E2\] and Figure \[fig:E2\].
\[rem:T1\] In fact, Lemma \[lem:P2T\] shows that ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_2)}$ holds as well. However, we may not use Theorem \[thm:E2\] with $k=1$, since ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_1)}$ does not hold, and neither does $\LiftCong{I_1}\T={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$.
\[rem:T2\] Consider the case in which $\C=\{A\}$, where $A=\{1,2,3,4\}$, so that $\T(\C)=\T_4$ is the full transformation monoid of degree $4$. The lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$, $r=1,2,3,4$, are pictured in Figure \[fig:T\]. Note that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\Eq(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice $\Eq_4$.
\[rem:T3\] If we had two non-empty sets $\C_1$ and $\C_2$ of non-empty finite sets, then the ideals $I_r(\T(\C_1))$ and $I_r(\T(\C_2))$ with $r\geq2$ have isomorphic congruence lattices; when $r$ is finite, these are in fact isomorphic to the congruence lattice of the full transformation semigroup $\T_r$ [@Malcev1952; @GMbook]. Such an isomorphism would only exist for $r=1$ if there was a cardinality-preserving bijection $\C_1\to\C_2$.
//Łin [ 0/0/0, -2.5/1/12, -1.5/1/34, -0.5/1/13, 0.5/1/24, 1.5/1/14, 2.5/1/23, -3/2/123, -2/2/1234, -1/2/134, 0/2/1324, 1/2/124, 2/2/1423, 3/2/234, 0/3/1 ]{} [(Ł) at (,) ;]{} in [12,13,14,23,24,34]{} [(0)–();]{} in [123,1234,134,1324,124,1423,234]{} [(0,3)–();]{} in [123,124,1234]{} [(12)–();]{} in [123,134,1324]{} [(13)–();]{} in [124,134,1423]{} [(14)–();]{} in [123,234,1423]{} [(23)–();]{} in [124,234,1324]{} [(24)–();]{} in [134,234,1234]{} [(34)–();]{} () at (0.1,-0.1) [$\De_{I_1}$]{}; () at (0.1,3) [$\nab_{I_1}$]{}; //Łin [ 0/0/0, -2.5/1/12, -1.5/1/34, -0.5/1/13, 0.5/1/24, 1.5/1/14, 2.5/1/23, -3/2/123, -2/2/1234, -1/2/134, 0/2/1324, 1/2/124, 2/2/1423, 3/2/234, 0/3/1 ]{} in [0,3]{} [0[black]{}[0.08]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,0)–(0,3); in [0,...,3]{} [0[white]{}[0.08]{}]{} () at (0.2,0) [$\De_{I_2}$]{}; () at (0.2,1) [$R_{I_1}^{I_2}$]{}; () at (0.2,3) [$\nab_{I_2}$]{}; in [0,1,3]{} [0[black]{}[0.08]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,5); (0,0)–(0,6); in [0,...,6]{} [0[white]{}[0.08]{}]{} () at (0.2,0) [$\De_{I_3}$]{}; () at (0.2,1) [$R_{I_1}^{I_3}$]{}; () at (0.2,3) [$R_{I_2}^{I_3}$]{}; () at (0.2,6) [$\nab_{I_3}$]{}; in [0,1,3,6]{} [0[black]{}[0.08]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,5); (0,6)–(0,9); (0,0)–(0,10); in [0,...,10]{} [0[white]{}[0.08]{}]{} () at (0.2,0) [$\De_{\T}$]{}; () at (0.2,1) [$R_{I_1}^{\T}$]{}; () at (0.2,3) [$R_{I_2}^{\T}$]{}; () at (0.2,6) [$R_{I_3}^{\T}$]{}; () at (0.2,10) [$\nab_{\T}$]{}; in [0,1,3,6,10]{} [0[black]{}[0.08]{}]{}
Planar and annular reducts of $\T$ {#subsect:QT}
----------------------------------
We now consider the subcategories of $\T=\T(\C)$ consisting of all transformations preserving (or possibly reversing) order or orientation: $$\OrdP\T \COMMA \OrdPR\T \COMMA \OriP\T \COMMA \OriPR\T.$$ Let $\Q$ denote any of the above categories. First, it is easy to check that $\Q$ is regular; cf. [@CH1999 Sections 3 and 5] and [@GH1992 Section 2]. It follows from [@Sandwich1 Lemma 2.9] that $\Q$ is stable. It follows from regularity (and [@Sandwich1 Lemma 2.8]) that Green’s ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr H}$ relations on $\Q$ are just the restrictions of the corresponding relations on $\T$; this is easily checked to be the case for the ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$ relation as well (again, cf. [@CH1999; @GH1992]). Thus, parts \[GT1\]–\[GT3\] of Lemma \[lem:Green\_T\] remain true in $\Q$, so we have the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$-classes $D_q=D_q(\Q)$, $1\leq q<\xi$, and ideals $I_r=I_r(\Q)$, $1\leq r<\xi$, and also $I_\om=\Q$ if $\xi=\om$. Part \[GT4\] of Lemma \[lem:Green\_T\] is not true for the subcategory $\Q$, however; rather, the typical group ${\mathscr H}$-class $\G_q$ in $D_q$ is (with some trivial exceptions for small $q$):
trivial when $\Q=\OrdP\T$,
cyclic of order $2$ when $\Q=\OrdPR\T$,
cyclic of order $q$ when $\Q=\OriP\T$,
dihedral of order $2q$ when $\Q=\OriPR\T$.
There is a version of Lemma \[lem:P2T\] for $\Q$, which shows (among other things) that each ideal $I_r=I_r(\Q)$, $2\leq r<\xi$, has property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$ and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$. The original proof of Lemma \[lem:P2T\] does not need to be modified at all, since every element whose existence is asserted belongs to $\OrdP{\T}$, and hence to $\Q$.
Here is the classification of congruences on the ideals of the above categories:
\[thm:QT\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite non-empty sets, let $\T=\T(\C)$ be the transformation category over $\C$, let $\Q$ be one of $\OrdP\T$, $\OrdPR\T$, $\OriP\T$ or $\OriPR\T$, and keep the above notation.
\[QT1\] The minimal ideal $I_1$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)\cong \prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(A).$$
\[QT2\] For $r\geq2$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \{\De_{I_r}\} \cup \set{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{1\leq q<r,\ N\normal\G_{q+1}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}.$$
This follows from Theorem \[thm:T\]\[T1\], since $I_1(\Q)=I_1(\T)$.
The proof is essentially identical to that of Theorem \[thm:T\]\[T2\]. (The only difference is that when $\Q=\OrdP\T$, we have ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2) = \{\De_{I_2},R_{I_1}^{I_2},\nab_{I_2}\}$, as $\OrdP\T$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial.)
\[rem:QT\] For $r\geq2$, the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r(\Q))$ is best thought of as consisting of copies of the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2), {\mathcal{N}}(\G_3), {\mathcal{N}}(\G_4),\ldots$ stacked on top of each other. Thus, it will always be a chain when $\Q$ is $\OrdP\T$ or $\OrdPR\T$, where the groups are trivial or cyclic of order $2$; but it will not in general be a chain when $\Q$ is $\OriP\T$ or $\OriPR\T$, as the groups are cyclic of larger orders or dihedral. Figure \[fig:QT\] displays the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_6)$ in the categories $\T$, $\OrdP\T$, $\OrdPR\T$, $\OriP\T$ and $\OriPR\T$. The right-most lattice shown appears in [@FGJ2009 p. 756], although there it represents the congruence lattice of the monoid of orientation-preserving or -reversing *partial* transformations of a set of size $6$.
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,5) (0,6)–(0,9) (0,10)–(0,12) (0,13)–(0,15) ; (0,0)–(0,16); in [0,...,16]{} [0[white]{}]{} in [0,1,3,6,10,13,16]{} [0[black]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,1.001); (0,2)–(0,2.001) (0,3)–(0,3.001) (0,4)–(0,4.001) (0,5)–(0,5.001) ; (0,0)–(0,6); in [0,...,6]{} [0[black]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,4) (0,5)–(0,6) (0,7)–(0,8) (0,9)–(0,10) ; (0,0)–(0,11); in [0,...,11]{} [0[white]{}]{} in [0,1,3,5,7,9,11]{} [0[black]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,4) (0,5)–(0,7) (0,8)–(0,9) (0,10)–(-1,11) (-1,11)–(0,12) (0,12)–(1,11) (1,11)–(0,10) ; (0,10)–(-1,11)–(0,12)–(1,11)–(0,10) ; (0,0)–(0,10)–(-1,11)–(0,12)–(0,13) (0,12)–(1,11)–(0,10); in [0,...,10,12,13]{} [0[white]{}]{} /in [-1/11,1/11]{} in [0,1,3,5,8,10,13]{} [0[black]{}]{}
(0,1)–(0,2); (0,3)–(0,5) (0,6)–(0,7) (0,7)–(-1,8) (-1,8)–(0,9) (0,9)–(1,8) (1,8)–(0,7) (0,10)–(0,12) (0,13)–(-2,15) (-2,15)–(-1,16) (-1,16)–(1,14) (1,14)–(0,13) ; (0,6)–(0,7)–(-1,8)–(0,9)–(1,8)–(0,7) (0,13)–(-2,15)–(-1,16)–(1,14)–(0,13) ; (0,0)–(0,13)–(-2,15)–(-1,16)–(-1,17) (-1,14)–(-1,16)–(1,14)–(0,13) (-1,14)–(0,15) (0,7)–(-1,8)–(0,9)–(1,8)–(0,7); in [0,...,13,15]{} [0[white]{}]{} /in [-1/8,1/8,-1/14,-1/15,-1/16,-1/17,1/14,-2/15]{} in [0,1,3,6,10,13]{} [0[black]{}]{} in [17]{}
Other categories of transformations {#subsect:OtherT}
-----------------------------------
The methods of this section allow one to readily obtain analogous results for a number of other categories. Specifically, let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets (now $\C$ could include the empty set). We denote by $\PT=\PT(\C)$ the category of all partial transformations between members of $\C$, and by $\I=\I(\C)$ the category of all injective partial transformations. We also have planar and annular reducts such as $\OrdP{\PT}$, $\OriPR\I$, and so on. Green’s relations and ideals on all of these categories are also described in terms of domain, kernel, image and rank parameters, and all of the categories are stable and regular; cf. [@Sandwich1 Sections 3 and 5]. The congruences on the ideals of these categories have the same basic kind of form, except for some minor differences, and one major simplification. The main point is that the minimal ideal $I_0=D_0$ consists entirely of empty mappings (one for each pair of sets from $\C$), and therefore has only one congruence, $\De_{I_0}=\nab_{I_0}$. We also have ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\{\De_{I_1},\nab_{I_1}\}$; indeed, this follows from Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] and the fact that $D_1$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. We then apply Theorem \[thm:E2\] for the larger ideals. The details are routine and are omitted.
The category $\I$ can also be thought of as a “rook category”: i.e., a category of $\{0,1\}$-matrices in which each row and each column has at most one non-zero entry; cf. [@Solomon2002; @FHH2009; @BRY2012; @JP2015].
Partition categories {#sect:P}
====================
Sections \[sect:P\]–\[sect:J\] concern several diagram categories; for more details on such categories (and in particular their linear versions), see [@Martin2008], which also gives an excellent overview of their origins in theoretical physics and representation theory. We begin in this section with the largest of these categories, the so-called *partition category* ${\mathcal P}$. It contains all the other diagram categories we will consider as subcategories.
Our goal in this section is to describe the congruences on ${\mathcal P}$ and its ideals. Although there are some similarities with the transformation category $\T$ considered in Section \[sect:T\], there are also some significant differences. Like $\T$, the partition category ${\mathcal P}$ is a chain of ideals $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$, and congruences of the form $R_{I,N}$ will play a key role. However, the minimal ideal $I_0$ of ${\mathcal P}$ is neither $\wt{\mathscr R}$- nor $\wt{\mathscr L}$-trivial, so there are non-trivial $\lam/\rho$ congruences (as defined in Section \[subsect:EMRT\]), and hence “diamonds” in the lower parts of the congruence lattices; cf. Figures \[fig:P\] and \[fig:QP\]. Another major difference is that the ideal $I_1$ of ${\mathcal P}$ is retractable (onto $I_0$). This means that our stacking mechanism from Section \[subsect:chains\] kicks in only from $I_2$ upwards. Congruences of $I_0$ and $I_1$, of which there are many, will be handled by the theory from Sections \[subsect:PRB\] and \[subsect:retract\] respectively.
This section is structured in much the same way as Section \[sect:T\]. We begin in Section \[subsect:defnP\] with the relevant definitions and notation. We describe Green’s relations in Section \[subsect:prelimP\], where we also prove a technical result (Lemma \[lem:P2P\]) that will be used to establish the required multiplication/separation properties in ideals of ${\mathcal P}$. In Section \[subsect:P\] we apply the theory from Section \[sect:chains\] and obtain a classification of the congruences on ${\mathcal P}$ and its ideals, and describe the associated lattices; see Theorem \[thm:P\] and Figure \[fig:P\]. We give the corresponding results for planar and annular reducts of ${\mathcal P}$ in Section \[subsect:QP\], and for various other subcategories such as the partial Brauer and Motzkin categories in Section \[subsect:PB\]. A number of further diagram categories will be treated in Sections \[sect:B\]–\[sect:J\], including the Brauer, Temperley–Lieb and Jones categories.
Definitions and preliminaries on ${\mathcal P}$ {#subsect:defnP}
-----------------------------------------------
For the duration of Section \[sect:P\], we fix a non-empty set $\C$ of finite sets, possibly including the empty set. Again, we write $\xi=\xi(\C)={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}$. In what follows, we will write $X=\bigcup_{A\in\C}A$ for the (possibly infinite) set of all points belonging to any of the members of $\C$. We will need two additional disjoint copies $X'=\set{x'}{x\in X}$ and $X''=\set{x''}{x\in X}$ of this set. For any $A\sub X$, we write $A'=\set{a'}{a\in A}$ and $A''=\set{a''}{a\in A}$.
For $A,B\in\C$, we write ${\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ for the set of all set partitions of $A\cup B'$. Any such partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ will be called a *partition from $A$ to $B$*, and we write $\bd(\al)=A$ and $\br(\al)=B$. We define $${\mathcal P}= {\mathcal P}(\C) = \bigcup_{A,B\in\C}{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$$ to be the set of all partitions between members of $\C$.
A partial operation $\cdot$ is defined on ${\mathcal P}$ as follows. Suppose $A,B,C\in\C$, and that $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ and $\be\in{\mathcal P}_{B,C}$. First, we identify $\al$ and $\be$ with their corresponding equivalence relations on the sets $A\cup B'$ and $B\cup C'$. Let $\al_\downarrow$ be the equivalence on $A\cup B''\cup C'$ obtained by renaming each element $b'\in B'$ by $b''$ and adding the diagonal relation on $C'$. Similarly, let $\be^\uparrow$ be the equivalence on $A\cup B''\cup C'$ obtained by renaming each element $b\in B$ by $b''$ and adding the diagonal relation on $A$. We now form the join $\al_\downarrow\vee\be^\uparrow$, which is again an equivalence on $A\cup B''\cup C'$. The product $\al\be=\al\cdot\be\in{\mathcal P}_{A,C}$ is then defined to be the partition corresponding to the restriction $(\al_\downarrow\vee\be^\uparrow){{\restriction}}_{A\cup C'}$. This partial product is associative, and $$({\mathcal P},\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$$ is a partial semigroup, called the *partition category (over $\C$)*. For $A\in\C$, the endomorphism monoid ${\mathcal P}_A={\mathcal P}_{A,A}$ is the partition monoid over $A$ [@HR2005], with identity $\bigset{\{a,a'\}}{a\in A}$. In particular, ${\mathcal P}$ contains a copy of the symmetric group ${\mathcal{S}}_A$ for each $A\in\C$; as usual, we identify ${\mathcal{S}}_A$ with the set of all partitions from ${\mathcal P}_A$ whose blocks are all of the form $\{a,b'\}$ for some $a,b\in A$.
In order to offer a diagrammatic interpretation of this product we recall some terminology and notation. A non-empty subset $A\sub X\cup X'$ is called
a *transversal* if $A\cap X$ and $A\cap X'$ are both non-empty,
an *upper non-transversal* if $A\sub X$,
a *lower non-transversal* if $A\sub X'$. If $\al\in{\mathcal P}$, we will write $$\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_q \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$$ to indicate that $\al$ has transversals $A_i\cup B_i'$ ($i=1,\ldots,q$), upper non-transversals $C_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,r$) and lower non-transversals $D_i'$ ($i=1,\ldots,s$). From this notation, we may infer $$\bd(\al) = \bigcup_{i=1}^qA_i \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^rC_i \AND \br(\al) = \bigcup_{i=1}^qB_i \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^sD_i.$$ Note that any of $q,r,s$ could be zero.
It will be convenient to sometimes use a variation of the above notation. Specifically, we will often wish to omit some (but not necessarily all) singleton blocks from $\al\in{\mathcal P}$, and will indicate this by using square brackets: $$\al= {
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-0.8 truemm} \Big]
}.$$ When using this notation, it will be important to specify which hom-set $\al$ belongs to: i.e., to specify $\bd(\al)=A$ and $\br(\al)=B$, in which case any element of $A$ or $B$ not listed in this square-bracket notation corresponds to a singleton block of $\al$.
A partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ may also be identified with any graph on vertex set $A\cup B'$ whose connected components are the blocks of $\al$. This leads to an alternative way to understand the product in ${\mathcal P}$. Let $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ and $\be\in{\mathcal P}_{B,C}$, where $A,B,C\in\C$. Take the graphs on vertex set $A\cup B''\cup C'$ corresponding to the partitions $\al_\downarrow$ and $\be^\uparrow$ defined above, and let $\Pi(\al,\be)$ be the graph on vertex set $A\cup B''\cup C'$ whose edge set is the union of the edge sets coming from $\al_\downarrow$ and $\be^\uparrow$. This graph is called the *product graph* of the pair $(\al,\be)$; note that $\Pi(\al,\be)$ is only defined for pairs with $\br(\al)=\bd(\be)$. The product $\al\be\in{\mathcal P}_{A,C}$ is then the partition of $A\cup C'$ for which elements $x,y\in A\cup C'$ belong to the same block of $\al\be$ if and only if $x,y$ belong to the same component of $\Pi(\al,\be)$.
When depicting a graph representing a partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$, we always draw the vertices from $A$ on an upper row, and the vertices from $B'$ on a lower row; this explains the use of the terms *upper* and *lower* non-transversals. When drawing a product graph, the double-dashed vertices are drawn on a middle row. For example, let $$A = [6] = \{1,\ldots,6\} \COMMA
B = [8] = \{1,\ldots,8\} \COMMA
C = [7] = \{1,\ldots,7\} ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\al &= \big\{ \{1,4\},\{2,3,4',5'\},\{5,6\},\{1',2',6'\},\{3'\},\{7',8'\}\big\} \in {\mathcal P}_{A,B} ,\\
\be &= \big\{ \{1,2\}, \{3,4,1'\}, \{5,4',5'\}, \{6\}, \{7\}, \{8,6',7'\}, \{2'\}, \{3'\} \big\} \in {\mathcal P}_{B,C}.
\intertext{Figure \ref{fig:P_product} shows how to calculate the product}
\al\be &= \big\{ \{1,4\},\{2,3,1',4',5'\},\{5,6\},\{2'\},\{3'\},\{6',7'\}\big\} \in {\mathcal P}_{A,C} .\end{aligned}$$
[[in [1,...,6]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} 14[.6]{} 23[.3]{} 56[.3]{} 12 26[.6]{} 45[.3]{} 78 34 (0.6,1)node\[left\][$\al=$]{}; (9.5,-1)–(11.5,-1);
[[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,7]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} 12 34 45 67 31 55 87 (0.6,1)node\[left\][$\be=$]{};
[[in [1,...,6]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} 14[.6]{} 23[.3]{} 56[.3]{} 12 26[.6]{} 45[.3]{} 78 34 (9.5,0)–(11.5,0);
[[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,7]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} 12 34 45 67 31 55 87
[[in [1,...,6]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,7]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} 14[.6]{} 23[.3]{} 56[.3]{} 14 45 67 21 (7.4,1)node\[right\][$=\al\be$]{};
Green’s relations and multiplicative properties in ${\mathcal P}$ {#subsect:prelimP}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$, and write $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_q \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. The *domain*, *codomain*, *kernel*, *cokernel* and *rank* of $\al$ are defined by
${\operatorname{dom}}(\al) = \set{x\in A}{\text{$x$ belongs to a transversal of $\al$}} = \bigcup_{i=1}^qA_i$,
${\operatorname{codom}}(\al) = \set{x\in B}{\text{$x'$ belongs to a transversal of $\al$}} = \bigcup_{i=1}^qB_i$,
$\ker(\al) = \bigset{(x,y)\in A\times A}{\text{$x$ and $y$ belong to the same block of $\al$}}$, the equivalence relation on $A$ associated with the partition $\set{A_i}{1\leq i\leq q}\cup\set{C_i}{1\leq i\leq r}$,
${\operatorname{coker}}(\al) = \bigset{(x,y)\in B\times B}{\text{$x'$ and $y'$ belong to the same block of $\al$}}$, the equivalence relation on $B$ associated with the partition $\set{B_i}{1\leq i\leq q}\cup\set{D_i}{1\leq i\leq s}$,
${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q$, the number of transversals of $\al$. Note that ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)$ can be anything from $0$ to $\min(|A|,|B|)$. The next result is proved in the same fashion as [@Wilcox2007 Theorem 17], [@FL2011 Theorem 3.3] and [@ER2018 Lemma 4.3], each of which concern partition *monoids*.
\[lem:Green\_P\]
\[GP1\] For $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff {\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$ and $\ker(\al)=\ker(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff {\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$ and ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GP2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of ${\mathcal P}$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q({\mathcal P}) = \set{\al\in{\mathcal P}}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each $0\leq q<\xi$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $D_0<D_1<\cdots$.
\[GP3\] The ideals of ${\mathcal P}$ are the sets
$I_r = I_r({\mathcal P}) = \set{\al\in{\mathcal P}}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each $0\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om = I_\om({\mathcal P}) = {\mathcal P}$ in the case that $\xi=\om$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$.
\[GP4\] The ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{S}}_q$, the symmetric group of degree $q$.
Thus, the category ${\mathcal P}$ is a chain of ideals, as in Definition \[defn:chain\]. In fact, ${\mathcal P}$ satisfies a property stronger than regularity, and analogous to the idea of a *regular $*$-semigroup* [@NS1978]. Specifically, for a partition $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_q \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in{\mathcal P}$, we define $\al^* = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_q \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s \\ \cline{4-6}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. Then $\bd(\al^*)=\br(\al)$, $\br(\al^*)=\bd(\al)$ and $(\al^*)^*=\al=\al\al^*\al$, and if $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}$ are composable, then $(\al\be)^*=\be^*\al^*$. Accordingly, we call ${\mathcal P}$ a *regular $*$-category*; cf. [@DDE2019 Section 2]. We also have ${(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff(\al^*,\be^*)\in{\mathscr L}}$, and other such identities. This symmetry/duality will allow us to shorten many proofs.
By Lemmas \[lem:SD\] and \[lem:Green\_P\], the ${\mathscr D}$-classes and ideals of an ideal $I_r=I_r({\mathcal P})$ are precisely the $D_q$ and $I_q$ with $q\leq r$.
Here is the main technical result of this section; it will be used in checking the requisite multiplication and separation properties.
\[lem:P2P\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2Pi\] If $r\geq2$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2Pii\] If $q=r\geq1$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that, renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}]$.}$$
\[P2Piii\] If $r\geq2$ and $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
Throughout the proof, we write $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. For each $1\leq i\leq r$, we fix some $a_i\in A_i$.
If ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\not\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$, then we may assume without loss of generality that $a_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. If ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$, then by the pigeon-hole principal we may assume without loss of generality that $(a_1,a_2)\in\ker(\be)$. In either case, we take $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1}
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
}\in{\mathcal P}_A$. Then ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al)=\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1}\}$ and $\ker(\ga\al)=\De_A$, so that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$. Since ${\operatorname{rank}}(\ga\be)\leq{\operatorname{rank}}(\ga)=r-1$ we have $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$. In the first case we have $a_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)$, and in the second case we have $(a_1,a_2)\in\ker(\ga\be)$. Thus, $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$.
We assume that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, the case of $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$ being dual. So either ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$ or $\ker(\al)\not=\ker(\be)$.
Suppose first that ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $a_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. We than take $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
}\in{\mathcal P}_A$. Clearly $\ga\al\in D_r$. On the other hand, ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga)=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$ but $a_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)$, which gives $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$.
Now suppose ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$ but $\ker(\al)\not=\ker(\be)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume there exists $(x_1,x_2)\in\ker(\be){\setminus}\ker(\al)$. Note then that $x_1$ and $x_2$ either both belong to ${\operatorname{dom}}(\be)={\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$ or else both belong to $A{\setminus}{\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$.
Suppose first that $x_1,x_2\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$. Here we may assume that $x_1=a_1$ and $x_2=a_2$, and again we take $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
}\in{\mathcal P}_A$. This time $\ga\al\in D_r$, while ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)\sub\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$ and $(a_1,a_2)\in\ker(\ga\be)$ together give $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$.
Now suppose $x_1,x_2\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$. We may also assume that $A_1,\ldots,A_r$ are the upper parts of the transversals of $\be$ (otherwise we would be in Case 2.1). Here we take $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \:&\: a_r \:&\: \\ \cline{5-5}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \:&\: x_1 \:&\: a_r,x_2
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-0.8 truemm} \Big]
}$. This time we have $\ga\be\in D_r$ and $\ga\al\in I_{r-1}$; the latter is the case because ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al)\sub\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$ yet $a_r\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al)$.
Here we have $\be = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
B_{1\pi} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_{r\pi} \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$ for some permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r$, and without loss of generality we may assume that $1\pi=r$. We then take $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1}
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
}\in{\mathcal P}_A$, noting that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$, $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$ and $B_r\sub{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\be){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\al)$; the latter gives $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$.
It follows from Lemma \[lem:P2P\] that the ideals $I_r=I_r({\mathcal P})$ have property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$, for $r\geq2$. The fact that part \[P2Pii\] of the lemma holds for $r\geq1$ (not just $r\geq2$) will be used to verify the technical assumption of Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] when treating the ideal $I_1$.
Congruences on ideals of ${\mathcal P}$ {#subsect:P}
---------------------------------------
In what follows, for each $0\leq q<\xi$, it will be convenient to fix a specific group ${\mathscr H}$-class $\G_q$ in the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr D}$-class $D_q$. To this end, as we did for the transformation category $\T$, for each such $q$ we fix some $X_q\in\C$ with $n_q=|X_q|\geq q$, and assume without loss of generality that $X_q=[n_q]=\{1,\ldots,n_q\}$. Within ${\mathcal P}_{X_q}={\mathcal P}_{X_q,X_q}$, we define $$\G_q = \bigset{\al\in{\mathcal P}_{X_q}}{{\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\al)=[q],\ \ker(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\al)=\De_{X_q}}.$$ It is clear that $\G_q$ is isomorphic to the symmetric group ${\mathcal{S}}_q$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:Green\_P\]\[GP4\]). Every element $\al$ of $\G_q$ has the form $$\al = {
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \\
1\pi \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q\pi
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
} = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \:&\: q+1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q \\ \cline{4-6}
1\pi \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q\pi \:&\: q+1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \qquad\text{for some permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_q$,}$$ and we write $\al=\pi^\natural$. For any $\Om\sub{\mathcal{S}}_q$, we write $\Om^\natural=\set{\pi^\natural}{\pi\in\Om}$, so that in fact $\G_q={\mathcal{S}}_q^\natural$. Moreover, every normal subgroup of $\G_q$ is of the form $N^\natural$ for some $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_q$. It follows that an ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq2$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N^\natural)$, for $0\leq q<r$ and $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+1}$. These yield the congruences $R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}=R_{I_q}^{I_r}\cup\nu_{N^\natural}$, including the Rees congruence $R_{I_q}^{I_r}$ when $N$ is trivial. In what follows, we will often use the abbreviation $R_N^{I_r}=R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}$, based on the fact that both $q$ and $N^\natural$ are “encoded” in $N$.
Since these congruences (and others to follow) involve the $\nu_{N^\natural}$ relations, we briefly give a concrete description of these relations. Specifically, suppose $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}$ are such that $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}$. Then we have $$\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{4-6}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_q \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND \be = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_q \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{4-6}
B_{1\phi} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_{q\phi} \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$$ for some permutation $\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}_q$, and we define $\phi=\phi(\al,\be)$. As in Section \[subsect:T\], note that $\phi$ depends on the ordering chosen on the transversals of $\al$, so $\phi(\al,\be)$ is only well-defined up to conjugacy in ${\mathcal{S}}_q$. However, for any $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_q$, we have (cf. [@EMRT2018 Lemma 5.6]) $$\nu_{N^\natural} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}}{\phi(\al,\be)\in N}.$$
As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 5.2], the ideal $I_1=D_0\cup D_1$ is retractable. The retraction is given by $$\label{eq:retract_P}
f:I_1\to I_0: \alpha\mt\wh\al\qquad\text{where}\qquad
\wh\al=\begin{cases}
{
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{1-4}
B \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} & \text{if }\al={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_r \\ \cline{2-4}
B \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in D_1\\
\alpha &\text{if } \alpha\in D_0.
\end{cases}$$
As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 5.3], we have the following three retractable IN-pairs in $I_r$ ($r\geq2$): $$(I_0,{\mathcal{S}}_1^\natural) \COMMA
(I_1,\{{\operatorname{id}}_2^\natural\}) \COMMA
(I_1,{\mathcal{S}}_2^\natural).$$ Each of the above retractable IN-pairs yields a family of $R/\lam/\rho/\mu$ congruences on $I_r$; since $D_0$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, the $\eta$ congruences coincide with the $\mu$ congruences, so we have no need to distinguish these, and will use the symbol $\mu$. Again, we will abbreviate the notation for these, by omitting the symbol $\natural$, and also either omiting the normal subgroup altogether if it is trivial, or else omitting the ideal $I_0/I_1$, as it can be deduced from the group. Thus, for example, $\lam_{I_0}^{I_r}$ will stand for $\lam_{I_0,{\mathcal{S}}_1^\natural}^{I_r}$, while $ \mu_{{\mathcal{S}}_2}^{I_r}$ will stand for $\mu_{I_1,{\mathcal{S}}_2^\natural}^{I_r}$.
As discussed in Section \[subsect:EMRT\], these congruences together with the $R_N^{I_r}$ and the universal congruence $\nab_{I_r}$, form the lattice shown in Figure \[fig:P\], where $\A_q\leq{\mathcal{S}}_q$ denotes the alternating group. Our goal is to show that these are *all* the congruences on $I_r$ ($r\geq2$). We will also have to describe separately the congruences on the two smallest ideals, $I_0=D_0$ and $I_1=D_0\cup D_1$, and these will be dealt with using Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small\_ideal\]. As with Theorem \[thm:T\], the main effort will be in describing ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$, and for this we will use Proposition \[prop:small012\]; after that, we will use Theorem \[thm:E2\] to treat the larger ideals.
We begin with a lemma that will be used to verify the technical assumptions of Proposition \[prop:small012\]. As in that proposition, the statement refers to the relation ${\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, where $f$ is the retraction , so $${\mathscr L}f^{-1} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in I_1\times I_1}{(\wh\al,\wh\be)\in{\mathscr L}}.$$
\[lem:R\_trick\] For any $\al,\be\in I_2=I_2({\mathcal P})$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}\cup{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, we have $\rho_{I_0}^{I_2}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_2}$.
Write $\si=\cg\al\be_{I_2}$, and suppose $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$. Since $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, it follows that ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$ or ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$.
Suppose first that ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$. Without loss of generality, we may fix some ${(u,v)\in{\operatorname{coker}}(\al){\setminus}{\operatorname{coker}}(\be)}$. Now let $(\ga,\de)\in\rho_{I_0}^{I_2}$ be arbitrary, say with $\ga,\de\in{\mathcal P}_{C,D}$; we must show that $(\ga,\de)\in\si$. This is clear if $\ga=\de$, so suppose instead that $\ga,\de\in D_0$ and $(\ga,\de)\in{\mathscr R}$. Then we may write ${\ga={
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_k \\ \cline{1-3}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}}$ and ${\de={
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_k \\ \cline{1-3}
C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_m
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}}$. To show that $(\ga,\de)\in\si$, it suffices to show that $(\ga,\ga')\in\si$, where $\ga'={
\Big[ \hspace{-0.9 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_k \\ \cline{1-3}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{}
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-0.7 truemm} \Big]
}{}{}{}\in{\mathcal P}_{C,D}$. Indeed, the same argument applied to $\de$ will also give $(\de,\ga')\in\si$, and so $(\ga,\de)\in\si$.
We prove that $(\ga,\ga')\in\si$ by descending induction on $l$. If $l=|D|$, then $\ga=\ga'$, so suppose $l<|D|$. Without loss of generality, we will assume that $|B_l|\geq2$; let $b\in B_l$ be arbitrary and let $C=B_l{\setminus}\{b\}$. Let $\ve_1\in{\mathcal P}_{C,A}$ and $\ve_2\in{\mathcal P}_{B,D}$ be such that:
$\ve_1\in D_0$, $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\ga)$ and ${\operatorname{coker}}(\ve_1)=\De_A$,
$\ve_2\in D_2$ has transversals $\{u\}\cup C'$ and $\{v,b'\}$ and lower non-transversals $B_1',\ldots,B_{l-1}'$, and $\ker(\ve_2)=\De_B$. Then $(\ga,\ve_1\be\ve_2)=(\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\si$, and $\ve_1\be\ve_2=
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_k \\ \cline{1-5}
B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_{l-1} \:&\: C \:&\: b
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
$. By induction, we have $(\ve_1\be\ve_2,\ga')\in\si$, and so $(\ga,\ga')\in\si$ by transitivity, as required.
Now suppose ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$ but ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. We may assume without loss of generality that $\al\in D_2$. Indeed, if $\al,\be\in I_1$, then we would have ${\operatorname{coker}}(\wh\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)={\operatorname{coker}}(\wh\be)$, so that $(\wh\al,\wh\be)\in{\mathscr L}$; i.e., $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, a contradiction. Thus, we may write $\al={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
A_1 \:&\: A_2 \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{3-5}
B_1 \:&\: B_2 \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. Choose any $x\in A_1$ and $y\in A_2$, and define $\ga={
\Big[ \hspace{-0.8 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
\\ \cline{1-1}
x,y
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-0.8 truemm} \Big]
}\in{\mathcal P}_A$ (so $\{x',y'\}$ is the only non-trivial block of $\ga$). Then $B_1'\cup B_2'$ is a block of $\ga\al$, but at least one of $B_1'$ or $B_2'$ is a block of $\ga\be$ (since at least one of these is a block of $\be$). Thus, ${\operatorname{coker}}(\ga\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\ga\be)$. Since $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\in\si$, we have reduced to Case 1.
We may now prove the main result of this section. The second part utilises the congruences $\th_{I,\tau}^S$ defined in Section \[subsect:EMRT\]. For a positive integer $n$, we denote by $\bn$ the chain $\{1<\cdots<n\}$.
\[thm:P\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets, let ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}(\C)$ be the partition category over $\C$, and keep the above notation.
\[cP1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq(A))\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq(A)).$$
\[cP2\] The ideal $I_1$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_1$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\bigset{\tau\cup\De_{D_1}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)} \cup \bigset{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_1}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\btwo$.
\[cP3\] For $r\geq2$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\set{\mu_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{0\leq q\leq1,\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+1}} \\[3truemm]
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad {}\cup\set{&R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{2\leq q<r,\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+1}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:P\].
The proof of this part is analogous to the corresponding part of Theorem \[thm:T\]. For any $A\in\C$, the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $I_0({\mathcal P}_A)$ are indexed by the elements of $\Eq(A)$: i.e., all possible kernels and cokernels.
This follows from Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\], and the fact that $\G_1$ is trivial, so that ${{\operatorname{Cong}}(\G_1)^\top\cong\btwo}$. (The technical assumption in the statement of Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] follows from Lemma \[lem:P2P\]\[P2Pii\].)
As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:T\]\[T2\], it suffices to establish the claim in the case $r=2$. Indeed, if we can do so, then it will follow that:
every congruence on $I_2$ is of the form listed in Lemma \[lem:E2\], and so $\LiftCong{I_2}{{\mathcal P}}={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$,
$I_2$ has property ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_2)}$,
$I_r$ has property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$, for each $2<r<\xi$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:P2P\]). An application of Theorem \[thm:E2\] will then complete the proof. For the $r=2$ case, we apply Proposition \[prop:small012\], noting the following:
Property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_2)}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:P2P\] (which shows ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_2)}$).
Assumption \[012i\] from the proposition follows from Lemma \[lem:P2P\]\[P2Pii\].
Assumptions \[012ii\] and \[012iii\] follow from Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\] and its dual.
Assumption \[012iv\] holds with $H=\G_2$, since $(I_1,\G_2)$ is retractable. The elements $a,b$ are unneeded since $H=\G_2$.
Planar and annular reducts of ${\mathcal P}$ {#subsect:QP}
--------------------------------------------
In this section we consider the partition analogues of the planar and annular reducts of the transformation category $\T$, introduced in Section \[subsect:QT\]. To this end we assume that there is a total order $\leq$ on each member of $\C$, and keep the notation from the previous three sections.
Consider some partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$, where $A,B\in\C$. Write $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}$ and ${B=\{b_1<\cdots<b_l\}}$, and put $m=\max(k,l)$. We say that $\al$ is *planar* if some graph representing $\al$ can be drawn in the plane $\RRR^2$ with:
vertex $a_i$ at $(i,1)$ for each $1\leq i\leq k$,
vertex $b_i'$ at $(i,0)$ for each $1\leq i\leq l$,
edges all in the rectangle $\bigset{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2}{0\leq x\leq m+1,\ 0\leq y\leq1}$, and
with no edge crossings in the interior of this rectangle. We say that $\al$ is *annular* if the above conditions are satisfied, but with the left- and right-hand borders of the rectangle identified to form a cylinder, and with edges allowed to “wrap around”.
To illustrate these concepts, consider the partitions $\al$ and $\be$ pictured in Figure \[fig:P\_product\]. It is clear that $\be$ is planar, and that $\al$ is not; indeed, in any graphical representation (as above) of $\al$, there will be a path joining vertices $1$ and $4$, and a path joining $3$ and $4'$, and these will always intersect. On the other hand, $\al$ is annular, as we show in Figure \[fig:P\_annular\].
(0,0)–(9,0)–(9,2)–(0,2)–(0,0); 23[.3]{} 56[.3]{} 12 45[.3]{} 78 34 14[.6]{}[red,ultra thick]{} 26[.8]{}[blue,ultra thick]{} (-.3,1)node\[left\][$\al=$]{}; (11,1)node[$\equiv$]{}; [[in [1,...,6]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{}
(0,0)–(9,0)–(9,2)–(0,2)–(0,0); 23[.3]{} 56[.3]{} 12 45[.3]{} 78 34 (0,1.4)–(.4,1.4) arc(270:360:.6); (4,2)arc(180:270:.6) (4.6,1.4)–(9,1.4); (6,0)arc(180:90:.8) (6.8,.8)–(9,.8); (0,.8)–(1.2,.8) arc(90:0:.8); [[in [1,...,6]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,...,8]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (0,0)–(0,2); (9,0)–(9,2); (9.3,1)node\[right\][$\al=$]{};
We will introduce the anti-planar and anti-annular concepts shortly, but first make an important observation. For $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}\in\C$, we define the following partitions from ${\mathcal P}_A$: $$\label{eq:gade}
\ga_A = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: a_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_k \\
a_k \:&\: a_{k-1} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_1
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
} \AND \de_A = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{k-1} \:&\: a_k \\
a_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_k \:&\: a_1
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big)
}.$$ Note that in fact $\ga_A$ and $\de_A$ are permutations, and that $\ga_A$ is order-reversing, and $\de_A$ orientation-preserving. By definition, it is clear that for any partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$, $$\label{eq:annular}
\text{$\al$ is annular $\iff$ $\al=\de_A^m\be\de_B^n$ for some planar $\be$ and some $m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$.}$$ To see this, consider a representation of $\al$ as a cylindrical graph, and then “twist” the top and bottom of $\al$ as much as required to ensure that no edge needs to wrap around the back of the cylinder. We say that
a partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ is *anti-planar* $\iff$ $\ga_A\al$ is planar $\iff$ $\al\ga_B$ is planar,
a partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ is *anti-annular* $\iff$ $\ga_A\al$ is annular $\iff$ $\al\ga_B$ is annular, As we did with transformations, given any subset $\Om\sub{\mathcal P}$, we write
$\OrdP\Om$ for the set of all planar partitions from $\Om$,
$\OrdR\Om$ for the set of all anti-planar partitions from $\Om$,
$\OrdPR\Om = \OrdP\Om\cup\OrdR\Om$,
$\OriP\Om$ for the set of all annular partitions from $\Om$,
$\OriR\Om$ for the set of all anti-annular partitions from $\Om$,
$\OriPR\Om = \OriP\Om\cup\OriR\Om$.
If $\Q$ denotes any of $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$, $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$, $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ or $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$, then $\Q$ is subcategory of ${\mathcal P}$. Indeed, it is clear that $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ and $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ are categories; if $\al,\be\in{\mathcal P}$ are composable and have planar (respectively, annular) graphs, then the product graph $\Pi(\al,\be)$ is also planar (respectively, annular), and so too therefore is the product $\al\be$. It quickly follows that $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$ and $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$ are closed under well-defined composition. For example, suppose $\al\in{\mathcal P}_{A,B}$ and $\be\in{\mathcal P}_{B,C}$.
If $\al\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ and $\be\in\OrdR{{\mathcal P}}$, then $\al\be = \al(\be\ga_C)\ga_C$, and since $\be\ga_C\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$, we have $\al(\be\ga_C)\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ and hence $\al\be\in\OrdR{{\mathcal P}}$.
If $\al,\be\in\OriR{{\mathcal P}}$, then $\al\be=(\al\ga_B)(\ga_B\be)\in\OriP{\mathcal P}$, since both $\al\ga_B$ and $\ga_B\be$ belong to $\OriP{\mathcal P}$. Other combinations are checked analogously.
Clearly $\Q$ (still denoting any of the above subcategories of ${\mathcal P}$) is closed under the involution $\al\mt\al^*$; in particular, it is regular. Thus, Green’s ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr H}$ relations on $\Q$ are simply inherited from those on ${\mathcal P}$. This is easily seen to also be the case for the ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$ relation (cf. [@DDE2019 Theorem 4.9]), and hence the first three parts of Lemma \[lem:Green\_P\] hold for $\Q$ as well. As for the fourth part, ignoring the obvious exceptions for small $q$, the group ${\mathscr H}$-classes of $\Q$ contained in $D_q$ are:
trivial, if $\Q=\OrdP{\mathcal P}$,
cyclic of order $2$, if $\Q=\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$,
cyclic of order $q$, if $\Q=\OriP{\mathcal P}$,
dihedral of order $2q$, if $\Q=\OriPR{\mathcal P}$. We also have a version of Lemma \[lem:P2P\] for $\Q$. Before we discuss this, we first consider the possible kernels (and cokernels) that elements of $\Q$ can have. Let $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}\in\C$. For subsets $U,V\sub A$, we say:
$U$ and $V$ are *separated* if $u<v$ for all $u\in U$ and $v\in V$, or if $v<u$ for all such $u,v$,
$U$ is *nested* by $V$ if there exist $v_1,v_2\in V$ such that $v_1<u<v_2$ for all $u\in U$, and no $v\in V$ satisfies $v_1<v<v_2$; here we say $U$ is nested by $V$ *via the pair $(v_1,v_2)$*. We say an equivalence $\ve\in\Eq(A)$ is *planar* if any pair of $\ve$-classes is either separated or nested. We will write $\OrdP{\Eq(A)}$ for the set of all planar partitions on $A$.
\[lem:PEqA\] If $\al\in\OriPR{\mathcal P}$, then $\ker(\al)$ and ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)$ are both planar equivalences.
Write $A=\bd(\al)$ and $B=\br(\al)$. By symmetry it suffices to prove that ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)$ is planar. In fact, it further suffices to assume that $\al\in\OriP{\mathcal P}$; indeed, if $\al\in\OriR{\mathcal P}$, then $\al=\ga_A(\ga_A\al)$ with ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\ga_A\al)$ and $\ga_A\al\in\OriP{\mathcal P}$.
Thus, we assume for the rest of the proof that $\al\in\OriP{\mathcal P}$. By , we have $\al=\de_A^m\be\de_B^n$ for some $\be\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ and $m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and we note that ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be\de_B^n)$. By [@EMRT2018 Lemma 7.1], ${\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$ is a planar equivalence. It therefore suffices to show that for any planar equivalence $\ve\in\OrdP{\Eq(B)}$, the equivalence $$\ve\cdot\de_B = \bigset{(x\de_B,y\de_B)}{(x,y)\in\ve}$$ is also planar. To do so, assume for convenience that $B=[k]=\{1,\ldots,k\}$, let the $\ve$-classes be $B_1,\ldots,B_r$, where $k\in B_r$, and write $\ve^+=\ve\cdot\de_B$. The $\ve^+$-classes are $B_i^+=\set{x+1}{x\in B_i}$ for each $i$; here elements of $[k]$ are added modulo $k$ (so $1\in B_r^+$). For $1\leq i,j<r$, the sets $B_i^+$ and $B_j^+$ are nested (or separated) if and only if $B_i$ and $B_j$ are nested (or separated), respectively. Write $B_r=\{b_1<\cdots<b_l<k\}$, where $l\geq0$. Let $1\leq i<r$. If $B_i$ is separated from $B_r$, then $\max(B_i)<\min(B_r)$, and so $B_i^+$ will be nested by $B_r^+$ via $(1,b_1+1)$ if $l>0$, or separated from $B_r^+$ if $l=0$. If $B_i$ is nested by $B_r$ via $(b_l,k)$, then $B_i^+$ and $B_r^+$ are separated. If $B_i$ is nested by $B_r$ via $(b_p,b_{p+1})$ for some $1\leq p<l$, then $B_i^+$ is nested by $B_r^+$ via $(b_p+1,b_{p+1}+1)$. Since $k\in B_r$, $B_r$ is not nested by any $B_i$.
As a partial converse to Lemma \[lem:PEqA\], it is clear that if $\ve_1\in\OrdP{\Eq(A)}$ and ${\ve_2\in\OrdP{\Eq(B)}}$, where $A,B\in\C$, then there exists $\al\in D_0(\OrdP{{\mathcal P}_{A,B}})$ such that $\ker(\al)=\ve_1$ and ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)=\ve_2$. It follows that the set of all possible (co)kernels is the same for all four of the above categories. In particular, all four categories have the same minimal ideal, which is the set of all partitions of rank $0$ with planar kernel and cokernel.
On the other hand, the categories $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ and $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$ have more ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes than the categories $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ and $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$. For example, consider the planar equivalence on $\{1,2,3\}$ with equivalence classes $\{1,3\}$ and $\{2\}$. There is no element from $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$ with this kernel and domain $\{2\}$; however there is such an element in $\OriP{\mathcal P}$.
Here is the version of Lemma \[lem:P2P\] for $\Q$ (being any of the above four categories):
\[lem:P2PQ\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2PQi\] If $r\geq2$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2PQii\] If $q=r\geq1$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that, renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}]$.}$$
\[P2PQiii\] If $r\geq2$ and $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
In the proof of Lemma \[lem:P2P\], all but one of the partitions $\ga$ constructed were of the form $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_k \\
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_k
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\Big]
}$, and hence belong to $\OrdP{\mathcal P}\sub\Q$. The only exception is the partition $\ga={
\Big[
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \:&\: a_r \:&\: \\ \cline{5-5}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_{r-1} \:&\: x_1 \:&\: a_r,x_2
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-0.8 truemm} \Big]
}$ constructed during Case 2.2 of the proof of \[P2Pii\]. So our task is to modify the definition of $\ga$ in this case to show that it may be taken from $\Q$ if $\al,\be$ themselves belong to $\Q$.
1 Suppose first that $\Q=\OrdP{\mathcal P}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $a_i=\min(A_i)$ for all $i$. Let $B$ be the upper non-transversal of $\be$ containing $x_1$ and $x_2$. By planarity of $\be$, and since $a_r$ belongs to a transversal of $\be$, we have either $a_r<b$ for all $b\in B$, or else $a_r>b$ for all $b\in B$. By symmetry, we will assume that $a_r<b$ for all $b$; then $B$ is either nested by $A_r$ or else $A_r$ and $B$ are separated, with $\max(A_r)<\min(B)$. (The case in which $a_r>b$ for all $b\in B$ is symmetrical to the case of $\max(A_r)<\min(B)$.) Renaming the transversals if necessary, we may assume that we do not have $a_r<a_i<b$ for any $b\in B$ (i.e., that $a_r$ is the closest of the $a_i$ to $B$ from the left). We may also assume without loss of generality that $x_2<x_1$. With these conditions satisfied, it is then clear that $\ga$ as above is planar.
It is important to note that the argument just given assumed only the planarity of $\be$.
2 Next suppose $\Q=\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$. Then $\al=\al'\ga_B^k$ and $\be=\be'\ga_B^l$ for some $k,l\in\{0,1\}$ and $\al',\be'\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$. We may then take $\ga\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ corresponding to $\al',\be'$, as in the previous case.
3 Next suppose $\Q=\OriP{\mathcal P}$. This time we have $\al=\de_A^k\al'\de_B^l$ and $\be=\de_A^m\be'\de_B^n$ for some $k,l,m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\al',\be'\in\OrdP{\mathcal P}$. Let $\al''=\de_A^{k-m}\al'\de_B^{l-n}$ (with possibly negative powers interpreted in the obvious way, as $\de_A\in{\mathcal{S}}_A$ and $\de_B\in{\mathcal{S}}_B$ are units). Note that $$\al'' = \de_A^{-m} \al \de_B^{-n} \AND \be' = \de_A^{-m}\be\de_B^{-n}.$$ Now, $\be'$ is planar (but $\al''$ might not be), and $\ker(\be'){\setminus}\ker(\al'')$ is still non-empty, so by Case 1 there exists $\ga'\in D_r(\OrdP{\mathcal P})$ such that $\ga'\be'\in D_r$ and $\ga'\al''\in I_{r-1}$. Thus,
$\ga'\de_A^{-m}\be\de_B^{-n}=\ga'\be'\in D_r \implies \ga'\de_A^{-m}\cdot\be\in D_r$, and\
$\ga'\de_A^{-m}\al\de_B^{-n}
=\ga'\al''\in I_{r-1} \implies \ga'\de_A^{-m}\cdot\al\in I_{r-1}$, so we may take $\ga=\ga'\de_A^{-m}\in\OriP{\mathcal P}$ in this case.
4 When $\Q=\OriPR{\mathcal P}$, the assertion follows from Case 3 just as Case 2 followed from Case 1.
All other arguments of Sections \[subsect:prelimP\] and \[subsect:P\] may be modified in much more straightforward fashion to work for $\Q$. In particular:
The category $\Q$ is closed under the mapping $\al\mt\wh\al$.
The ideal $I_1=I_1(\Q)$ is retractable.
Choosing natural group ${\mathscr H}$-classes $\G_q\leq D_q$ for each $q$, the pairs $(I_q,N)$ are retractable for $q=0,1$ and $N\normal\G_{q+1}$. If $\Q=\OrdP{\mathcal P}$, then there are only two such pairs since $\G_2$ is trivial. Otherwise, there are three such pairs, since $\G_q(\Q)=\G_q({\mathcal P})={\mathcal{S}}_q^\natural$ for $q\leq2$ if $\Q\not=\OrdP{\mathcal P}$.
In Case 1 of the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\], the partition $\ve_1$ constructed will belong to $\Q$ (provided that $\ga$ does); we can ensure that the partition $\ve_2$ belongs to $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ by assuming that $u<v$, choosing $B_l$ to be a lower non-transversal of $\ga$ that is not nested by any other blocks of $\ga$, and choosing ${b=\max(B_l)}$. The element $\ga$ constructed during Case 2 clearly belongs to $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$. From this we may then deduce the following description of the congruences of arbitrary ideals $I_r=I_r(\Q)$. For the first part, note that the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes of the partial rectangular band $I_0=I_0(\Q)$ are indexed by all possible kernels/cokernels, which are the planar equivalences on the underlying sets $A\in\C$. Recall that $\OrdP{\Eq(A)}$ is the set of all such planar equivalences.
\[thm:QP\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets, let ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}(\C)$ be the category of all partitions between members of $\C$, let $\Q$ be one of $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$, $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$, $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ or $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$, and keep the above notation.
\[cQP1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq(A)}).$$
\[cQP2\] The ideal $I_1$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_1$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\set{\tau\cup\De_{D_1}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)} \cup \set{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_1}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\btwo$.
\[cQP3\] For $r\geq2$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\set{\mu_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{0\leq q\leq1,\ N\normal\G_{q+1}} \\[3truemm]
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad {}\cup\set{&R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{2\leq q<r,\ N\normal\G_{q+1}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}.
\epfreseq\end{aligned}$$
\[rem:QP\] Figure \[fig:QP\] pictures the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_4(\Q))$ for the categories $\Q={\mathcal P}$, $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$, $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$, $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ and $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$.
The upper parts of the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r(\Q))$, $r\geq2$, are always chains when $\Q$ is any of ${\mathcal P}$, $\OrdP{\mathcal P}$ or $\OrdPR{\mathcal P}$, since the lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(\G_q)$ are always chains for these categories (where $\G_q$ is always a symmetric group, or of size at most $2$). This is not the case when $\Q$ is $\OriP{\mathcal P}$ or $\OriPR{\mathcal P}$, however, even though Figure \[fig:QP\] might suggest otherwise for $\OriP{\mathcal P}$; indeed, the lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(\G_q)$ are not chains in general in these categories, as the groups $\G_q$ are generally cyclic or dihedral of orders $q$ and $2q$, respectively.
(1,5)–(1,7) (1,8)–(1,11) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(3+,2.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(2+,3+)–(1+,4+);]{} in [0,1,2]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (1,4)–(1,12); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(0+,2+);]{} in [1,...,12]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2]{} in [5,8,12]{} /in [3/2,2/3,2/0]{}
(2,4)–(2,4.001) (2,5)–(2,5.001) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(3+,2.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(2+,3+)–(2+,3.001+);]{} in [0,1]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (2,3)–(2,6); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(1+,1+);]{} /in [1/1,1/2,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2]{} /in [3/2,2/3,2/4,2/5,2/6,2/0]{}
(1,5)–(1,6) (1,7)–(1,8) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(3+,2.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(2+,3+)–(1+,4+);]{} in [0,1,2]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (1,4)–(1,9); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(0+,2+);]{} in [1,...,9]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2]{} in [5,7,9]{} /in [3/2,2/3,2/0]{}
(1,5)–(1,6) (1,7)–(1,9) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(3+,2.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(2+,3+)–(1+,4+);]{} in [0,1,2]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (1,4)–(1,10); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(0+,2+);]{} in [1,...,9]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2]{} in [5,7,10]{} /in [3/2,2/3,2/0]{}
(1,5)–(1,7) (1,8)–(1,9) (1,9)–(0,10) (0,10)–(1,11) (1,11)–(2,10) (2,10)–(1,9) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(3+,2.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(2+,3+)–(1+,4+);]{} (1,9)–(0,10)–(1,11)–(2,10)–(1,9) ; in [0,1,2]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (1,4)–(1,12); (1,9)–(0,10)–(1,11)–(2,10)–(1,9); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(0+,2+);]{} in [1,...,12]{} /in [0/2,0/3,0/10,2/10,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2]{} in [5,8,12]{} /in [3/2,2/3,2/0]{}
Partial Brauer categories {#subsect:PB}
-------------------------
A partition $\al\in{\mathcal P}$ is a *partial Brauer partition* if each of its blocks has size at most $2$. The subset ${\mathcal{PB}}={\mathcal{PB}}(\C)$ of ${\mathcal P}$ consisting of all partial Brauer partitions is a subcategory, called the *partial Brauer category*; cf. [@MM2014]. All partitions constructed during proofs in Sections \[subsect:prelimP\]–\[subsect:QP\] actually belonged to ${\mathcal{PB}}$. It follows that the congruences on ideals of ${\mathcal{PB}}$ are exactly as described in Theorem \[thm:P\], but with one difference for the ideals $I_q=I_q({\mathcal{PB}})$ for $q=0,1$. The kernels (and cokernels) of partial Brauer partitions are equivalences whose blocks have size at most $2$. So, if we write $\Eq_{1,2}(A)$ for the set of all such equivalences on the set $A$, then in the category ${\mathcal{PB}}$, the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_{1,2}(A))\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_{1,2}(A)),$$ and as with ${\mathcal P}$, we have ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)\cong{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\btwo$.
Similarly, the congruences on the ideals of the subcategories $\OrdP{{\mathcal{PB}}}$, $\OrdPR{{\mathcal{PB}}}$, $\OriP{{\mathcal{PB}}}$ and $\OriPR{{\mathcal{PB}}}$ are described in the same way as the corresponding subcategories of ${\mathcal P}$ in Theorem \[thm:QP\], with the exception that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_{1,2}(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_{1,2}(A)}),$$ and that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)\cong{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\btwo$. The category $\OrdP{{\mathcal{PB}}}$ could be called the *Motzkin category*, given the obvious connections to the Motzkin algebras and monoids [@BH2014; @DEG2017].
It would be interesting to attempt to apply the methods of this paper to other natural diagram categories, such as rook partition categories; cf. [@Grood2006; @JErook].
Brauer categories {#sect:B}
=================
The next three sections concern the *Brauer categories* $\B=\B(\C)$, and their associated planar and annular reducts, which include the Temperley–Lieb and Jones categories. Unlike the situation with the transformation and partition categories, $\B$ is not immediately amenable to applying our general machinery from Section \[sect:chains\] because it is not a chain of ideals. However, it decomposes into “even” and “odd” subcategories, as we explain in Section \[subsect:defnB\], to each of which these general results do apply. After describing Green’s relations and establishing multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimB\], we describe the congruences in Sections \[subsect:Bodd\] and \[subsect:Beven\] for the odd and even subcategories, respectively; see Theorems \[thm:Bodd\] and \[thm:Beven\], and also Figures \[fig:Bodd\]–\[fig:B4\]. As these figures indicate, the congruence lattices of ideals in the even subcategory are more complex than those for the odd subcategory; the reason for this is that the even subcategory has a non-trivial retractable ideal, and more retractable IN-pairs. In Section \[subsect:QB\] we define the above-mentioned planar and annular reducts of $\B$, which are then studied in Sections \[sect:TL\] and \[sect:J\].
During Sections \[sect:B\]–\[sect:J\], we say an equivalence $\ve$ on a finite set $A$ is a *2-equivalence* if one of the following holds:
$|A|$ is even, and every $\ve$-class has size 2, or
$|A|$ is odd, and all but one $\ve$-class has size 2, with the other $\ve$-class being a singleton. We write $\Eq_2(A)$ for the set of all such 2-equivalences on $A$.
Definitions and preliminaries on $\B$ {#subsect:defnB}
-------------------------------------
Throughout Section \[sect:B\] we fix a non-empty set $\C$ of finite sets and keep the conventions of Section \[sect:P\]. This time it will also be convenient to define $$\C_\even=\set{A\in\C}{|A|\text{ is even}} \AND \C_\odd=\set{A\in\C}{|A|\text{ is odd}}.$$ It is possible for one of these subsets of $\C$ to be empty.
A partition $\al$ from ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}(\C)$ is a *Brauer partition* if every block of $\al$ has size $2$. The set $\B=\B(\C)$ of all Brauer partitions is a subcategory of ${\mathcal P}$, called the *Brauer category (over $\C$)*. The endomorphism monoids $\B_A=\B_{A,A}$ are *Brauer monoids* [@Maz1998], and we note that again ${\mathcal{S}}_A\sub\B_A$ for each $A\in\C$. Clearly $\B_{A,B}$ is empty if $|A|$ and $|B|$ are of opposite parities, so it follows that $$\label{eq:EO}
\B = \B(\C) = \B(\C_\even) \sqcup \B(\C_\odd),$$ writing $\sqcup$ for disjoint union. This decomposition has many obvious structural implications, but for our purposes, the most important are to do with ideals and congruences.
An arbitrary ideal of $\B=\B(\C)$ is a disjoint union $I=U\sqcup V\neq\emptyset$ of an ideal $U$ of $\C_\even$ (or the empty set) and an ideal $V$ of $\C_\odd$ (or the empty set). In particular, the ideals of $\B$ do not form a chain, unless one of $\C_\even$ or $\C_\odd$ is empty. Further, for $I=U\sqcup V$ we have $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I) = \bigset{\si_1\sqcup\si_2}{\si_1\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(U),\ \si_2\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(V)},$$ which means that when $U$ and $V$ are both non-empty, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(U)\times{\operatorname{Cong}}(V)$. Thus, it suffices to describe the congruences, and the corresponding lattices, of ideals in the two subcategories $\B(\C_\even)$ and $\B(\C_\odd)$. We do this in Sections \[subsect:Bodd\] and \[subsect:Beven\]; see Theorems \[thm:Bodd\] and \[thm:Beven\]. But first we gather some properties relevant to both subcategories.
Green’s relations and multiplicative properties in $\B$ {#subsect:prelimB}
-------------------------------------------------------
Clearly $\B$ is closed under the involution $\al\mt\al^*$, so $\B$ is again a regular $*$-category. A consequence of regularity is that Green’s ${\mathscr R}$, ${\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr H}$ relations are simply inherited from those of ${\mathcal P}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:Green\_P\]); again it is easy to see that this is the case for the ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$ relation as well. Note also that the kernel of $\al\in\B$ uniquely determines the domain of $\al$ as well as $\bd(\al)$; indeed, ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$ is the union of the singleton $\ker(\al)$-classes, while $\bd(\al)$ is the union of all $\ker(\al)$-classes. This (and the dual statement concerning codomains and cokernels) will allow us to simplify the following statement, for which we also define $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_\even=\xi_\even(\C)={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C_\even} \ANd \xi_\odd=\xi_\odd(\C)={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C_\odd}.\end{aligned}$$ It is possible that one or both of $\xi_\even$ or $\xi_\odd$ could be $\om$, and that one (but not both) could be $0$.
\[lem:Green\_B\]
\[GB1\] For $\al,\be\in\B$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff \ker(\al)=\ker(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff {\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GB2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of $\B$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q(\B) = \set{\al\in\B}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each even $0\leq q<\xi_\even$, and each odd $1\leq q<\xi_\odd$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a pair of chains: $D_0<D_2<\cdots$ and $D_1<D_3<\cdots$.
\[GB4\] The ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{S}}_q$, the symmetric group of degree $q$.
\[rem:Green\_B\] As in [@Maz1998] (cf. [@DE4 Proposition 2.1]), two Brauer elements $\al,\be\in\B_{A,B}$ are ${\mathscr R}$-related if and only if $\al=\be\pi$ for some permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_B$. Similar statements hold for the ${\mathscr L}$ and ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$ relations.
As noted in Section \[subsect:defnB\], the ideals of $\B$ are essentially unions of ideals from $\B(\C_\even)$ and $\B(\C_\odd)$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:Green\_B\]\[GB2\] that the ideals of these subcategories are the sets
$I_r = D_0\cup D_2\cup\cdots\cup D_r = \set{\al\in\B}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r, \ {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\text{ is even}}$ for even $0\leq r<\xi_\even$,
$I_r = D_1\cup D_3\cup\cdots\cup D_r = \set{\al\in\B}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r, \ {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\text{ is odd}}$ for odd $1\leq r<\xi_\odd$, as well as $\B(\C_\even)$ and $\B(\C_\odd)$ themselves, which are not included in the above lists if $\xi_\even=\om$ or $\xi_\odd=\om$. It follows that both $\B(\C_\even)$ and $\B(\C_\odd)$ are chains of ideals, and therefore amenable to an application of our general theory from Section \[sect:chains\].
The next technical lemma is analogous to Lemma \[lem:P2P\], and will be used to establish the required multiplication/separation properties on various ideals of $\B$. It requires its own proof, as the partitions constructed during the proof of Lemma \[lem:P2P\] generally do not belong to $\B$.
\[lem:P2B\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\B_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2Bi\] If $r\geq3$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2Bii\] If $q=r\geq2$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-2}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}]$.}$$
\[P2Biii\] If $r\geq3$ and $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
Throughout the proof, we write $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
Since $q<r$, we may assume without loss of generality that $\{b_1',v'\}$ is a block of $\be$ for some ${v\in B}$. We then let $\ga\in\B_A$ be any Brauer partition with codomain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-2}\}$. We clearly have $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$. Because $b_1\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\al){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\be)$, we also have $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, so that $\ga\be\not\in H_{\ga\al}$.
We assume that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$ (the case of $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$ being dual), so that $\ker(\al)\not=\ker(\be)$.
Suppose first that ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\{a_1,v\}$ is a block of $\be$ for some ${v\in A}$. We then let $\ga\in D_r$ be any Brauer partition with transversals $\{a_1,a_1'\},\ldots,\{a_{r-1},a_{r-1}'\},\{v,v'\}$. Then $$\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1}\}\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al) \implies {\operatorname{rank}}(\ga\al)\geq r-1 \implies {\operatorname{rank}}(\ga\al)=r,$$ by parity, so $\ga\al\in D_r$. On the other hand, ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)\sub\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1},v\}$ and $a_1,v\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)$, so $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
Now suppose ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. Fix some $(u,v)\in\ker(\be){\setminus}\ker(\al)$. Then $u$ and $v$ belong to distinct non-transversals of $\al$, say $\{u,x\}$ and $\{v,y\}$. We then let $\ga\in D_r$ be any Brauer partition with codomain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-2},u,v\}$ and the blocks $\{x',a_{r-1}'\}$ and $\{y',a_r'\}$. It is again easy to check that $\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
Here we have $\be = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_{1\pi} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_{r\pi} \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$ for some non-trivial permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $1\pi=r$. Let $\ga\in\B_A$ be any Brauer diagram with codomain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-2}\}$. Then ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\al)=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{r-2}\} \not= \{b_{1\pi},\ldots,b_{(r-2)\pi}\}={\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\be)$, so we have $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$.
Following the development from Section \[subsect:P\], for each even $0\leq q<\xi_\even$, and for each odd $1\leq q<\xi_\odd$, we fix some set $X_q\in\C$ with $n_q=|X_q|\geq q$ and $n_q\equiv q\Mod 2$, and without loss of generality assume that $X_q=[n_q]=\{1,\ldots,n_q\}$. For a permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_q$ we will write $$\pi^\natural = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q \\ \cline{4-6}
1\pi \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q\pi \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in\B_{X_q}.$$ For $\Om\sub{\mathcal{S}}_q$ we write $\Om^\natural=\set{\pi^\natural}{\pi\in\Om}$. Then ${\mathcal{S}}_q^\natural\cong{\mathcal{S}}_q$ is a group ${\mathscr H}$-class of $\B$ contained in $D_q$. As in Section \[subsect:P\], and using the same $\phi(\al,\be)$ notation, we have $$\nu_{N^\natural} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}}{\phi(\al,\be)\in N}$$ for any normal subgroup $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_q$.
We now split considerations into the odd and even parts of $\B$.
Congruences on ideals of $\B$: the odd case {#subsect:Bodd}
-------------------------------------------
Throughout Section \[subsect:Bodd\], we assume that every member of $\C$ has odd cardinality, and we define $\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}$.
As we have already noted, it follows from Lemma \[lem:Green\_B\] that the ideals of $\B=\B(\C)$ are the sets
$I_r=I_r(\B)=\set{\al\in\B}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each odd $1\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om=I_\om(\B)=\B$ in the case that $\xi=\om$.
An ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq3$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N^\natural)$ for odd $1\leq q<r$ and $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+2}$. These yield the congruences $R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}=R_{I_q}^{I_r}\cup\nu_{N^\natural}$, including the Rees congruences $R_{I_q}^{I_r}$ when $N$ is the trivial subgroup. Again, we will often use the abbreviation $R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}=R_N^{I_r}$. Associated to the minimal ideal $I_1$, we have the congruences $R_{I_1}^{I_r}$, $\rho_{I_1}^{I_r}$, $\lam_{I_1}^{I_r}$ and $\mu_{I_1}^{I_r}=\De_{I_r}$. These four congruences, together with the $R_N^{I_r}$ and the full congruence $\nab_{I_r}$, form the lattice shown in Figure \[fig:Bodd\], and we will see soon that these are *all* the congruences on $I_r$ ($r\geq3$).
We begin with two lemmas that will help us deal with congruences on the ideal $I_3$.
\[lem:R\_trick\_Bodd\] For any $\al,\be\in I_3=I_3(\B)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, we have $\rho_{I_1}^{I_3}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_3}$.
Write $\si=\cg\al\be_{I_3}$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\B_{A,B}$. Without loss of generality, we may fix some $(u,v)\in{\operatorname{coker}}(\be){\setminus}{\operatorname{coker}}(\al)$.
First we claim that there exists $(\al',\be')\in\si$ such that $(u,v)\in{\operatorname{coker}}(\be')$, and at least one of $u',v'$ belongs to a lower non-transversal of $\al'$ distinct from $\{u',v'\}$. Indeed, if one of $u,v$ does not belong to ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)$, then we just take $(\al,\be)=(\al',\be')$. So suppose instead that $u,v\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. Let the transversal of $\al$ containing $u'$ be $\{x,u'\}$. We then let $\ga\in\B_A$ be any Brauer partition with ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga)=\{x\}$, and note that $(\al',\be')=(\ga\al,\ga\be)$ satisfies the desired property.
With the claim established, we may assume without loss of generality that $(\al,\be)$ is already such a pair, and that $\{v',w'\}$ is a block of $\al$ for some $w\in B{\setminus}\{u,v\}$. In fact, premultiplying this pair by an arbitrary element of $D_1(\B_A)$, we may assume that $\al,\be\in D_1$.
Now let $(\ga,\de)\in\rho_{I_1}^{I_3}$ be arbitrary, say with $\ga,\de\in\B_{C,D}$. We must show that $(\ga,\de)\in\si$. This is clear if $\ga=\de$, so suppose instead that $\ga,\de\in D_1$ with $(\ga,\de)\in{\mathscr R}$. Then $\de=\ga\pi$ for some $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_D$; cf. Remark \[rem:Green\_B\]. (Note that $\pi$ itself may not belong to the ideal $I_3$.) Since $\pi$ is a product of transpositions, it suffices inductively to assume that $\pi$ is a single transposition, say $(x,y)$, so $\de=\ga(x,y)$. Write $\ga={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
c \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_k \\ \cline{2-4}
d \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
Suppose first that $d$ is one of $x,y$, say $d=x$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $D_1=\{y,z\}$ for some $z$. Let $\ve_1\in\B_{C,A}$ and $\ve_2\in\B_{B,D}$ be any Brauer partitions such that $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\ga)$, and $\ve_2$ contains the blocks $\{u,x'\}$, $\{v,z'\}$, $\{w,y'\}$ and $D_2',\ldots,D_l'$. Then $(\ga,\de)=(\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\si$.
Now suppose $d\not\in\{x,y\}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $x\in D_1$. If also $y\in D_1$, then $\de=\ga$, so there is nothing to prove. Thus, we may assume that $D_1=\{x,s\}$ and $D_2=\{y,t\}$ for some $s,t$. By Case 1, we have $$\big(\ga,\ga(d,x)\big)\in\si \COMMA
\big(\ga(d,x),\ga(d,x)(x,y) \big)\in\si \COMMA
\big(\ga(d,x)(x,y),\ga(d,x)(x,y)(y,d) \big)\in\si.$$ (Informally speaking, note that we are using the result of Case 1 to repeatedly “move around” the bottom part of the transversal until we have moved it back to its original position, and in the process switched $x,y$ as desired.) By transitivity, it follows that $\big(\ga,\ga(d,x)(x,y)(y,d) \big)\in\si$, and we are done, since $\ga(d,x)(x,y)(y,d)=\de$.
\[lem:N\_Bodd\] For every $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_3{\setminus}\{{\operatorname{id}}_3\}$ there exists $\al\in D_1$ such that $\al\pi^\natural\not=\al{\operatorname{id}}_3^\natural$ and $\pi^\natural\al\not={\operatorname{id}}_3^\natural\al$, with all four products defined.
For any $\pi$ except the transposition $(2,3)$, we take $\al={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: 2,3 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_3-1,n_3 \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: 2,3 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_3-1,n_3
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. For $\pi=(2,3)$ we take $\al={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
3 \:&\: 1,2 \:&\: 4,5 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_3-1,n_3 \\ \cline{2-5}
3 \:&\: 1,2 \:&\: 4,5 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_3-1,n_3
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section. For the first part, note that the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in the minimal ideal $I_1=D_1$ are indexed by the possible (co)kernels, each of which is a 2-equivalence on some $A\in\C$. Since $|A|$ is odd for $A\in\C$, each such 2-equivalence has a unique singleton block.
\[thm:Bodd\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of odd cardinality, let $\B=\B(\C)$ be the Brauer category over $\C$, and keep the above notation.
\[cBodd1\] The minimal ideal $I_1$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_2(A))\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_2(A)).$$
\[cBodd2\] For odd $r\geq3$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\{\De_{I_r},\ \lam_{I_1}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_1}^{I_r},\ R_{I_1}^{I_r}\}
\cup\set{R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{1\leq q<r,\ q\text{ odd},\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:Bodd\].
This follows from Proposition \[prop:PRB\], and the above observations about 2-equivalences.
As usual, we just need to prove the result for $r=3$; Theorem \[thm:E2\] and Lemma \[lem:P2B\] will take care of the rest. For $r=3$ we must show that $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_3) = \{\De_{I_3},\ \lam_{I_1}^{I_3},\ \rho_{I_1}^{I_3},\ R_{I_1}^{I_3},\ R_{I_1,\A_3^\natural}^{I_3},\ R_{I_1,{\mathcal{S}}_3^\natural}^{I_3},\ \nab_{I_3}\},$$ and this in fact follows from Proposition \[prop:small01\]. The technical assumptions of that proposition follow from Lemmas \[lem:P2B\]\[P2Bii\], \[lem:R\_trick\_Bodd\] (and its dual), and \[lem:N\_Bodd\].
Congruences on ideals of $\B$: the even case {#subsect:Beven}
--------------------------------------------
Throughout Section \[subsect:Beven\], we assume that each member of $\C$ has even cardinality, and we define $\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}$. This time the ideals of $\B=\B(\C)$ are the sets
$I_r=I_r(\B)=\set{\al\in\B}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each even $0\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om=I_\om(\B)=\B$ in the case that $\xi=\om$.
In contrast with the odd case considered in Section \[subsect:Bodd\], this time the *two* smallest ideals, $I_0$ and $I_2$, of $\B$ will have different behaviour to the larger ideals; compare the first part of Theorem \[thm:Bodd\] with the first two parts of Theorem \[thm:Beven\], and see also Theorem \[thm:P\]. The reason for this is that, as in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 8.2], we have a retraction $$\label{eq:retract_B}
f:I_2\to I_0: \al\mt\wh\al\qquad\text{where}\qquad
\wh\al=\begin{cases}
{
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1,a_2 \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_k \\ \cline{1-4}
b_1,b_2 \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} & \text{if } \al={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: a_2 \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_k \\ \cline{3-5}
b_1 \:&\: b_2 \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in D_2\\
\al & \text{if } \al\in D_0.
\end{cases}$$
An ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq4$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N^\natural)$ for even $0\leq q<r$ and $N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+2}$. These yield the congruences $R_N^{I_r} = R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}=R_{I_q}^{I_r}\cup\nu_{N^\natural}$, including the Rees congruences $R_{I_q}^{I_r}$ for $N=\{{\operatorname{id}}_{q+2}\}$.
As in [@EMRT2018 Lemma 8.3], we also have the following *four* retractable IN-pairs: $$(I_0,\{{\operatorname{id}}_2^\natural\})\COMMA
(I_0,{\mathcal{S}}_2^\natural)\COMMA
(I_2,\{{\operatorname{id}}_4^\natural\})\COMMA
(I_2,K^\natural),$$ where $K=\big\{{{\operatorname{id}}}_4,(1,2)(3,4),(1,3)(2,4),(1,4)(2,3)\big\}\normal {\mathcal{S}}_4$ is the *Klein 4-group*. Each of these retractable IN-pairs yields a family of $R/\lam/\rho/\mu$ congruences, Following the same convention as in Section \[subsect:P\], in the notation for these congruences we will omit $\natural$ and also either the normal subgroup if it is trivial, or else the ideal $I_0$ or $I_2$.
The lattice formed by the above congruences together with $\nab_{I_r}$ is pictured in Figure \[fig:Beven\]. Again, our goal is to show that these are *all* the congruences on $I_r$ ($r\geq4$). To achieve this goal, we first need two technical lemmas, both to help with the $r=4$ case. The first refers to the relation ${\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, where $f$ is the retraction , so $${\mathscr L}f^{-1} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in I_2\times I_2}{(\wh\al,\wh\be)\in{\mathscr L}}.$$
\[lem:R\_trick\_Beven\] For any $\al,\be\in I_4=I_4(\B)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}\cup{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, we have ${\rho_{I_0}^{I_4}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_4}}$.
Write $\si=\cg\al\be_{I_4}$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\B_{A,B}$. We consider two cases.
Suppose first that there exist distinct $u,v,w\in B$ such that $\al$ and $\be$ contain the blocks $\{u',v'\}$ and $\{v',w'\}$, respectively.
Suppose $\ga={
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_k \\ \cline{1-3}
D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in D_0$, say with $\ga\in\B_{C,D}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Bodd\], it suffices to show that $(\ga,\ga\pi)\in\si$ for any transposition $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_D$, say $\pi=(x,y)$. If $x',y'$ belong to the same block of $\ga$, then $\ga=\ga\pi$, so there is nothing to show. Thus, we assume that $D_1=\{x,s\}$ and $D_2=\{y,t\}$ for some $s,t$. Let $\ve_1\in\B_{C,A}$ and $\ve_2\in\B_{B,D}$ be any Brauer partitions such that $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\ga)$, and $\ve_2$ contains the blocks $\{u,x'\}$, $\{v,s'\}$, $\{w,y'\}$ and $D_3,\ldots,D_l$. Then $(\ga,\ga\pi)=(\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\si$.
Now suppose we are not in Case 1. This means that: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\text{for every lower non-transversal $\{u',v'\}$ of $\al$, }\\
\label{eq:R_trick_Beven} &\text{either $\{u',v'\}$ is also a block of $\be$ or else ${u,v\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)}$,}\end{aligned}$$ with a symmetrical statement for the lower non-transversals of $\be$.
If we had $\al,\be\in I_2$, then would imply ${\operatorname{coker}}(\wh\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\wh\be)$, and so $(\wh\al,\wh\be)\in{\mathscr L}$, contrary to our assumption that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$. So without loss of generality, we assume that ${\al\in D_4}$. Let the transversals of $\al$ be $\{a_i,b_i'\}$, $i=1,2,3,4$. If ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$, then would give ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, whence $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}$, a contradiction. So we may assume that ${b_1\not\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)}$; together with , we may further assume that $\be$ contains the block $\{b_1',b_2'\}$. Choose any $\ga\in D_0(\B_A)$ containing the block $\{a_2',a_3'\}$, and put $(\al',\be')=(\ga\al,\ga\be)\in\si$. Then $\{b_1',b_2'\}$ and $\{b_2',b_3'\}$ are blocks of $\be'$ and $\al'$, respectively, so we have reduced to Case 1.
\[lem:N\_Beven\] For every $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_4{\setminus}K$ there exists $\al\in D_0$ such that $\al\pi^\natural\not=\al{\operatorname{id}}_4^\natural$ and $\pi^\natural\al\not={\operatorname{id}}_4^\natural\al$, with all four products defined.
If $\pi$ is one of $(1,2)$, $(3,4)$, $(1,3,2,4)$ or $(1,4,2,3)$, we take $\al={
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1,4 \:&\: 2,3 \:&\: 4,5 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_4-1,4_3 \\ \cline{1-5}
1,4 \:&\: 2,3 \:&\: 4,5 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_4-1,4_3
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. Otherwise we take $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1,2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_4-1,n_4 \\ \cline{3-3}
1,2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_4-1,n_4
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
We may now prove the main result of this section. The first part again involves 2-equivalences.
\[thm:Beven\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of even cardinality, let $\B=\B(\C)$ be the Brauer category over $\C$, and keep the above notation.
\[cBeven1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_2(A))\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\Eq_2(A)).$$
\[cBeven2\] The ideal $I_2$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_2$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)=\bigset{\tau\cup\nu_N^\natural}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0),\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_2} \cup \bigset{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_1}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\bthree$.
\[cBeven3\] For even $r\geq4$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\set{\mu_{I_0,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_0,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_0,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_0,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_2} \\[3truemm]
{}\cup\set{\mu_{I_2,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_2,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_2,N^\natural}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_2,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{N=\{{\operatorname{id}}_4\}\text{ or }N=K} \\[3truemm]
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad {}\cup\set{&R_{I_q,N^\natural}^{I_r}}{2\leq q<r,\ q\text{ even},\ N\normal{\mathcal{S}}_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:Beven\].
Parts \[cBeven1\] and \[cBeven2\] again follow from Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small\_ideal\]. This leaves us to prove \[cBeven3\], and as usual it suffices (by Theorem \[thm:E2\] and Lemma \[lem:P2B\]) to consider the case $r=4$. But this follows from Proposition \[prop:small012\], whose technical assumptions follow from Lemmas \[lem:P2B\], \[lem:R\_trick\_Beven\] (and its dual) and \[lem:N\_Beven\].
\[rem:Beven\] Figure \[fig:B4\] pictures the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ in the case that $\C$ consists of a single set of size $4$, produced with the aid of GAP [@GAP4; @GAP]. Here $\B=\B_4$ is just the Brauer monoid of degree $4$. By Theorem \[thm:Beven\]\[cBeven2\], this lattice is essentially three copies of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$. By Theorem \[thm:Beven\]\[cBeven1\], the latter is isomorphic to $\Eq_3\times\Eq_3$, since there are precisely three 2-equivalences on a set of size $4$.
Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{} [(Ł) at (,2\*) ;]{} in [a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y]{} [()-++(-16,4);]{} in [b,c,d,e,f,g]{} [(a)–();]{} in [h,i,j,k]{} [(b)–();]{} in [k,l,m,n]{} [(c)–();]{} in [h,l,o,p]{} [(d)–();]{} in [i,m,o,q]{} [(e)–();]{} in [j,n,o,r]{} [(f)–();]{} in [k,p,q,r]{} [(g)–();]{} in [s,t]{} [(h)–();]{} in [s,u]{} [(i)–();]{} in [s,v]{} [(j)–();]{} in [t,u,v]{} [(k)–();]{} in [t,w]{} [(l)–();]{} in [u,w]{} [(m)–();]{} in [v,w]{} [(n)–();]{} in [s,w,x]{} [(o)–();]{} in [t,x]{} [(p)–();]{} in [u,x]{} [(q)–();]{} in [v,x]{} [(r)–();]{} in [s,t,u,v,w,x]{} [(y)–();]{} Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{} /in [2.5/0,6.5/4]{}
Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{} [(Ł) at (,2\*) ;]{} in [b,c,d,e,f,g]{} [(a)–();]{} in [h,i,j,k]{} [(b)–();]{} in [k,l,m,n]{} [(c)–();]{} in [h,l,o,p]{} [(d)–();]{} in [i,m,o,q]{} [(e)–();]{} in [j,n,o,r]{} [(f)–();]{} in [k,p,q,r]{} [(g)–();]{} in [s,t]{} [(h)–();]{} in [s,u]{} [(i)–();]{} in [s,v]{} [(j)–();]{} in [t,u,v]{} [(k)–();]{} in [t,w]{} [(l)–();]{} in [u,w]{} [(m)–();]{} in [v,w]{} [(n)–();]{} in [s,w,x]{} [(o)–();]{} in [t,x]{} [(p)–();]{} in [u,x]{} [(q)–();]{} in [v,x]{} [(r)–();]{} in [s,t,u,v,w,x]{} [(y)–();]{} Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{}
Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{} [(Ł) at (,2\*) ;]{} in [b,c,d,e,f,g]{} [(a)–();]{} in [h,i,j,k]{} [(b)–();]{} in [k,l,m,n]{} [(c)–();]{} in [h,l,o,p]{} [(d)–();]{} in [i,m,o,q]{} [(e)–();]{} in [j,n,o,r]{} [(f)–();]{} in [k,p,q,r]{} [(g)–();]{} in [s,t]{} [(h)–();]{} in [s,u]{} [(i)–();]{} in [s,v]{} [(j)–();]{} in [t,u,v]{} [(k)–();]{} in [t,w]{} [(l)–();]{} in [u,w]{} [(m)–();]{} in [v,w]{} [(n)–();]{} in [s,w,x]{} [(o)–();]{} in [t,x]{} [(p)–();]{} in [u,x]{} [(q)–();]{} in [v,x]{} [(r)–();]{} in [s,t,u,v,w,x]{} [(y)–();]{} Ł//in [ a/2.5/0, b/1/1, c/2/1, d/3/1, e/4/1, f/5/1, g/6/1, h/0/2, i/1/2, j/2/2, k/3/2, l/4/2, m/5/2, n/6/2, o/7/2, p/8/2, q/9/2, r/10/2, s/4/3, t/5/3, u/6/3, v/7/3, w/8/3, x/9/3, y/6.5/4 ]{} /in [6.5/4]{}
Planar and annular reducts of $\B$ {#subsect:QB}
----------------------------------
In Section \[subsect:QP\] we considered subcategories of ${\mathcal P}$ consisting of (anti-)planar and (anti-)annular partitions. We will soon consider the corresponding subcategories of the Brauer category ${\B=\B(\C)}$, namely:
$\OrdP\B$, the category of planar Brauer partitions,
$\OrdPR\B$, the category of planar and anti-planar Brauer partitions,
$\OriP\B$, the category of annular Brauer partitions,
$\OriPR\B$, the category of annular and anti-annular Brauer partitions. The category $\OrdP\B$ is the *Temperley–Lieb category*, which is usually denoted $\TL$. We call the category $\OriP\B$ the *Jones category*, and denote it ${\mathcal{J}}$, in light of the corresponding algebras named after Jones [@Jones2001; @Jones1994_a]; cf. [@GL1996; @ADV2012_2]. (But note that the Temperley–Lieb monoids $\TL_n$ are often called Jones monoids and denoted ${\mathcal{J}}_n$; see for example [@EMRT2018 Section 9], and also [@LF2006; @BDP2002] for a discussion of naming conventions.) We call $\OrdPR\B$ and $\OriPR\B$ the *anti-Temperley–Lieb* and *anti-Jones categories*, respectively, and we will denote them by $\TLpm$ and $\Jpm$.
Unlike the situation with ${\mathcal P}$ in Section \[subsect:QP\], it is not simply a matter of modifying the above arguments for $\B$ to immediately describe the congruences on the ideals of its planar and annular reducts. The reason for this is that the customary verification of the multiplication and separation properties requires a fairly fine geometrical analysis. Thus, we treat the planar reducts in Section \[sect:TL\], and the annular reducts in Section \[sect:J\]. Before we do, however, note that these subcategories are all closed under the $\al\mt\al^*$ map, so again Green’s relations are simply inherited from $\B$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:Green\_B\]), although group ${\mathscr H}$-classes need to be described separately:
\[lem:Green\_QB\] Let $\Q$ be any of $\TL$, $\TLpm$, ${\mathcal{J}}$ or $\Jpm$.
\[GQB1\] For $\al,\be\in\Q$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff \ker(\al)=\ker(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff {\operatorname{coker}}(\al)={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GQB2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of $\Q$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q(\Q) = \set{\al\in\Q}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each even $0\leq q<\xi_\even$, and each odd $1\leq q<\xi_\odd$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a pair of chains: $D_0<D_2<\cdots$ and $D_1<D_3<\cdots$.
\[GQB4\] Apart from trivial exceptions for small $q$, the ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is:
trivial when $\Q=\TL$,
cyclic of order $2$ when $\Q=\TLpm$,
cyclic of order $q$ when $\Q={\mathcal{J}}$,
dihedral of order $2q$ when $\Q=\Jpm$.
If $\Q$ is any of the above subcategories of $\B$, we define the sets
$I_r = I_r(\Q) = \set{\al\in\Q}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r, \ {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\text{ is even}}$ for even $0\leq r<\xi_\even$,
$I_r = I_r(\Q) = \set{\al\in\Q}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r, \ {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\text{ is odd}}$ for odd $1\leq r<\xi_\odd$. Again, these may be used to describe all the ideals of $\Q$, as in Section \[subsect:defnB\].
Temperley–Lieb and anti-Temperley–Lieb categories {#sect:TL}
=================================================
Throughout Section \[sect:TL\], we fix a non-empty set $\C$ of finite sets, and denote by $\TL=\TL(\C)$ and $\TLpm=\TLpm(\C)$ the Temperley–Lieb and anti-Temperley–Lieb categories, as defined in Section \[subsect:QB\]. We often let $\Q$ stand for either of these two categories. We keep the notational conventions of Sections \[sect:P\] and \[sect:B\]. This includes the permutations $\ga_A\in{\mathcal{S}}_A$ ($A\in\C$), as in .
Just as was the case with the Brauer category $\B$, we have $\Q=\Q(\C_\even)\sqcup\Q(\C_\odd)$, and the ideals of $\Q$ similarly decompose into even and odd parts. It is therefore again sufficient to consider separate cases where the members of $\C$ all have even size, or all odd size. In the odd case we treat $\TL$ and $\TLpm$ simultaneously (Section \[subsect:TLodd\]), but in the even case we have to separate them (Sections \[subsect:TLeven\] and \[subsect:TLpmeven\]).
Since we will often be proving results for $\TL$ and $\TLpm$ at the same time, we will need to be careful that any partitions constructed during proofs belong to $\TL$. As noted in [@EMRT2018 Section 9], the planarity constraint leads to some important points regarding parity. Let $A\in\C$ and write $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}$. By the *parity* of $a_i$, we mean the parity of $i$; so $a_1$ is odd, $a_2$ is even, and so on.
Consider some $\al\in\TL$, and write $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$ with $a_1<\cdots<a_r$. Then we also have $b_1<\cdots<b_r$, and moreover the parities of $a_1,a_2,a_3,\ldots$ and $b_1,b_2,b_3,\ldots$ alternate: odd, even, odd, and so on. For any non-transversal $\{x,y\}$ or $\{x',y'\}$ of $\al$, one of $x,y$ is odd and the other even. If $A,B\in\C$ are such that $|A|$ and $|B|$ have the same parity, and if we have some collection of pairwise-disjoint edges between vertices from $A\cup B'$ that may be drawn in planar fashion (within the rectangle determined by the vertices), and obey the above parity conditions, then it is always possible to extend these edges to a Temperley–Lieb partition from $\TL_{A,B}$.
If $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}\in\TL^-$ with $a_1<\cdots<a_r$, then we have $b_1>\cdots>b_r$. The parities of $b_1,b_2,b_3,\ldots$ still alternate, but $b_1$ can be even or odd, as $b_1\equiv r\Mod2$.
Multiplicative properties in $\TL$ and $\TLpm$
----------------------------------------------
Throughout this section, $\Q$ denotes either of $\TL$ or $\TLpm$. Before we begin, we require the following lemma from [@EMRT2018], concerning Temperley–Lieb *monoids* $\TL_A$. For the statement, and for later use, recall from [@NS1978] that an element $x$ of a regular $*$-semigroup is a *projection* if $x^2=x=x^*$. It is easy to see that the projections of $\TL$ are of the form ${
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_q \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_r \\ \cline{4-6}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_q \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_r
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. Also, since the product of two (anti-)planar partitions is planar, it quickly follows that every idempotent (and hence every projection) from $\TLpm$ belongs to $\TL$.
\[lem:TL\_proj\] Let $\al,\be$ be distinct projections from $\TL_A$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)\geq2$. Then there exists $\ga\in D_r(\TL_A)$ such that, renaming if necessary, $\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
Actually, [@EMRT2018 Lemma 9.19] demonstrates the existence of a projection $\ga\in D_r(\TL_A)$ such that, renaming if necessary $\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-2}$. But $\ga\al = \ga^*\al^* = (\al\ga)^* \mathrel{\mathscr J}\al\ga$, so that $\ga\al\in D_r$, and similarly $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
Following the established pattern, we prove the following technical lemma, which will be used to prove the relevant multiplication/separation properties. Note that part \[P2TLiii\] is vacuously true when $\Q=\TL$.
\[lem:P2TL\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2TLi\] If $r\geq3$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2TLii\] If $q=r\geq2$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that, renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-2}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}]$.}$$
\[P2TLiii\] If $r\geq3$ and $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
Write $\al = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$, where $a_1<\cdots<a_r$. Put $\be'=\al\al^*\be\in\Q_{A,B}$, and note that $\be'$ belongs to $I_{r-2}$ (since $\be$ does). If $\be'\in I_{r-4}$, then we may take $\ga=\de\al\al^*$, for any $\de\in\TL_A$ with codomain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-2}\}$. (Since $\al\al^*\in\TL$, we have $\ga\in\TL$.)
Suppose from now on that $\be'\in D_{r-2}$. Define the set $Q={\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\cap{\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$, noting that $|Q|\leq|{{\operatorname{codom}}(\be')}|={\operatorname{rank}}(\be')=r-2$. If $|Q|=r-2$, then $Q={\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$, so we cannot have $Q=\{b_2,\ldots,b_{r-1}\}$, because $b_2$ is even. It follows that, regardless of the size of $Q$, there exists $2\leq i\leq r-1$ such that $b_i\not\in Q$. Let the block of $\be'$ containing $b_i'$ be $\{b_i',x'\}$. Let $j\in\{i+1,i-1\}$ be such that $x\not=b_j$. Let $\ga=\de\al\al^*$, for any $\de\in\TL_A$ with codomain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}{\setminus}\{a_i,a_j\}$ and containing the block $\{a_i',a_j'\}$. Then $\ga\be=\de\be'\in I_{r-2}$ has the block $\{b_i',x'\}$, but $\ga\al=\de\al\in D_{r-2}$ has the block $\{b_i',b_j'\}$; since $b_j\not=x$, it follows that ${\operatorname{coker}}(\ga\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\ga\be)$, whence $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, and so $\ga\be\not\in H_{\ga\al}$.
By symmetry we may assume that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$. Let $\al'=\al\al^*$ and $\be'=\be\be^*$. Note that $\al'$ and $\be'$ are projections in the Temperley–Lieb monoid $\TL_A$ (whether $\al,\be$ are planar or anti-planar). Since $(\al,\al')\in{\mathscr R}$ and $(\be,\be')\in{\mathscr R}$, but $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, we must have $\al'\not=\be'$. We also have ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al')={\operatorname{rank}}(\be')=r\geq2$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:TL\_proj\] that there exists $\ga\in D_r(\TL_A)$ such that, renaming if necessary, $\ga\al'\in D_r$ and $\ga\be'\in I_{r-2}$. Since $(\ga\al,\ga\al')\in{\mathscr R}\sub{\mathscr J}$, we have $\ga\al\in D_r$. Similarly, $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
The proof here is virtually identical to that of Lemma \[lem:P2B\]\[P2Biii\]. Here we assume that ${a_1<\cdots<a_r}$; the permutation $\pi\in{\mathcal{S}}_r$ then must in fact be $\ga_{[r]}=(1,r)(2,r-1)\cdots$, so that we *must* have $1\pi=r$. We then make sure we choose $\ga$ to belong to $\TL$.
Congruences on ideals of $\TL$ and $\TLpm$: the odd case {#subsect:TLodd}
--------------------------------------------------------
For the duration of Section \[subsect:TLodd\], we assume that every member of $\C$ has odd cardinality, write $\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}$, and let $\Q$ stand for either $\TL$ or $\TLpm$. We follow the established procedure to find the congruences on $\Q$ and its ideals. The brunt of the work goes into enabling an application of Proposition \[prop:small01\], which is achieved in Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\]. The proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\] is modelled on that of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Bodd\] concerning the Brauer category $\B$. Several steps of the proof require a much more subtle argument due to planarity constraints, hence the need for the next two technical lemmas.
\[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd2\] Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on $I_3=I_3(\Q)$. If there exists a pair $(\al,\be)\in\si$ with ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, then there exists $(\al',\be')\in\si$ with $\al',\be'\in D_1$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al')\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$.
Let $(\al,\be)\in\si$ be such a pair, say with $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$. For convenience, we may assume without loss of generality that $B=[k]$ for some $k\geq 3$.
Suppose there exists some odd $u\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\al){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. Then $\al$ has a block $\{x,u'\}$ for some $x\in A$, and $\be$ has a block $\{u',y'\}$ for some $y\in B{\setminus}\{u\}$. We then take $(\al',\be')=(\ga\al,\ga\be)$ for any $\ga\in\TL_A$ with ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga)=\{x\}$. (Here we have $u\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\al'){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$, and clearly $\al',\be'\in D_1$.)
Suppose we are not in Case 1, but that there exists some even $v\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\al){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. Since there is an even element of ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)$, and since ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq3$, we must in fact have ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=3$, so we may write ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)=\{u<v<w\}$, where $u$ and $w$ are odd. Since we are not in Case 1, we have $u,w\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$ but, by assumption, $v\not\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. So $\be$ contains a block of the form $\{v',t'\}$ for some $t\in B{\setminus}\{u,v,w\}$; by planarity (of $\be$ or $\ga_A\be$) we have $u<t<w$, and we note that $t$ is odd (as $v$ is even).
If $v<t$, we take $(\al'',\be'')=(\al\ga,\be\ga)$ for any $\ga\in I_3(\TL_B)$ with transversals $\{u,u'\}$, $\{v,v'\}$ and $\{t,t'\}$. Then ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al'')=\{u,v,t\}$ yet $\{v',t'\}$ is a block of $\be''$. So $(\al'',\be'')\in\si$ satisfies the assumptions of Case 1 ($t\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\al''){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\be'')$ is odd), and we have reduced to that case.
If $v>t$, we take $(\al'',\be'')=(\al\ga,\be\ga)$ for any $\ga\in I_3(\TL_B)$ with transversals $\{t,t'\}$, $\{v,v'\}$ and $\{w,w'\}$. Again, $(\al'',\be'')\in\si$ satisfies the assumptions of Case 1.
We have now dealt with the case in which ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not\sub{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. The ${\operatorname{codom}}(\be)\not\sub{\operatorname{codom}}(\al)$ case is dual.
Now suppose ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$. If necessary (and without causing cokernels to become equal), we first pre-multiply by an arbitrary element of $D_1(\TL_A)$, so we may assume that $\al,\be\in D_1$, say with ${{\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)=\{x\}}$. By assumption, some lower non-transversal of $\al$ is not a block of $\be$. By planarity, this non-transversal of $\al$ is contained in either ${\{1',\ldots,(x-1)'\}}$ or $\{(x+1)',\ldots,k'\}$. These cases have left-right symmetry, so without loss of generality we assume the former is the case.
Let $u$ be the minimum element of $B$ such that the block of $\al$ containing $u'$ is not equal to the block of $\be$ containing $u'$. By assumption, $u<x$. Let the blocks of $\al$ and $\be$ containing $u'$ be $\{u',v'\}$ and $\{u',w'\}$, respectively. By minimality of $u$ we have $u<v$ and $u<w$; by symmetry, we may assume that $v<w$.
If $u$ is odd, then we take $(\al',\be')=(\al\ga,\be\ga)$ for any $\ga\in D_3(\TL_B)$ containing the blocks $\{u,u'\}$, $\{v,v'\}$, $\{v+1,(v+1)'\}$ and $\{w,x\}$. Then $u\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\be'){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\al')$.
Now suppose $u$ is even. Let $U=\{1,\ldots,u-1\}$, and let $A_1',\ldots,A_p'$ be all of the lower non-transversals of $\al$ contained in $U'$. These involve $p$ even and $p$ odd elements of $U$. Since $|U|=u-1$ is odd, $U$ contains more odd elements than even elements, so there exists some odd $s\in U{\setminus}(A_1\cup\cdots\cup A_p)$. Then $\al$ contains the block $\{s',t'\}$ for some $t$, and by definition of the $A_i$, we have $t>u$. Since $s<u$, minimality of $u$ ensures that $\{s',t'\}$ is a block of $\be$ as well; since $\{u',w'\}$ is a block of $\be$, planarity gives $t>w$. We then take $(\al',\be')=(\al\ga,\be\ga)$ for any $\ga\in D_3(\TL_B)$ containing the blocks $\{v,v'\}$, $\{v+1,(v+1)'\}$, $\{w,w'\}$, $\{s,u\}$ and $\{t,x\}$. Then ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al')=\{v\}\not=\{w\}={\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$.
The next lemma will be used frequently in the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\]. The partitions $\ga$ and $\de$ from the statement are shown in Figure \[fig:R\_trick\_TLodd2\].
\[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd4\] Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on $I_3=I_3(\Q)$, and suppose there exists a pair $(\al,\be)\in\si$ with ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$. Suppose $\ga,\de\in D_1(\TL_{A,B})$ are given by $$\ga = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: A_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
v \:&\: x,y \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND \de = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: A_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
y \:&\: v,x \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
},$$ where $v<x<y$ and $x$ is even, and where $\{x',y'\}$and $\{v',x'\}$ are un-nested in $\ga$ and $\de$, respectively. Then $(\ga,\de)\in\si$.
By Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd2\] we may assume that $\al,\be\in D_1$ and $\{a\}={\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$, say with $\al,\be\in\TL_{C,D}$. As before, we may assume without loss of generality that $D=[k]$ for some $k$. So $\be$ has a block $\{a',b'\}$ for some $b$; since $a$ is odd, $b$ is even; the latter gives $1<b<k$ (since $k=|D|$ is odd).
If $a<b$, then let $\ve_2\in D_3(\TL_{D,B})$ be any Temperley–Lieb partition with the blocks $\{a,v'\}$, $\{b,x'\}$, $\{k,y'\}$ and $B_2',\ldots,B_t'$, and put $(\al',\be')=(\al\ve_2,\be\ve_2)\in\si$.
If $a>b$, then let $\ve_2\in D_3(\TL_{D,B})$ be any Temperley–Lieb partition with the blocks $\{1,v'\}$, $\{b,x'\}$, $\{a,y'\}$ and $B_2',\ldots,B_t'$, and put $(\al',\be')=(\be\ve_2,\al\ve_2)\in\si$. In either case, $(\ga,\de)=(\ve_1\al',\ve_1\be')\in\si$ for any $\ve_1\in\TL_{A,C}$ with $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\ga)$.
8[12]{}[.8]{} 95 18[.3]{} 14[.3]{} 67[.3]{} 9[11]{}[.3]{} (.6,1)node\[left\][$\ga=$]{}; [[in [9]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [5,8,12]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (9,2.5)node[$u$]{}; (5,-.5)node[$v'$]{}; (8,-.5)node[$x'$]{}; (12,-.5)node[$y'$]{};
58[.8]{} 9[12]{} 18[.3]{} 14[.3]{} 67[.3]{} 9[11]{}[.3]{} (.6,1)node\[left\][$\de=$]{}; [[in [9]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [5,8,12]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (9,2.5)node[$u$]{}; (5,-.5)node[$v'$]{}; (8,-.5)node[$x'$]{}; (12,-.5)node[$y'$]{};
\[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\] For any $\al,\be\in I_3=I_3(\Q)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, we have $\rho_{I_1}^{I_3}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_3}$.
Write $\si=\cg\al\be_{I_3}$. Since ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, note that Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd4\] applies to $\si$. For each positive integer $i$, write $H_i=\{2i,2i+1\}$.
Let $(\ga,\de)\in\rho_{I_1}^{I_3}$ be arbitrary, say with $\ga,\de\in\TL_{A,B}$. We must show that $(\ga,\de)\in\si$. This is clear if $\ga=\de$, so suppose instead that $\ga,\de\in D_1$ and $(\ga,\de)\in{\mathscr R}$. Then we may write ${\ga={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
v \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}}$ and $\de={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
w \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that $(\ga,\ve)\in\si$, where ${\ve={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}}$, because by symmetry we will also have $(\de,\ve)\in\si$.
To show that $(\ga,\ve)\in\si$, we show by induction that for each $0\leq i\leq t$, we have $(\ga,\ve_i)\in\si$ for some $\ve_i$ with codomain $\{1\}$ and the blocks $A_1,\ldots,A_s$ and $H_1',\ldots,H_i'$. Taking $i=t$ will give the desired result.
For $i=0$, we take $\ve_0=\ga$ if $v=1$. Otherwise, we may assume that $B_1=\{1,p\}$, and we note that $1<p<v$ and $p$ is even. By Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd4\], we have $$\ga = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: A_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
v \:&\: 1,p \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \mathrel\si {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: A_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
1 \:&\: p,v \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
},$$ so we take $\ve_0$ to be the latter partition.
Now let $1\leq i\leq t$, and suppose $(\ga,\ve_{i-1})\in\si$ for some $\ve_{i-1}$ with codomain $\{1\}$ and the blocks $A_1,\ldots,A_s$ and $H_1',\ldots,H_{i-1}'$. Let the other ${\operatorname{coker}}(\ve_{i-1})$-classes be $K_i,\ldots,K_t$, where $2i\in K_i$. If $K_i=H_i$, then we take $\ve_i=\ve_{i-1}$, so suppose otherwise. Then $K_i=\{2i,q\}$ for some $q>2i+1$, and we may assume that $K_{i+1}=\{2i+1,p\}$ for some $p<q$. Note that $1<2i<2i+1<p<q$, and that $p$ is even and $q$ odd. Several applications of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd4\] gives the following, with each step shown in Figure \[fig:ve’\]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \ga \mathrel\si \ve_{i-1} &= \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-9}
1 \:&\: 2i,q \:&\: 2i+1,p \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_{i-1} \:&\: K_{i+2} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: K_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)\\[2truemm]
\nonumber &\hspace{0.7mm}\mathrel\si \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-9}
q \:&\: 1,2i \:&\: 2i+1,p \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_{i-1} \:&\: K_{i+2} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: K_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)\\[2truemm]
\nonumber &\hspace{0.7mm}\mathrel\si \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-9}
2i+1 \:&\: 1,2i \:&\: p,q \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_{i-1} \:&\: K_{i+2} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: K_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)\\[2truemm]
\nonumber &\hspace{0.7mm}\mathrel\si \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-9}
1 \:&\: 2i,2i+1 \:&\: p,q \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_{i-1} \:&\: K_{i+2} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: K_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big) \\[2truemm]
\label{eq:ve'}
&= \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-9}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_{i-1} \:&\: H_i \:&\: p,q \:&\: K_{i+2} \:&\: \cdots \:&\: K_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big).\end{aligned}$$
Taking $\ve_i$ to be this last partition, this completes the inductive step, and indeed of the lemma.
6[10]{}[.6]{} 5[15]{}[1.2]{} 7[-1]{} 6[.3]{} 8[18]{}[.3]{} 04[.3]{} 79[.3]{} (-2,1.5)node\[left\][$\ve_{i-1}\ \ \ =$]{}; [[in [7]{} [ [(,3)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [-1,5,6,10,15]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{}
6[10]{}[.8]{} 5[.8]{} 7[15]{} 6[.3]{} 8[18]{}[.3]{} 04[.3]{} 79[.3]{} (-2,1.5)node\[left\][$\si$]{}; [[in [7]{} [ [(,3)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [-1,5,6,10,15]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{}
[(10,0)arc(180:90:.8) (10+.8,.8)–(15-.8,.8) (15-.8,.8) arc(90:0:.8);]{} 5[.8]{} 76 6[.3]{} 8[18]{}[.3]{} 04[.3]{} 79[.3]{} (-2,1.5)node\[left\][$\si$]{}; [[in [7]{} [ [(,3)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [-1,5,6,10,15]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{}
[(10,0)arc(180:90:.8) (10+.8,.8)–(15-.8,.8) (15-.8,.8) arc(90:0:.8);]{} 56[.5]{} 7[-1]{} 6[.3]{} 8[18]{}[.3]{} 04[.3]{} 79[.3]{} (-2,1.5)node\[left\][$\si$]{}; [[in [7]{} [ [(,3)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [-1,5,6,10,15]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (5.9,.9)node[$H_i'$]{}; (24,1.5)node\[right\][$=\ \ \ \ve_i$]{};
We may now prove the main result of this section. For part \[cTLodd1\], note that ${I_1(\TLpm)=I_1(\TL)}$. Also, the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $I_1$ are indexed by the allowable (co)kernels; by Lemma \[lem:PEqA\], such (co)kernels are planar, and they must in fact be 2-equivalences (with a unique singleton block). However, not every planar 2-equivalence arises as a (co)kernel of an element of $I_1$; indeed, the singleton block corresponds to a transversal, and so must not be nested by any of the blocks of size $2$. For the next statement, if $A\in\C$, we will write $\OrdPP{\Eq_2(A)}$ for the set of all planar 2-equivalences on $A$ in which the unique singleton block is un-nested.
\[thm:TLodd\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of odd cardinality, let $\Q$ be either the Temperley–Lieb category $\TL=\TL(\C)$ or the anti-Temperley–Lieb category $\TLpm=\TLpm(\C)$, and keep the above notation.
\[cTLodd1\] The minimal ideal $I_1$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdPP{\Eq_2(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdPP{\Eq_2(A)}).$$
\[cTLodd2\] For odd $r\geq3$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \{\De_{I_r},\ \lam_{I_1}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_1}^{I_r},\ R_{I_1}^{I_r}\}
\cup\set{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{1\leq q<r,\ q\text{ odd},\ N\normal\G_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:TL\].
Part \[cTLodd1\] follows from Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. For part \[cTLodd2\], it suffices as usual (by Theorem \[thm:E2\] and Lemma \[lem:P2TL\]) to show that the result holds for $r=3$. This follows from Proposition \[prop:small01\], the technical assumptions of which follow from Lemmas \[lem:P2TL\]\[P2TLii\], \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\] (and its dual) and \[lem:N\_Bodd\]. (It should be noted that Lemma \[lem:N\_Bodd\] concerned the Brauer category $\B$, but all partitions constructed during its proof were from $\TL$.)
(0,2)–(0,2.001); (0,3)–(0,3.001) (0,4)–(0,4.001) (0,6)–(0,6.001) ; (0,2)–(1,1)–(0,0)–(-1,1)–(0,2)–(0,4.5) (0,5.5)–(0,7); (0,4.5)–(0,5.5); /in [1/1,-1/1]{} in [0,2,3,4,6,7]{}
(0,2)–(0,3); (0,4)–(0,5) (0,6)–(0,7) (0,9)–(0,10) ; (0,2)–(1,1)–(0,0)–(-1,1)–(0,2)–(0,7.5) (0,8.5)–(0,11); (0,7.5)–(0,8.5); /in [1/1,-1/1]{} in [3,5,7,10]{} in [0,2,4,6,9,11]{}
/in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(1+,1+)–(1+,1.001+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(0+,2+)–(0+,2.001+);]{} (0,3)–(0,3.001) (0,5)–(0,5.001) ; (0,2)–(1,1)–(0,0)–(-1,1)–(0,2)–(0,3.5) (0,4.5)–(0,6); (0,3.5)–(0,4.5); (0,-1)–(1,0)–(0,1)–(-1,0)–(0,-1); (0,-1)–(0,0) (0,1)–(0,2) (1,0)–(1,1) (-1,0)–(-1,1); /in [-1/0,-1/1,0/0,0/1,1/0]{} in [-1,2,3,5,6]{} /in [1/1]{}
/in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(2+,3+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(1+,4+)–(0+,5+);]{} (0,6)–(0,7) (0,9)–(0,10) ; in [0,1,2,3]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (0,5)–(0,7.5) (0,8.5)–(0,11); (0,7.5)–(0,8.5); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(-1+,3+);]{} in [1,2,3]{} in [7,10]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2,-1/3,-1/4,0/4,0/5]{} in [6,9,11]{} [0[black]{}]{} /in [3/2,1/4,2/0]{}
Congruences on ideals of $\TL$: the even case {#subsect:TLeven}
---------------------------------------------
We may very quickly describe the congruences on ideals of $\TL$ in the case in which every member of $\C$ has even size. The reason for this is that $\TL(\C)$ is then isomorphic to an ordinary planar partition category $\OrdP{{\mathcal P}(\C')}$ over a different collection $\C'$; cf. [@HR2005 Section 1].
In this paragraph, $\C$ will be an arbitrary set of finite sets (of even and/or odd size). For $A\in\C$, we define $2A=A\times\{1,2\}$, and we also write $2\C=\set{2A}{A\in\C}$. Given a planar partition $\al$ from $\OrdP{{\mathcal P}_{A,B}}$, we “trace around” the edges of a canonical graph representing $\al$ (see [@EMRT2018 Lemma 7.1]) to construct a Temperley–Lieb partition ${\widetilde{\al}}$ from $\TL_{2A,2B}$, as shown in Figure \[fig:TLiso\]. The map $\al\mt{\widetilde{\al}}$ is then an isomorphism $\OrdP{{\mathcal P}(\C)}\to\TL(2\C)$.
[(1.25,2)arc(180:270:.65) (1.25+.65,2-.65)–(3.75-.65,2-.65) (3.75-.65,2-.65) arc(270:360:.65);]{} [(1.75,2)arc(180:270:.5) (1.75+.5,2-.5)–(3.25-.5,2-.5) (3.25-.5,2-.5) arc(270:360:.5);]{} [(2.25,2)arc(180:270:.2) (2.25+.2,2-.2)–(2.75-.2,2-.2) (2.75-.2,2-.2) arc(270:360:.2);]{} [(4.75,2)arc(180:270:.2) (4.75+.2,2-.2)–(5.25-.2,2-.2) (5.25-.2,2-.2) arc(270:360:.2);]{} 14[.8]{} 23[.35]{} [(2.75,0)arc(180:90:.2) (2.75+.2,.2)–(3.25-.2,.2) (3.25-.2,.2) arc(90:0:.2);]{} [(1.25,0)arc(180:90:.2) (1.25+.2,.2)–(1.75-.2,.2) (1.75-.2,.2) arc(90:0:.2);]{} [(5.25,0)arc(180:90:.2) (5.25+.2,.2)–(5.75-.2,.2) (5.75-.2,.2) arc(90:0:.2);]{} [(6.25,0)arc(180:90:.2) (6.25+.2,.2)–(6.75-.2,.2) (6.75-.2,.2) arc(90:0:.2);]{} [(2.25,0)arc(180:90:.4) (2.25+.4,.4)–(3.75-.4,.4) (3.75-.4,.4) arc(90:0:.4);]{} [(4.75,0)arc(180:90:.55) (4.75+.55,.55)–(7.25-.55,.55) (7.25-.55,.55) arc(90:0:.55);]{} [(.75,2)–(.75,0);]{} [(4.25,2)–(4.25,0);]{} [(5.75,2)–(7.75,0);]{} [(6.25,2)–(8.25,0);]{} 12[.35]{} 24[.6]{} 56[.35]{} 67[.35]{} [[/in [1/1,4/4,6/8]{} [ [(,2)–(,0);]{} ]{}]{}]{} in [1,...,8]{} [ (,0)circle(.1); (+.25,0)circle(.1); (-.25,0)circle(.1); ]{} in [1,...,6]{} [ (,2)circle(.1); (+.25,2)circle(.1); (-.25,2)circle(.1); ]{}
As a result of this isomorphism, we may easily describe the congruences on ideals of $\TL$ (in the case that all members of $\C$ are of even size) by suitably translating Theorem \[thm:QP\]. Recall that $\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}$ denotes the set of all planar 2-equivalences on $A$. As usual, we write ${\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}}$.
\[thm:TLeven\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of even cardinality, let $\TL=\TL(\C)$ be the Temperley–Lieb category over $\C$, and keep the above notation.
\[cTLeven1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}).$$
\[cTLeven2\] The ideal $I_2$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_2$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)=\set{\tau\cup\De_{D_2}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)} \cup \set{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_2}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\btwo$.
\[cTLeven3\] For even $r\geq4$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \set{\mu_{I_q}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_q}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_q}^{I_r},\ R_{I_q}^{I_r}}{q=0,2}
\cup\set{R_{I_q}^{I_r}}{4\leq q<r,\ q\text{ even}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:TL\].
Congruences on ideals of $\TLpm$: the even case {#subsect:TLpmeven}
-----------------------------------------------
Now we turn to the anti-Temperley–Lieb category $\TLpm=\TLpm(\C)$ where every member of $\C$ has even cardinality. The trick from the previous section no longer applies: even the monoids ${\mathcal P}^\pm_n$ and $\TLpm_{2n}$ are not isomorphic as they have different sizes; we will also see that they have non-isomorphic congruence lattices (cf. Figures \[fig:QP\] and \[fig:TL\]). As usual let ${\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}}$.
We continue to use the notation introduced earlier in this section. And again we fix a specific group ${\mathscr H}$-class $\G_q$ in each ${\mathscr D}$-class $D_q$. For $q\geq2$, such a group is cyclic of order $2$, specifically $\G_q=\{\ve_q,\ga_q\}$ where $$\ve_q={\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q \\ \cline{4-6}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND
\ga_q=\ga_{[q]}^\natural = {
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: q \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q \\ \cline{4-6}
q \:&\: \cdots \:&\: 1 \:&\: q+1,q+2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: n_q-1,n_q
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
};$$ and, of course, $\G_0=\{\ve_0\}$ is trivial.
As with $\B$ and $\TL$, the congruences on the bottom two ideals $I_r=I_r(\TLpm)$, $r=0,2$, are described by Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small\_ideal\]. Thus, the main issue is with the ideals $I_r$ for $r\geq4$.
An ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq4$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,\{\ve_{q+2}\})$ and $(I_q,\G_{q+2})$, for even ${0\leq q<r}$. The retraction in $\B$ persists in $\TLpm$, since for any $\al\in I_2(\TLpm)$, we clearly have $\wh\al\in\TLpm$ (indeed, $\wh\al\in\TL$). So the ideal $I_2=I_2(\TLpm)$ is retractable, and we continue to denote the retraction by $$f:I_2\to I_0 : \al\mt \wh\al.$$ Further, we have the following four retractable IN-pairs in $I_r$: $$(I_0,\{\ve_2\}) \COMMA
(I_0,\G_2) \COMMA
(I_2,\{\ve_4\}) \COMMA
(I_2,\G_4).$$ It is clear that the first and third of the above pairs are retractable. The second is retractable because $\G_2={\mathcal{S}}_2^\natural$ and $(I_0(\B),{\mathcal{S}}_2^\natural)$ is a retractable IN-pair in $\B$ (it also follows from Lemma \[lem:INretract\]). The fourth is retractable because $\G_4=\big\{{{\operatorname{id}}_4},(1,4)(2,3)\big\}^\natural$ is a subgroup of $K^\natural$ (where $K$ is the Klein 4-group), and since $(I_2(\B),K^\natural)$ is a retractable IN-pair in $\B$. As usual, these retractable IN-pairs each yield a family of $\mu/\lam/\rho/R$ congruences.
\[lem:R\_trick\_TLpm\] For any $\al,\be\in I_4=I_4(\TLpm)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}\cup{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, we have $\rho_{I_0}^{I_4}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_4}$.
Write $\si=\cg\al\be_{I_4}$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\TLpm_{A,B}$. We consider two cases.
Suppose first that there exist distinct $u,v,w\in B$ such that $\al$ and $\be$ contain the blocks $\{u',v'\}$ and $\{v',w'\}$, respectively. Premultiplying the pair $(\al,\be)$ by an arbitrary element of $D_0(\TL_A)$, we may in fact assume that $\al,\be\in D_0$.
Since $D_0(\TLpm)=D_0(\TL)$, we have $\al,\be\in D_0(\TL)$. By Theorem \[thm:TLeven\], the smallest congruence on $I_4(\TL)$ containing the pair $(\al,\be)$ is $\rho_{I_0(\TL)}^{I_4(\TL)}$; i.e., $\cg\al\be_{I_4(\TL)}=\rho_{I_0(\TL)}^{I_4(\TL)}$. But then $$\wt{\mathscr R}{{\restriction}}_{D_0(\TLpm)} = \wt{\mathscr R}{{\restriction}}_{D_0(\TL)} \sub \rho_{I_0(\TL)}^{I_4(\TL)} = \cg\al\be_{I_4(\TL)} \sub \cg\al\be_{I_4(\TLpm)} = \si,$$ so it follows that $\rho_{I_0(\TLpm)}^{I_4(\TLpm)} = \wt{\mathscr R}{{\restriction}}_{D_0(\TLpm)} \cup \De_{I_4(\TLpm)} \sub \si$.
If we are not in Case 1, then we follow the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Beven\] to reduce to Case 1. We just need to be careful that the element $\ga$ constructed is planar, but we can do this by noting that $a_1$ and $a_2$ have different parities (since $\{b_1',b_2'\}$ is a block of $\be$), so we may choose $a_3$ of different parity to $a_2$.
\[thm:TLpmeven\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of even cardinality, let $\TLpm=\TLpm(\C)$ be the anti-Temperley–Lieb category, and keep the above notation.
\[cTLpmeven1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}).$$
\[cTLpmeven2\] The ideal $I_2$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_2$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)=\set{\tau\cup\nu_N}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0),\ N\normal\G_2} \cup \set{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_2}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\bthree$.
\[cTLpmeven3\] For even $r\geq4$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\set{\mu_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_q,N}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{q=0,2,\ N\normal\G_{q+2}} \\[3truemm]
{}\cup\set{&R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{4\leq q<r,\ q\text{ even},\ N\normal\G_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the lattice pictured in Figure \[fig:TL\].
As usual, Propositions \[prop:PRB\] and \[prop:small\_ideal\] give the first two parts. For the third, it suffices (by Theorem \[thm:E2\] and Lemma \[lem:P2TL\]) to prove the $r=4$ case. This follows from Proposition \[prop:small012\], together with Lemmas \[lem:P2TL\]\[P2TLii\] and \[lem:R\_trick\_TLpm\], and the dual of the latter. (In assumption \[012iv\] of Proposition \[prop:small012\] we have $H=\G_2$.)
Jones and anti-Jones categories {#sect:J}
===============================
This is the last section of the paper concerning diagram categories. It is also the last where we use the most straightforward form of the stacking mechanism from Section \[subsect:chains\]. We describe the congruences on the ideals of the Jones and anti-Jones categories, ${\mathcal{J}}={\mathcal{J}}(\C)$ and $\Jpm=\Jpm(\C)$, as defined in Section \[subsect:QB\]. Here, as usual, $\C$ is a fixed non-empty set of finite sets. Throughout Section \[sect:J\], $\Q$ will stand for either of ${\mathcal{J}}$ or $\Jpm$. As in Sections \[sect:B\] and \[sect:TL\], we have decompositions $$\Q = \Q(\C) = \Q(\C_\even) \sqcup \Q(\C_\odd),$$ which will allow us to assume without loss of generality that the sizes of all members of $\C$ have the same parity; we consider the odd case in Section \[subsect:Jodd\] and the even case in Section \[subsect:Jeven\]. Technical results relevant to both cases are in Section \[subsect:prelim\_J\].
Before we begin, we make some observations regarding an element $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_s \\ \cline{4-6}
b_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: b_r \:&\: D_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: D_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$ of $\Jpm$, say with $\bd(\al)=A$ and $\br(\al)=B$. First, concerning transversals, if $a_1<\cdots<a_r$, then the parities $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_r$ must alternate, but it is no longer necessarily the case that $a_1$ is odd.
Next, if $a_1<\cdots<a_r$, then we do not necessarily have $b_1<\cdots<b_r$ or $b_1>\cdots>b_r$, though the possible orderings on the $b_i$ are restricted to cyclic orderings and/or reversals, depending on whether $\al$ is annular or anti-annular. We also do not necessarily have $a_i\equiv b_i\Mod2$, even if $a_1<\cdots<a_r$ and $b_1<\cdots<b_r$ both hold. In an upper non-transversal $C_i=\{u,v\}$, $u$ and $v$ do not necessarily have opposite parities, though these parities can only be equal if the edge connecting $u$ and $v$ wraps around the identified border in an annular representation of $\al$; for example, consider the annular partition ${
\Big( \hspace{-1.5 truemm}
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
2 \:&\: 1,3 \\ \cline{2-2}
1 \:&\: 2,3
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7truemm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
Of crucial importance is the fact that if $a_1=\min(A)$ and $b_1=\min(B)$, then $\al$ as above belongs to $\TL_{A,B}$. Indeed, consider some annular representation of $\al$ (as a planar graph drawn in the usual way on the cylinder); rotating the bottom circle of the cylinder a whole number of times if necessary, we can assume that the edge $\{a_1,b_1'\}$ is drawn as a vertical line; all the remaining edges of the graph must not cross this line, and hence do not wrap around the identified border, so that $\al$ is actually planar.
The above considerations mean that there will sometimes be more cases to consider in proofs; but on the other hand, they will sometimes allow us more freedom when we wish to define an (anti-)Jones partition with a desired set of blocks.
We are now almost ready to begin, but first we introduce one more piece of notation. For an integer $n\geq1$, we write ${\mathcal{J}}_n={\mathcal{J}}_{[n]}={\mathcal{J}}_{[n],[n]}$, where as usual $[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and with similar meanings for $\Jpm_n$, $\TL_n$, ${\mathcal P}_n$ and so on. We also write $\ga_n=\ga_{[n]}$ and $\de_n=\de_{[n]}$, where the permutations $\ga_A,\de_A\in{\mathcal{S}}_A$ are defined in .
Multiplicative properties in ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$ {#subsect:prelim_J}
-------------------------------------------------------
Once again, we need to prove the usual technical result (Lemma \[lem:P2J\] below) that is used for establishing the required multiplication and separation properties. As preparation we need an “annular version” of Lemma \[lem:TL\_proj\]. In the proof, we will use the following construction: for partitions $\al\in{\mathcal P}_k$ and $\be\in{\mathcal P}_l$, we form $\al\oplus\be\in{\mathcal P}_{k+l}$ by placing a translated copy of $\be$ to the right of $\al$. When $\C=\bigset{[n]}{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, this operation (extended in the natural way to arbitrary hom-sets) gives the partition category ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}(\C)$ the structure of a *strict monoidal category* in the sense of [@JS1993]; cf. [@LZ2015; @Martin2008; @JEpresDC]. Not all subcategories of ${\mathcal P}$ are closed under the $\oplus$ operation; $\B$ and $\TL$ are, for example, but $\TLpm$, ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$ are not. But note that, for example, if $\al,\be\in{\mathcal{J}}$ are such that ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq1$ and ${\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=0$, then $\al\oplus\be\in{\mathcal{J}}$.
\[lem:J\_proj\] Let $\al,\be$ be distinct projections from ${\mathcal{J}}_n$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)\geq2$. Then there exists $\ga\in D_r({\mathcal{J}}_n)$ such that, renaming if necessary, $\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$.
Write $\al={
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_s \\ \cline{4-6}
a_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: a_r \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_s
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$, where $a_1<\cdots<a_r$. Let $\al'=\de_n^{a_1-1}\al\de_n^{-a_1+1}$ and $\be'=\de_n^{a_1-1}\be\de_n^{-a_1+1}$, noting that $\al',\be'$ are still distinct projections of rank $r$, and that $\{1,1'\}$ is a transversal of $\al$. If we can find $\ga'\in D_r$ such that $\ga'\al'\in D_r$ and $\ga'\be'\in I_{r-2}$, then we may take $\ga=\ga'\de_n^{a_1-1}$.
Thus, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\al=\al'$ and $\be=\be'$, so in particular $a_1=1$. From this it follows that $\al$ in fact belongs to $\TL_n$. If $1\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$, then $\be$ also belongs to $\TL_n$, so the lemma follows from Lemma \[lem:TL\_proj\]. Thus, for the remainder of the proof, we will assume that $1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$, and denote by $\{1,x\}$ the block of $\be$ containing $1$.
Since $\al\in\TL$, the parities of $1=a_1,a_2,a_3,\ldots$ are odd, even, odd, and so on. On the other hand, $x$ could be even or odd; this depends on the parity of $n$, and whether or not the edge $\{1,x\}$ wraps around the back of the cylinder.
Suppose first that $x\leq a_r$. Since $x>1=a_1$, it follows that $a_i<x\leq a_{i+1}$ for some $1\leq i\leq r-1$. Let $j\in\{i,i+1\}$ be such that $x$ and $a_j$ have the same parity.
If $j\geq2$, then we take $\ga\in D_r(\TL_n)$ to be any Temperley–Lieb projection with domain $\big(\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}{\setminus}\{a_j\}\big)\cup\{x\}$. (Note that we might in fact have $a_j=x$.) Then $\ga\al\in D_r$, since $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}{\setminus}\{a_j\}\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al)$; but $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$, since ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga)$ yet $\{1,x\}=\{a_1,x\}$ is a non-transversal of $\ga\be$.
Now suppose $j=1$, and note then that $i=1$ as well. Since $x$ has the same parity as $a_j=a_1=1$, it follows that $x$ is odd. This then implies that the edge $\{1,x\}$ of $\be$ wraps around the back of the cylinder. By planarity, each vertex from $\{x+1,\ldots,n\}$ is contained in an upper non-transversal of $\be$, and this in turn tells us that $n$ is odd. It also follows that $\be=\be_1\oplus\be_2$ for some $\be_1\in D_r({\mathcal{J}}_x)$ and $\be_2\in D_0({\mathcal{J}}_{n-x})$. The partitions $\be_1$ and $\be_2$ are shown in Figure \[fig:J\_proj\], which also shows further partitions constructed during this case of the proof. Further, by the definition of $x$, and since $a_2$ is even, we have $a_1<x<a_2<a_3<\cdots<a_r$, so that each of $a_2,\ldots,a_r$ belong to $\{x+1,\ldots,n\}$. Let $\ga_1$ be any projection from $\TL_x$ with (co)domain $\{1\}$, and let $\ga_2$ be any projection from $\TL_{n-x}$ with (co)domain $\{a_2-x,\ldots,a_r-x\}$. (Note that $\ga_2$ is well defined since $a_2-x,a_3-x,\ldots$ are odd, even, and so on, since $x$ is odd.) Now put $\ga=\ga_1\oplus\ga_2\in\TL_n\sub{\mathcal{J}}_n$, and note that ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga)={\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$ by construction. It follows that $\ga$ and $\ga\al$ both belong to $D_r$. On the other hand, $$\label{eq:D1D0}
\ga\be = (\ga_1\be_1)\oplus(\ga_2\be_2) \in D_1({\mathcal{J}}_x)\oplus D_0({\mathcal{J}}_{n-x}) \sub D_1 \sub I_{r-2}.$$
Now suppose $x>a_r$.
Suppose first that a graph of $\be$ may be drawn in which $\{1,x\}$ does not wrap around the back of the cylinder. By planarity, $x$ is even, and each vertex from $\{2,\ldots,x-1\}$ belongs to a non-transversal of $x$. Thus, keeping in mind that $\be$ is a projection, we have $\be=\be_1\oplus\be_2$ for some $\be_1\in D_0(\TL_x)$ and some $\be_2\in D_r({\mathcal{J}}_{n-x})$. (A diagram similar to Figure \[fig:J\_proj\] could be drawn.) Since $x$ is even, $n$, $r$ and $n-x$ all have the same parity.
Suppose first that $n$, $r$ and $n-x$ are all even. Noting that $a_r<x$, let $\ga_1$ be any projection from $\TL_x$ with domain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$, let $\ga_2$ be an arbitrary projection from $D_0(\TL_{n-x})$, and put $\ga=\ga_1\oplus\ga_2$. Then certainly $\ga,\ga\al\in D_r$, while a calculation similar to gives $\ga\be\in D_0\sub I_{r-2}$.
If $n$, $r$ and $n-x$ are all odd, then we let $\ga=\ga_1\oplus\ga_2$ where $\ga_1\in\TL_x$ is a projection with domain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1}\}$, and $\ga_2\in \TL_{n-x}$ a projection with rank $1$. This time, $\ga,\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in D_1\sub I_{r-2}$.
Now suppose a graph of $\be$ may be drawn in which $\{1,x\}$ does wrap around the back of the cylinder. By planarity, the $n-x$ vertices from $\{x+1,\ldots,n\}$ all belong to non-transversals of $\be$ nested by this edge, so this set must have even size; i.e., $x\equiv n\Mod2$. But also $a_r\equiv n\Mod2$, since $\al\in\TL_n$, so it follows that $x$ and $a_r$ have the same parity. Keeping in mind that $a_r<x$, we take $\ga\in D_r(\TL_n)$ to be any Temperley–Lieb projection with (co)domain $\{a_1,\ldots,a_{r-1},x\}$. Then $\ga,\ga\al\in D_r$, and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}$ since ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)\sub{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga)$ and $\ga\be$ contains the non-transversal $\{1,x\}=\{a_1,x\}$.
11 27[.3]{} 27[.3]{} 8[12]{}[1.5]{} 8[12]{}[1.5]{} (-1,2)–(-1,0); (-1,1)node\[left\][$\ga$]{}; [[in [1,2,7,8,12]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,2,7,8,12]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (1,2.5)node[$1$]{}; (7,2.5)node[$x$]{}; (12,2.5)node[$n$]{}; (1,3.5)–(7,3.5); (4,3.5)node\[above\][$\ga_1$]{}; (12,3.5)–(8,3.5); (10,3.5)node\[above\][$\ga_2$]{};
(0,1.4)–(.4,1.4) arc(270:360:.6); (7,2)arc(180:270:.6) (7.6,1.4)–(13,1.4); (7,0)arc(180:90:.6) (7.6,.6)–(13,.6); (0,.6)–(.4,.6) arc(90:0:.6); 26[1.3]{} 26[1.3]{} 8[12]{}[.3]{} 8[12]{}[.3]{} (-1,2)–(-1,0); (-1,1)node\[left\][$\be$]{}; [[in [1,2,6,7,8,12]{} [ [(,2)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} [[in [1,2,6,7,8,12]{} [ [(,0)circle(.17);]{}]{}]{}]{} (0,0)–(0,4); (13,0)–(13,4); (1,-1)–(7,-1); (4,-1)node\[below\][$\be_1$]{}; (12,-1)–(8,-1); (10,-1)node\[below\][$\be_2$]{};
\[lem:P2J\] Let $A,B\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2Ji\] If $r\geq3$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2Jii\] If $q=r\geq2$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that, renaming $\al,\be$ if necessary, $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-2}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}]$.}$$
\[P2Jiii\] If $r\geq3$ and $\be\in H_\al{\setminus}\{\al\}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-2}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-2}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
The proof is the same as that of Lemma \[lem:P2TL\]\[P2TLi\], except that (in the case $\be'\in D_{r-2}$), we *could* have $Q=\{b_2,\ldots,b_{r-1}\}$. In this case, we simply take $i=1$ and continue as before, but interpret $i-1=r$ in the definition of $j$.
This follows from Lemma \[lem:J\_proj\] in the same way that Lemma \[lem:P2TL\]\[P2TLii\] followed from Lemma \[lem:TL\_proj\]. (Note that all projections from $\Jpm$ belong to ${\mathcal{J}}$.)
We follow the proof of Lemma \[lem:P2B\]\[P2Biii\], assuming the ordering $a_1<\cdots<a_r$. If $1\pi=r$, then we define $\ga$ as in the above-mentioned proof, but making sure that $\ga\in{\mathcal{J}}$. Otherwise, we have $1\pi=i$ for some $1<i<r$. Here we have $2\pi=i\pm1$ (depending on whether $\be$ is annular or anti-annular), but since $r\geq3$ we do not have $\{1\pi,2\pi\}=\{1,2\}$. In this case we take $\ga\in\TL_A$ to be any Temperley–Lieb partition with codomain $\{a_3,\ldots,a_r\}$, noting that ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\al)=\{b_3,\ldots,b_r\} \not= \{b_1,\ldots,b_r\}{\setminus}\{b_{1\pi},b_{2\pi}\}={\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\be)$.
Congruences on ideals of ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$: the odd case {#subsect:Jodd}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For the duration of Section \[subsect:Jodd\], we assume that every member of $\C$ has odd cardinality. Most of the work goes into describing the congruences on the ideal $I_3=I_3(\Q)$, which largely amounts to verifying the technical assumptions of Proposition \[prop:small01\]; see Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd\]. The rest is taken care of by our stacking mechanism.
\[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd1\] Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on $I_3=I_3(\Q)$. If there exists a pair $(\al,\be)\in\si$ with ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, then there exists $(\al',\be')\in\si$ with $\al',\be'\in D_1$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al')\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be')$.
Let $(\al,\be)\in\si$ be such a pair, say with $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$, and assume for convenience that $B=[k]$ for some $k$. If ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not\sub{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$, then we fix $u\in {\operatorname{codom}}(\al){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$, and (regardless of the parity of $u$) we follow Case 1 in the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd2\] to find such a pair $(\al',\be')$. By symmetry, the only remaining case is where ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$, and again premultiplying by an arbitrary element of $D_1(\TL_A)$, we may assume that $\al,\be\in D_1$, say with ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)=\{x\}$. Further premultiplying by an element of ${\mathcal{J}}_{B,A}$ with domain $\{x\}$, we may assume that $\al,\be\in\Q_B$ both contain the transversal $\{x,x'\}$.
Now let $\al''=\de_B^{x-1}\al\de_B^{1-x}$ and $\be''=\de_B^{x-1}\be\de_B^{1-x}$. (Since $\de_B$ may not belong to $I_3$, we are not able to assume that $(\al'',\be'')\in\si$.) Since ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, and since $\de_B$ is a unit, it follows that ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al'')\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be'')$. Since $\al''$ and $\be''$ both contain the transversal $\{1,1'\}$, they belong to $\TL_B$, indeed to $D_1(\TL_B)$. We then apply the argument of Case 3 in the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd2\] to the pair $(\al'',\be'')$, which tells us that there exists $\ga\in D_3(\TL_B)$ such that ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al''\ga)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be''\ga)$; i.e., ${\operatorname{codom}}(\de_B^{x-1}\al\de_B^{1-x}\ga)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\de_B^{x-1}\be\de_B^{1-x}\ga)$. Since $\de_B$ is a unit, it follows from this that ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al\cdot\de_B^{1-x}\ga)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be\cdot\de_B^{1-x}\ga)$. Since $\de_B^{1-x}\ga\in I_3(\Q)$, we may take $(\al',\be')=(\al\cdot\de_B^{1-x}\ga,\be\cdot\de_B^{1-x}\ga)\in\si$.
The next lemma improves on the previous one by showing that the pair $(\al',\be')$ can be taken with $\al',\be'\in\TL$.
\[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd2\] Suppose $\si$ is a congruence on $I_3=I_3(\Q)$. If there exists a pair $(\al,\be)\in\si$ with ${\operatorname{coker}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{coker}}(\be)$, then there exists $(\al',\be')\in\si$ with $\al',\be'\in D_1(\TL)$ and ${{\operatorname{codom}}(\al')\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be')}$.
Again we assume that $\al,\be\in\Q_{A,B}$, with $B=[k]$ for some odd $k=2l+1$. By Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd1\] we may assume that $\{u\}={\operatorname{codom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)=\{v\}$, and by symmetry that $u<v$. For $1\leq i\leq l$, let $H_i=\{2i,2i+1\}$, and put $$\al' = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{2-5}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND \be' = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{2-5}
3 \:&\: 1,2 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
},$$ both from $\TL_B$. Also let $\ve_1$ be any element of $D_1(\TL_{B,A})$ with $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\al')$.
If $u$ and $v$ have the same parity, then $(\al',\be')=(\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\si$ for any Jones partition $\ve_2\in{\mathcal{J}}_B$ containing the blocks $\{u,1'\}$, $\{u+1,2'\}$, $\{v,3'\}$ and $H_2',\ldots,H_l'$.
Next suppose $u$ is odd and $v$ is even. Since $k$ is odd, we have $v<k$. In this case, $(\al',\be')=(\ve_1\be\ve_2,\ve_1\al\ve_2)\in\si$ for any Jones partition $\ve_2\in{\mathcal{J}}_B$ containing the blocks $\{u,3'\}$, $\{v,1'\}$, $\{k,2'\}$ and $H_2',\ldots,H_l'$.
Similarly, if $u$ is even and $v$ is odd, then $(\al',\be')=(\ve_1\be\ve_2,\ve_1\al\ve_2)\in\si$ for any Jones partition $\ve_2\in{\mathcal{J}}_B$ containing the blocks $\{1,2'\}$, $\{u,3'\}$, $\{v,1'\}$ and $H_2',\ldots,H_l'$.
Here is the analogue of Lemmas \[lem:R\_trick\_Bodd\] and \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\] for ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$:
\[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd\] For any $\al,\be\in I_3=I_3(\Q)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$, we have $\rho_{I_1}^{I_3}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_3}$.
By the proof of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd2\], we may assume that $$\al = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{2-5}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND \be = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{2-5}
3 \:&\: 1,2 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
},$$ where $\al,\be\in\TL_{2l+1}$ for some $l\geq1$, and where $H_i=\{2i,2i+1\}$ for all $i\geq1$. Write $C=[2l+1]$.
Write $\tau = \rho_{I_1(\TL)}^{I_3(\TL)}$ for the $\rho_{I_1}$ congruence on the ideal $I_3(\TL)$ of the Temperley–Lieb category $\TL=\TL(\C)$. Note that $\tau$ is not a congruence on $I_3(\Q)$, but by Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLodd\], we have $$\tau\sub \cg\al\be_{I_3(\TL)} \sub \cg\al\be_{I_3(\Q)} \sub \si.$$
Now let $\ga\in D_1(\Q)$ be arbitrary, say with $\ga\in\Q_{A,B}$, and write $\ga={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
v \:&\: B_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $B=[k]$ where $k=1+2t$ (we may or may not have $t=l$). As usual, we may prove the lemma by showing that $(\ga,\de)\in\si$, where $\de={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$.
First we claim that $$\label{eq:gaga'}
(\ga,\ga')\in\si \qquad\text{for some $\ga'\in\Q_{A,B}$ with $\ker(\ga')=\ker(\ga)$ and ${{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga')=\{1\}}$. }$$ We prove by descending induction on $v$. If $v=1$ we just take $\ga'=\ga$, so assume instead that $v>1$. Fix any $\ve_1\in\Q_{A,C}$ with $\ker(\ve_1)=\ker(\ga)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $B_1=\{p,v-1\}$, and we note that the edge $B_1'$ is un-nested in (an annular drawing of) $\ga$. We either have $p<v-1$ or else $p>v$.
Suppose first that $p<v-1$. Since $B_1'$ does not wrap around the back of the cylinder, $p$ and $v-1$ have opposite parities. Thus, $p<v-1<v$ are of alternating parities. Put ${\ve_2 =
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: 2 \:&\: 3 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{4-6}
p \:&\: v-1 \:&\: v \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)}$, noting that $\ve_2\in{\mathcal{J}}_{C,B}$ (as $B_1'$ is un-nested in $\ga$). Then with $\ga''=\ve_1\al\ve_2$, we have $(\ga,\ga'') = (\ve_1\be\ve_2,\ve_1\al\ve_2)\in\si$. But $\ga'' = \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
p \:&\: v-1,v \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)$. Since $p<v$, we have inductively that $(\ga'',\ga')\in\si$ for some $\ga'$ with ${\operatorname{codom}}(\ga')=\{1\}$ and $\ker(\ga')=\ker(\ga'')=\ker(\ga)$. By transitivity, we also have $(\ga,\ga')\in\si$, completing the proof of in this case.
Now suppose $p>v$. Since $B_1'$ wraps around the back of the cylinder (and since $k$ is odd), $p$ and $v-1$ have the same parity. Thus, $v-1<v<p$ have alternating parities. This time put ${\ve_2 =
\Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: 2 \:&\: 3 \:&\: H_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_l \\ \cline{4-6}
v \:&\: p \:&\: v-1 \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)}$, again noting that $\ve_2\in{\mathcal{J}}_{C,B}$ (as $B_1'$ is un-nested in $\ga$). Then with $\ga''=\ve_1\be\ve_2$, we have $(\ga,\ga'') = (\ve_1\al\ve_2,\ve_1\be\ve_2)\in\si$. But $\ga'' = \Big(
{ \scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1}
\begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cdots\cdots} &\: A_s \\ \cline{2-5}
v-1 \:&\: v,p \:&\: B_2 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: B_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array}
}
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)$, and again the inductive assumption completes the proof of in this case.
Now that we have established , write $\ga'={
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
u \:&\: A_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: A_s \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
}$, so $(\ga,\ga')\in\si$. Let $$\de_1 = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_t \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: C_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: C_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
} \AND \de_2 = {
\Big(
{\scriptsize \renewcommand*{{1.2}}{1} \begin{array} {{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{}}|{@{}c@{\hspace{1.5truemm}}}}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_t \\ \cline{2-4}
1 \:&\: H_1 \:&\: \cdots \:&\: H_t
\rule[0mm]{0mm}{2.7mm}
\end{array} }
\hspace{-1.5 truemm} \Big)
},$$ both from $\Q_B$. Since $\de_1$ and $\de_2$ both contain the transversal $\{1,1'\}$, they both in fact belong to $\TL_B$. But $(\de_1,\de_2)\in \rho_{I_1(\TL)}^{I_3(\TL)}=\tau$, so since $\tau\sub\si$ (as shown near the beginning of the proof), we have $(\de_1,\de_2)\in\si$. But then $(\ga',\de) = (\ga\de_1,\ga\de_2)\in\si$. (The element $\de$ was defined near the start of the proof.) Thus, $(\ga,\de)\in\si$ by transitivity. As noted above, this completes the proof.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section. For the statement, note that ${I_1(\Jpm)=I_1({\mathcal{J}})}$. Also, the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $I_1$ are indexed by the allowable (co)kernels; by Lemma \[lem:PEqA\], such (co)kernels are planar, and they must in fact be 2-equivalences. Unlike the case with $\TL$ and $\TLpm$, however, *any* planar 2-equivalence arises as a (co)kernel of an element of $I_1$; indeed, although the unique block of size $1$ corresponds to a transversal, if this block is nested by other blocks, then these blocks can wrap around the back of the cylinder. Thus, the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $D_1(\Q_A)$ are indexed by $\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}$, the set of all planar 2-equivalences on $A$.
\[thm:Jodd\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of odd cardinality, let $\Q$ be either the Jones category ${\mathcal{J}}={\mathcal{J}}(\C)$ or the anti-Jones category $\Jpm=\Jpm(\C)$, and keep the above notation.
\[cTLodd1\] The minimal ideal $I_1$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}).$$
\[cTLodd2\] For odd $r\geq3$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \{\De_{I_r},\ \lam_{I_1}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_1}^{I_r},\ R_{I_1}^{I_r}\}
\cup\set{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{1\leq q<r,\ q\text{ odd},\ N\normal\G_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is virtually identical to that of Theorems \[thm:Bodd\] and \[thm:TLodd\]. We use Lemmas \[lem:P2J\], \[lem:R\_trick\_Jodd\] and \[lem:N\_Bodd\] to support Proposition \[prop:small01\] in the $r=3$ case.
Figure \[fig:J\] shows the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_9({\mathcal{J}}))$ and ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_9(\Jpm))$. While these diagrams may give the impression that the upper parts of the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r({\mathcal{J}}))$ and ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r(\Jpm))$ are always chains when $r$ is odd, this is not actually the case. Indeed, as in Remark \[rem:E2\] (cf. Figure \[fig:E2\]), these upper parts consist of copies of ${\mathcal{N}}(\CC_q)$ or ${\mathcal{N}}(\DD_q)$ for $q=3,5,\ldots,r$ stacked on top of each other. These normal subgroup lattices are chains for $q\leq 13$, but, of course, not in general.
(0,2)–(0,3); (0,4)–(0,5) (0,6)–(0,7) (0,8)–(0,10) ; (0,2)–(1,1)–(0,0)–(-1,1)–(0,2)–(0,11); /in [1/1,-1/1,0/3,0/5,0/7,0/9,0/10]{} in [0,2,4,6,8,11]{}
(0,2)–(0,4); (0,5)–(0,7) (0,8)–(0,10) (0,11)–(0,14) ; (0,2)–(1,1)–(0,0)–(-1,1)–(0,2)–(0,15); /in [1/1,-1/1]{} in [3,4,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14]{} in [0,2,5,8,11,15]{}
(0,7)–(-1,8) (-1,8)–(0,9) (0,9)–(1,8) (1,8)–(0,7) (0,10)–(0,13) ; (0,5)–(0,6); /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(2+,3+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(1+,4+)–(0+,5+);]{} (0,7)–(-1,8)–(0,9)–(1,8)–(0,7); in [0,1,2,3]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (0,5)–(0,7)–(-1,8)–(0,9)–(0,14) (0,7)–(1,8)–(0,9); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(-1+,3+);]{} in [1,2,3]{} in [7,9,11,12,13]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2,-1/3,-1/4,0/4,0/5,0/6,-1/8,1/8]{} in [7,10,14]{} [0[black]{}]{} /in [3/2,1/4,2/0]{}
(0,5)–(-1,6)–(0,7)–(1,6)–(0,5) ; (-1,6)–(0,7) (0,7)–(1,6) (1,6)–(0,5) ; (0,8)–(1,9) (1,9)–(-1,11) (-1,11)–(-2,10) (-2,10)–(0,8) (-1,12)–(-1,14) (-1,14)–(-2,15) (-2,15)–(-1,16) (-1,16)–(0,15) (0,15)–(-1,14) ; /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(3+,2+)–(2+,3+);]{} /in [0/0,0/-1,-1/-1,-1/-2]{} [(1+,4+)–(-1+,6+);]{} (0,8)–(-2,10)–(-1,11)–(1,9)–(0,8) (-1,14)–(-2,15)–(-1,16)–(0,15)–(-1,14) ; in [0,1,2,3,4]{} [(2-,0+)–(3-,1+)–(3-,2+)–(2-,1+)–(2-,0+);]{} (0,5)–(0,7)–(-1,6) (0,5)–(1,6)–(0,7)–(0,8)–(1,9)–(-1,11)–(-2,10)–(0,8) (-1,9)–(-1,17) (-1,14)–(0,15)–(-1,16)–(-2,15)–(-1,14) (-1,9)–(0,10); /in [0/0,0/1,1/1,1/2]{} [(2+,0+)–(-2+,4+);]{} in [1,2,3]{} in [7,10]{} in [9,10,11,13,14,15,16]{} /in [0/2,0/3,2/0,2/1,2/2,2/3,3/1,3/2,-1/3,-1/4,0/4,0/5,0/6,-1/9,1/9,-2/15,0/15,-2/10,-2/4,-2/5,-1/5,-1/6,1/6]{} in [8]{} [0[black]{}]{} /in [3/2,1/4,2/0,-1/12,-1/17]{}
Congruences on ideals of ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$: the even case {#subsect:Jeven}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We now assume every member of $\C$ has even cardinality, and define $\xi={\LSUB}\bigset{|A|}{A\in\C}$. Throughout this section, $\Q$ denotes either ${\mathcal{J}}={\mathcal{J}}(\C)$ or $\Jpm=\Jpm(\C)$. Even though the congruence lattices of $\Q$ and of its ideals are more involved than in the odd case (see Figure \[fig:J\]), the actual proof of the classification result (Theorem \[thm:Jeven\]) is easier than its odd counterpart (Theorem \[thm:Jodd\]), for the following reason. As we showed in Section \[subsect:QP\], the (co)kernel of any $\al\in\Jpm$ is a planar equivalence. It follows from this that the minimal ideal $I_0(\Q)=D_0(\Q)$ is in fact equal to $I_0(\TL)=D_0(\TL)$. The proof of the next lemma is therefore virtually identical to that of Lemma \[lem:R\_trick\_TLpm\]. In the statement, we write $f:I_2\to I_0:\al\mt\wh\al$ for the retraction, which is the appropriate restriction of .
\[lem:R\_trick\_Jeven\] For any $\al,\be\in I_4=I_4(\Q)$ with $\al\sim\be$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}\cup{\mathscr L}f^{-1}$, we have $\rho_{I_0}^{I_4}\sub\cg\al\be_{I_4}$.
In order to state the main result of this section, we first fix some group ${\mathscr H}$-classes in $\Q$, and discuss the (retractable) IN-pairs. For $n\geq2$, recall that we write $\ga_n=\ga_{[n]}=(1,2,\ldots,n)$ and $\de_n=\de_{[n]}=(1,n)(2,n-1)\cdots$, as in . We then define $$\CC_n = \la\ga_n\ra \AND \DD_n = \la\ga_n,\de_n\ra,$$ the cyclic group of order $n$ and the dihedral group of order $2n$, respectively, for (even) $n\geq4$; since $\ga_2=\de_2$, we have $\CC_2=\DD_2$. For any even $2\leq q<\xi$, and continuing to use the $\pi^\natural$ notation, we define $$\G_q = \begin{cases}
\CC_q^\natural &\text{if $\Q={\mathcal{J}}$}\\
\DD_q^\natural &\text{if $\Q=\Jpm$.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $\G_q$ is a group ${\mathscr H}$-class contained in $D_q$. In what follows, we will also write $\ve_q={\operatorname{id}}_q^\natural$, so that $\ve_q$ is the identity element of the group $\G_q$.
An ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq4$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N)$ for even $0\leq q<r$ and $N\normal\G_{q+2}$. These yield the congruences $$R_N^{I_r}=R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}=R_{I_q}^{I_r}\cup\nu_{N},$$ each involving the $\nu_{N}$ relation, membership of which is again determined by the $\phi(\al,\be)$ parameter, as defined in Section \[subsect:P\].
We also have retractable IN-pairs in two forms:
$(I_0,N)$ for $N\normal\G_2$, and
$(I_2,N)$ for $N\normal\G_4$ satisfying $N\leq K^\natural$, where $K\normal {\mathcal{S}}_4$ is the Klein 4-group. When $\Q={\mathcal{J}}$, the only normal subgroups of $\G_4$ contained in $K^\natural$ are $\{{\operatorname{id}}_4^\natural\}$ and $C^\natural$, where $C=\la\ga_4^2\ra = \big\{{{\operatorname{id}}}_4,(1,3)(2,4)\big\}$. So the above list yields four retractable IN-pairs in $I_r({\mathcal{J}})$ for even $r\geq4$: $$\begin{aligned}
&(I_0,\{\ve_2\}) \COMMA
(I_0,\G_2) \COMMA
(I_2,\{\ve_4\}) \COMMA
(I_2,C^\natural).
\intertext{When $\Q=\Jpm$, however, there are \emph{three} normal subgroups of $\G_4$ contained in $K^\natural$: $\{{\operatorname{id}}_4^\natural\}$, $C^\natural$ and $K^\natural=\la\ga_4^2,\de_4\ra^\natural$ itself. So the above list yields five retractable IN-pairs in $I_r(\Jpm)$ for even $r\geq4$:}
&(I_0,\{\ve_2\}) \COMMA
(I_0,\G_2) \COMMA
(I_2,\{\ve_4\}) \COMMA
(I_2,C^\natural) \COMMA
(I_2,K^\natural).\end{aligned}$$ These retractable IN-pairs yield the usual families of $R/\lam/\rho/\mu$ congruences. But note that for both categories, there are normal subgroups $N\normal\G_4$ for which $(I_2,N)$ is not retractable. When $\Q={\mathcal{J}}$, the only such $N$ is $\G_4=\CC_4^\natural$ itself. When $\Q=\Jpm$, there is $\G_4=\DD_4^\natural$ itself, and two others: $\CC_4^\natural$, and a normal subgroup we will denote by $\ol K^\natural$, where $$\overline{K} = \big\{{{\operatorname{id}}}_4,(1,3),(2,4),(1,3)(2,4)\big\} \normal\DD_4.$$ (Note that $\overline{K}$ is isomorphic to $K$.)
Figures \[fig:Jeven\] and \[fig:Jpmeven\] show the congruences coming from the (retractable) IN-pairs just discussed, in the case $r=4$, as well as the universal congruence $\nab_{I_4}$, with the usual abbreviations. Note that the lattices in Figures \[fig:Jeven\] and \[fig:Jpmeven\] are instances of the general case pictured in Figure \[fig:small012\]. For $r=8$, but without labels on the congruences, see Figure \[fig:J\]. The “non-chainlike” structure of the upper part of the lattices is due to the complexity of the normal subgroup lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(\G_q)$.
For the first part of the following statement, keep in mind that $D_0({\mathcal{J}})=D_0(\Jpm)=D_0(\TL)$, so that the ${\mathscr R}$- and ${\mathscr L}$-classes in $D_0$ are again indexed by the planar 2-equivalences on the sets from $\C$.
\[thm:Jeven\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite sets of even cardinality, let $\Q$ be either the Jones category ${\mathcal{J}}={\mathcal{J}}(\C)$ or the anti-Jones category $\Jpm=\Jpm(\C)$, and keep the above notation.
\[cTLeven1\] The minimal ideal $I_0$ is a partial rectangular band, so its congruence lattice is described by Proposition \[prop:PRB\]. In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product $$\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)})\times\prod_{A\in\C}\Eq(\OrdP{\Eq_2(A)}).$$
\[cTLeven2\] The ideal $I_2$ is retractable, every congruence on $I_0$ is liftable to $I_2$, and $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)=\set{\tau\cup\nu_N}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0),\ N\normal\G_2} \cup \set{\th_{I_0,\tau}^{I_2}}{\tau\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)}.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is isomorphic to the lattice direct product ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)\times\bthree$.
\[cTLeven3\] For even $r\geq4$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) =
\set{\mu_{I_0,N}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_0,N}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_0,N}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_0,N}^{I_r}}{N\normal\G_2} \\[3truemm]
{}\cup\set{\mu_{I_2,N}^{I_r},\ \lam_{I_2,N}^{I_r},\ \rho_{I_2,N}^{I_r},\ &R_{I_2,N}^{I_r}}{N\normal\G_4,\ N\leq K^\natural} \\[3truemm]
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad {}\cup\set{&R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{2\leq q<r,\ q\text{ even},\ N\normal\G_{q+2}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is virtually identical to that of Theorems \[thm:Beven\] and \[thm:TLeven\]. We use Lemmas \[lem:P2J\], \[lem:R\_trick\_Jeven\] and \[lem:N\_Beven\] to support Proposition \[prop:small012\] in the $r=4$ case.
Categories and partial semigroups with ${\mathscr H}$-congruences {#sect:H}
=================================================================
In Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\], we have seen many applications of the stacking mechanism established by Theorem \[thm:E2\]. However this theorem does not apply to two of our remaining examples: the linear category $\LL$ (Section \[sect:L\]) and the partial braid category $\IB$ (Section \[sect:IB\]). Although these categories are both chains of ideals (as in Definition \[defn:chain\]), their ideals $I_r$ do not satisfy the property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$. This, in turn, is a consequence of the presence of *${\mathscr H}$-congruences*: i.e., congruences contained in Green’s ${\mathscr H}$-relation.
We note that we have already encountered some ${\mathscr H}$-congruences: $\mu_{I_0,{\mathcal{S}}_2}$ is the unique non-trivial ${\mathscr H}$-congruence in the categories $\B$, $\TLpm$, ${\mathcal{J}}$ and $\Jpm$ in the case that all underlying sets are of even size. However, this congruence occurs sufficiently “low down” in the chain of ideals that it is subsumed in the computation of the bottom portion of the lattice, ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ in the notation of Theorem \[thm:E2\].
In this section we undertake another theoretical development that will enable us to deal with categories such as $\LL$ and $\IB$. The development again builds on Section \[sect:IE\], and yields extensions of the results from Section \[sect:chains\] with ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$ replaced by a weaker condition we call ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}$. We begin in Section \[subsect:H\] by discussing ${\mathscr H}$-congruences, the main result being Proposition \[prop:ThN\], which describes all such congruences on an arbitrary stable, regular partial semigroup. Then in Section \[subsect:chains2\], we return to chains of ideals and prove the above-mentioned extension of Theorem \[thm:E2\], which is Theorem \[thm:E4\]. We also establish a certain specialisation of Theorem \[thm:E4\] in Theorem \[thm:E5\], which is in fact sufficient to deal with our intended applications.
${\mathscr H}$-congruences {#subsect:H}
--------------------------
Throughout Section \[subsect:H\], $S$ denotes a fixed partial semigroup. By an *${\mathscr H}$-congruence* on $S$ we mean a congruence that is contained in ${\mathscr H}$.
A well-known result of Lallement [@Lallement1967] states that a congruence $\si$ on a regular semigroup is contained in ${\mathscr H}$ if and only if it is *idempotent-separating*, meaning that distinct idempotents are never $\si$-related. Although it is not essential for our purposes, we give a short argument, communicated to us by John Meakin, that these concepts are equivalent for partial semigroups as well. As with ordinary semigroups, an *inverse* of an element $x$ of the partial semigroup $S$ is an element $a\in S$ for which $x=xax$ and $a=axa$.
\[lem:id-sep\] Let $\si$ be a congruence on a regular partial semigroup $S$. Then $\si$ is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence if and only if it is idempotent-separating.
Since an ${\mathscr H}$-class contains at most one idempotent, the forwards implication is trivial. Conversely, suppose $\si$ is idempotent-separating, and let $(x,y)\in\si$. We must show that ${(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}}$. We just show that $(x,y)\in{\mathscr R}$, and $(x,y)\in{\mathscr L}$ will follow by symmetry. Let $a$ be an inverse of $x$, and note that $(xa,ya)\in\si$ with $xa$ an idempotent. Then $ya\mathrel\si xa =(xa)^2 \mathrel\si (ya)^2$. Now let $b$ be an inverse of $(ya)^2$. It is easy to check that $(ya)b(ya)$ is an idempotent. But then $$xa \mathrel\si ya \mathrel\si (ya)^2 = (ya)^2b(ya)^2 \mathrel\si (ya)b(ya).$$ Since $xa$ and $(ya)b(ya)$ are both idempotents, it follows that $xa=(ya)b(ya)$, and from this that ${x=(xa)x=(ya)b(ya)x\in yS}$. A symmetrical argument shows that $y\in xS$, and so $(x,y)\in{\mathscr R}$, as required.
Since ${\mathscr H}$ is an equivalence, the join and meet of any family of ${\mathscr H}$-congruences is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence, so the set $\CongH(S)$ of all ${\mathscr H}$-congruences is a (complete) sublattice of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$. The join of all ${\mathscr H}$-congruences is the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence, and this will be denoted by $\ze=\ze_S$. (The maximum idempotent-separating congruence on a regular semigroup is typically denoted $\mu=\mu_S$ [@Hall1973], but we use $\ze$ to avoid confusion with our other frequent use of the $\mu$ symbol.) By analogy with semigroup terminology, we say the partial semigroup $S$ is *fundamental* if $\ze_S=\De_S$. In general, the quotient $S/\ze_S$ is fundamental.
In the next statement, recall that an element $x$ of a partial semigroup $S$ is self-divisible if $x=ux=xv$ for some $u,v\in S$. If $S$ is regular or a category, then every element of $S$ is self-divisible.
\[lem:zeST\] If $S$ is a partial semigroup in which every element is self-divisible, and if $T$ is an ideal extension of $S$, then
\[zeST1\] every ${\mathscr H}^S$-congruence on $S$ is liftable to $T$,
\[zeST2\] $\ze_S=\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S$.
Let $\si$ be an ${\mathscr H}^S$-congruence on $S$, and let $(x,y)\in\si$ and $a\in T$. We need to show that $$\br(a)=\bd(x) \implies (ax,ay)\in\si \AND \bd(a)=\br(x) \implies (xa,ya)\in\si.$$ It is sufficient to establish the first, so suppose $\br(a)=\bd(x)$. As $x\in S$ is self-divisible, we have $x=ux$ for some $u\in S$. Since $(x,y)\in\si\sub{\mathscr H}\sub{\mathscr R}$, it follows that $y=uy$ also. But then $(ax,ay)=((au)x,(au)y)\in\si$, since $au\in S$ (as $S$ is an ideal) and $\si$ is a congruence on $S$.
First note that $\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S$ is a congruence on $S$. We also have ${\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S\sub{\mathscr H}^T{{\restriction}}_S={\mathscr H}^S}$ by Lemma \[lem:SD\]\[SD1\]. This shows that $\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S$ is an ${\mathscr H}^S$-congruence on $S$, so it follows that $\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S\sub\ze_S$.
Conversely, part \[zeST1\] tells us that $\ze_S\cup\De_T$ is a congruence on $T$, and it is in fact an ${\mathscr H}^T$-congruence. It follows that $\ze_S\cup\De_T\sub\ze_T$, and so $\ze_S\sub\ze_T{{\restriction}}_S$.
In what follows, it will be important to understand the ${\mathscr H}$-congruences on stable, regular partial semigroups. Thus, for the remainder of Section \[subsect:H\], we assume $S$ is stable and regular. Let the ${\mathscr D}={\mathscr J}$-classes of $S$ be $\set{D_q}{q\in Q}$. Define a partial order $\leq$ on $Q$ by $p\leq q \iff D_p\leq D_q$ in the usual ordering on ${\mathscr J}$-classes. For each $q\in Q$, fix some group ${\mathscr H}$-class $G_q$ in $D_q$.
Since $\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_q}\sub{\mathscr H}$ for each $q$, Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] gives $\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_q} = \nu_{Z_q}$ for some $Z_q\normal G_q$. Thus, $$\ze=\bigcup_{q\in Q}\nu_{Z_q}.$$ Similarly, for any ${\mathscr H}$-congruence $\si$, noting that $\si\sub\ze$, we have $$\label{eq:Hcong}
\si=\bigcup_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q} \quad\text{for some $Q$-tuple $\bN=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$, where $N_q\normal G_q$ and $N_q\leq Z_q$ for each $q$.}$$ Not all such $Q$-tuples $\bN$ give rise to congruences of the form , however. To classify those that do, we require the following concept.
Fix some $p,q\in Q$ with $p\leq q$, and some $N\normal G_q$ with $N\leq Z_q$. Consider the relation $\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$: i.e., the restriction of the congruence $\nu_N^\sharp\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(S)$ to the ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-class $D_p$. Note that $$N\leq Z_q \ \ \implies\ \ \nu_N\sub\nu_{Z_q}\sub\ze \ \ \implies\ \ \nu_N^\sharp\sub\ze \ \ \implies\ \
\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\subseteq \ze{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub{\mathscr H}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\], there exists a normal subgroup $N^{\downarrow_p}\unlhd G_p$ such that $N^{\downarrow_p}\leq Z_p$ and $$\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p} = \nu_{N^{\downarrow_p}}.$$ For $r\in Q$ with $r\not\leq q$, we have $\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_r}=\De_{D_r}$ because $\nu_N^\sharp\sub R_I$ for the ideal $I=\bigcup_{p\leq q}D_p$, and so $$\label{eq:N_down}
\nu_N^\sharp = \De_S \cup \bigcup_{p\leq q} \nu_{N^{\downarrow_p}}.$$ Note that with $N\normal G_q$ and $N\leq Z_q$ as above, we have $N^{\downarrow_q}=N$; indeed, if $I=\bigcup_{p<q}D_p$ denotes the ideal of all elements strictly $\leqJ$-below $D_q$, then $\nu_N\sub\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_q}\sub R_{I,N}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_q}=R_{I,N}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}=\nu_N$, so that $\nu_N=\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_q}=\nu_{N^{\downarrow_q}}$. (As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:nuN\], we have $I=\emptyset$ if $D_q$ is the minimal ideal of $S$; in this case, the previous calculation simplifies, as then $\nu_N$ is a congruence on $D_q$, so that $\nu_N^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_q}=\nu_N{{\restriction}}_{D_q}=\nu_N$.) It is also clear that $\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_q}\}^{\downarrow_p}=\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_p}\}$ for any $p,q\in Q$.
We call a $Q$-tuple $\bN=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$ an *NZ-tuple* if
$N_q\normal G_q$ and $N_q\leq Z_q$ for all $q\in Q$, and
$N_q^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p$ for all $p,q\in Q$ with $p\leq q$. To such an NZ-tuple $\bN$, we associate the relation $$\Th(\bN) = \Th^S(\bN) = \bigcup_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}.$$
\[prop:ThN\] If $S$ is a stable, regular partial semigroup, then $$\CongH(S) = \set{\Th^S(\bN)}{\bN \text{ is an NZ-tuple}}.$$
We first show that $\Th(\bN)$ is a congruence for any NZ-tuple $\bN=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$. Since $\Th(\bN)$ is a union of equivalences on disjoint sets, it suffices to show that for all $(x,y)\in\Th(\bN)$ and $a\in S$, $$\br(a)=\bd(x) \implies (ax,ay)\in\Th(\bN) \AND \bd(a)=\br(x) \implies (xa,ya)\in\Th(\bN).$$ As usual, we just do the first, so suppose $\br(a)=\bd(x)$, and also suppose $(x,y)\in\nu_{N_q}$. Now, $$N_q\leq Z_q \ \implies\ (x,y)\in\nu_{Z_q}\sub\ze \ \implies\ (ax,ay)\in\ze\sub{\mathscr H}\sub{\mathscr D}\ \implies\ ax,ay\in D_p \text{ for some $p\leq q$.}$$ But then $(ax,ay)\in\cg xy{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub\nu_{N_q}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}\sub\nu_{N_p}\sub\Th(\bN)$, as required.
Conversely, we have already seen that any ${\mathscr H}$-congruence $\si$ has the form . Suppose $p,q\in Q$ are such that $p\leq q$. Then $\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}=\nu_{N_q}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub\si^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\si{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\nu_{N_p}$, which gives $N_q^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p$.
So if $\th$ is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on the stable, regular partial semigroup $S$, then $\th=\Th(\bN)$ for some NZ-tuple $\bN$; we denote this tuple by $\bN=\bN(\th)$. If $\bN(\th)=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$, then we will write $\bN(\th)_q=N_q$ for any $q\in Q$.
The ordering in the lattice $\CongH(S)$ is given by coordinate-wise inclusion of (normal) subgroups: for two NZ-tuples $\bN=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$ and $\bN'=(N_q')_{q\in Q}$, we have $$\Th(\bN)\sub\Th(\bN')\quad \Leftrightarrow \quad N_q\leq N_q' \text{ for all } q\in Q.$$
More on chains of ideals {#subsect:chains2}
------------------------
We now wish to prove an analogue of Theorem \[thm:E2\] for partial semigroups that may have non-trivial ${\mathscr H}$-congruences. The proof of Theorem \[thm:E2\] relied on iterating Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6iii\], and this iteration required suitably large ideals to have property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$. In the absence of this property, we iterate the more general Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\], and look to replace ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$ by a weaker property.
An immediate consequence of item \[S3\] in ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ is that the principal congruence generated by a non-trivial pair of ${\mathscr H}$-related elements from $D_T$ is never an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence. Thus, if there are non-trivial $\ze$-related pairs in $D_T$, then ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ cannot hold. The minimum weakening of ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(T)}$ to partial semigroups that may have non-trivial ${\mathscr H}$-congruences, which is simultaneously the maximum strengthening of ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(T)}$ to such partial semigroups, is to exclude the pairs belonging to $\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_T}$ from \[S3\]. Thus, we arrive at the following:
\[defn:Sepz\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and the following hold:
1. \[Sepz1\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in S$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_S$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$,
2. \[Sepz2\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in D_T\setminus H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_T$ and $y'\in S$,
<!-- -->
1. \[Sepz3\] for every $x,y\in D_T$ with $(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}^T{\setminus}\ze_T$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_T$ such that $x'\in D_S$ and $y'\in S{\setminus}H_{x'}^S$,
We also have the corresponding multiplicative property, which we denote by ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(T)}$, and which clearly implies ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(T)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sep\] and \[defn:Mult\].
\[defn:Multz\] A partial semigroup $T$ satisfies the property ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(T)}$ if it satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(T)}$, the ideal $S=T\setminus D_T$ satisfies ${\mathcal{D}\textup{\textsf{max}}(S)}$, and the following hold:
1. \[Multz1\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in S$ with $x\sim y$, there exist $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_S$ and $ayb\in S{\setminus}H_{axb}^S$,
2. \[Multz2\] for any $x\in D_T$ and $y\in D_T\setminus H_x^T$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_T$ and $ayb\in S$,
<!-- -->
1. \[Multz3\] for every $x,y\in D_T$ with $(x,y)\in{\mathscr H}^T{\setminus}\ze_T$, there exists $a,b\in T^1$ such that (renaming $x,y$ if necessary) $axb\in D_S $ and $ayb\in S{\setminus}H_{axb}^S$.
The next result concerns a chain of ideals $U$, as in Definition \[defn:chain\]. Thus, $U$ is a stable, regular partial semigroup, and $U/{\mathscr J}= {\set{D_q}{0\leq q<\xi}}$ with $D_0<D_1<\cdots$, where $\xi$ is some ordinal from the set $\{1,2,3,\ldots,\om\}$. As in the discussion following Definition \[defn:chain\], we have the ideals $I_r=D_0\cup D_1\cup\cdots\cup D_r$ for $0\leq r<\xi$, and also $I_\om=U$ in the case $\xi=\om$. We also fix group ${\mathscr H}$-classes $G_q$ in $D_q$ ($0\leq q<\xi$), and the normal subgroups $Z_q\normal G_q$ for which $\ze_U=\nu_{Z_0}\cup\nu_{Z_1}\cup\cdots$. Lemma \[lem:zeST\]\[zeST2\] gives $\ze_{I_r}=\nu_{Z_0}\cup\nu_{Z_1}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{Z_r}$ for $0\leq r<\xi$; thus, in what follows, we will not use subscripts to distinguish the $\ze$ relations on $U$ and its ideals. It also follows that NZ-tuples in ideals of $U$ are just truncations of NZ-tuples in $U$.
\[thm:E4\] Let $U$ be a chain of ideals of height $\xi$, and keep the notation of Definition \[defn:chain\] and the above discussion. Suppose there exists $0\leq k<\xi$ such that the following hold: $$\LiftCong{I_k}U={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)\COMMA {\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_k)}\COMMA {\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}\ \text{for all}\ k<r<\xi.$$ Then for any $r\geq k$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$),
\[E41\] $\CongH(I_r) = \bigset{\Th^{I_r}(\bN)}{\bN\text{ is an NZ-tuple in }I_r}$,
\[E42\] ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \bigset{\si\cup\th}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k),\ \th\in\CongH(I_r),\ \th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\si}$
${} \cup \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}\cup\th}{k\leq q<r,\ N\normal G_{q+1},\ \th\in\CongH(I_r),\ \bN(\th)_{q+1}\leq N} \cup \{\nab_{I_r}\}$.
Part \[E41\] is Proposition \[prop:ThN\], so we just need to prove \[E42\]. We begin by showing that the stated relations are congruences. First suppose $\tau=\si\cup\th$, where $\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$ and ${\th\in\CongH(I_r)}$ are such that $\th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\si$, and write $\bN=\bN(\th)=(N_0,N_1,\ldots)$. Since $\theta\subseteq {\mathscr H}\subseteq{\mathscr D}$ and $\theta{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\subseteq \sigma$, we have $\tau=\sigma\cup\theta{{\restriction}}_{I_r\setminus I_k}$, the union of two equivalence relations on disjoint sets; hence, $\tau$ is an equivalence relation. Then from $\tau=(\sigma\cup\Delta_{I_r})\cup\theta$ it follows that $\tau=(\sigma\cup\Delta_{I_r})\vee\theta$, the join of two congruences, and so $\tau$ is a congruence. (Note that $\si$ is liftable to $I_r$ as it is liftable to $U$.) The proof that relations of the form $\tau=R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}\cup\th$ are congruences is analogous.
The rest of the proof is devoted to showing that every congruence on $I_r$ has one of the forms listed. The proof follows that of Theorem \[thm:E2\], but with the view to using part \[E6ii\] of Theorem \[thm:E6\], and not part \[E6iii\].
We first show by induction that this is true for $k\leq r<\xi$. The $r=k$ case being clear, suppose $k<r<\xi$, and inductively assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1}) = \bigset{\si\cup\th}{{}&\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k),\ \th\in\CongH(I_{r-1}),\ \th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\si} \\[2truemm]
\label{eq:E4_1} {} \cup \bigset{R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}\cup\th}{{}&k\leq q<{r-1},\ N\normal G_{q+1},\ \th\in\CongH(I_{r-1}),\ \bN(\th)_{q+1}\leq N} \cup \{\nab_{I_{r-1}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from this (or by assumption, if $r=k+1$) that ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_{r-1})}$ holds. Since ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}$ holds by assumption, certainly ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\flat(I_r)}$ holds. Thus, ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_r)}$ holds, by Lemma \[lem:sepb\_ngen\], and so Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\] applies. To facilitate this application note that $$\label{eq:Ir-1}
\LiftCong{I_{r-1}}{I_r}={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1}).$$ Indeed, if $\ka$ is any congruence listed in , then $\ka\cup\De_{I_r}$ is one of the relations listed in the theorem: for $\ka\not=\nab_{I_{r-1}}$, we simply append $N_r=\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_r}\}$ to $\bN(\th)$. Thus, by Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\], we have $$\label{eq:E4_2}
{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \set{\ka\cup\nu_{N_r}}{\ka\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r-1}),\ N_r\normal G_r,\ \tau_{N_r}\sub\ka} \cup \{\nab_{I_r}\},$$ where $\tau_{N_r}=(\nu_{N_r})_{I_r}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{I_{r-1}}$. It is now a matter of showing that each congruence in is one of those listed in the theorem. To do so, we first note that for any $N_r\normal G_r$,
[\_[N\_r]{} = ]{} \[E4N1\] \^[I\_[r-1]{}]{}(N\_r\^[\_0]{},N\_r\^[\_1]{},…,N\_r\^[\_[r-1]{}]{}) &\
\[E4N2\] \_[I\_[r-1]{}]{} &
Indeed, is true by definition (cf. ). For , we apply \[Sepz3\] to a pair ${(e,x)\in\nu_{N_r}}$ with $x\in N_r{\setminus}Z_r$, and then apply ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_{r-1})}$.
Returning now to the main proof, we need to show that any congruence $\ka\cup\nu_{N_r}$ on $I_r$, as in , is among those listed in the theorem.
If ${N_r}\nleq Z_r$, then by we have $\ka\cup\nu_{N_r} = \nab_{I_{r-1}}\cup\nu_{N_r} = R_{I_{r-1},N_r}^{I_r} = R_{I_{r-1},N_r}^{I_r}\cup\De_{I_r}$.
If ${N_r}\leq Z_r$ and $\ka=\nab_{I_{r-1}}$, then again we have $\ka\cup\nu_{N_r}=R_{I_{r-1},N_r}^{I_r}$.
Next, suppose $N_r\leq Z_r$, and that $\ka$ is of the form $\si\cup\th$, as in . Keeping Proposition \[prop:ThN\] and Lemma \[lem:zeST\] in mind, we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\th &= \nu_{N_0} \cup \nu_{N_1} \cup \cdots \cup \nu_{N_k}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_{r-1}} &&\text{where $(N_0,\ldots,N_{r-1})$ is an NZ-tuple,}\\
\si\cap\ze &= \nu_{N_0'} \cup \nu_{N_1'} \cup \cdots \cup \nu_{N_k'} &&\text{where $(N_0',\ldots,N_k')$ is an NZ-tuple.}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\si$ and also $\th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\ze$, it follows that $\th{{\restriction}}_{I_k}\sub\si\cap\ze$, and so $N_t\leq N_t'$ for all $0\leq t\leq k$. In particular, $(N_0',N_1',\ldots,N_k',N_{k+1},\ldots,N_{r-1})$ is an NZ-tuple. By , and since $\tau_{N_r} \sub \ka$ and $\tau_{N_r}\sub\ze$ (the latter because $N_r\leq Z_r$), we have $$\nu_{N_r^{\downarrow_0}} \cup \cdots \cup \nu_{N_r^{\downarrow_{r-1}}} = \tau_{N_r} \sub \ka\cap\ze = (\si\cup\th)\cap\ze = (\si\cap\ze)\cup\th = \nu_{N_0'}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_k'}\cup\nu_{N_{k+1}}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_{r-1}}.$$ It follows that $\bN=(N_0',\ldots,N_k',N_{k+1},\ldots,N_{r-1},N_r)$ is an NZ-tuple. But then $$\ka\cup\nu_{N_r} = \si\cup\th\cup\nu_{N_r} = \si \cup \Th^{I_r}(\bN),$$ with $\Th^{I_r}(\bN){{\restriction}}_{I_k}=\si\cap\ze\sub\si$.
Finally, suppose $N_r\leq Z_r$, and that $\ka$ is of the form $R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}\cup\th$, as in . Again, write $\th= \nu_{N_0} \cup \nu_{N_1} \cup \cdots \cup \nu_{N_{r-1}}$, where $(N_0,\ldots,N_{r-1})$ is an NZ-tuple, noting that $N_{q+1}\leq N$ (cf. ). This time, $$\nu_{N_r^{\downarrow_0}} \cup \nu_{N_r^{\downarrow_1}} \cup \cdots \cup \nu_{N_r^{\downarrow_{r-1}}} = \tau_{N_r}
\sub\ka
=R_{I_q,N}^{I_{r-1}}\cup\th
=\nab_{I_q}\cup\nu_N\cup\nu_{N_{q+2}}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_{r-1}}$$ gives $N_r^{\downarrow_{q+1}}\leq N$ and $N_r^{\downarrow_t}\leq N_t$ for all $q+2\leq t\leq r-1$. Put $N_{q+1}'=N_{q+1}N_r^{\downarrow_{q+1}}$, noting that $N_{q+1}'\normal G_{q+1}$, $N_{q+1}'\leq Z_{q+1}$ and $N_{q+1}'\leq N$. Then $$\ka\cup\nu_{N_r} = \nab_{I_q}\cup\nu_N\cup\nu_{N_{q+2}}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_{r-1}}\cup\nu_{N_r} = R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}\cup\Th^{I_r}(\bN),$$ for the NZ-tuple $\bN = (Z_0,Z_1,\ldots,Z_q,N_{q+1}',N_{q+2},\ldots,N_{r-1},N_r)$, and we have already noted that $N_{q+1}'\leq N$.
This completes the inductive step, and hence Step 1 as well.
We now consider the case in which $r=\xi=\om$. Suppose $\ka$ is an arbitrary congruence on $U=I_\om$. The proof will be complete if we can show that $\ka$ is one of those listed in the theorem. For each $k\leq q<\om$, let $\ka_q = \ka{{\restriction}}_{I_q}$. If $\ka_q=\nab_{I_q}$ for all such $q$, then $\ka=\nab_U$. So suppose otherwise, and let $$\label{eq:E4_3}
p=\min\set{q}{k< q<\om,\ \ka_q\not=\nab_{I_q}},$$ noting that $p>k$. For any $p\leq t<\om$, the finite case of the theorem (proved above) tells us that $\ka_t$ $(\not=\nab_{I_t})$ is contained in $R_{I_{t-1},G_t}^{I_t} = \nab_{I_{t-1}} \cup {\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_t}$, and so $\ka{{\restriction}}_{D_t} = \ka_t{{\restriction}}_{D_t}\sub{\mathscr H}$; Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] then gives $\ka{{\restriction}}_{D_t}=\nu_{N_t}$ for some $N_t\normal G_t$. Thus, $$\label{eq:ka_p-1}
\ka = \ka_{p-1} \cup \nu_{N_p} \cup \nu_{N_{p+1}} \cup \cdots.$$ If $N_t\not\leq Z_t$ for some $t>p$, then would give $\nab_{I_{t-1}} = (\nu_{N_t})_{I_t}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{I_{t-1}} \sub (\nu_{N_t})_U^\sharp \sub \ka$, and hence $\nab_{I_p}\sub\ka$, contradicting $\ka_p\not=\nab_{I_p}$. Thus, $N_t\leq Z_t$ for all $t>p$. We also note that for any $t>s\geq p$, $$\nu_{N_t^{\downarrow_s}} = (\nu_{N_t})_U^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_s} \sub \ka{{\restriction}}_{D_s} = \nu_{N_s},$$ which gives $N_t^{\downarrow_s}\leq N_s$ for all such $t,s$.
If $\ka_{p-1}=\nab_{I_{p-1}}$, then gives $\ka = \nab_{I_{p-1}}\cup\nu_{N_p}\cup\nu_{N_{p+1}}\cup\cdots = R_{I_{p-1},N_p}^U\cup\Th(\bN)$, for the NZ-tuple $\bN=(Z_0,Z_1,\ldots,Z_{p-1},N_p\cap Z_p,N_{p+1},N_{p+2},\ldots)$. (Note that for $t>p$, we have $\nu_{N_t^{\downarrow_p}}=(\nu_{N_t})_U^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\nu_{Z_p}$, which gives $N_t^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p\cap Z_p$.)
Now suppose $\ka_{p-1}\not=\nab_{I_{p-1}}$. As above, we must have $N_p\leq Z_p$ (or else $\nab_{I_{p-1}}\sub\ka$, a contradiction). By the definition of $p$ in , we must in fact have $p=k+1$. Thus, writing $\si=\ka_{p-1}=\ka_k\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_k)$, gives $$\ka = \si \cup \nu_{N_{k+1}} \cup \nu_{N_{k+2}} \cup \cdots,$$ and we have seen that $N_t\normal G_t$ and $N_t\leq Z_t$ for all $t>k$. Now, $\si\cap\ze=\si\cap\ze_{I_k}$ is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on $I_k$, so by Proposition \[prop:ThN\] (cf. Lemma \[lem:zeST\]), $\si\cap\ze=\nu_{N_0}\cup\nu_{N_1}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_k}$ for some NZ-tuple $(N_0,N_1,\ldots,N_k)$. Now, for any $0\leq s\leq k<t$, we have $$\nu_{N_t^{\downarrow_s}} = (\nu_{N_t})_U^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_s} \sub \ka{{\restriction}}_{D_s} = \si{{\restriction}}_{D_s} \AND \nu_{N_t^{\downarrow_s}} = (\nu_{N_t})_U^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_s} \sub (\nu_{Z_t})_U^\sharp \sub \ze,$$ from which it follows that $\nu_{N_t^{\downarrow_s}} \sub (\si\cap\ze){{\restriction}}_{D_s} = \nu_{N_s}$, and so $N_t^{\downarrow_s}\leq N_s$. All of this shows that $\bN=(N_0,N_1,\ldots,N_k,N_{k+1},\ldots)$ is an NZ-tuple in $U$. But then $\ka = \si \cup \Th(\bN)$, and also $\Th(\bN){{\restriction}}_{I_k} = \nu_{N_0}\cup\nu_{N_1}\cup\cdots\cup\nu_{N_k} = \si\cap\ze \sub \si$.
Theorem \[thm:E2\] may be viewed as a special case of Theorem \[thm:E4\]\[E42\]. This follows from the observation that ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$ implies $Z_r=\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_r}\}$ for all $r>k$. Thus, every NZ-tuple $(N_0,N_1,\ldots)$ satisfies $N_r=\{{\operatorname{id}}_{G_r}\}$ for $r>k$. Hence the congruences listed in Theorem \[thm:E4\]\[E42\] take the simpler forms $\si\cup\th=\si\cup\De_{I_r}$ and $R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}\cup\th=R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}$, exactly as in Theorem \[thm:E2\].
A particular simplification of Theorem \[thm:E4\] will be of use in our forthcoming applications. Here we are dealing with the case in which $k=1$, and the minimal ideal $I_0=D_0$ of $U$ (as above) is *trivial* in the sense that each hom-set $U_{A,B}$ contains a unique element of $D_0$. In this case, every ideal of $U$ is trivially retractable.
For the next statement, if $I$ is an ideal of a partial semigroup $S$, and if $\bN=(N_q)_{q\in Q}$ where the $N_q$ are normal subgroups of group ${\mathscr H}$-classes contained in distinct stable, regular ${\mathscr J}$-classes contained in $S{\setminus}I$, then we define the relation $$R_{I,\bN}^S = R_I^S \cup \bigcup_{q\in Q}\nu_{N_q}.$$ Note that here we do not assume the ${\mathscr J}$-classes containing the $N_q$ are minimal in $(S{\setminus}I)/{\mathscr J}$, or that these are *all* the ${\mathscr J}$-classes from $S{\setminus}I$.
\[thm:E5\] Let $U$ be a chain of ideals of height $\xi$, and keep the notation of Definition \[defn:chain\] and the discussion before Theorem \[thm:E4\]. Suppose also that
the minimal ideal $I_0=D_0$ is trivial,
for every $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_1{\setminus}H_x$ with $x\sim y$, there exists $(x',y')\in\cg xy_{I_1}$ with $x'\in D_1$ and $y'\in D_0$,
${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}$ holds for each $2\leq r<\xi$. Then for any $r\geq 0$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), the congruences on the ideal $I_r$ are precisely $\nab_{I_r}$ and those of the form
$R_{I_q,\bN}^{I_r}$ for some $0\leq q<r$ and some $\bN=(N_{q+1},N_{q+2},\ldots)$, where
$N_p\normal G_p$ for all $p\geq q+1$,
$N_p\leq Z_p$ for all $p\geq q+2$,
$N_t^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p$ for all $t>p\geq q+1$.
This is clear for $r=0$; indeed, the trivial $I_0$ has only one congruence: $\De_{I_0}=\nab_{I_0}$. Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] gives the $r=1$ case, noting that $I_1$ is retractable. In the notation of that proposition, and keeping in mind that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)=\{\De_{I_0}=\nab_{I_0}\}$, the “$\tau\cup\nu_N$-type” congruences are all of the form $\nab_{I_0}\cup\nu_N=R_{I_0,N}^{I_1}$ ($N\normal G_1$), and the only “$\th_{S,\tau}$-type” congruence is ${\th_{I_1,\nab_{I_0}}=\nab_{I_1}}$. In particular, ${\nabla\textup{\textsf{gen}}(I_1)}$ holds, and we also have $\LiftCong{I_1}U={\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$; cf. Lemma \[lem:E2\]. Thus, Theorem \[thm:E4\] applies with $k=1$, and it is easy to check that it gives precisely the desired descriptions of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ for $r\geq2$.
Linear and projective linear categories {#sect:L}
=======================================
We now turn our attention to categories of linear transformations, specifically the linear and projective linear categories, $\LL$ and $\PL$, both defined in Section \[subsect:defnL\]. After discussing Green’s relations and establishing the required multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimL\], we describe the congruences on arbitrary ideals of $\LL$ in Section \[subsect:L\], and on $\PL$ in Section \[subsect:PL\]. It turns out that $\LL$ has non-trivial ${\mathscr H}$-congruences, and so we will be applying the results from Section \[sect:H\]; for $\PL$, however, we will return to those of Section \[sect:chains\]. In Section \[subsect:visual\_L\] we discuss how to visualise the congruence lattices of ideals in $\LL$. The congruences of the ideals of the linear *monoid* were determined by Mal’cev [@Malcev1953], one of the early papers motivating the present work.
Definitions and preliminaries on $\LL$ and $\PL$ {#subsect:defnL}
------------------------------------------------
Throughout Section \[sect:L\], $\F$ will be a fixed field, and $\Fx=\F{\setminus}\{0\}$ will denote the multiplicative group of units of $\F$. We denote by $\GL_q=\GL_q(\F)$ and $\SL_q=\SL_q(\F)$, respectively, the general and special linear groups of $q\times q$ matrices over $\F$. We also write $\PGL_q=\PGL_q(\F)=\GL_q/Z(\GL_q)$ for the projective linear group; here $Z(\GL_q)=\set{cE_q}{c\in\Fx}$ is the centre of $\GL_q$, consisting of all non-zero scalar multiples of the $q\times q$ identity matrix $E_q$.
Fix some non-empty set $\C$ of finite-dimensional vector spaces over $\F$, and define the parameter $$\xi=\xi(\C)={\LSUB}\bigset{{\dim}(V)}{V\in\C},$$ where as usual $\dim(V)$ is the dimension of $V$. For vector spaces $U$ and $V$ we write $\LL_{U,V}$ for the set of all linear transformations from $U\to V$. We now define $$\LL = \LL(\C) = \bigset{(U,\al,V)}{U,V\in\C,\ \al\in\LL_{U,V}}.$$ For $U,V,W\in\C$, and for $\al\in\LL_{U,V}$ and $\be\in\LL_{V,W}$, we define $$\bd(U,\al,V)=U \COMMA \br(U,\al,V)=V \COMMA (U,\al,V)\cdot(V,\be,W) = (U,\al\be,W),$$ where $\al\be\in\LL_{U,W}$ denotes the composition (performing $\al$ first, then $\be$). Then $$(\LL,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$$ is a partial semigroup, indeed a stable, regular category (cf. [@DE2018 Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2]), which we will call the *linear category (over $\C$)*. For $V\in\C$, the endomorphism monoid $\LL_V=\LL_{V,V}$ is the *full linear monoid* over $V$ [@Okninski1998]. Note that when $\C=\{V\}$ consists of a single finite-dimensional vector space, the category $\LL$ is simply the monoid $\LL_V$.
As with the transformation category $\T$, we will avoid cumbersome notation by identifying $(U,\al,V)\in\LL$ with the transformation $\al\in\LL_{U,V}$, regarding the vector spaces $U,V$ as “encoded” in $\al$, and writing $\bd(\al)=U$ and $\br(\al)=V$.
Of importance in all that follows will be the relation $\ze$ on $\LL$ defined by $$\ze = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in\LL\times\LL}{\al=c\be \text{ for some }c\in\Fx}.$$ It is a routine matter to verify that $\ze$ is a congruence, and that $\ze\sub{\mathscr H}$. We have taken the liberty of using the suggestive notation $\ze$ for this congruence because it is in fact the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on $\LL$; cf. Corollary \[cor:zeL\].
For $\al\in\LL$, we write $\ol\al$ for the $\ze$-class of $\al$. We call the quotient category $$\PL = \PL(\C) = \LL/\ze = \set{\ol\al}{\al\in\LL}$$ the *projective linear category (over $\C$)*. Endomorphism monoids in $\PL$ are projective linear monoids $\PL_U$ ($U\in\C$). It is worth observing that $\ze=\De_\LL$ if $|\F|=2$, so that $\PL=\LL$ in this case.
Green’s relations and multiplicative properties in $\LL$ and $\PL$ {#subsect:prelimL}
------------------------------------------------------------------
For a linear transformation $\al:U\to V$, we write as usual $$\Ker(\al) = \set{\vu\in U}{\vu\al=\vzero} \COMMA \im(\al) = \set{\vu\al}{\vu\in U} \COMMA {\operatorname{rank}}(\al) = \dim(\im(\al))$$ for the *kernel*, *image* and *rank* of $\al$. Throughout $\vzero$ will denote the zero of any vector space. Note that $\Ker(\al)$ is a *subspace* of $U$ (not an equivalence), $\im(\al)$ is a subspace of $V$, and ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)$ is a cardinal between $0$ and $\min(\dim(U),\dim(V))$, inclusive.
For a proof of the next result, see [@DE2018 Lemma 3.1], which is formulated equivalently in terms of matrices and row/column spaces; see also [@Okninski1998 Lemma 2.1]. In what follows, it will occasionally be convenient to move between the viewpoints of linear transformations and matrices.
\[lem:Green\_L\]
\[GL1\] For $\al,\be\in\LL$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff \bd(\al)=\bd(\be)$ and $\Ker(\al)=\Ker(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff \br(\al)=\br(\be)$ and $\im(\al)=\im(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GL2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of $\LL$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q(\LL) = \set{\al\in\LL}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each $0\leq q<\xi$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $D_0<D_1<\cdots$.
\[GL3\] The ideals of $\LL$ are the sets
$I_r = I_r(\LL) = \set{\al\in\LL}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each $0\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om = I_\om(\LL) = \LL $ in the case that $\xi=\om$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$.
\[GL4\] The ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is isomorphic to $\GL_q(\F)$.
Thus, $\LL$ is a chain of ideals, as in Definition \[defn:chain\]. Note that the minimal ideal $I_0=D_0$ consists entirely of zero-mappings, and is hence *trivial* in the sense described before Theorem \[thm:E5\].
Since the congruence $\ze$ is contained in ${\mathscr H}$, it follows quickly that Green’s relations on the projective linear category $\PL=\LL/\ze$ are induced by those on $\LL$ in the following sense. If $\al,\be\in\LL$, and if ${\mathscr K}$ is any of Green’s relations, then $\ol\al$ and $\ol\be$ are ${\mathscr K}$-related in $\PL$ if and only if $\al$ and $\be$ are ${\mathscr K}$-related in $\LL$. Thus, the (stable, regular) ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes and ideals of $\PL$ are the sets $$D_q(\PL) = \set{\ol\al}{\al\in D_q(\LL)} \AND I_r(\PL) = \set{\ol\al}{\al\in I_r(\LL)} \qquad\text{for appropriate $q,r$.}$$ These again form chains: $D_0(\PL)<D_1(\PL)<\cdots$ and $I_0(\PL)\subset I_1(\PL)\subset\cdots$. The group ${\mathscr H}$-classes in $D_q(\PL)$ are isomorphic to $\PGL_q(\F)$.
As usual, the following technical lemma will underpin the investigations to follow.
\[lem:P2L\] Let $U,V\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\LL_{U,V}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2Li\] If $r\geq2$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\al\ga\in D_{r-1}$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\al\ga}$.
\[P2Lii\] If $q=r\geq1$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}]$.}$$
\[P2Liii\] If $r\geq2$ and $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{\setminus}\ze$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\al\ga\in D_{r-1}$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\al\ga}$.
Since $\dim(\Ker(\be))=\dim(U)-{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)>\dim(U)-{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=\dim(\Ker(\al))$, we may fix some $\vu_1\in U$ such that $\vv_1=\vu_1\al\not=\vzero=\vu_1\be$. Let $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_d\}$ be a basis of $V$ such that $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_r\}$ is a basis of $\im(\al)$. Define $\ga\in I_r(\LL_V)$ by $$\vv_i\ga = \begin{cases}
\vv_i &\text{if $1\leq i\leq r-1$}\\
\vzero &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Since $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_{r-1}\}$ is a basis of $\im(\al\ga)$, we have $\al\ga\in D_{r-1}$. Since $\vu_1\al\ga=\vv_1\not=\vzero=\vu_1\be\ga$, we have $\Ker(\al\ga)\not=\Ker(\be\ga)$, and so $(\al\ga,\be\ga)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, whence $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\al\ga}$.
There are two cases to consider.
Suppose first that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, so that $\vu_1\be=\vzero\not=\vu_1\al$ for some $\vu_1\in U$. Put $\vv_1=\vu_1\al$, and let $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_r\}$ be a basis of $\im(\al)$. Choose some $\vu_i\in\vv_i\al^{-1}$ for each $2\leq i\leq r$. We extend these vectors to a basis $\{\vu_1,\ldots,\vu_d\}$ of $U$. Define $\ga\in I_r(\LL_U)$ by $$\vu_i\ga = \begin{cases}
\vu_i &\text{if $1\leq i\leq r$}\\
\vzero &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$.
The case in which $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$ is dual. Fix bases of $U$ and $V$, and let the matrices associated to the transformations $\al$ and $\be$ (and the fixed bases) be $A$ and $B$, respectively. Since $A$ and $B$ are ${\mathscr L}$-unrelated, their transposes $A^\tr$ and $B^\tr$ are ${\mathscr R}$-unrelated. Thus, by the previous case there is a matrix $C$ of rank $r$ such that ${\operatorname{rank}}(CA^\tr)=r>{\operatorname{rank}}(CB^\tr)$. We then take $\ga\in I_r(\LL)$ to be the transformation associated to $C^\tr$.
Let $\{\vu_1,\ldots,\vu_d\}$ be a basis of $U$ such that $\{\vu_{r+1},\ldots,\vu_d\}$ is a basis of $\Ker(\al)=\Ker(\be)$. For $1\leq i\leq r$, let $\vv_i=\vu_i\al$, so that $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_r\}$ is a basis of $\im(\al)=\im(\be)$. Extend this to a basis $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_e\}$ of $V$.
Suppose first that there exists some $1\leq i\leq r$ such that $\vu_i\be$ is not a scalar multiple of $\vv_i$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $i=r$, so that $\vu_r\be=\sum_{j=1}^rc_j\vv_j$ for some $c_j\in\F$ and such that $c_j\not=0$ for some $1\leq j\leq r-1$. Define $\ga\in I_r(\LL_V)$ by $$\vv_i\ga = \begin{cases}
\vv_i &\text{if $1\leq i\leq r-1$}\\
\vzero &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $\al\ga\in D_{r-1}$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}$. But also $\vu_r(\al\ga)=\vzero$, yet $\vu_r(\be\ga)=\sum_{j=1}^{r-1}c_j\vv_j\not=\vzero$, so that $(\al\ga,\be\ga)\not\in{\mathscr R}$.
Now suppose that for each $1\leq i\leq r$ we have $\vu_i\be=c_i\vv_i$ for some $c_i\in\F$. If $c_1=\cdots=c_r$, then (since also $\vu_i\al=\vu_i\be=\vzero$ for $i>r$) we would have $\be=c_1\al$; since $c_1\not=0$ (as ${\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=r>0$), it would follow that $(\al,\be)\in\ze$, a contradiction. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that $c_{r-1}\not=c_r$. Define $\ga\in I_r(\LL_V)$ by $$\vv_i\ga = \begin{cases}
\vv_i &\text{if $1\leq i\leq r-1$}\\
-\vv_{r-1} &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $\al\ga,\be\ga\in D_{r-1}$, as $\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_{r-1}\}$ is clearly a basis of $\im(\al\ga)=\im(\be\ga)$. But since ${(\vu_{r-1}+\vu_r)\al\ga=\vzero}$ and $(\vu_{r-1}+\vu_r)\be\ga=(c_{r-1}-c_r)\vv_{r-1}\not=\vzero$, we have ${(\al\ga,\be\ga)\not\in{\mathscr R}}$.
\[rem:P2L\] It follows from Lemma \[lem:P2L\] that the ideal $I_r$ of $\LL$ ($2\leq r<\xi$) satisfies ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sepz\] and \[defn:Multz\].
On the other hand, since $\ze\sub{\mathscr H}^{\LL}$, it follows that the ideal $I_r$ of $\PL=\LL/\ze$ ($2\leq r<\xi$) satisfies the stronger ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sep\] and \[defn:Mult\].
\[cor:zeL\] The congruence $\ze=\bigset{(\al,\be)\in\LL\times\LL}{\al=c\be \text{ for some }c\in\Fx}$ is the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on $\LL$.
We first claim that $\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_q}={\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$ for $q=0,1$. Indeed, this is clear for $q=0$. Next suppose $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_1}$, say with $\al,\be\in\LL_{U,V}$. Fix a basis $\{\vu_1,\ldots,\vu_d\}$ of $U$ so that $\{\vu_1,\ldots,\vu_{d-1}\}$ is a basis of $\Ker(\al)=\Ker(\be)$, and let $\vv=\vu_d\al$. Since $\im(\al)=\im(\be)$, we have $\vu_d\be=c\vv$ for some $c\in\Fx$, and so $\be=c\al$, which means that $(\al,\be)\in\ze$. This completes the proof of the claim.
Now, we have already observed that $\ze$ is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence. If $\ze$ was strictly contained in some other ${\mathscr H}$-congruence $\si$, then for any $(\al,\be)\in\si{\setminus}\ze$, we would have $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{\setminus}\ze$, and so ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)\geq2$ (by the claim). Lemma \[lem:P2L\]\[P2Liii\] then tells us that $\si{\setminus}{\mathscr H}$ is non-empty, a contradiction.
Congruences on ideals of $\LL$ {#subsect:L}
------------------------------
In this section we use Theorem \[thm:E5\] to describe the congruences on arbitrary ideals of the linear category $\LL=\LL(\C)$. We keep all the notation as in the previous section.
We have already noted that $I_0=D_0$ is trivial, and the remaining technical assumptions from Theorem \[thm:E5\] follow from Lemma \[lem:P2L\]. Therefore all congruences on $\LL$ are of the form $R_{I_q,\bN}^{I_r}$, as in Theorem \[thm:E5\]. However, we can derive more concrete descriptions of these congruences by being more explicit about the permitted sequences $\bN$.
For each $0\leq q<\xi$, fix some vector space $V_q$ from $\C$ with $n_q = \dim(V_q)\geq q$, and fix a basis $\BB_q=\{\vv_{q,1},\ldots,\vv_{q,n_q}\}$ of $V_q$. We define the idempotent $\ve_q\in D_q(\LL_{V_q})$ by $$\vv_{q,i} \ve_q = \begin{cases}
\vv_{q,i} &\text{if $1\leq i\leq q$}\\
\vzero &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ We then let $\G_q$ be the ${\mathscr H}$-class of the idempotent $\ve_q$.
We have already noted that $\G_q\cong\GL_q=\GL_q(\F)$, and it is easy to see this in matrix form. With respect to the basis $\BB_q$, the linear transformation $\ve_q$ corresponds to the $n_q\times n_q$ matrix given in block form by $\tmat EOOO$, where $E=E_q$ is the $q\times q$ identity matrix, and where the $O$’s denote zero matrices of appropriate sizes. Any matrix ${\mathscr H}$-related to $\tmat EOOO$ is of the form $\tmat AOOO$ for some invertible $q\times q$ matrix $A\in\GL_q$ (cf. [@DE2018 Lemma 3.1]). The element of $\G_q$ corresponding to the matrix $\tmat AOOO$ will be denoted $A^\natural$. For $\Om\sub\GL_q$, we write $\Om^\natural=\set{A^\natural}{A\in\Om}$. In particular, $\G_q=\GL_q^\natural$.
The next step is to give a concrete description of the $\nu_N$ relations. We do this in Lemma \[lem:nuN\_L\], for which we first introduce some terminology analogous to that used for transformations and partitions. With this in mind, fix some ${\mathscr H}$-related elements $\al,\be$ from $D_q(\LL_{U,V})$, where $U,V\in\C$. Let $\BB=\{\vu_1,\ldots,\vu_d\}$ be a basis of $U$ such that $\{\vu_{q+1},\ldots,\vu_d\}$ is a basis of $\Ker(\al)$. Let $\BB'=\{\vv_1,\ldots,\vv_e\}$ be a basis of $V$ such that $\vv_i=\vu_i\al$ for all $1\leq i\leq q$. Since $\Ker(\al)=\Ker(\be)$ and $\im(\al)=\im(\be)$, the matrix of $\be$ with respect to the bases $\BB$ and $\BB'$ has the form $\tmat AOOO$ for some invertible $q\times q$ matrix $A\in\GL_q$ (and where again the $O$’s denote zero matrices of appropriate sizes). We then define $\phi(\al,\be)=A\in\GL_q$, again noting that this is defined only up to conjugacy (change of basis) in $\GL_q$.
\[lem:nuN\_L\] If $0\leq q<\xi$, and if $N\normal\GL_q$, then $\nu_{N^\natural} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}}{\phi(\al,\be)\in N}$.
Let $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$, say with $\al,\be\in\LL_{U,V}$, and fix the bases $\BB$ and $\BB'$ as above. Define $\ga_1\in\LL_{V_q,U}$, $\ga_2\in\LL_{V,V_q}$, $\de_1\in\LL_{U,V_q}$ and $\de_2\in\LL_{V_q,V}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\vv_{q,i}\ga_1 &= \begin{cases}
\vu_i\phantom{\vv_{q,i}} &\text{for $1\leq i\leq q$}\\
\vzero &\text{for $q<i\leq n_q$,}
\end{cases}
&
\vu_{i}\de_1 &= \begin{cases}
\vv_{q,i}\phantom{\vv_i} &\text{for $1\leq i\leq q$}\\
\vzero &\text{for $q<i\leq d$,}
\end{cases}
\\[1truemm]
\vv_{i}\ga_2 &= \begin{cases}
\vv_{q,i}\phantom{\vu_i} &\text{for $1\leq i\leq q$}\\
\vzero &\text{for $q<i\leq e$,}
\end{cases}
&
\vv_{q,i}\de_2 &= \begin{cases}
\vv_{i}\phantom{\vv_{q,i}} &\text{for $1\leq i\leq q$}\\
\vzero &\text{for $q<i\leq n_q$.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Since $(E_q^\natural,A^\natural) = (\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)$ and $(\al,\be) = (\de_1E_q^\natural\de_2,\de_1A^\natural\de_2)$, we have (cf. Lemma \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN1\]) $$(\al,\be)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff (E_q^\natural,A^\natural)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff A^\natural\in N^\natural \iff \phi(\al,\be)=A\in N. \qedhere$$
With the above definition of $\G_q=\GL_q^\natural$ in place, we may also calculate the groups $Z_q$. Indeed, since $\nu_{Z_q}=\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$, Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] tells us that $$Z_q = \set{\al\in\G_q}{(\ve_q,\al)\in\ze} = \set{c\ve_q}{c\in\Fx} = Z(\GL_q)^\natural.$$ Thus, $$\ze = \nu_{Z(\GL_0)^\natural} \cup \nu_{Z(\GL_1)^\natural} \cup \nu_{Z(\GL_2)^\natural} \cup \cdots.$$
The subgroups of $Z(\GL_q)$ have the form $$\Z_q(H) = \set{cE_q}{c\in H} \qquad\text{where $H\leq\Fx$,}$$ and these are all normal in $\GL_q$. The NZ-tuples in $\LL$ are of the form $\bN=(N_0,N_1,\ldots)$, where each $N_q\normal \G_q$ and $N_q\leq Z_q$, and where $N_q^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p$ for all $0\leq p<q$. The next result explicates the effect of $\downarrow_p$.
\[lem:Zqp\_L\] For any $0\leq p\leq q<\xi$, and for any $H\leq\Fx$, we have $(\Z_q(H)^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}=\Z_p(H)^\natural$.
For convenience, we write $N_q=\Z_q(H)^\natural$ and $N_p=\Z_p(H)^\natural$; we must show that $N_q^{\downarrow_p}=N_p$. Note that $N_q=\set{c\ve_q}{c\in H}$ and similarly for $N_p$.
First, since $\ve_p\leqJ\ve_q$, we have $\ve_p=\ga_1\ve_q\ga_2$ for some $\ga_1,\ga_2\in\LL$. For any $c\in H$, we have $(\ve_q,c\ve_q)\in\nu_{N_q}$, and so $(\ve_p,c\ve_p) = (\ga_1\ve_q\ga_2,\ga_1(c\ve_q)\ga_2) \in \nu_{N_q}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:nuN\]\[nuN1\] that $c\ve_p\in N_q^{\downarrow_p}$. Since $c\in H$ was arbitrary, it follows that $N_p \leq N_q^{\downarrow_p}$.
We will show that $N_q^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p$ by showing that $\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}\sub\nu_{N_p}$. Now, $\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}=\nu_{N_q}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$. As in Remark \[rem:tau\_N\], the congruence $\nu_{N_q}^\sharp$ is the union of $\De_\LL$ with the transitive closure of the set $$\Om = \bigset{(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)}{\al,\be\in N_q,\ \ga_1,\ga_2\in \LL,\ \br(\ga_1)=\bd(\ga_2)=V_q}.$$ Any pair from $\Om$ satisfies $(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)\in{\mathscr H}\sub{\mathscr J}$, since $(\al,\be)\in\nu_{N_q}\sub\nu_{Z_q}\sub\ze$, and since $\ze$ is an ${\mathscr H}$-congruence. It follows that $\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}=\nu_{N_q}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$ is in fact the transitive closure of the set $\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$. Since $\nu_{N_p}$ is an equivalence, we can therefore show that $\nu_{N_q^{\downarrow_p}}\sub\nu_{N_p}$ by showing that $\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub\nu_{N_p}$. With this in mind, consider some pair $(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)\in\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$. Since $\al,\be\in N_q$, we have $\be=c\al$ for some $c\in H$ (since $\al=c_1\ve_q$ and $\be=c_2\ve_q$ for some $c_1,c_2\in H$). Since $\ga_1\al\ga_2\in D_p$, we have $(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ve_p)\in{\mathscr D}$, and so $\ga_1\al\ga_2=\de_1\ve_p\de_2$ for some $\de_1,\de_2\in\LL$. But then $(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1\be\ga_2)=\big(\ga_1\al\ga_2,\ga_1(c\al)\ga_2\big)=\big(\de_1\ve_p\de_2,\de_1(c\ve_p)\de_2\big)\in\nu_{N_p}$. This completes the proof.
From Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_L\], we immediately deduce the following:
\[cor:Zqp\_L\] If $0\leq p\leq q<\xi$, and if $H_1,H_2\leq\Fx$, then $$(\Z_q(H_1)^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}\leq\Z_p(H_2)^\natural \iff H_1\leq H_2. \epfreseq$$
Here is the main result of this section. The statement involves the relations $R_{I,\bN}^S$ defined before Theorem \[thm:E5\].
\[thm:L\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite-dimensional vector spaces over a field $\F$, let $\LL=\LL(\C)$ be the linear category over $\C$, and keep the above notation. Then for any $r\geq0$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), the congruences on $I_r$ are precisely the universal congruence $\nab_{I_r}$ and those of the form $$R_{I_q,\bN}^{I_r} \qquad\text{for some $0\leq q<r$ and some $\bN=(N_{q+1}^\natural,\Z_{q+2}(H_{q+2})^\natural,\Z_{q+3}(H_{q+3})^\natural,\ldots)$,}$$ where $$N_{q+1}\normal\GL_{q+1}\COMMA
\Fx\geq H_{q+2}\geq H_{q+3}\geq\cdots\COMMA
\Z_{q+1}(H_{q+2})\leq N_{q+1} \text{ if $q\leq r-2$}.$$
We have already noted that all of the conditions of Theorem \[thm:E5\] are satisfied. The only thing left to check is that, with $\bN$ as in the statement, and writing $N_p=\Z_p(H_p)$ for $p\geq q+2$, we have $(N_t^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p^\natural$ for all $t>p\geq q+1$. But this follows quickly from Corollary \[cor:Zqp\_L\].
Visualising the lattices {#subsect:visual_L}
------------------------
Compared to the categories considered in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\], congruence lattices of the ideals of $\LL$ are rather complex and harder to visualise. Nevertheless, we may gain some intuition by considering ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ for some small $r$ and small underlying fields $\F$.
The first key is to recall the normal subgroup structure of $\GL_q$. The next result is well known, though non-trivial to prove; see for example [@Artin1957 Theorem 4.9].
\[prop:GLq\] If $q\geq3$, or if $q=2$ and $|\F|\geq4$, then the normal subgroups of the general linear group $\GL_q=\GL_q(\F)$ are precisely
\[GLq1\] the subgroups of the centre $Z(\GL_q)$, and
\[GLq2\] the subgroups of $\GL_q$ containing the special linear group $\SL_q=\SL_q(\F)$.
We have already noted that the subgroups of $Z(\GL_q)$ are of the form ${\Z_q(H)=\set{cE_q}{c\in H}}$ for $H\leq\Fx$. It is also not hard to show that the subgroups of $\GL_q$ containing $\SL_q$ are of the form $${\mathcal{S}}_q(H) = \set{A\in\GL_q}{\det(A)\in H} \qquad\text{for $H\leq\Fx$,}$$ where as usual $\det(A)$ is the determinant of $A$. Thus, apart from the exceptional combinations of $q$ and $|\F|$ excluded in Proposition \[prop:GLq\], the lattice of normal subgroups of $\GL_q$ is $${\mathcal{N}}(\GL_q) = \bigset{\Z_q(H),\ {\mathcal{S}}_q(H)}{H\leq\Fx}.$$
The sublattices $\bigset{\Z_q(H)}{H\leq\Fx}$ and $\bigset{{\mathcal{S}}_q(H)}{H\leq\Fx}$ are both clearly isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(\Fx)$, but the ways in which these sublattices are “glued together” to form ${\mathcal{N}}(\GL_q)$ depends on $q$ (and in particular, which elements of $\F$ are $q$th powers). The structure of the lattice ${\mathcal{N}}(\Fx)$ itself depends on the field $\F$; if $|\F|=n$ is finite, ${\mathcal{N}}(\Fx)$ is isomorphic to the lattice of divisors of $|\Fx|=n-1$, since $\Fx$ is cyclic.
As an example, consider the case in which $\F=\ZZ_7=\{0,1,\ldots,6\}$ is the field with seven elements. The (normal) subgroups of the multiplicative group $\Fx=\{1,\ldots,6\}$ are $$H_1=\{1\} \COMMA H_2=\{1,6\} \COMMA H_3=\{1,2,4\} \COMMA H_4= \Fx.$$ The Hasse diagram of ${\mathcal{N}}(\Fx)=\{H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4\}$ is pictured in Figure \[fig:GLq\] (in red). Figure \[fig:GLq\] also pictures the lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(\GL_q(\F))$ for $1\leq q\leq 6$, illustrating the various ways the two above-mentioned sublattices may be glued together. To avoid clutter, for each $1\leq q\leq6$ and $1\leq i\leq4$ we write $Z_{q,i}=\Z_q(H_i)$ and $S_{q,i}={\mathcal{S}}_q(H_i)$.
We now describe the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$, $r=1,2,3$, for $\F=\ZZ_7$ (with ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)$ of course being trivial). To understand these, it will be useful to keep in mind Theorem \[thm:E6\]\[E6ii\] as well, as it will help us visualise the construction of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_{r+1})$ from ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$.
By Theorem \[thm:L\], we have $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1) = \set{R_{I_0,N^\natural}^{I_1}}{N\normal\GL_1}\cup\{\nab_{I_1}\}.$$ Figure \[fig:GLM27\] (left) pictures the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)$, where for simplicity we denote the congruences by $$\si_i = R_{I_0,\Z_1(H_i)^\natural}^{I_1} \text{ for $i=1,2,3,4$} \AND
\si_5 = \nab_{I_1}.$$ In both lattices pictured in Figure \[fig:GLM27\], Rees congruences are indicated by bold outline. From this we may construct the lattice $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2) = \set{\si\cup\nu_N}{\si\in{\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1),\ N\normal \G_2,\ \tau_N\sub\si} \cup \{\nab_{I_2}\}.$$ By , and Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_L\], we see that for $i=1,2,3,4$, $$\text{$\tau_N = \nab_{I_1} = \si_5$ for $N={\mathcal{S}}_2(H_i)^\natural$} \AND \text{$\tau_N = \si_i$ for $N=\Z_2(H_i)^\natural$.}$$ From this information, we can construct the layers $\Lam(N)$, $N\normal\GL_2^\natural$, as defined in Remark \[rem:E3\]. We have $$\Lam(N)= \begin{cases}
\{\si_5\cup\nu_N\} &\text{if $N={\mathcal{S}}_2(H_i)^\natural$ for any $i=1,2,3,4$}\\
\set{\si_i\cup\nu_N}{i=1,2,3,4,5} &\text{if $N=\Z_2(H_1)^\natural$}\\
\set{\si_i\cup\nu_N}{i=2,4,5} &\text{if $N=\Z_2(H_2)^\natural$}\\
\set{\si_i\cup\nu_N}{i=3,4,5} &\text{if $N=\Z_2(H_3)^\natural$}\\
\set{\si_i\cup\nu_N}{i=4,5} &\text{if $N=\Z_2(H_4)^\natural$.}
\end{cases}$$ These eight layers, together with $\nab_{I_2}$, form the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ pictured in Figure \[fig:GLM27\] (right). In the diagram, we write for simplicity $$\si_{i,j} = \si_i \cup \nu_{\Z_2(H_j)^\natural} \AND \tau_j=\nab_{I_1}\cup\nu_{{\mathcal{S}}_2(H_j)^\natural} \quad \text{ for $1\leq i\leq5$ and $1\leq j\leq4$.}$$ Grey shaded regions in the diagram indicate the layers $\Lam(N)$, as above, and these fit together in the way described in Remark \[rem:E3\] (cf. Figures \[fig:E31\] and \[fig:E32\]). The congruences shaded red in the diagram of ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ are those of the form $\nab_{I_1}\cup\nu_N$ ($N\normal\GL_2^\natural$); these form a lattice isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(\GL_2)$; cf. Figure \[fig:GLq\]. This calculation has been verified by GAP [@GAP4; @GAP] in the case where $\C$ consists of a single vector space of dimension $2$: i.e., when $\LL$ is the monoid of $2\times2$ matrices over $\F$.
One may then construct ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_3)$ with the same kinds of calculations, starting with the observation (again using , and Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_L\]) that for $i=1,2,3,4$, $$\text{$\tau_N = \nab_{I_2}$ for $N={\mathcal{S}}_3(H_i)^\natural$} \AND \text{$\tau_N = \si_{i,i}$ for $N=\Z_3(H_i)^\natural$.}$$ Figure \[fig:GLM37\] shows the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_3)$, again with the layers $\Lam(N)$, $N\normal\GL_3^\natural$, shaded, and Rees congruences denoted by filled vertices. This time we have not labelled the congruences, but we have again indicated in red the sublattice isomorphic to ${\mathcal{N}}(\GL_3)$; cf. Figure \[fig:GLq\]. It is not so easy to verify this calculation using GAP, as even when $\C$ consists of a single vector space of dimension $3$, $\LL$ has size $7^9 = 40\ 353\ 607$.
In principle, this process could be iterated further, but we have not attempted to do this.
Congruences on ideals of $\PL$ {#subsect:PL}
------------------------------
By contrast with the linear categories, the ideals $I_r$ ($2\leq r<\xi$) of the projective linear category $\PL=\PL(\C)$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$, as we observed in Remark \[rem:P2L\], so we may return to using Theorem \[thm:E2\] (and Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\]) to describe the congruences on its ideals.
In what follows, we keep the above meaning of the parameter $\xi$, and denote ${\mathscr D}$-classes and ideals by $D_q=D_q(\PL)$ and $I_r=I_r(\PL)$, for appropriate $q$ and $r$. For each $0\leq q<\xi$, fix some group ${\mathscr H}$-class $\G_q$ in $D_q$, so that $\G_q$ is isomorphic to the projective general linear group $\PGL_q=\PGL_q(\F)$. An ideal $I_r$ ($r\geq1$) contains the IN-pairs $(I_q,N)$ for $0\leq q<r$ and $N\normal\G_{q+1}$. As usual, these induce the congruences $R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}$, including $R_{I_q}^{I_r}$ when $N$ is trivial, and we note that $\De_{I_r}=R_{I_0}^{I_r}$, since $I_0=D_0$ is trivial.
\[thm:PL\] Let $\C$ be a non-empty set of finite-dimensional vector spaces over a field $\F$, let $\PL=\PL(\C)$ be the projective linear category over $\C$, and keep the above notation. Then for any $r\geq0$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r) = \set{R_{I_q,N}^{I_r}}{0\leq q<r,\ N\normal\G_{q+1}}\cup\{\nab_{I_r}\}.$$
For $r=0$, the result says that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)=\{\nab_{I_0}\}$, which follows from $I_0$ being trivial.
For $r=1$, the result says that ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\{\De_{I_1},\nab_{I_1}\}$. This follows quickly from Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\], keeping in mind that $I_1$ is retractable, $I_0$ is trivial, and $D_1$ is ${\mathscr H}$-trivial. The technical assumption from Proposition \[prop:small\_ideal\] follows from Lemma \[lem:P2L\]\[P2Lii\].
As usual, the result then follows from Theorem \[thm:E2\], using Lemma \[lem:P2L\] (cf. Remark \[rem:P2L\]) to establish ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}(I_r)}$, for the ideals $I_r$ ($1<r<\xi$).
Theorem \[thm:PL\] could also be deduced from Theorem \[thm:L\], since $\PL=\LL/\ze$.
We have not drawn any congruence lattices for ideals $I_r(\PL)$, since for small values of $r$ and $|\F|$, these are typically chains. Indeed, this follows from Theorem \[thm:PL\] (cf. Theorem \[thm:E2\] and Figure \[fig:E2\]), and the fact that the normal subgroups of $\PGL_q=\PGL_q(\F)$ form chains for small $q$ and $|\F|$, as may be readily verified using GAP [@GAP4]. However, the lattices ${\mathcal{N}}(\PGL_q)$ are not always chains, and hence neither are the lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r(\PL))$ in general. For example, consider the case in which $q=10$, and $\F=\ZZ_{31}$ is the field of size $31$, and for simplicity, write $G=\GL_{10}(\ZZ_{31})$, $Z=Z(G)$ and $P=\PGL_{10}(\ZZ_{31})=G/Z$. By the Third Isomorphism Theorem, the normal subgroups of $P$ are all of the form $N/Z$ where $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ containing $Z$. Now, $Z=\set{cE_{10}}{c\in\ZZ_{31}^\times}$, so the possible determinants of elements of $Z$ are the tenth powers of elements of $\ZZ_{31}^\times$, which are precisely $1$, $5$ and $25$. Thus, using the above notation, the only normal subgroups $N$ of $G$ containing $Z$ are those of the form $N={\mathcal{S}}_{10}(H)=\set{A\in\GL_{10}}{\det(A)\in H}$ where $H$ is a subgroup of $\ZZ_{31}^\times$ containing $\{1,5,25\}$. The possible subgroups $H$ are of size $3$, $6$, $15$ and $30$; let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be the subgroups of size $6$ and $15$. Since $|{\mathcal{S}}_{10}(H)|=|H|\cdot|\SL_{10}|$, it follows by Lagrange’s Theorem that the normal subgroups ${\mathcal{S}}_{10}(H_1)/Z$ and ${\mathcal{S}}_{10}(H_2)/Z$ are incomparable in ${\mathcal{N}}(P)={\mathcal{N}}(\PGL_{10})$. We thank Heiko Dietrich for suggesting this example to us.
Partial braid categories {#sect:IB}
========================
In this final section we apply the theory from Section \[sect:H\] once more, this time to categories of partial braids. These categories, denoted $\IB$, and defined in Section \[subsect:defnIB\], are categorical analogues of the inverse braid monoids of Easdown and Lavers [@EL2004], and are also preimages of certain instances of the category $\I$ of partial bijections mentioned in Section \[subsect:OtherT\]. We characterise Green’s relations in $\IB$ and establish the requisite multiplicative properties in Section \[subsect:prelimIB\], where we also describe the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence $\ze=\ze_{\IB}$ in terms of pure braid groups. Then in Section \[subsect:IB\] we describe the congruences on arbitrary ideals of $\IB$; see Theorem \[thm:IB\].
Definitions and preliminaries on $\IB$ {#subsect:defnIB}
--------------------------------------
Following [@Artin1947; @Artin1925], a *braid of degree $n$* is a homotopy class of a collection $(s_1,\ldots,s_n)$ of strings in three-dimensional space $\RRR^3$. Here the $s_i$ are smooth embeddings of the unit interval $[0,1]$ into $\RRR^3$ such that:
for all $i\in[n]$, $s_i(0)=(i,0,1)$ and $s_i(1)=(j_i,0,0)$ for some $j_i\in[n]$,
for all $i\in[n]$ and $t\in[0,1]$, the $z$-coordinate of $s_i(t)$ is $1-t$,
the strings do not intersect each other. We will customarily identify $(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ and the corresponding braid (which is the homotopy class of the former). The set $\B_n$ of all braids with $n$ strings forms the *braid group of degree $n$*; the multiplication consists of concatenation and rescaling. For more details, see for example [@Birman1974; @MK1999], and Figure \[fig:IBn\], which gives an example product of *partial* braids. The map $[n]\to[n]:i\mt j_i$ determined by the endpoints of the strings of $\al$ will be denoted by $\ol\al$. This is a permutation of $[n]$, and the map $\B_n\to{\mathcal{S}}_n:\al\mt\ol\al$ is a group homomorphism. The kernel of this homomorphism is the *pure braid group* ${\mathcal P}_n=\set{\al\in\B_n}{\ol\al={\operatorname{id}}_n}$. (We will not refer to Brauer or partition monoids/categories in this section, so we may reuse the symbols $\B$ and ${\mathcal P}$ without confusion.)
As in [@EL2004], a *partial braid of degree $n$* is a braid of degree $n$ with some number of strings removed: i.e., a homotopy class of a collection $\al=(s_{i_1},\ldots,s_{i_r})$ of strings, where ${1\leq i_1<\cdots<i_r\leq n}$, satisfying the above conditions. We write $${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)=\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\} \COMMA {\operatorname{codom}}(\al)=\{j_1,\ldots,j_r\} \COMMA {\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=r,$$ where $s_{i_k}(1)=(j_k,0,0)$ for each $1\leq k\leq r$. So ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)$ are subsets of $[n]$, and ${\operatorname{rank}}(\al)$ is an integer between $0$ and $n$, inclusive. Note that the partial braid $\al$ induces an injective partial map $[n]\to[n]$ with domain ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)$ and codomain ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)$, where $i_k\mt j_k$ for each $k$; we denote this map by $\ol\al$.
Two partial braids $\al,\be$ (of any degree) may be composed by first translating and joining the bottom of $\al$ to the top of $\be$, then removing any strings of $\al$ (respectively, $\be$) that do not become joined to a string of $\be$ (respectively, $\al$), and finally scaling the resulting object so it lies in the region $0\leq z\leq 1$ of $\RRR^3$. An example calculation is given in Figure \[fig:IBn\]. For more details, see [@EL2004; @JE2007a; @Gilbert2006].
For natural numbers $m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we write $\IB_{m,n}$ for the set of all partial braids $\al$ with ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\sub[m]$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\be)\sub[n]$. Fix a non-empty subset $\C\sub{\mathbb{N}}$, and define $$\IB = \IB(\C) = \bigset{(m,\al,n)}{m,n\in\C,\ \al\in\IB_{m,n}}.$$ For $m,n,p\in\C$, and for $\al\in\IB_{m,n}$ and $\be\in\IB_{n,p}$, we define $$\bd(m,\al,n)=m \COMMA \br(m,\al,n)=n \COMMA (m,\al,n)\cdot(n,\be,p)=(m,\al\be,p),$$ where $\al\be\in\IB_{m,p}$ is as defined above. Then $$(\IB,\C,\bd,\br,\cdot)$$ is a partial semigroup, indeed an *inverse category* in the sense of [@Kastl1979] and [@CL2002 Section 2.3.2]. For $\al\in\IB_{m,n}$, the unique inverse of $\al$ (i.e., the unique element $\be$ satisfying $\al=\al\be\al$ and $\be=\be\al\be$) will be denoted by $\al^{-1}$; it is the partial braid from $\IB_{n,m}$ obtained by reflecting $\al$ in the horizontal plane $z=\frac12$; cf. [@EL2004 Section 1]. We call $\IB$ the *partial braid category (over $\C$)*.
As with (linear) transformations, we will avoid clutter by identifying $(m,\al,n)\in\IB$ with the partial braid $\al\in\IB_{m,n}$, but considering $m,n$ as “encoded” in $\al$, and writing $\bd(\al)=m$ and $\br(\al)=n$.
An endomorphism monoid in $\IB$ is simply an *inverse braid monoid* $\IB_n=\IB_{n,n}$ [@EL2004]. In particular, $\IB$ contains the braid groups $\B_n$ for each $n\in\C$; these are precisely the units of $\IB$. When $\C=\{n\}$ consists of a single natural number, $\IB=\IB_n$ is itself an inverse braid monoid.
Note that the above set-up is somewhat different from the other categories considered in Sections \[sect:T\]–\[sect:J\], where $\C$ is typically a non-empty set of finite sets. Here the subset $\C$ of ${\mathbb{N}}$ determines a family of subsets $\set{[n]}{n\in\C}$, which serve to constrain the (co)domains of partial braids in the category $\IB=\IB(\C)$. While one could in principle replace $\C\sub{\mathbb{N}}$ with an arbitrary set of subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}$, this does not seem desirable, and would only serve to complicate notation. On the other hand, since the bottom ideal $I_0$ of $\IB$ is still trivial for more general $\C$ (see below), the descriptions of congruences on $\IB$ and its ideals are identical, and the lattices arising are no more complicated than for the situation considered here.
It is worthwhile noting also that if $\C$ is all of ${\mathbb{N}}$ (or even a submonoid of ${\mathbb{N}}$), then $\IB$ has an additional monoidal structure; given $\al\in\IB_{m,n}$ and $\be\in\IB_{k,l}$, one forms $\al\oplus\be\in\IB_{m+k,n+l}$ by placing a translated copy of $\be$ to the right of $\al$. This is reminiscent of the analogous operation on the partition category discussed at the start of Section \[subsect:prelim\_J\].
Green’s relations and multiplicative properties in $\IB$ {#subsect:prelimIB}
--------------------------------------------------------
We keep the above notation, and let $\xi=\LSUB(\C)$. The next result follows quickly from [@East2015 Theorem 5], which treats *singular* partial braids, or it may be proved directly using the same method of proof.
\[lem:Green\_IB\]
\[GIB1\] For $\al,\be\in\IB$, we have
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr R}\iff \bd(\al)=\bd(\be)$ and ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr L}\iff \br(\al)=\br(\be)$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)$,
$(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr J}\iff(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr D}\iff{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)={\operatorname{rank}}(\be)$.
\[GIB2\] The ${\mathscr J}={\mathscr D}$-classes of $\IB$ are the sets
$D_q = D_q(\IB) = \set{\al\in\IB}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)=q}$ for each $0\leq q<\xi$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $D_0<D_1<\cdots$.
\[GIB3\] The ideals of $\IB$ are the sets
$I_r = I_r(\IB) = \set{\al\in\IB}{{\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\leq r}$ for each $0\leq r<\xi$, and
$I_\om = I_\om(\IB) = \IB $ in the case that $\xi=\om$. These are all regular and stable, and they form a chain: $I_0\subset I_1\subset\cdots$.
\[GIB4\] The ${\mathscr H}$-class of any idempotent from $D_q$ is isomorphic to $\B_q$, the braid group of degree $q$.
Thus, $\IB$ is a chain of ideals, as in Definition \[defn:chain\]. The minimal ideal $I_0=D_0$ of $\IB$ is trivial.
Recall that for any partial braid $\al\in\IB_{m,n}$ there is an associated injective partial map $\ol\al\in\I_{m,n}=\I_{[m],[n]}$; here $\I=\I(\C)$ denotes the category of injective partial maps $[m]\to[n]$, $m,n\in\C$, as briefly discussed in Section \[subsect:OtherT\]. We define the relation $\ze$ on $\IB$ by $$\ze = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in\IB\times\IB}{\ol\al=\ol\be}.$$ It is easy to check that $\ze$ is a congruence; in fact it is the kernel of the functor ${\IB\to\I:\al\mt\ol\al}$. Moreover, since $\ol\al=\ol\be$ clearly implies ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$ and ${{\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)}$, we have $\ze\sub{\mathscr H}$. We will soon see that $\ze$ is the largest ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on $\IB$, justifying the choice of notation.
For $A\sub{\mathbb{N}}$ with $\max(A)<\xi$, we write $\ve_A$ for any partial braid with domain and codomain both equal to $A$, and where every string of $\ve_A$ is vertical. As noted above, when using these elements, we will have to be careful to indicate which hom-sets they belong to. When ${m\geq\max(A)}$, clearly $\ve_A\in\IB_m$ is an idempotent.
We now verify that ideals $I_r$ ($2\leq r<\xi$) satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{Mult}}^\ze(I_r)}$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{Sep}}^\ze(I_r)}$; cf. Definitions \[defn:Sep\] and \[defn:Mult\].
\[lem:P2IB\] Let $m,n\in\C$, and suppose $\al,\be\in\IB_{m,n}$ with $r={\operatorname{rank}}(\al)\geq{\operatorname{rank}}(\be)=q$.
\[P2IBi\] If $r\geq2$ and $q<r$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
\[P2IBii\] If $q=r\geq1$ and $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr H}$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $$\text{$[\al\ga\in D_r$ and $\be\ga\in I_{r-1}]$ \ \ \ or \ \ \ $[\ga\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}]$.}$$
\[P2IBiii\] If $r\geq2$ and $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{\setminus}\ze$, then there exists $\ga\in I_r$ such that $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}{\setminus}H_{\ga\al}$.
Write ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)=\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that ${i_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\be)}$. Let $\ga=\ve_A\in\IB_m$, where $A=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}\}$. Then ${\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\al)=A$, and yet ${i_1\not\in{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga\be)}$, so $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$ and $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$.
By symmetry we may assume that $(\al,\be)\not\in{\mathscr R}$, so that $A={\operatorname{dom}}(\al)\not={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. We then take $\ga=\ve_A\in\IB_m$, so that $\ga\al=\al\in D_r$ and $\ga\be\in I_{r-1}$.
Write ${\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)=\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\}$ and ${\operatorname{codom}}(\al)={\operatorname{codom}}(\be)=\{j_1,\ldots,j_r\}$, where $i_k\ol\al=j_k$ for all $k$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $i_1\ol\be=j_r$. Then with $A=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}\}$ and $\ga=\ve_A\in\IB_m$, we have $\ga\al\in D_{r-1}$, yet $j_r\in{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\be){\setminus}{\operatorname{codom}}(\ga\al)$, so $(\ga\al,\ga\be)\not\in{\mathscr L}$.
From Lemma \[lem:P2IB\]\[P2IBiii\], and the fact that $D_0$ and $D_1$ are both ${\mathscr H}$-trivial, we have the following:
\[cor:zIB\] The congruence $\ze = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in\IB\times\IB}{\ol\al=\ol\be}$ is the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence on $\IB$.
Congruences on ideals of $\IB$ {#subsect:IB}
------------------------------
We now set out to apply Theorem \[thm:E5\] and describe the congruences on the category $\IB$ and its ideals. We have already noted that $I_0=D_0$ is trivial, and the remaining technical assumptions from Theorem \[thm:E5\] follow from Lemma \[lem:P2IB\] and Corollary \[cor:zIB\]. Again, we can achieve a more explicit description of the congruences arising.
We begin as usual by fixing specific group ${\mathscr H}$-classes in $\IB$. With this in mind, let $0\leq q<\xi$, and fix some $n_q\in\C$ with $n_q\geq q$. For each braid $\al\in\B_q$, we write $\al^\natural\in\IB_{n_q}=\IB_{n_q,n_q}$ for the partial braid of degree $n_q$ with the same strings as $\al$. For $\Om\sub\B_q$, we write $\Om^\natural=\set{\al^\natural}{\al\in\Om}$. In particular, we take $\G_q=\B_q^\natural$, and we note that $\G_q$ is a group ${\mathscr H}$-class in $D_q$.
To describe the $\nu_N$ relations, it will first be convenient to define a family of partial braids. For $A,B\sub{\mathbb{N}}$ with $|A|=|B|$, say $A=\{a_1<\cdots<a_k\}$ and $B=\{b_1<\cdots<b_k\}$, we denote by $\ga_{A,B}$ any partial braid with domain $A$ and codomain $B$, and whose strings are straight lines joining $(a_i,0,1)$ to $(b_i,0,0)$ for each $i$; as usual, we need to be careful to specify which hom-set these belong to. See Figure \[fig:ga\_AB\] for an example.
Now consider two ${\mathscr H}$-related elements $\al,\be\in D_q(\IB_{m,n})$, where $m,n\in\C$, and write ${A={\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)}$. Writing $\ga = \ga_{[q],A}\in\IB_{q,m}$ (whether $q$ belongs to $\C$ or not), we then define $\phi(\al,\be) = \ga(\al\be^{-1})\ga^{-1}\in\B_q$. Note that $\phi(\al,\be)$ can be thought of as the braid on $q$ strings obtained from $\al\be^{-1}$ by relabelling the points from $A$ by $1,\ldots,q$. Also note that $\phi(\al,\be)$ is fully well defined, not just up to conjugacy.
\[lem:nuN\_IB\] If $0\leq q<\xi$, and if $N\normal\B_q$, then $\nu_{N^\natural} = \bigset{(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}}{\phi(\al,\be)\in N}$.
Let $(\al,\be)\in{\mathscr H}{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$, say with $\al,\be\in\IB_{m,n}$, and write $A={\operatorname{dom}}(\al)={\operatorname{dom}}(\be)$. Also let $\ga=\ga_{[q],A}\in\IB_{n_q,m}$. Then since $$(\phi(\al,\be)^\natural,{\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural) = (\ga\cdot\al\cdot\be^{-1}\ga^{-1},\ga\cdot\be\cdot\be^{-1}\ga^{-1})
\ANd
(\al,\be) = (\ga^{-1}\cdot\phi(\al,\be)^\natural\cdot\ga\be,\ga^{-1}\cdot{\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural\cdot\ga\be),$$ we have $(\al,\be)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff (\phi(\al,\be)^\natural,{\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural)\in\nu_{N^\natural} \iff \phi(\al,\be)^\natural\in N^\natural \iff \phi(\al,\be)\in N$.
Next we describe the groups $Z_q$ ($0\leq q<\xi$). Since $\nu_{Z_q}=\ze{{\restriction}}_{D_q}$, Lemma \[lem:nu\_trick\] tells us that $$Z_q = \set{\al^\natural}{\al\in\B_q,\ ({\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural,\al^\natural)\in\ze} = \set{\al^\natural}{\al\in\B_q,\ \ol\al={\operatorname{id}}_q} = {\mathcal P}_q^\natural$$ is a copy of the pure braid group of degree $q$. Thus, $$\ze=\nu_{{\mathcal P}_0^\natural}\cup\nu_{{\mathcal P}_1^\natural}\cup\nu_{{\mathcal P}_2^\natural}\cup\cdots.$$
Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_IB\] below gives a concrete description of the $\downarrow_p$ operations. Its statement involves the following simple construction. For a pure braid $\al\in{\mathcal P}_n$, and for $m\leq n$, we denote by $\al{{\restriction}}_m\in{\mathcal P}_m$ the braid consisting of the first $m$ strings of $\al$. For $\Om\sub{\mathcal P}_n$, we write $\Om{{\restriction}}_m=\set{\al{{\restriction}}_m}{\al\in\Om}$. If $G$ is a subgroup of ${\mathcal P}_n$, then $G{{\restriction}}_m$ is a subgroup of ${\mathcal P}_m$; if $G$ is additionally a normal subgroup of $\B_n$, then $G{{\restriction}}_m$ is also a normal subgroup of $\B_m$. However, it is worth noting that some normal subgroups of ${\mathcal P}_n$ are not normal in $\B_n$. To prove Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_IB\], we require the following technical result.
\[lem:tauN\_IB1\] Let $N\unlhd \B_q$ with $N\leq {\mathcal P}_q$, where $0\leq q<\xi$. Let $\al\in N$, and suppose $\ga_1\in\IB_{s,n_q}$ and $\ga_2\in\IB_{n_q,t}$, where $s,t\in\C$. Put $p={\operatorname{rank}}(\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2)$. Then $\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2 = \de_1\al'^\natural\de_2$ for some $\al'\in N{{\restriction}}_p$, and some $\de_1\in\IB_{s,n_p}$ and $\de_2\in\IB_{n_p,t}$.
This proof is somewhat technical, though the steps have a clear geometric meaning, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:tauN\_IB1\]. Write $\al=(s_1,\ldots,s_q)$, and define the set ${A={\operatorname{codom}}(\ga_1)\cap[q]\cap{\operatorname{dom}}(\ga_2)}$. The strings of $\al^\natural$ that survive in the product $\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2$ are precisely the $s_a$ with $a\in A$; these strings (and those of $\ga_1$ and $\ga_2$ connected to them) are coloured red in Figure \[fig:tauN\_IB1\]. Next, let $\de\in\B_q$ be any braid for which $[p]\ol\de=A$. Then $$\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2 = \ga_1(\de^{-1}\de\al\de^{-1}\de)^\natural\ga_2 = (\ga_1\de^{\natural-1}) \cdot (\de\al\de^{-1})^\natural \cdot (\de^\natural\ga_2).$$ Note that $\de\al\de^{-1}\in N$, as $N$ is normal in $\B_q$. Moreover, it is precisely the first $p$ strings of $\de\al\de^{-1}$ that survive in the above product. Let
$\de_1\in\IB_{s,n_p}$ be the sub-braid of $\ga_1\de^{\natural-1}$ consisting of all strings whose teminal point is from $[p]$,
$\de_2\in\IB_{n_p,t}$ be the sub-braid of $\de^\natural\ga_2$ consisting of all strings whose initial point is from $[p]$,
$\al'=(\de\al\de^{-1}){{\restriction}}_p\in N{{\restriction}}_p$ be the sub-braid of $\de\al\de^{-1}$ consisting of all strings whose initial (and terminal) point is from $[p]$. Then $\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2 = \de_1\al'^\natural\de_2$, as required.
The next result gives the promised description of the $\downarrow_p$ operations, and says that these are essentially equivalent to the ${{\restriction}}_p$ operations.
\[lem:Zqp\_IB\] For any $0\leq p\leq q<\xi$, and for any $N\normal\B_q$ with $N\leq{\mathcal P}_q$, we have ${(N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}=(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural}$.
First consider some $\al\in (N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural$. So $\al\in\IB_{n_p}$, and $\al=(\be{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural$ for some $\be\in N$, and we note that $({\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural,\be^\natural)\in\nu_{N^\natural}$. Now, $\al=\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2$, where $\ga_1=\ve_{[p]}\in\IB_{n_p,n_q}$ and $\ga_2=\ve_{[p]}\in\IB_{n_q,n_p}$. Since also $\ga_1{\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural\ga_2={\operatorname{id}}_{\B_p}^\natural$, we have $({\operatorname{id}}_{\B_p}^\natural,\al)=(\ga_1{\operatorname{id}}_{\B_q}^\natural\ga_2,\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2)\in\nu_{N^\natural}^\sharp{{\restriction}}_{D_p}=\nu_{(N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}}$, so it follows that $\al\in (N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}$. This all shows that $(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural\leq (N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}$.
We will show the reverse containment by showing that $\nu_{(N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}} \sub \nu_{(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_L\], $\nu_{(N^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}}$ is the transitive closure of $\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$, where $$\Om = \bigset{(\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2,\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2)}{\al,\be\in N,\ \ga_1,\ga_2\in \IB,\ \br(\ga_1)=\bd(\ga_2)=n_q}.$$ And again, since $\nu_{(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural}$ is an equivalence, the proof will be complete if we can show that $\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}\sub\nu_{(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural}$. So consider some pair $(\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2,\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2)$ from $\Om{{\restriction}}_{D_p}$. Let $\de$, $\de_1$, $\de_2$ and $\al'$ be as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:tauN\_IB1\]. Then with $\be'=(\de\be\de^{-1}){{\restriction}}_p\in N{{\restriction}}_p$, we have $\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2=\de_1\be'^\natural\de_2$. Thus, $(\ga_1\al^\natural\ga_2,\ga_1\be^\natural\ga_2) = (\de_1\al'^\natural\de_2,\de_1\be'^\natural\de_2) \in \nu_{(N{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural}$. As noted above, this completes the proof.
We may now prove the main result of this section. The statement involves the relations $R_{I,\bN}^S$ defined before Theorem \[thm:E5\].
\[thm:IB\] Let $\C\sub{\mathbb{N}}$ be a non-empty set of natural numbers, let $\IB=\IB(\C)$ be the partial braid category over $\C$, and keep the above notation. Then for any $r\geq0$ (including $r=\om$ if $\xi=\om$), the congruences on $I_r$ are precisely the universal congruence $\nab_{I_r}$ and those of the form $$R_{I_q,\bN}^{I_r} \qquad\text{for some $0\leq q<r$ and some $\bN=(N_{q+1}^\natural,N_{q+2}^\natural,\ldots)$,}$$ where $$N_p\normal\B_p\ \text{for all $p\geq q+1$}\COMMA
N_p\leq{\mathcal P}_p\ \text{for all $p\geq q+2$}\COMMA
N_p{{\restriction}}_{p-1}\leq N_{p-1} \ \text{for all $p\geq q+2$}.$$
The proof is almost identical to that of Theorem \[thm:L\]: we apply Theorem \[thm:E5\], using Lemma \[lem:P2IB\] and the above-mentioned fact that $I_0=D_0$ is trivial. The only thing left to check is that with $\bN$ as in the statement, $(N_t^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}\leq N_p^\natural$ for all $t>p\geq q+1$. But this follows from Lemma \[lem:Zqp\_IB\] and a simple induction. For the $t=p+1$ case we have $(N_{p+1}^\natural)^{\downarrow_p} = (N_{p+1}{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural \leq N_p^\natural$. For $t\geq p+2$, $$(N_t^\natural)^{\downarrow_p}
= (N_t{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural
= ((N_t{{\restriction}}_{t-1}){{\restriction}}_p)^\natural
\leq (N_{t-1}{{\restriction}}_p)^\natural
= (N_{t-1}^\natural)^{\downarrow_p},$$ at which point we apply an inductive hypothesis.
\[rem:N\_B\] The lattices ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_0)=\{\nab_{I_0}\}$ and ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_1)=\{\De_{I_1},\nab_{I_1}\}$ are of course easily understood. We may also visualise the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ to some extent. First note that $\B_1$ is trivial, and that $\B_2$ is an infinite cyclic group generated by the standard Artin generator $\vs$ (in which the first string passes over the second, as in [@Artin1925; @Artin1947]); thus, the subgroups of $\B_2$ are those of the form $\la\vs^k\ra$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$; such a subgroup is contained in ${\mathcal P}_2$ if and only if $k$ is even. Thus $${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2) = \bigset{R_{I_0,(\B_1,\la\vs^{2k}\ra)}^{I_2}}{k\in{\mathbb{N}}} \cup \bigset{R_{I_1,\la\vs^{k}\ra}^{I_2}}{k\in{\mathbb{N}}} \cup \{\nab_{I_2}\}.$$ Writing $\mid$ for the division relation in ${\mathbb{N}}$, and writing $\si_{2k}=R_{I_0,(\B_1,\la\vs^{2k}\ra)}^{I_2}=\De_{I_1}\cup\nu_{\la\vs^{2k}\ra}$ and $\tau_k=R_{I_1,\la\vs^{k}\ra}^{I_2}=\nab_{I_1}\cup\nu_{\la\vs^{k}\ra}$ for each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the order in ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is given by $$\si_{2k}\sub\si_{2k'} \iff k'\mid k\COMMA
\tau_k\sub\tau_{k'} \iff k'\mid k\COMMA
\si_{2k}\sub\tau_{k'} \iff k'\mid 2k\COMMA
\si_{2k}\not\supseteq \tau_{k'},$$ and of course every congruence is contained in $\nab_{I_2}$. Thus, the lattice ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_2)$ is essentially two copies of ${\mathbb{N}}$ ordered by reverse division, with one below the other, and with a top element adjoined.
There does not seem to be much hope of visualising ${\operatorname{Cong}}(I_r)$ for $r\geq3$. In fact, to the authors’ knowledge, the normal subgroups of the braid groups $\B_n$ ($n\geq3$) have not been classified.
As with the categories of transformations and partitions studied in Sections , we could define planar and annular reducts of $\IB$. That is, we could consider categories such as $\OrdP{\IB}$, which consists of partial braids $\al$ with $\ol\al$ order-preserving; cf. [@East2010], where the corresponding submonoid of $\IB_n$ was denoted $\mathcal{POIB}_n$. Note that the category $\OrdP{\I}$ of order-preserving bijections is a homomorphic image of $\OrdP{\IB}$, and also (isomorphic to) a subcategory of $\OrdP{\IB}$. Indeed, the partial braids of the form $\ga_{A,B}$, pictured in Figure \[fig:ga\_AB\], form a subcategory of $\IB$ isomorphic to $\OrdP{\I}$; cf. [@East2010 Section 3]. The subcategories $\OrdPR{\IB}$, $\OriP{\IB}$ and $\OriPR{\IB}$, with analogous meanings, could also be defined.
Congruences on these subcategories and their ideals may be described in essentially the same way as for $\IB$ itself; cf. Theorem \[thm:IB\]. Part \[GIB4\] of Lemma \[lem:Green\_IB\] needs to be updated, to reflect the fact that group ${\mathscr H}$-classes are subgroups of $\B_q$ mapping onto trivial, cyclic or dihedral permutation groups as appropriate, and each occurrence of $\B_q$ in Theorem \[thm:IB\] needs to be replaced by the relevant subgroup. In each of these subcategories, the maximum ${\mathscr H}$-congruence is still of the form $\ze=\nu_{{\mathcal P}_0^\natural}\cup\nu_{{\mathcal P}_1^\natural}\cup\nu_{{\mathcal P}_2^\natural}\cup\cdots$.
There are other categories of braid-like objects, including (partial) vines [@Lavers1997; @JE2007b] and tangles [@Turaev1989]; see Figure \[fig:vine\_tangle\] for examples. It would be interesting to attempt to use the methods of this paper to describe such categories.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The second author was supported by EPSRC grant EP/S020616/1. We were assisted by GAP [@GAP4; @GAP] in the initial stages of research, and in producing some of the lattice diagrams throughout the paper. We thank Mikhail Volkov and Mark Sapir for useful discussions, and for drawing our attention to Klimov’s paper [@Klimov1977].
[^1]: Centre for Research in Mathematics, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia. [*Email:*]{} [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Mathematical Institute, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, UK. [*Email:*]{} [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Sanjiban Choudhury\
The Robotics Institute\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
Shervin Javdani\
The Robotics Institute\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
Siddhartha Srinivasa\
The Robotics Institute\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
Sebastian Scherer\
The Robotics Institute\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 'Near-Optimal Edge Evaluation in Explicit Generalized Binomial Graphs'
---
The Bernoulli Subregion Edge Cutting Algorithm {#sec:algorithm}
==============================================
We follow the framework of *Decision Region Edge Cutting ()* [@chen2015submodular] by creating separate sub-problems for each region, and combining them. For each sub-problem, we provide a modification to which is simpler to compute when the distribution over hypotheses is non-uniform, while providing the same guarantees. Unfortunately, naively applying this method requires $\bigo{2^\testSet}$ computation per sub-problem. For the special case of independent Bernoulli tests, we present a more efficient *Bernoulli Subregion Edge Cutting ()* algorithm, which computes each subproblem in $\bigo{\testSet}$ time.
Preliminaries: Hypothesis as outcome vectors
--------------------------------------------
In order to apply the DRD framework of @chen2015submodular, we need to view regions as a sets of hypotheses. A hypothesis $\hyp$ is a mapping from a test $\test \in \testSet$ to an outcome $\hyp(\test)$ and is defined as an outcome vector $\hyp \in \outcomeSpace^\testSet$. We use the symbol $\hypSpace$ to denote the set of all hypothesis ($\hypSpace = \outcomeSpace^\testSet$). Using the independent Bernoulli distribution, the probability of a hypothesis is $P(\hyp) = \prod\limits_{\test \in \testSet} P(\outcomeVarTest{\test} = \hyp(\test)) = \prod\limits_{\test \in \testSet} \biasTest{\test}^{\hyp(\test)} (1 - \biasTest{\test})^{1 - \hyp(\test)}$.
Given a observation vector $\obsOutcome$, let the *version space* $\hypSpace(\obsOutcome)$ be the set of hypothesis consistent with $\obsOutcome$, i.e. $\hypSpace(\obsOutcome) = \setst{\hyp \in \hypSpace}{ \forall \test \in \selTestSet, \hyp(\test) = \obsOutcome(\test)}$. The probability mass of all the version space can evaluated as $P(\hypSpace(\obsOutcome)) =
\sum\limits_{\hyp \in \hypSpace(\obsOutcome)} P(\hyp) =
\prod\limits_{i \in \selTestSet} \biasTest{i}^{\obsOutcome(i)} (1 - \biasTest{i})^{1 - \obsOutcome(i)} $
Although we initially defined a region as a clause on constituent test outcomes being true, we can now view them as a version space consistent with the constituent tests. Hence given a region $\region$, we define the version space $\regionH \in \hypSpace$ as a set of consistent hypothesis $\regionH = \setst{\hyp \in \hypSpace}{\forall \test \in \region, \hyp(\test) = 1}$ Hence the probability of a region being valid is the probability mass of all consistent hypothesis $P(\regionH) = \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \regionH} P(\hyp) = \prod\limits_{i \in \region} P(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1) = \prod\limits_{i \in \region} \biasTest{i} $
We will now define a set of useful expressions that will be used by . Given a observation vector $\obsOutcome$, the *relevant version space* is denoted as $\hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome) = \setst{\hyp \in \hypSpace}{ \forall \test \in \selTestSet \cap \region, \hyp(\test) = \obsOutcome(\test)}$. Hence the set of all hypothesis in $\regionH$ consistent with relevant outcomes in $\obsOutcome$ is given by $\regionH \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)$. The probability $P(\regionH \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))$ is as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_region_prune}
P(\regionH \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) &= \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \regionH \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)} P(\hyp) \\
&= \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \regionH \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)} \prod\limits_{i \in \testSet} P(\outcomeVarTest{i} = \hyp(i)) \\
&= \prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} P(\outcomeVarTest{j} = 1)
\prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} P(\outcomeVarTest{k} = \obsOutcome(k)) \\
&= \prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j}
\prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \\
\end{aligned}$$
We will now derive similar expressions for the probability of a region *not* being valid. The probability mass of hypothesis where a region $\region$ is not valid is $P(\Not{\regionH}) = \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \Not{\regionH}} P(\hyp) = 1 - \prod\limits_{i \in \region} \biasTest{i}$
Similarly, the set of all hypothesis in $\Not{\regionH}$ consistent with relevant outcomes in $\obsOutcome$ is given by $\Not{\regionH} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)$. The probability $P(\Not{\regionH} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))$ is as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_notregion_prune}
P(\Not{\regionH} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) &= \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \Not{\regionH} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)} P(\hyp) \\
&= \sum\limits_{\hyp \in \Not{\regionH} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)} \prod\limits_{i \in \testSet} P(\outcomeVarTest{i} = \hyp(i)) \\
&= \left(1 -
\prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} P(\outcomeVarTest{j} = 1)
\right)
\prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} P(\outcomeVarTest{k} = \obsOutcome(k)) \\
&= \left(1 -
\prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j}
\right)
\prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \\
\end{aligned}$$
A simple subproblem: One region versus all
------------------------------------------
We will now define a simple subproblem whose solution will help in addressing the problem. We define the ‘one region versus all’ subproblem as follows - given a *single region*, the objective is to either push the entire probability mass of the version space on a region or collapse it on a single relevant hypothesis. We will view this as a decision problem on the space of *disjoint subregions*.
We refer to hypothesis region $\regionH$ as subregion $\subregion_1$ as shown in Fig.\[fig:ecd\_problem\]. Every other hypothesis $\hyp \in \Not{\regionH}$ is defined as its own subregion $\subregion_i$. Determining which subregion is valid falls under the framework of *Equivalence Class Determination* (ECD), (a special case of the DRD problem) and can be solved efficiently by the algorithm (@golovin2010near).
### The EC2 algorithm
The ECD problem is a special case of the DRD problem described in (\[eq:drd\]) to a case where regions are disjoint. In order to avoid confusion with DRD regions, we will hence forth refer to them as sub-regions. Let $\{ \subregion_1, \dots, \subregion_\numSubregion \}$ be a set of disjoint subregions, i.e, $\subregion_i \cap \subregion_j = 0$ for $i \neq j$. @golovin2010near provide an efficient yet near-optimal criterion for solving ECD in their algorithm which we discuss in brief.
The algorithm defines a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V}, \edgeSetEC)$ where the nodes are hypotheses and edges are between hypotheses in different decision regions $E = \cup_{i \neq j} \setst{ \edgeFnEC{\hyp}{\hyp'} }{\hyp \in \subregion_i, \hyp' \in \subregion_j}$. The weight of an edge is defined as $\weight(\edgeFnEC{\hyp}{\hyp'}) = P(\hyp) P(\hyp')$. The weight of a set of edges is defined as $\weight(\edgeSetEC') = \sum\limits_{\edgeEC \in \edgeSetEC'} \weight(\edgeEC)$. An edge is said to be ‘cut’ by an observation if either hypothesis is inconsistent with the observation. Hence a test $\test$ with outcome $\outcomeTest{\test}$ is said to cut a set of edges $\edgeSetEC(\outcomeTest{\test}) = \setst{\edgeFnEC{\hyp}{\hyp'}}{\hyp(\test) \neq \outcomeTest{\test} \vee \hyp'(\test) \neq \outcomeTest{\test}}$. The aim is to cut all edges by performing test while minimizing cost. Before we describe the objective, we first specify how efficiently computes weights by defininig a weight function over subregions. $$\label{eq:weight_golovin}
\wecgolovin(\{\subregion_i\}) = \sum\limits_{i \neq j} P(\subregion_i) P(\subregion_j)$$ When hypotheses have uniform weight, this can be computed efficiently for the ‘one region versus all’ subproblem. Let $P(\Not{\subregion_1}) = \sum\limits_{i>1} P(\subregion_i)$: $$\label{eq:weight_golovin_simple}
\wecgolovin(\{\subregion_i\}) = P(\subregion_1) P(\Not{\subregion_1}) + P(\Not{\subregion_1})\left(P(\Not{\subregion_1}) - \frac{1}{|\hypSpace|}\right)$$
defines an objective function $\fec{\obsOutcome}$ that measures the weight of edges cut. This is the difference between the original weight of subregions $\subregion_i$ and the weight of pruned subregions $\subregion_i \cap \hypSpace(\obsOutcome)$, i.e. $\fec{\obsOutcome} = \wecgolovin(\{\subregion_i\}) - \wecgolovin(\{\subregion_i\} \cap \hypSpace(\obsOutcome))$.
uses the fact that $\fec{\obsOutcome}$ is *adaptive submodular* (@golovin2011adaptive) to define a greedy algorithm. Let the expected marginal gain of a test be $\gain{\ec}{\test}{\outcome} = \expect{\outcomeTest{\test}}{ \fec{ \obsOutcomeAdd{\test} } - \fec{\obsOutcome} \;|\; \obsOutcome}$. greedily selects a test $\test^* \in \argmaxprob{\test} \frac{\gain{\ec}{\test}{\obsOutcome}}{\cost(\test)}$.
### An alternative to EC2 on the ‘one region versus all’ problem
![ \[fig:ecd\_problem\] The ‘one region versus all’ ECD problem. The region $\regionH$ is shown as a circle encompassing a set of consistent hypothesis $\hyp$ (green dots). Hypothesis for which the region is not valid lie outside the circle (dots in colors other than green). The objective is to compute an efficient policy to either force the probability mass in the region $\regionH$ or determine the *unique* hypothesis $\hyp \in \Not{\regionH}$. ](ecd_problem_one_vs_all.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
For non-uniform prior the quantity (\[eq:weight\_golovin\_simple\]) is more difficult to compute. We modify this objective slightly, adding self-edges on subregions $\subregion_{i}, i>1$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:ecd\_problem\], enabling more efficient computation while still maintaining the same guarantees: $$\label{eq:weight_sub}
\begin{aligned}
\wec(\{\subregion_i\}) &= P(\subregion_1) (\sum\limits_{i\neq1} P(\subregion_i)) + (\sum\limits_{i\neq1} P(\subregion_i)) (\sum\limits_{j \geq i} P(\subregion_j)) \\
&= P(\subregion_1) P(\Not{\subregion_1}) + P(\Not{\subregion_1})^2\\
&= P(\regionH)P(\Not{\regionH}) + P(\Not{\regionH})P(\Not{\regionH}) \\
&= P(\Not{\regionH}) (P(\regionH) + P(\Not{\regionH})) \\
&= 1 - \prod\limits_{i \in \region} \biasTest{i}
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly we can compute $\wec(\{\subregion_i\} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))$ using (\[eq:p\_region\_prune\]) and (\[eq:p\_notregion\_prune\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weight_sub_pruned}
&\wec(\{\subregion_i\} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) \\
&=P(\subregion_1 \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome) ) P(\Not{\subregion_1} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome) ) + P(\Not{\subregion_1} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))^2\\
&= P(\region \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome) )P(\Not{\region} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) + P(\Not{\region}\cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))P(\Not{\region}\cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) \\
&= P(\Not{\region}\cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) (P(\region\cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)) + P(\Not{\region}\cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome))) \\
&= \left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right)
\left( \prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \right)^2
\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[eq:weight\_sub\]) and (\[eq:weight\_sub\_pruned\]) we can express the $\fec{\obsOutcome}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fec_applied}
\fec{\obsOutcome} &= 1 - \frac{ \wec(\{\subregion_i\} \cap \hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome) ) }{ \wec(\{\subregion_i\}) } \\
&= 1 - \frac{\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right)
\left( \prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \right)^2
}{1 - \prod\limits_{i \in \region} \biasTest{i}}
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:ec2\] The expression $\fec{\obsOutcome}$ is strongly adaptive monotone and adaptive submodular.
See Appendix \[sec:proof:lem\_ec2\]
Improvement in runtime from exponential to linear
-------------------------------------------------
For non-uniform priors, computing (\[eq:weight\_golovin\]) is difficult. The naive approach is to compute all hypothesis and assign them to correct subregions and then compute the weights. This has a runtime of a runtime of $\bigo{2^\testSet}$.
However, our expression (\[eq:fec\_applied\]) can be computed in $\bigo{\testSet}$. This is because of the simplifications induced by the independent bernoulli assumption.
Since we have to repeat this computation every iteration of the algorithm, we can reduce this to $\bigo{1}$ through memoization. If we memoize $\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1) \prod\limits_{j \in (\region \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right)$, we can incrementally update it every time a test $t$ is evaluated. We also need to memoize $\left( \prod\limits_{k \in \region \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \right)^2$ and update it incrementally.
Solving the original DRD problem using
---------------------------------------
We now return to the (\[eq:drd\]) where we have multiple regions $\{ \region_1, \dots, \region_\numRegion \}$ that can overlap and the goal is to push the probability into one such region. Similar to (@chen2015submodular), we apply to solve the problem.
### The Noisy-OR Construction
The general strategy is to reduce the DRD problem with $\numRegion$ regions to $O(\numRegion)$ instances of the ECD problem such that *solving any one of them* is sufficient for solving the DRD problem as shown in Fig. \[fig:direct\_problem\].
![ \[fig:direct\_problem\] The DRD problem split into ‘one region versus all’ ECD problems by the algorithm](direct_problem.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
ECD problem $r$ creates a ‘one region versus all’ problem using $\region_r$. The objective corresponding to this problem is $\feci{r}{\obsOutcome}$. Note that $\feci{r}{\emptyset} = 0$ which corresponds to nothing. On the other hand $\feci{r}{\groundtruth} = 1$ which implies all edges are cut. The algorithm then combines them in a *Noisy-OR* formulation by defining the following combined objective
$$\label{eq:drd_fn}
\fdrd{\obsOutcome} = 1 - \prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion (1 - \feci{r}{\obsOutcome})$$
Note that $\fdrd{\obsOutcome} = 1$ iff $\feci{r}{\obsOutcome} = 1$ for at least one $r$. Thus the original DRD problem (\[eq:drd\]) is equivalent to solving
$$\label{eq:direct_drd}
\policyOpt \in \underbrace{\argminprob{\policy} \;\cost(\policy)}_\text{find policy} \; \mathrm{s.t} \; \underbrace{ \forall \groundtruth }_\text{groundtruth} \; : \; \underbrace{\fdrd{\obsOutcomeFunc{\policy}{\groundtruth}} \geq 1}_{\text{drive the objective to 1}}$$
greedily selects a test $\test^* \in \argmaxprob{\test} \frac{\gain{\drd}{\test}{\obsOutcome}}{\cost(\test)}$.
### The algorithm
We can now evaluate the DRD objective in (\[eq:drd\_fn\]) using (\[eq:fec\_applied\])
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fdrd_applied}
&\fdrd{\obsOutcome}\\
&= 1 - \prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion (1 - \feci{r}{\obsOutcome}) \\
&= 1 - \prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion \left( 1 - 1 + \frac{\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region_r \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region_r \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right)
\left( \prod\limits_{k \in \region_r \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \right)^2
}{1 - \prod\limits_{i \in \region_r} \biasTest{i}} \right) \\
&= 1 - \prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion \left( \frac{\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region_r \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1)
\prod\limits_{j \in (\region_r \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right)
\left( \prod\limits_{k \in \region_r \cap \selTestSet} \biasTest{k}^{\obsOutcome(k)} (1 - \biasTest{k})^{1 - \obsOutcome(k)} \right)^2
}{1 - \prod\limits_{i \in \region_r} \biasTest{i}} \right)
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:drd\] The expression $\fdrd{\obsOutcome}$ is strongly adaptive monotone and adaptive submodular.
See Appendix \[sec:proof:lem\_drd\]
\[eq:drd\_near\_opt\] Let $\numRegion$ be the number of regions, $\pminH$ the minimum prior probability of any hypothesis, $\policy_{DRD}$ be the greedy policy and $\policyOpt$ with the optimal policy. Then $\cost(\policy_{DRD}) \leq \cost(\policy^*)(2\numRegion \log \frac{1}{\pminH} + 1)$.
See Appendix \[proof:bisect\_nearopt\]
$\selTestSet \gets \emptyset$
We now describe the algorithm . Algorithm \[alg:drd\_skeleton\] shows the framework for a general decision region determination algorithm. In order to specify , we need to define two options - a candidate test set selection function $\texttt{SelectCandTestSet}(\obsOutcome)$ and a test selection function $\texttt{SelectTest}(\candTestSet, \biasVec, \obsOutcome)$.
The vanilla version of implements $\texttt{SelectCandTestSet}(\obsOutcome)$ to return the set of all candidate tests $\candTestSet$ that contains only tests belonging to active regions that have not already been evaluated
$$\label{eq:cand_test_set:all}
\candTestSet = \set{\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^\numRegion \setst{\region_i}{P(\region_i | \obsOutcome) > 0}}
\setminus \selTestSet$$
We now examine the test selection rule $\texttt{SelectTest}(\candTestSet, \biasVec, \obsOutcome)$ which can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:greedy_fdrd}
\test^* &\in \argmaxprob{\test \in \candTestSet}\; \frac{ \gain{\drd}{\test}{\obsOutcome} }{\cost(\test)} \\
&\in \argmaxprob{\test \in \candTestSet}\; \frac{ \expect{\outcomeTest{\test}}{ \fdrd{ \obsOutcomeAdd{\test} } - \fdrd{\obsOutcome} \;|\; \obsOutcome } }{\cost(\test)} \\
&\in \argmaxprob{\test \in \candTestSet}\; \frac{1}{\cost(\test)} \mathbb{E}_{\outcomeTest{\test}} \left[
\prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion
\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region_r \cap \selTestSet)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1) \prod\limits_{j \in (\region_r \setminus \selTestSet)} \biasTest{j} \right) \right.\\
& - \left. \left( \prod\limits_{r=1}^\numRegion
\left(1 - \prod\limits_{i \in (\region_r \cap \selTestSet \cup \test)} \Ind(\outcomeVarTest{i} = 1) \prod\limits_{j \in (\region_r \setminus \selTestSet \cup \test)} \biasTest{j} \right) \right)
( \biasTest{t}^{\outcomeTest{\test}} (1-\biasTest{t})^{1-\outcomeTest{\test}} )^{2\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m} \Ind(\test \in \region_k)} \right]
\end{aligned}$$
Fig. \[fig:canonical\_drd\_example\] illustrates how chooses different tests dependent on the bias vector $\biasVec$.
![ \[fig:canonical\_drd\_example\] Canonical example illustrating . In both scenarios, the paths remain the same but the bias vector $\biasVec$ varies. (a) Test $5$, which is common to $2$ paths. $\bias_5 = 0.6$ implies that $5$ is an informative test as its outcome not only affects the probability of a lot of paths, but it also has a slight likelihood of being collision free. Hence its gain is $0.113$. (b) Setting $\bias_5 = 0.3$ reduces the likelihood of the test being true. Hence its no longer informative and instead test $2$ with gain $0.199$ is chosen.](canonical_example_DRD.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We now discuss the complexity of computing the marginal gain at each iteration. We have to cycle through $\numTest$ tests. For each tests, we only have to cycle through regions which it impacts. Let $\eta$ be the maximum number of regions that any test belongs to. For every region, we need to do an $O(1)$ operation of calculating the change in probability. Hence the complexity is $O(\numTest \eta)$. Note that this can be faster in practice by leveraging lazy methods in adaptive submodular problems (@golovin2011adaptive).
Adaptively constraining test selection to most likely region
------------------------------------------------------------
We observe in our experiments that the surrogate (\[eq:fdrd\_applied\]) suffers from a slow convergence problem - $\fdrd{\obsOutcome}$ takes a long time to converge to $1$ when greedily optimized. This can be attributed to the curvature of the function. To alleviate the convergence problem, we introduce an alternate candidate selection function $\texttt{SelectCandTestSet}(\obsOutcome)$ that assigns to $\candTestSet$ the set of all tests that belong to the most likely region $\maxProbTestSet$. We hence forth denote the constraint as . It is evaluated as follows $$\label{eq:cand_test_set:maxp}
\maxProbTestSet = \set{\argmaxprob{\region_i = \seq{\region}{\numRegion}} \;P(\region_i | \obsOutcome) }
\setminus \selTestSet$$
Applying the constraint in (\[eq:cand\_test\_set:maxp\]) leads to a dramatic improvement for any test selection policy as we will show in Sec. \[sec:experiments:discussion\]. The following theorem offers a partial explanation
\[thm:max\_prob\] A policy that greedily latches to a region according the the posterior conditioned on the region outcomes has a near-optimality guarantee of 4 w.r.t the optimal region evaluation sequence.
See Appendix \[sec:proof:max\_prob\]
Applying the constraint in (\[eq:cand\_test\_set:maxp\]) implies we are no longer greedily optimizing $\fdrd{\obsOutcome}$. However, the following theorem bounds the sub-optimality of this policy.
\[thm:sub\_opt\] Let $\pmin = \min_i P(\region_i)$, $\pminH = \min_{\hyp \in \hypSpace} P(\hyp)$ and $l = \max_i \abs{\region_i}$. The policy using (\[eq:cand\_test\_set:maxp\]) has a suboptimality of $\alpha \left(2 \numRegion \log \left( \frac{1}{\pminH} \right) + 1 \right)$ where $\alpha \leq \left( 1 - \max \left( (1 - \pmin)^2, \pmin^{\frac{2}{l}} \right) \right)^{-1}$.
See Appendix \[sec:proof:sub\_opt\]
The complexity of with reduces since we only have to visit states belonging to the most probable path. Finding the most probable path is an $O(\numRegion)$ operation. Let $l$ be the maximum number of tests in a region. Hence the complexity of gain calculation is $O(l \eta)$. The total complexity is $O(l \eta + \numRegion)$.
Heuristic approaches to solving Bernoulli DRD problem
=====================================================
We propose a collection of competitive heuristics that can also be used to solve the problem. These heuristics are various $\texttt{SelectTest}(\candTestSet, \biasVec, \obsOutcome)$ policies in the framework of Alg. \[alg:drd\_skeleton\]. To simplify the setting, we assume unit cost $\cost(\test) = 1$ although it would be possible to extend these to nonuniform setting. We also state the complexity for each algorithm and summarize them in Table \[tab:complexity\].
The first heuristic selects a test by sampling uniform randomly $$\label{eq:policy_random}
\optTest \in \candTestSet$$ The complexity is $O(1)$.
We adopt our next heuristic from @dellin2016unifying by where the test belonging to most regions is selected. This criteria exhibits a ‘fail-fast’ characteristic where the algorithm is incentivized to eliminate options quickly. This policy is likely to do well where regions have large amounts of overlap on tests that are likely to be in collision.
$$\label{eq:policy_max_tally}
\optTest \in \argmaxprob{\test \in \candTestSet}\; \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\numRegion} \Ind\left(\test \in \region_i, P(\region_i | \obsOutcome) > 0 \right)$$
To evaluate the complexity, we first describe how to efficiently implement this algorithm. Note that we can pre-process regions and tests to create a tally count of tests belonging to regions and a reverse lookup from tests to regions. Hence selecting a tests is simply finding the test with the max tally which is $O(\numTest)$. If the test is in collision, the tally count is updated by looking at all regions the test affects, and visiting tests contained by those regions to reduce their tally count. Let $\eta$ be the maximum regions to which a test belongs, and $l$ be the maximum number of tests contained by a region. Hence the complexity is $O(\numTest + \eta l)$. In the setting, the complexity reduces to $O(l + \eta l) = O((1 + \eta)l)$.
The next policy selects tests that maximize the expected number of ‘covered’ tests, i.e. if a test is in collision, how many more tests are eliminated. $$\label{eq:policy_set_cover}
\optTest \in \argmaxprob{\test \in \candTestSet}\;
(1 - \biasTest{\test})
\abs{
\set{\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^\numRegion \setst{\region_i}{P(\region_i | \obsOutcome) > 0} -
\bigcup\limits_{j=1}^\numRegion \setst{\region_j}{P(\region_j | , \substack{\obsOutcome, \\ \outcomeVarTest{\test} = 0} ) > 0} }
\setminus \set{\selTestSet \cup \set{\test}}
}$$
The motivation for this policy has its roots in the question - what is the optimal policy for checking *all* paths? While requires identifying one feasible region, it might still benefit from such a policy in situations where only one region is feasible. The following theorem states that greedily selecting tests according to the criteria above has strong guarantees.
\[thm:set\_cover\] is a near-optimal policy for the problem of optimally checking all regions.
See Appendix \[sec:proof:set\_cover\]
We now analyze the complexity. We have to visit every test. Given a test is in collision, we have to compute the number of tests in the remaining regions which are not invalid. This would require visiting every test in every region. Hence the complexity is $O(\numTest^2 \numRegion)$. In the setting, the complexity reduces to $O(l \numRegion \numTest)$, where $l$ is the maximum number of tests contained by a region.
The last baseline is a classic heuristic from decision theory: myopic value of information @howard1966information. We define a utility function $U(\hyp, \regionH) $ which is $1$ if $\hyp \in \regionH$ and $0$ otherwise. The utility of $\hypSpaceR(\obsOutcome)$ corresponds to the maximum expected utility of any decision region, i.e., the expected utility if we made a decision now. greedily chooses the test that maximizes (in expectation over observations) the utility as shown.
$$\label{eq:policy_mvoi}
\optTest \in \argmaxprob{\test \in \maxProbTestSet}\; (1 - \biasTest{\test}) \max\limits_{i = 1, \dots, \numRegion} P(\region_i \;|\; \obsOutcome, \outcomeVarTest{\test} = 0)$$
Note that this test selection works only in the setting. For every test in the most probable region, we eliminate regions that would invalid if the test is invalid. Let $l$ be the maximum number of tests contained by a region. Let $\eta$ be the maximum number of regions contained by a test. Then the complexity is $O(\eta l)$.
[LCCCCC]{} & [****]{} & [****]{} & [****]{} & [****]{} & [****]{}\
Unconstrained & & $O(1)$ & $O(\numTest + \eta l)$ & $O(\numTest^2 \numRegion)$ & $O(\numTest \eta)$\
MaxProbReg & $O(\eta l)$ & $O(1)$ & $O((1 + \eta)l)$ & $O(l \numRegion \numTest)$ & $O(\eta l + \numRegion)$\
\[tab:complexity\]
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We evaluate all algorithms on a spectrum of synthetic problems, motion planning problems and experimental data from an autonomous helicopter. We present details on each dataset - motivation, construction of regions and tests and analysis of results. Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] presents the performance of all algorithms on all datasets. It shows the normalized cost with respect to algorithm $\algName$ $\policy_{\drd}$, i.e. $\frac{\cost(\policy) - \cost(\policy_{\drd}) }{\cost(\policy_{\drd})}$. The $95\%$ confidence interval value is shown (as a large number of samples are required to drive down the variance). Finally, in Section \[sec:experiments:discussion\], we present a set of overall hypothesis and discuss their validity.
Dataset 1: Synthetic Bernoulli Test {#sec:dataset:bern}
-----------------------------------
### Motivation
These datasets are designed to check the general applicability of our algorithms on problems which do not arise from graphs. Hence regions and tests are randomly created with minimal constraints that ensure the problems are non-trivial.
### Construction
First, a boolean region to test allocation matrix $\regTest \in \{0,1\}^{\numRegion \times \numTest}$ is created where $\regTest(i,j) = 1$ implies whether test $j$ belongs to region $\region_i$. $\regTest$ is randomly allocated by ensuring that each region $\region_i$ contains a random subset of tests. The number of such tests $l_i$ varies with region and is randomly sampled uniformly from $[0.05 \numTest, 0.10 \numTest]$. The bias vector $\biasVec \in \real^{1 \times \numTest}$ is sampled uniformly randomly from $[0.1, 0.9]$. A set of $\dataTest$ problems are created by sampling a ground truth $\groundtruth$ from $\biasVec$, and ensuring that at least one region is valid in each problem.
We set $\numTest = 100$ and $\dataTest = 100$. We create $3$ datasets by varying the number of regions $\numRegion = \{100, 500, 1000\}$. This is to investigate the performance of algorithms as the overlap among regions increase.
### Analysis
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows the results as regions are varied. Among the unconstrained algorithms, outperforms all other algorithms substantially with the gap narrowing on the Large dataset. For the versions, remains competitive across all datasets. matches its performance, doing better on dataset Large ($\numRegion = 1000$). From these results, we conclude that the datasets favour myopic behaviour. The performance of increases monotonically with $\numRegion$. This can be attributed to the fact that as the number of probable regions increase, myopic policies tend to perform better.
![ \[fig:synthetic\_gbg\] Construction of candidate path library $\PathSet$ for synthetic GBG experiments. The paths are embedded in an underlying RGG. (a) 100 paths (b) 500 paths (c) 1000 paths ](synthetic_gbg.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Dataset 2: Synthetic Generalized Binomial Graph {#sec:dataset:gbg}
-----------------------------------------------
### Motivation
These datasets are designed to test algorithms on GBG which do not necessarily arise out of motion planning problems. For these datasets, edge independence is directly enforced. Difference between results on these datasets and those from motion planning can be attributed to spatial distribution of obstacles and overlap among regions.
### Construction
A randomg geometric graph (RGG) [@penrose2003random] $\explicitGraph=(\vertexSet, \edgeSet)$ with $100$ vertices is sampled in a unit box $[0,1]\times[0,1]$. We create a set of paths $\PathSet$ from this graph by solving a set of shortest path problems (SPP). In each iteration of this algorithm, edges from $\explicitGraph$ are randomly removed with probability $0.5$ and the SPP is solved to produce $\Path$. This path is then appended to $\PathSet$ (if already not in the set) until $\abs{\PathSet} = \numRegion$. A bias vector $\biasVec \in \real^{1 \times \abs{\edgeSet}}$ is sampled uniformly randomly from $[0.1, 0.9]$.
We create $3$ datasets by varying the number of paths $\numRegion = \{100, 500, 1000\}$. For each dataset, we create $\dataTest = 100$ problems. Fig. \[fig:synthetic\_gbg\] shows the paths for these datasets.
### Analysis
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows the results as the number of paths is increased. Among the unconstrained algorithms, does better than when $\numRegion$ is small. As $\numRegion$ increases, outperforms all others and even matches up to its version. This can be attributed to the fact that when $\numRegion$ is small, most of the paths pass through ‘bottleneck edges’. inspects these edges first and if they are in collision, eliminates options quickly. As $\numRegion$ increases, the fraction of overlap decreases and problems become harder. For these problems, simply checking the most common edge does not suffice.
For the version, we see that has better overall performance. Thus we conclude that the combination of checking the most common edge and constraining to the most probable path works well. The difference between these datasets and Section \[sec:dataset:bern\] is that the region test allocation appears naturally from the graph structure. This leads to problems where ‘bottleneck edges’ exist and is able to identify them. Its interesting to note that performs worse as $\numRegion$ increases. This is because of the optimistic nature of - its less likely to select an edge that eliminates a lot of high probability regions (contrary to ). Hence the contrast between the two algorithms is displayed here. Fig. \[fig:illus\_syn\_gbg\] shows an illustration of selecting edges to solve a problem for $\numRegion = 50$.
![ \[fig:illus\_syn\_gbg\] Example of as applied to a synthetic GBG problem. The GBG is shown with edges colored from magenta (thin) to cyan (thick) according to the prior likelihoods. (a) Initial state of the problem (b) selects the most probable path and checks all its edges till it encounters and edge in collision in the middle of the path (c) It then looks at alternates till it discovers a valid short cut to connect the first and second half of the path](illus_syn_gbg.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Dataset 3: 2D Geometric Planning {#sec:dataset:2dgeom}
--------------------------------
### Motivation
The main motivation for our work is robotic motion planning. The simplest instantiation is 2D geometric planning. The objective is to plan on a purely geometric graph where edges are invalidated by obstacles in the environment. Hence the probability of collision appears from the chosen distribution of obstacles. While the independent Bernoulli assumption is not valid, we will see that the algorithms still leverage such a prior to make effective decisions.
### Construction
A random geometric graph (RGG) [@penrose2003random] $\explicitGraph = (\vertexSet, \edgeSet)$ with $\abs{\vertexSet} = 200$ is sampled in a unit box $[0,1]\times[0,1]$. We define a world map $\mathcal{M}$ as a binary map of occupied and unoccupied cells. Given $\explicitGraph$ and a $\mathcal{M}$, and edge $\edge \in \edgeSet$ is said to be in collision if it passes through an unoccupied cell. Fig. \[fig:illus\_explicit\_graph\](a) shows an example of a collision checked RGG. A parametric distribution can be used to create a distribution over world maps $P(\mathcal{M})$ which defines different environments. $P(\mathcal{M})$ can be used to measure the probability of individual edges being in collision.
![ \[fig:illus\_explicit\_graph\] Different explicit graphs for different problem settings (a) A RGG for 2D geometric planning (b) A state lattice for non-holonomic planning. ](illus_explicit_graph.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![ \[fig:2d\_world\_maps\] Different datasets of environments (a) OneWall (b) TwoWall (c) Forest ](2d_world_maps.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We create $3$ datasets corresponding to different environments as shown in Fig. \[fig:2d\_world\_maps\] - Forest, OneWall, TwoWall. These datasets are created by defining parametric distributions that distribute rectangular blocks. Forest corresponds to a non uniform stationary distribution of squares to mimick a forest like environment where trees are clustered together with spatial correlations. OneWall is created by constructing a wall with random gaps in conjunction with a uniform random distribution of squares. TwoWall contains two such walls. Hence these datasets create a spectrum of difficulty to test our algorithms.
We now describe the method for constructing the set of paths $\PathSet$. We would like a set of good candidate paths on the distribution $P(\mathcal{M})$. We define a goodness function as the probability of atleast one path in the set to be valid on the dataset. Following the methodology in @tallavajhula2016list, we use a greedy method. We sample a training dataset consisting of $\dataTrain = 1000$ problems. On every problem in this dataset, we solve the shortest path problem to get a path $\Path$. We then greedily construct $\PathSet$ by selecting the path that is most valid till our budget $\numRegion$ is filled. We set $\numRegion = 500$ for all datasets.
### Analysis
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows the results on all 3 datasets. In the unconstrained case, outperforms all other algorithms by a significant margin. For the version, remains competitive. The closest competitor to it is - matching performance in the TwoWall dataset. Further analysis of this dataset revealed that the dataset has problems that are difficult - where only one of the paths in the set are feasible. This often requires eliminating all other paths. performs well under such situations due to guarantees described in Theorem \[thm:set\_cover\].
These results vary from the patterns in Section \[sec:dataset:gbg\]. This is to do with the relationship with overlap of regions and priors on tests. Since the regions are created in a way cognizant of the prior, regions often overlap on tests that are likely to be free with high probability. ignores this bias term and hence prioritizes checking such edges first even if they offer no information.
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] also shows results on varying the number of regions. is robust to this change. performs better with less number of paths. This can be attributed to the path that the number of feasible path decreases, thus becoming advantageous to check all paths.
Fig. \[fig:2d\_env\_comparison\] shows a comparison of all algorithms on a problem from OneWall dataset. It illustrates the contrasting behaviours of all algorithms. selects edges belonging to many paths which happens to be near the start / goal. These are less likely to be discriminatory. takes time to converge as it attempts to cover all edges. focuses on edges likely to invalidate the current most probable path which eliminates paths myopically but takes time to converge. enjoys the best of all worlds.
![ \[fig:2d\_env\_comparison\] Performance (number of evaluated edges) of all algorithms on 2D geometric planning. Snapshots are at interim and final stages respectively show evaluated valid edges (green), invalid (red) edges and final path (magenta). The marginal gain of candidate edges goes from black (low) to cream (high).](2d_env_comparison_big.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Dataset 4: Non-holonomic Path Planning
--------------------------------------
### Motivation
While 2D geometric planning examined the influence of various spatial distribution of obstacles on random graphs, it does not impose a constraint on the class of graphs. Hence we look at the more practical case of mobile robots with constrained dynamics. This robots plan on a state-lattice (@pivtoraiko2009differentially) - a graph where edges are dynamically feasible maneuvers. As motivated in Section \[sec:intro\], these problems are of great importance as a robot has to react fast to safely avoid obstacles. The presence of differential constraint reduces the set of feasible paths, hence requiring checks at a greater resolution.
### Construction
The vehicle being considered is a planar curvature constrained system. Hence the search space is 3D - x, y and yaw. A state lattice of dynamically feasible maneuvers is created as shown in Fig. \[fig:illus\_explicit\_graph\](b). The environments are used from Section \[sec:dataset:2dgeom\] - Forest and OneWall. The density of obstacle in these datasets are altered to allow constrained system to find solutions. The candidate set of paths are created in a similar fashion as in Section. \[sec:dataset:2dgeom\]. We set $\numRegion \approx 100$ for all datasets.
### Analysis
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows results across datasets. In the unconstrained setting, significantly outperforms other algorithms. In the setting, we see that is equally competitive. The analysis of the Forest dataset reveals that due to the difficulty of the dataset, problems are such that only one of the paths is free. As explained in Section \[sec:dataset:2dgeom\], does well in such settings. On the OneWall dataset, we see several algorithms performing comparatively. This might indicate the relative easiness of the dataset.
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows variation across degree of the lattice. We see that remains competitive across this variation.
Dataset 5: 7D Arm Planning {#sec:dataset}
--------------------------
### Motivation
An important application for efficient edge evaluations is planning for a 7D arm. Edge evaluation is expensive geometric intersection operations are required to be performed to ascertain validity. A detailed motivation is provided in @dellin2016unifying. Efficient collision checking would allow such systems to plan quickly while performing tasks such as picking up and placing objects from one tray to another. One can additionally assume an unknown agent present in the workspace. Such problems would benefit from reasoning using priors on edge validity.
### Construction
A random geometric graph with $7052$ vertices and $16643$ edges is created (as described in @dellin2016unifying). Edges in self-collision are prune apriori. We create $2$ datasets to simulate pick and place tasks in a kitchen like environment. The start and goal from all problem is from one end-effector position to another. The first dataset - Table - comprises simply of a table at random offsets from the robot. The location of the table invalidates large number of edges. The second dataset - Clutter - comprises of an object and table at random offsets from the robot. In all datasets, a random subset corresponding to $0.3$ fraction of free edges are ‘flipped’, i.e. made to be in collision. This creates the effect of random disturbances in the environment. Paths are created in a similar way as Section \[sec:dataset:2dgeom\]. We set $\numRegion \approx 200$ for all datasets. Fig. \[fig:herb\] shows an illustration of the problems.
![ \[fig:herb\] 7D arm planning dataset (a) Snapshot of the manipulator for planning with a table (b) Snapshot of manipulator planning with an object (c) The explicit graph shown as straight line connections between end effector locations (also subsampled $50\%$). The start and goal end effector locations are also shown. Edges in collision are removed. ](herb.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
### Analysis
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows results across datasets. In both the unconstrained and setting, significantly outperforms other algorithms. in the is the next best performing policy. This suggests that the dataset might lead to bottleneck edges - edges through which many paths pass through that can be in collision. Further analysis reveals, this artifact occurs due to the random disturbance. is able to verify quickly if such bottleneck edges are in collision, and if so remove a lot of candidate paths from consideration.
![ \[fig:heli\] Experimental data from a full scale helicopter that has to avoid wires as it comes into land. The helicopter detects wires fairly late which requires an instant avoidance maneuver. The helicopter uses a state lattice and has to quickly identify a feasible path on the lattice. Evaluating edges are expensive since the system has to ensure it avoids wires by a sufficient clearance. (a) A top down view of the state lattice. Maneuvers are lateral as well as vertical. (b) Performance of on the motion planning problem. The voxels in blue represent occupied locations in the world as detected by the helicopter. The wires (as seen in the camera) appear as a small set of voxels in the map. selectively evaluates certain edges of the state lattice (green shows edges evaluated to be valid, red shows edges evaluated to be invalid). It is quickly able to identify a feasible path. ](heli2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Autonomous Helicopter Wire Avoidance
------------------------------------
We now evaluate our algorithms on experimental data from a full scale helicopter. The helicopter is equipped with a laser scanner that scans the world to build a model of obstacles and free space. The system is required to plan around detected obstacles as it performs various missions.
A particularly difficult problem is dealing with wires as the system comes in to land. The system has limitations on how fast it can ascend / descend. Hence it has to not only react fast, but determine which direction to move so as to feasibly land. Fig. \[fig:heli\] shows the scenario. In this domain, edge evaluation is expensive because given an edge, it must be checked at a high resolution to ensure it is as sufficient distance from an obstacle.
Fig. \[fig:heli\] (b) shos how evaluates informative edges to identify a feasible path. This algorithm uses priors collected in simulation of wire like environments.
![ \[fig:histogram\_max\_prob\] (a) Illustration of convergence issues for $\fdrd{\obsOutcome}$ - the transformation $(1-\fdrd{\obsOutcome})^{\frac{1}{\numRegion}}$ shows that it flattens out thus allowing even a non-greedy algorithm to converge faster. (b) with shown in the space of posterior probabilities of region. First $\region_1$ is checked, then $\region_2$ and finally $\region_4$ is found to be valid. ](histogram_max_prob.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Overall summary of results {#sec:experiments:discussion}
--------------------------
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows the evaluation cost of all algorithms on various datasets normalized w.r.t . The two numbers are lower and upper $95\%$ confidence intervals - hence it conveys how much fractionally poorer are algorithms w.r.t . The best performance on each dataset is highlighted. We present a set of observations to interpret these results.
has a consistently competitive performance across all datasets.
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows on $13$ datasets, is at par with the best - on $8$ of those it is exclusively the best.
The variant improves the performance of all algorithms on most datasets
Table \[tab:benchmark\_results\] shows that this is true on $12$ datasets. The impact is greatest on where improvement is upto a factor of $20$. For the case of , Fig. \[fig:histogram\_max\_prob\](a) illustrates the problem by examining the shape of $(1-\fdrd{\obsOutcome})^{\frac{1}{\numRegion}}$. Even though $\fdrd{\obsOutcome}$ is submodular, it flattens drastically allowing a non-greedy policy to converge faster. Fig. \[fig:histogram\_max\_prob\](b) shows how the probability of region evolves as tests are checked in the setting. We see this ‘latching’ characteristic - where test selection drives a region probability to 1 instead of exploring other tests.
However, this is not true in general. See Appendix \[app:max\_prob\_reg\] for results on datasets with large disparity in region sizes.
On planning problems, strikes a trade-off between the complimentary natures of and .
We examine this in the context of 2D planning as shown in Fig. \[fig:2d\_env\_comparison\]. selects edges belonging to many paths which is useful for path elimination but does not reason about the event when the edge is not in collision. selects edges to eliminate the most probable path but does not reason about how many paths a single edge can eliminate. switches between these behaviors thus achieving greater efficiency than both heuristics.
checks informative edges in collision avoidance problems encountered a helicopter
Fig. \[fig:heli\](b) shows the efficacy of on experimental flight data from a helicopter avoiding wire.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Rosemary F.G. Wyse'
title: Lessons from Surveys of The Galaxy
---
Introduction
============
These are exciting times to study local galaxies, due to the confluence of three approaches: [$\bullet$]{} Advances in technology have allowed large, high-resolution simulations of structure formation to model Galaxy formation in a cosmological context
[$\bullet$]{} Large observational surveys of stars in Local Group galaxies are now possible, using wide-field imagers and multi-object spectroscopy, complemented by space-based imaging and spectroscopy, followed in the near future by the GAIA satellite and full phase space information
[$\bullet$]{} High-redshift surveys are now quantifying the stellar populations and morphologies of galaxies at high look-back times
I will here focus on the second approach, while acknowledging the synergy with the others. I will not attempt a full historical review, but highlight advances with what I consider appropriate examples. I will also focus on [*stellar*]{} components, but one should not forget the importance of the interstellar medium.
Early Surveys
=============
Star Counts
-----------
Since the work of Kapteyn in the early 20th centuries, star counts, particularly at high Galactic latitude, have been utilised to define Galactic structure. However, their shortcomings, when taken alone, have also been long known. The apparent magnitude distribution of stars depends on many factors, not only their density distribution – their luminosity function depends on metallicity, their birth-rate and the underlying (invariant?) initial mass function (see e.g. Gilmore & Wyse 1987 for a review). Refining star counts to include colour allows more stringent testing of models, but again the result is critically dependent on the adopted luminosity function and colour-magnitude relation for different populations/components in the model (this may seem obvious, but the use of inappropriate choices was the source of much contentious debate in the 1980s).
Bearing their limitations in mind, star counts in selected lines-of-sight proved extremely useful for delineating the overall large-scale structure of the stellar components of the Galaxy. This is usually achieved not by direct inversion of the star counts, but by comparisons of the observations with model predictions (van den Bergh 1980; Bahcall & Soneira 1980; Gilmore 1981). In particular, the stellar density laws (radial and vertical) of the thin disk were derived (Sandage & Katem 1977; Bahcall & Soneira 1981; Yoshii 1982); the density profile and shape of the stellar halo were estimated from a variety of tracers (e.g. Hartwick 1987; Wyse & Gilmore 1989; Reid & Majewski 1993; Kinman, Suntzeff & Kraft 1994); the thick disk was defined as a component with exponential scale height some 3–4 times that of the old thin disk (Gilmore & Reid 1983; Fenkart 1988; Larsen & Humphreys 2003).
The interpretation of early star counts was complicated by several factors. Degeneracies in reddening–age–metallicity were exacerbated by the fact that the counts were based on photographic photometry, in only a limited range of bandpasses. Poor star-galaxy separation at faint magnitudes ($V \simgt 20$) can cause problems, particularly for blue objects (see the discussion in Reid & Majewski 1993). The small number of lines-of-sight in any one survey and limited areal coverage further made it difficult to isolate the underlying cause(s) of discrepancies between different investigations.
Determination of metallicities greatly aids the interpretation. Those derived from photometry can of course be obtained for more stars with less investment of telescope time, compared with spectroscopic determinations. The broad-band (UBV) based metallicity distributions of faint F/G-dwarfs by Gilmore & Wyse (1985), combined with density laws derived from star counts, were critical in ascertaining that the thick disk was indeed a distinct component. Intermediate and narrow-band photometry such as Strömgren photometry remains an effective tool, most recently illustrated by the work of Nordström et al. (2004), providing the definitive analysis of the metallicity distribution of nearby F/G dwarfs.
Star Counts plus Kinematics
---------------------------
Photometric observations repeated after a sufficiently long baseline allow for the combination of star counts plus proper motions. The reduced proper motion diagram is a useful discriminant of different kinematic populations, in the absence of reliable distances. Chiu (1980) applied this technique to his database of proper-motions in Cardinal directions[^1] for a faint ($V \simlt 20.5$) magnitude-limited sample, based on deep photographic plates with a 25 year baseline. He concluded that ‘Population I’ far from the disk plane was of lower metallicity, and had higher velocity dispersions, than did Population I locally. A re-analysis of his data, without the requirement that there be only [*two*]{} components (the classical Populations I and II), showed the presence of the intermediate-kinematics thick disk (Wyse & Gilmore 1986).
Distances derived from photometric parallaxes plus proper motions, for stars selected purely as a magnitude-limited sample, i.e. not kinematically selected, in at least one of the Cardinal directions, can be used to probe one or more components of the space motion (e.g. Majewski 1992), as can radial velocities (Sandage & Fouts 1987b). Reliable distances based on photometry need good metallicity and gravity estimates, which are not always available. The Hipparcos/Tycho sample (with trigonometric parallaxes) allowed an analysis of very local space motions, such as the velocity dispersion tensor as a function of colour, on the scale of less than a hundred parcsecs, of course for mostly disk stars (e.g. Dehnen & Binney 1998).
The combination of star counts plus spectroscopy – to provide a metallicity estimate in addition to radial velocity – is more powerful than photometry alone, allowing joint analyses of metallicity and kinematics/dynamics. For example, this combination allows a robust dynamical analysis of local vertical motions to derive the vertical acceleration and associated mass density and surface density ($K_z$; Kuijken & Gilmore 1989). The conclusion from this analysis is that there is no ‘extra’ dissipative dark matter, confined to the disk, in additional to the dissipationless dark matter in the (dark) halo.
Radial velocities, plus distances and proper motions, allow full phase-space investigations. Early surveys used photometric parallaxes for distances, plus a minimum proper motion selection criterion to define the samples, in order to increase the ‘yield’ of non-thin disk stars in these necessarily local sample. This kinematic selection requires an understanding of, and correction for, the kinematic bias introduced. The analysis is complicated, but fruitful (Sandage & Fouts 1987a; Carney & Latham 1987; Carney, Laird, Latham & Aguilar 1996). Again the Hipparcos/Tycho sample provided the opportunity for the derivation of space motions for local stars, without proper-motion selection, once metallicities and radial velocities were obtained (Nordström et al. 2004).
The modern era of star counts derived from very wide-field CCD photometry such as available from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, e.g. Chen et al. 2001; Ivezić’s and Newberg’s talks in these proceedings) was preceded by pencil-beam CCD photometry in selected areas, providing multi-band, deep, data over several, to many, square degrees (e.g. Phleps et al. 2000; Siegel et al. 2002). These pointed to tantalizing inconsistencies in different fields.
Motivation for Surveys: Cosmology
=================================
Early Surveys
-------------
The idea that the stellar populations of the Milky Way Galaxy have critical importance for understanding larger issues in cosmology has been a major motivation for decades. Much fundamental early work on stellar populations and Galaxy formation by Sandage (e.g. Eggen, Lynden-Bell & Sandage 1962; Sandage 1970) was centered around the questions of ‘how old are the oldest stars in the Galaxy, how long after the Big Bang did galaxies initiate their collapse, and what was the duration of that collapse?’ These are crucial in constraining the age of the Universe – obviously as least as old as the oldest stars – and hence the values of cosmological parameters, particularly when these are estimated through comparison with measurements of the present value of the Hubble constant. The fact that the early, rapid collapse model developed in Eggen, Lynden-Bell & Sandage (1962) is still used as a paradigm for the formation of the Milky Way Galaxy is testament to its simplicity and power.
Significant impetus to use the Milky Way as a template for testing theories of galaxy evolution also came from inconclusive attempts to derive cosmological parameters from observations of galaxies, such as the Hubble diagram (apparent magnitude [*vs*]{} redshift), galaxy number counts etc. It was then realised that the evolution of galaxies must be understood first (summarised in Tinsley 1977), and the Milky Way was potentially an ideal testbed. The drive to understand the age distributions and metallicity distributions of the different stellar components of the Galaxy led to elegant analyses of the metallicity distribution of long-lived stars, manifest in the local G-dwarf metallicity distribution (Pagel & Patchett 1975, van den Bergh 1962; Schmidt 1963) and predictions for the chemical evolution of the Galaxy beyond the local disk. The simple, closed-box model of chemical evolution had been developed (e.g. Schmidt 1963; Searle & Sargent 1972) and the application to the local disk revealed a ‘G-dwarf problem’ in that the model significantly over-predicted the metal-poor tail of the metallicity distribution of long-lived stars. Analytic and numerical models of chemical evolution showed the several ways in which the G-dwarf ‘problem’ could be solved (e.g. Tinsley 1975; Pagel & Patchett 1975). These models included such currently topical aspects as inhomogeneities, and the interpretation of the pattern of elemental abundances, showing how they trace the past stellar Initial Mass Function and star formation history (Tinsley 1976; 1979). The data did not merit a full exploitation of these insights.
The Modern Era
--------------
Significant motivation for study of Galactic populations still comes from cosmology, but now not so much the estimation of the present values of cosmological parameters such as the deceleration parameter $q_0$ or Hubble constant $H_0$, but the testing of predictions of galaxy formation in the context of particular cosmological models. The favoured model at present is $\Lambda$CDM ($\Omega_\Lambda \simeq 0.7$, $\Omega_{matter} \simeq 0.3$, $H_0 \simeq 70$ km/s/Mpc), based on the excellent agreement of its predictions with measurements of large-scale structure, such as the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (Spergel et al. 2006) and the galaxy power spectrum (Sanchez et al. 2006; Eisenstein et al. 2005). As is well-known, such a model predicts that large galaxies such as the Milky Way form and evolve through the merging and accretion of smaller systems, with the ‘first objects’ having a mass of perhaps $\sim
10^6~$M$_\odot$ (the characteristic mass, and the relation of these objects to present-day dwarf galaxies is the subject of much on-going work). As is also well-known, this model faces several challenges, particularly concerning its predictions on the scales of groups of galaxies and below.
The merging history of a typical massive-galaxy dark halo is fairly straightforward to calculate, since only gravity is involved. However, most simulations lack the resolution to follow how far inside a ‘parent’ halo a merging satellite penetrates, and this is crucial to determine the effect on the baryonic disk. During mergers the orbital energy goes into the internal degrees of freedom of the merging systems, thus ‘heating’ them. A corollary is that surviving dark substructure, as predicted in CDM simulations (Moore et al. 1999; Klypin et al. 1999), can also heat thin disks. Thin disks are thus fattened, and while gas can cool and re-settle to the disk plane, stellar disks remain ‘hot’. During a ‘minor’ merger (mass ratio of less than $\sim 1:4$), the (relatively) low density, outer regions of the smaller system are removed by tides, to be absorbed into the larger system. Orbital angular momentum is also absorbed and redistributed, with in general outer parts gaining angular momentun and inner parts losing. In the process gas and stars are driven to the center, perhaps helped by a bar that is often predicted to form as a result of instabilities in the disk. The disk formed subsequently has a short scale-length: the corollary is that detailed angular momentum conservation is required in order to form extended disks as observed (Fall & Efstathiou 1980). Various schemes have been developed to suppress angular momentum transport and redistribution, usually invoking some ‘feedback’ process to maintain the baryons in a diffuse gaseous state for as long as possible (e.g. Weil, Eke & Efstathiou 1998; Maller & Dekel 2002; Robertson et al. 2006), until the epoch of active (major) merging is complete, perhaps even as recently as a redshift of unity.
Abadi et al. (2003) present a recent simulation of the formation of a present-day disk galaxy that demonstrates many of the important aspects, including the outstanding problem of how to include star formation and gas physics. Generic predictions for disk galaxies include the following:
- Extended disks settle and form late, after the last major mergers, typically (for a dark halo of mass $10^{12}$M$_\odot$) corresponding to a redshift of unity (e.g. Maller et al. 2006), or a lookback time of $\sim 8$ Gyr
- A large disk galaxy should have hundreds of surviving satellite dark haloes at the present day; these may well provide observable signatures through their gravitational interactions with the baryonic galaxy, such as heating of the thin disk, disruption of wide binaries, disturbance of extended tidal streams etc.
- The stellar halo is formed from disrupted satellite galaxies
- Minor mergers (a mass ratio of $\sim 20$% between the satellite and the disk) into a disk continue after the last ‘major merger’, and heat it, forming a thick disk out of a pre-existing thin disk, and create torques that drive gas into the central (bulge?) regions
- More significant mergers transform a disk galaxy into an S0 or even an elliptical
- Subsequent accretion of gas can reform a thin disk
- Stars can be accreted into the thin disk from suitably massive satellites (dynamical friction must be efficient) and if to masquerade as stars formed in the thin disk, must be on suitable high angular momentum, prograde orbits
The Fossil Record: Tests of Predictions
---------------------------------------
Stars of mass like the Sun, and lower, live for essentially the age of the Universe, and retain memory of many aspects of the conditions at early times. Studying old stars nearby thus allows us to study cosmology locally, a very complementary approach to direct study of high-redshift objects. There are copious numbers of stars in Local Group galaxies that have ages of greater than 10 Gyr, and thus formed at lookback times equivalent to redshifts of 1.5 and greater (see Figure 1).
The clues to galaxy evolution that one might wish to extract from the local fossil record include the star formation history, the form of the stellar Initial Mass Function and whether or not it varied between then and now, chemical evolution, and the relative importances of dissipative gas physics versus dissipationless processes. The overall dark halo potential well depth and shape can be inferred from stellar (and gas) kinematics. There are aspects of the stellar populations that are less sensitive to details of baryonic physics – such as the ages of stars in the thick disk – and these can be used to constrain the merging history – is this compatible with $\Lambda$CDM? Is the Milky Way a typical galaxy?
Most galaxies in the local Universe are observed to cluster in loose groups like the Local Group (which in itself is unusual in CDM models, Governato et al. 1997). While lacking a giant elliptical, the Local Group hosts a reasonably diverse selection, with large disk galaxies of a range of bulge-to-disk ratios (The Milky Way, M31, M33), gas-rich and gas-poor satellites ranging from the compact elliptical M32 through the numerous extremely low surface brightness dwarf spheroidals (dSph). Do trends in inferred merging history etc for the Local Group galaxies match predictions?
We can address these questions with current and planned capabilities, with which the motions, spatial distributions, ages and chemical elemental compositions can be measured (with varying accuracies!) for individual stars in galaxies throughout the Local Group, plus additional complementary tracers such as HII regions and planetary nebulae.
What have we learnt so far?
Milky Way Large Scale Structure
===============================
The Thin Disk
-------------
The large-scale structure of the thin stellar disk is reasonably well modelled by a double exponential with scalelength of $\sim~3$ kpc and scaleheight of $\sim~300$ pc (for stars older than a few Gyr). Extrapolating this smooth structure with a local normalization for stellar surface density of $\Sigma_*~\sim~35$M$_\odot$ pc$^{-2}$ (Kuijken & Gilmore 1989; Flynn et al. 2006) gives a total mass of around $6 \times 10^{10}$M$_\odot$. The interstellar medium contributes $\sim 10$M$_\odot$ pc$^{-2}$ locally, and has a rather different radial profile from the stars, with atomic and molecular gas each having a distinct spatial distribution.
Stellar metallicity and age distributions are best-known at present for the local disk, within around one kpc of the solar circle. As noted above, Strömgren photometry has proven a robust technique of metallicity determination for large samples of F/G dwarfs, confirming the ‘G-dwarf problem’ in the local disk i.e. a narrow metallicity distribution, with few stars significantly more metal-poor than the peak, in contradiction to the large metal-poor tail predicted by the simplest chemical evolution models (e.g. Wyse & Gilmore 1995; Rocha-Pinto & Maciel 1996; Nordström et al. 2004). The peak metallicity of long-lived stars in the solar neighbourhood is somewhat below the solar value, $\sim -0.15$ dex, with good agreement between G-dwarfs and lower-mass K-dwarfs (Kotoneva et al. 2002). High-resolution spectroscopic studies of necessarily smaller samples provides a peak iron abundance of $\sim -0.1$ dex (Allende-Prieto et al. 2004).
The star formation history of the [*local*]{} stellar disk has been estimated through various techniques, and the general conclusion is for an early onset, an approximately constant overall rate, and with low-amplitude (factor of two) bursts on (few?) Gyr timescales (e.g. Hernandez, Valls-Gabaud & Gilmore 2000; Rocha-Pinto et al. 2000). There is certainly no lack of old stars in the local thin disk, a location that is some 3 scalelengths from the Galactic center. Assuming these stars formed in the thin disk, one concludes that an extended thin disk was in place at a redshift of around 2 (corresponding to the look-back time of 10–12 Gyr estimated for the onset of star formation in the local disk; Binney, Dehnen & Bertelli 2000). This is significantly earlier than a typical extended thin disk would form in CDM models.
Complementary data for external disk galaxies of similar scale-length to the Milky Way (half-light radii of between 5kpc and 7kpc) show little evolution in size or number back to a redshift of unity (the limit of the data, for the COSMOS survey sample of Sargent et al. 2006). Hence, extended disks do not seem to [*start*]{} forming at $z
\sim 1$, but rather to be well-established by then. Models in which a significant part of the old thin stellar disk is formed by the later addition of old stars by satellite accretion directly into high-angular momentum orbits in the disk plane (e.g. Abadi et al. 2003) need to address this.
The Thick Disk
--------------
The large-scale structure of the thick stellar disk is (probably!) reasonably well modelled by a double exponential, with scalelength of $\sim 3$ kpc and scaleheight of $\sim 1$ kpc, giving an axial ratio that is a factor of three or so ‘fatter’ than the thin disk. Extrapolating this smooth structure with a local normalization of around 5% gives a total mass of around 15% of that of the thin stellar disk.
Again the metallicity and age distributions are best determined at present only fairly locally, within a few kpc of the Sun, both vertically and radially. The tails of the derived kinematic and metallicity distributions overlap with those of the thin disk, so there is the danger in very local samples of being overwhelmed by the much more numerous thin disk stars. Defining a thick disk sample [*in situ*]{}, for example above $\sim 1$ kpc vertically from the disk plane, provides an effective filter. Such samples find a thick disk peak metallicity of $\sim -0.6$ dex, and that essentially all the stars have an age as old as the globular cluster of the same metallicity as the stars, or some 10-12 Gyr (e.g. Gilmore & Wyse 1985; Gilmore, Wyse & Jones 1995; see also Ratnatunga & Freeman 1989; Morrison, Flynn & Freeman 1990). Local proper-motion selected samples find similar results (e.g. Carney, Latham & Laird 1989), albeit with alternative interpretations (e.g. Norris & Ryan 1991).
The extension of the metallicity distribution of the thick disk to metallicities significantly below $\sim -1$ dex (e.g. Morrison, Flynn & Freeman 1990) remains topical, with its most robust detection in samples selected by having low metallicity, and thus with uncertain normalization to the main peak (e.g. Chiba & Beers 2000).
As discussed in Sofia Felzing’s contribution, the stars in the local thick disk follow a distinct elemental abundance pattern, offset from stars in the thin disk (defined kinematically). This presumably reflects the different star formation histories of these two components, the thick disk having a (significantly) shorter duration of star formation. A well-defined separation of populations on the basis of elemental abundance patterns holds much promise for identification of substructure and tracing the history of the Galaxy (cf. Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn 2002).
The thick disk has kinematics that are intermediate between those of the thin disk and stellar halo: a typical local thick disk star is on a fairly high angular momentum orbit, with a lag behind the mean azimuthal (rotational) velocity of the old thin disk of only $\sim 30
- 50$ km/s. The vertical velocity dispersion is around 45 km/s, hotter than can be achieved through heating the thin disk by local gravitational perturbations such as Giant Molecular Cloud complexes and/or transient spiral arms.
The dominant old age of stars in the thick disk, $\sim 11$ Gyr, combined with the large age range of stars in the thin disk, argues against models in which the thick disk forms from the thin disk by a heating process that occurs over an extended period. If the heating is merger-induced (the minor-merger scenario for formation of the thick disk from a pre-existing thin disk), then the last significant merger into the thin disk was long ago, at a redshift $\sim 2$, corresponding to a lookback time of $\sim 11$ Gyr. This is unusually long ago in $\Lambda$CDM models, particularly when one remembers that for sufficient heating of the thin disk, the ‘significant’ merger need only have mass equal to 20% of the [*disk*]{} mass, not the total mass.
In any merger-model for the formation of the thick disk, there will be a contribution to ‘the thick disk’ from stars removed from the culprit satellite(s). Indeed, in some models tidal debris from shredded satellite galaxies is a very significant part of ‘the thick disk’ (e.g. Abadi et al. 2003). However, the high peak metallicity of the thick disk stars suggests that these stars formed within a fairly deep potential well, particularly given their old age; as an example, while the LMC has managed to self-enrich to a similar metallicity, \[Fe/H\]$
\sim -0.6$ dex, this is for stars only a few Gyr old. The putative satellites in which the majority of thick disk stars formed would have to be extremely different from those surviving satellites.
The evidence from observations of high-redshift systems is limited, but there has been a recent detection of what appears to be a kinematically hot (i.e. expected to be thick) stellar disk forming in a burst of star formation at a redshift of greater than 2 (Genzel et al. 2006). More nearby galaxies too appear to contain old thick disks (Mould 2005; Yoachim & Dalcanton 2005), not dissimilar to that of the Milky Way.
Identifying the analogue (if one exists) of the Milky Way thick disk in M31 is complex, due in part to the pervasive inhomogeneities in stellar surface densities (Ferguson et al. 2002) and disparate lines-of-sight with spectroscopic and deep photometric information. Is the ‘spheroid’ component with \[Fe/H\]$\sim -0.6$ the thick disk in M31 (e.g. Wyse & Gilmore 1988)? Or is it more associated with the outer disk (Brown et al. 2006), and contains stars of a wide range of ages, thereby compatible with a more extended merger history than the Milky Way?
The lower-mass spiral galaxy M33 appears to have had a very quiescent life, with little evidence for significant mergers or interactions. While a trend between merging history and total mass is expected in $\Lambda$CDM, such that lower mass dark haloes have fewer recent mergers (e.g. Maller et al. 2006), it remains to be seen if the Milky Way, M31 and M33 can be produced easily.
The Central Bulge
-----------------
The smooth structure of the central bulge is mildly triaxial, i.e. barred, with axial ratios of $\sim 1:0.35:0.3$ (Bissantz & Gerhard 2002). The profile is reasonably well-fit by an exponential, with scaleheight $\sim 300$ pc, and thus the Milky Way bulge is not a classical ‘$r^{1/4}$-bulge’ but rather perhaps a ‘pseudo-bulge’, often found in later-type spiral galaxies (e.g. Carollo, Stiavelli & Mack 1998). The total stellar mass of the bulge is $\sim
10^{10}$ M$_\odot$, and the central regions are very baryon-dominated (Bissantz, Debattista & Gerhard 2004).
The stellar populations have been studied mostly in ‘windows’ of low optical extinction. The peak spectroscopic metallicity from samples of K-giants is somewhat below the solar value (e.g. McWilliam & Rich 1994; Ibata & Gilmore 1995; Fulbright, McWilliam & Rich 2006a), similar to the long-lived stars in the local thin disk. The dominant age is old, again 10-12 Gyr, with younger stars in lower latitude central regions (e.g. Ortolani et al. 1995; Feltzing & Gilmore 2000; Kuijken & Rich 2002; van Loon et al. 2003). The coincidence in age with the thick disk may point to one merger event to set the physical conditions for both components: the gas driven to the centre during the merger that heated the thin disk to form the thick disk, would form the bulge (e.g. Wyse 2001).
Determinations of elemental abundances are limited to small samples of K-giants (typically around 50 stars), and are consistent with enrichment by (normal IMF) Type II supernovae only, i.e. the stars formed in only a short duration of star formation (e.g. Fulbright, McWilliam & Rich 2006b; Zoccali et al. 2006). This short duration agrees with earlier inferences from more limited data (e.g. Matteucci & Brocato 1990; Rich 1999; Ferreras, Wyse & Silk 2003).
The low-mass end of the IMF in the bulge can be studied by direct star counts, with the result (Zoccali et al. 2000) that it is indistinguishable from that in (dynamically unevolved) metal-poor globulars. The low-mass IMF in the Ursa Minor dwarf Spheroidal galaxy (Wyse et al. 2002) is also indistinguishable from that in metal-poor globular clusters, and again the elemental abundances in dSph do not require any variations in massive-star IMF. The IMF seems remarkably invariant with metallicity, epoch of star formation, (present) stellar density etc.
Models of how the bulge in the Milky Way formed generally appeal either to its ‘pseudo-bulge’ density profile and triaxial shape to argue for an instability in the inner disk (in which case the formation of the bulge could have occured significantly after the formation of the stars themselves), or to its rapid enrichment and high density to argue for an [*in situ*]{} starburst (e.g. Elmegreen 1999; see the review in Wyse 1999).
The Stellar Halo
----------------
The large-scale structure of the inner regions, within $\sim 15$ kpc of the Galactic center is the best-constrained at present. The dominant population is old and metal-poor, with the stars on low angular momentum orbits. The overall density profile (traced by RR Lyrae stars) shows a smooth power-law fall-off with distance (measured in the disk plane) of $\rho_{RRL} \propto R^{-3.1}$ out to $\sim 50$ kpc (Vivas & Zinn 2006). The stellar halo as traced by main sequence F/G stars and RR Lyrae stars is not spherical, but can be reasonably well fit by an oblate spheroid, with flattening at around the solar distance of $c/a \sim 0.5$ (Hartwick 1987; Wyse & Gilmore 1989) becoming rounder with distance, and approximately spherical at $R \simgt 20$ kpc (Vivas & Zinn 2006). The total stellar mass in this smooth distribution is $\sim 2 \times 10^9$ M$_\odot$ (e.g. Carney, Latham & Laird 1990). Hints of triaxiality are seen in deep imaging data, as discussed in the meeting by Heidi Newberg.
Both the age distributions (Unavane, Wyse & Gilmore 1996) and the elemental abundance patterns (Fulbright 2002; Stephens & Boesgaard 2002; Tolstoy et al. 2003; Venn et al. 2004) of the bulk of the field halo stars are very different from those in the present satellite galaxies of the Milky Way (with the abundance pattern consistent with the expectations from the extended star formation histories). Accretion of stars from systems like the satellite galaxies, into the field halo, is limited to less than 10% since a redshift of unity (Unavane et al. 1996). The rare halo stars with extremely high velocities, probing the outer halo, have lower values of \[$\alpha$/Fe\], more similar to the stars in the dSph, but the overall abundance pattern remain different (Fulbright 2002).
The abundance ratios of lighter metals in the field halo stars show remarkably little scatter down to the lowest metallicities (e.g. Cayrel et al. 2004), defining a flat ‘Type II plateau’ in \[$\alpha$/Fe\] and indicating that the stars formed in systems with only a short duration of star formation, allowing enrichment by only the short-lived progenitors of Type II supernovae. The value of a predicted ‘Type II plateau’ in \[$\alpha$/Fe\] depends on the massive-star IMF (see e.g. Wyse & Gilmore 1992), and the low amplitude of scatter indicates an invariant IMF.
The mean metallicity of the stellar halo is around $-1.5$ dex (e.g. Ryan & Norris 1991), significantly lower than the local (gas-rich) disk. With a fixed stellar initial mass function, and no gas flows, one expects a system of low gas fraction, such as the stellar halo, to be [*more*]{} chemically evolved than a system with higher gas fraction. Hartwick (1976) provided an elegant explanation to this conundrum: gas outflows from active star-forming regions in the proto-halo. The chemical evolution requirements are such that for a fixed stellar IMF, one that matches the local thin disk mean metallicity of just below the solar value, the outflows must occur at around 10 times the rate of star formation. An attractive corollary to this picture is that one can tie the gas outflow from low-mass halo star-forming regions to gas inflow to the central regions to form the bulge; the low angular momentum of halo material means that it will only come into centrifugal equilibrium after collapsing in radius by a significant factor. The mass ratio of bulge to halo is around a factor of ten, just as would be expected, and the specific angular momentum distributions of stellar halo and bulge match (Wyse & Gilmore 1992; see Figure 2 here).
Small-Scale Structure
=====================
The Outer Stellar Halo
----------------------
The outer halo, with dynamical timescales of $> 1$ Gyr, is the best location to search for structure. Indeed, several streams have been found, in both coordinate space and in kinematics. Most of these appear to be due to the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal (Sgr dSph), a galaxy that was discovered serendipitously during a survey of the kinematics and metallicity distributions of stars in the Milky Way bulge (Ibata, Gilmore & Irwin 1994, 1995). Extended tidal streams from the Sgr dSph are now detected across the sky (Ibata et al. 2001; Majewski et al. 2003; Belokurov et al. 2006a). These are potentially extremely useful in constraining the shape and smoothness of the dark halo potential, although we are in the interesting situation of contradictory conclusions from different datasets (e.g. Helmi 2004; Johnston, Law & Majewski, 2005; Fellhauer et al. 2006).
The detection and characterization of structure in the stellar halo is a very fast-moving field! As described further in Heidi Newberg’s talk in this volume, several (of order 10) candidate new dSph, globular clusters and streams (including at least one stream from a disrupting globular cluster – not all streams indicate accretion from an external source) have been announced this year, all exploiting the Sloan Digital Sky Survey imaging data (e.g. Belokurov et al. 2006a,b; Grillmair 2006). Determining the [*masses*]{} of the new putative satellite galaxies is crucial before one can say what impact these discoveries have on the ‘satellite problem’ of $\Lambda$CDM models – namely the over-prediction by the models of satellite-galaxy mass dark haloes. At present, the available radial velocity data internal to the dSph companions of the Milky Way are consistent with each dSph being embedded in a dark halo of [*fixed mass*]{}, of $\sim 4 \times
10^7$ M$_\odot$ (Wilkinson et al. 2006), out to the extent of the stars (saying nothing about the extent, or mass, at radii beyond available stellar kinematic data). While it is reasonably easy, theoretically, to modify the baryon content of shallow potential well systems such as the satellite haloes and thus change their luminosity function, it is much harder to conceive of modifications to the predicted mass function of satellite haloes to match a narrow range in mass.
The Thick Disk
--------------
As noted above, a popular model for the formation of the thick disk is based on a minor merger into a pre-existing thin disk, with the orbital energy in large part going into heating the thin disk. The satellite galaxy (or galaxies) responsible for the heating does not survive unscathed, but will in general be tidally disrupted, the mass of any surviving remnant being set by how deeply it penetrates and the relative density compared that of to the larger (Milky Way) galaxy. The ‘shredded satellite’ stars will likely contribute to the stellar populations above the thin disk plane, and thus be included in samples of ‘thick disk’ stars. The spatial distribution of satellite debris will reflect the orbit of the satellite, and its (relative) density profile (e.g. Huang & Carlberg 1997, their Fig. 19; Abadi et al. 2003).
Such satellite debris has been identified, on the basis of distinct kinematics, namely lower angular momentum than the bulk of thick disk stars, in at least one sample of turn-off stars observed several kpc from the disk plane (Gilmore, Wyse & Norris 2002).
The details of the stellar populations in the thin disk – thick disk – halo transition region contains much information about the past merger history of the Milky Way. Large samples (many thousands) of stars are needed; we (Gilmore, Wyse & Norris) have undertaken a moderate survey with the new multi-object spectrograph on the Anglo-Australian Telescope, AAOmega, targeting $\sim 13,000$ F/G stars in the equatorial stripe of the imaging data of SDSS DR4. Results from the SDSS spectroscopic database are presented by Ivezić in this volume. The Galactic structure survey of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Extension (SDSS-II/SEGUE) is also on-going.
The Thin Disk
-------------
The possibility that a significant fraction of old stars found now in the thin disk were formed in satellite galaxies that were subsequently accreted into the disk plane was suggested by the simulations of Abadi et al. (2003). A typical satellite orbit is far from circular in the disk plane (e.g. Benson 2005) so that this scenario requires that the satellites be massive enough for dynamical friction to damp the vertical orbital motion and circularize their orbit quickly enough, and it remains to be seen if, for example, the chemical composition of the satellite stars matches those observed in the old disk.
Ongoing large-scale spectroscopic surveys such as RAVE (targeting bright stars with the UK Schmidt Telescope of the Anglo-Australian Observatory and 6dF multi-object spectrograph; Steinmetz et al. 2006) and SDSS-II/SEGUE should provide ideal databases for an identification of kinematic substructure in the disk. The large Geneva/Copenhagen survey of the local disk (Nordström et al. 2004) is also a fertile hunting ground, with possible ancient substructure identified by Helmi et al. (2006). The high-resolution mode of the proposed multi-object spectrograph (WFMOS) for Gemini will provide unprecedented elemental abundance data, containing much more information than overall metallicity, and with signatures that persist longer than spatial or even most kinematic features.
The ‘ring’ around the Galaxy seen in star counts (e.g. Yanny et al. 2003; Ibata et al. 2003) could be either a remnant of satellite accretion into the plane of the disk (e.g. Bellazzini et al. 2006 and references therein) or more simply structure in the outer stellar disk, which most probably warps and flares (e.g. Momany et al. 2006 and references therein). Indeed the rich structure in HI gas in the outer disk may be seen in the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn HI survey (Kalberla et al. 2005). Even the old disk is unlikely to be well-fit by a smooth model, given the strong spiral structure seen in K-band images of external spirals (Rix & Zaritsky 1995).
Indeed, the fact that the underlying potential of the disk is neither smooth, axisymmetric nor time-independent cannot be ignored. As demonstrated by De Simone, Wu & Tremaine (2004)[^2], transient perturbations, such as segments of spiral arms, not only heat the stellar disk, but can produce ‘moving groups’ that persist long after the gravitational perturbation has gone. These kinematic features are created from random collections of disk stars, and so will contain a range of ages and metallicities. Interestingly, such moving groups have been identified (Famaey et al. 2004).
Survey Requirements
===================
I hope my brief survey of surveys has demonstrated that the field of ‘Galactic Structure’ is vibrant and exciting. While much has been learnt, much remains to be learnt. Future large surveys are needed to quantify both small-scale and large-scale structures. These surveys should be based on input catalogues with excellent and uniform multi-band photometry and also excellent astrometry, to give accurate and precise positions and proper motions. One can envisage a hierarchy of surveys, each providing input to the next level.
Immediately from imaging data one can analyse the spatial structure, in colour/magnitude space. Spectroscopic targets can also be defined, with a wel-understood and uniform selection function across the sky.
Medium resolution spectroscopy (few Å resolution), providing radial velocities to a few km/s and metallicities to $\sim 0.2$ dex, should be obtained for several hundreds of stars in each each line-of-sight, allowing the analysis to go beyond the means and dispersions of present surveys, and to look at the structure in the kinematic and metallicity distributions. Metallicity estimates are necessary for improved photometric parallaxes and space motions from proper motions. The sampling strategy – for example, sparse sampling, or overlapping fields? Stripes in longitude or one large contiguous area at high latitude, etc – plus the selection function – K-giants? F/G dwarfs? – should be tuned to the science goals. Observations in the IR may be required to probe the bulge, plus the lowest-latitude disk.
High resolution spectra should be obtained for the brighter stars, for elemental abundances and precise velocities. This allows mapping of substructures defined by kinematics and star formation history/chemical evolution. Again, large samples are required, and a multi-object spectrograph such as the proposed WFMOS Gemini instrument is ideal. This is discussed further in this volume by Joss Bland-Hawthorn.
These are indeed exciting times to study stars in Local Group galaxies.
I am grateful to Chris Corbally and colleagues on the Organising Committee for conceiving this stimulating Joint Discussion.
Abadi, M., Navarro, J., Steinmetz, M. & Eke, V. 2003, ApJ, 597, 21 Allende-Prieto, C., Barklem, P.S., Lambert, D. & Cunha, K. 2004, A&A, 420, 183 Bahcall, J.N. & Soneira, R. 1980, , 44, 73 Bahcall, J.N. & Soneira, R. 1981, , 47, 337 Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R., Martin, L., Lewis, G., Conn, B. & Irwin, M. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 865
Belokurov, V. et al. 2006a, , 642, L137 Belokurov, V. et al. 2006b, astro-ph/0608448 Benson, A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 551 Binney, J., Dehnen, W. & Bertelli, G. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 658 Bissantz, N. & Gerhard, O. 2002, , 330, 591 Bissantz, N., Debattista, V. & Gerhard, O. 2004, , 601, L155 Brown, T.M. et al. 2006, , in press (astro-ph/0607637) Carollo, C.M., Stiavelli, M. & Mack, J. 1998, , 115, 2306 Carney, B. & Latham, D. 1987, , 93, 116 Carney, B., Latham, D. & Laird, J. 1989, , 97, 423 Carney, B., Latham, D. & Laird, J. 1990, AJ, 99, 572 Carney, B., Laird, J., Latham, D. & Aguilar, L. 1996, , 112, 668 Cayrel, R. et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117 Chen, B. et al. (SDSS collaboration) 2001, , 553, 184 Chiba, M. & Beers, T. 2000, , 119, 2843 Chiu, L.-T. G. 1980, , 44, 31 De Simone, R., Wu, X. & Tremaine, S. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 627 Dehnen, W. & Binney, J. 1998, , 298, 387 Eggen, O.J., Lynden-Bell, D. & Sandage, A.R. 1962, , 136, 748 Eisenstein, D. et al. (SDSS team) 2005, , 633, 560 Elmegreen, B. 1999, ApJ, 517, 103
Fall, S.M. & Efstathiou, G. 1980, , 193, 189 Famaey, B. et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 165 Fellhauer, M. et al. 2006, , in press (astro-ph/0605026) Feltzing, S. & Gilmore, G. 2000, A&A, 355, 949 Fenkart, R. 1988, A&AS, 76, 469 Ferguson, A.M.N. et al. 2002, , 124, 145 Ferreras, I., Wyse, R.F.G. & Silk, J. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1381
Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B. & Jareiss, H. 2006, , 372, 1149 Freeman, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, , 40, 487 Fulbright, J. 2002, , 123, 404 Fulbright, J., McWilliam, A. & Rich, R.M. 2006a, , 636, 821 Fulbright, J., McWilliam, A. & Rich, R.M. 2006b, , in press (astro-ph/0609087) Genzel, R. 2006, Nature, 442, 786 Gilmore, G. 1981, , 195, 183 Gilmore, G. & Reid, I.N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025 Gilmore, G. & Wyse, R.F.G. 1985, , 90, 2015 Gilmore, G. & [Wyse, R.F.G.]{} 1987, in ‘The Galaxy’, eds G. Gilmore & R. Carswell. (Reidel : Dordrecht) p247 Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G. & Jones, J.B. 1995, , 109, 1095 Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G. & Norris, J.E. 2002, ApJL, 574, L39 Governato, F. et al. 1997, NewA, 2, 91 Grillmair, C. 2006, ApJ, 645, L37 Hartwick, F.D.A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 418 Hartwick, F.D.A. 1987, in ‘The Galaxy’, eds G. Gilmore & R. Carswell. (Reidel : Dordrecht) p281 Helmi, A. 2004, , 610, L97 Helmi, A., Navarro, J., Nordström, B., Holmberg, J., Abadi, M. & Steinmetz, M. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1309 Hernandez, X., Valls-Gabaud, D. & Gilmore, G. 2000, , 316, 605 Huang, S. & Carlberg, R. 1997, , 480, 503 Ibata, R. & Gilmore, G. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 605 Ibata, R., Gilmore, G. & Irwin, M. 1994, Nature, 370, 194 Ibata, R., Gilmore, G. & Irwin, M. 1995, , 277, 781 Ibata, R., Lewis, G., Irwin, M., Totten, E. & Quinn, T. 2001, , 551, 294 Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., Ferguson, A. & Tanvir, N. 2003, MNRAS, 340, L21 Johnston, K.V., Law, D. & Majewski, S. 2005, , 619, 800 Kalberla, P.M.W. et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775 Kinman, T.D., Suntzeff, N.B. & Kraft, R.P. 1994, , 108, 1722 Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A., Valenzuela, O. & Prada, F. 1999, , 522, 82 Kotoneva, E., Flynn, C., Chiappini, C. & Matteucci, F. 2002, , 336, 879 Kuijken, K. & Gilmore, G. 1989, , 239, 605 Kuijken, K. & Rich, R.M. 2002, , 124, 2054 Larsen, J. & Humphreys, R.M. 2003, , 125, 1958 McWilliam, A. & Rich, R.M. 1994, ApJS, 91, 749 Majewski, S.R. 1992, , 78, 87 Majewski, S., Skrutskie, M., Weinberg, M. & Ostheimer, J. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082 Maller, A. & Dekel, A. 2002, , 335, 487 Maller, A., Katz, N., Keres, D. Davé, R. & Weinberg, D. 2006, , 647, 763 Matteucci, F. & Brocato, E. 1990, , 365, 539 Momany, Y. et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 515 Moore, B. et al. 1999, , 524, L19 Morrison, H., Flynn, C. & Freeman, K.C. 1990, AJ, 100, 1191 Mould, J. 2005, AJ, 129, 698 Nordström, B. et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989 Norris, J.E. & Ryan, S.G. 1991, , 380, 403 Ortolani, S. et al. 1995, Nature, 377, 701
Pagel, B.E.J. & Patchett, B.E. 1975, , 172, 13 Phleps, S., Meisenheimer, K., Fuchs, B. & Wolf, C. 2000, A&A, 356, 108 Ratnatunga, K. & Freeman, K. 1989, 339, 126 Reid, N. & Majewski, S.R. 1993, , 409, 635 Rich, R.M. 1999, in ‘The Formation of Galactic Bulges’, eds C.M. Carollo, H.C. Ferguson & R.F.G. Wyse (CUP, Cambridge) p54 Rix, H.-W. & Zaritsky, D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 82 Robertson, B. et al. 2006, , 645, 986 Rocha-Pinto, H.J. & Maciel, W.J. 1996, , 279, 447 Rocha-Pinto, H.J., Scalo, J., Maciel, W.J. & Flynn, C. 2000, A&A, 358, 869 Ryan, S. & Norris, J.E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1865 Sanchez, A.G. et al. 2006, , 366, 189 Sandage, A. 1970, , 162, 841 Sandage, A. & Fouts, G. 1987a, , 93, 74 Sandage, A. & Fouts, G. 1987b, , 93, 592 Sandage, A. & Katem, B. 1977, , 215, 62 Sargent, M.T. et al. 2006, , in press (astro-ph/0609042) Schmidt, M. 1963, , 137, 758 Searle, L. & Sargent, W. 1972, , 173, 25 Siegel, M.H., Majewski, S.R., Reid, N. & Thompson, I.B. 2002, , 578, 151 Spergel, D. et al. (WMAP team) 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0603449) Steinmetz, M. et al. 2006, , 132, 1645 Stephens, A. & Boesgaard, A. 2002, , 123, 1647 Tinsley, B. 1975, , 197, 159 Tinsley, B. 1976, , 208, 797 Tinsley, B. 1977, , 211, 621 Tinsley, B. 1979, , 229, 1046 Tolstoy, E. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 707 Unavane, M., Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 727 van den Bergh, S. 1962, , 67, 486 van den Bergh, S. 1980, in ‘Scientific Research with the Space Telescope’, IAU Colloquium 54, eds M.S. Longair & J.W. Warner (NASA, CP-2111) p151 van Loon, J. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 857 Venn, K., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M., Tout, C., Hill, V. & Tolstoy, E. 2004, AJ, 128, 1177 Vivas, A.K. & Zinn, R. 2006, , 132, 714
Weil, M., Eke, V. & Efstathiou, G. 1998, , 300, 773 Wilkinson, M. et al. 2006, in proc. XX1st IAP Colloquium, EAS Publications Series, Vol. 20, p105 (astro-ph/0602186)
Wyse, R.F.G. 1999, in ‘The Formation of Galactic Bulges’, eds C.M. Carollo, H.C. Ferguson & R.F.G. Wyse (CUP, Cambridge) p195
Wyse, R.F.G. 2001, in ‘Galactic Disks and Disk Galaxies’ ASP Conference Series, Vol. 230, eds. J.G. Funes, S.J. & E.M. Corsini (San Francisco: ASP), p71 Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1986, AJ, 91, 855 Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1988, AJ, 95, 1404 Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1989, ComAp, 13, 135 Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1992, AJ, 104, 144 Wyse, R.F.G. & Gilmore, G. 1995, AJ, 110, 2771 Wyse, R.F.G., Gilmore, G., Houdashelt, M., Feltzing, S., Hebb, L., Gallagher, J. & Smecker-Hane, T. 2002, New Astr, 7, 395 Yanny, B. et al. 2003, ApJ, 588, 824 Yoachim, P. & Dalcanton, J. 2005, ApJ, 624, 701 Yoshii, Y. 1982, PASJ, 34, 365 Zoccali, M. et al. 2000, ApJ, 530, 418 Zoccali, M. et al. 2006, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0609052)
[^1]: The Galactic poles, the anti-center/center line and towards/away from Galactic rotation
[^2]: Their analysis was based on a shearing sheet, only the $z=0$ plane. A 3D analysis would be very interesting.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The entropy $h(T_\alpha)$ of $\alpha$-continued fraction transformations is known to be locally monotone outside a closed, totally disconnected set ${\mathcal{E}}$. We will exploit the explicit description of the fractal structure of ${\mathcal{E}}$ to investigate the self-similarities displayed by the graph of the function $\alpha \mapsto h(T_\alpha)$. Finally, we completely characterize the plateaux occurring in this graph, and classify the local monotonic behaviour.'
address:
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Università di Pisa\
Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 5, I-56127, Italy
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Harvard University\
One Oxford Street Cambridge MA 02138 USA
author:
- 'Carlo Carminati, Giulio Tiozzo'
title: 'Tuning and plateaux for the entropy of $\alpha$-continued fractions'
---
Introduction
============
It is a well-known fact that the continued fraction expansion of a real number can be analyzed in terms of the dynamics of the interval map $G(x) := \left\{ \frac{1}{x} \right\}$, known as the *Gauss map*. A generalization of this map is given by the family of *$\alpha$-continued fraction transformations* $T_\alpha$, which will be the object of study of the present paper. For each $\alpha \in [0,1]$, the map $T_\alpha:[\alpha-1, \alpha] \to [\alpha-1, \alpha]$ is defined as $T_\alpha(0) = 0$ and, for $x \neq 0$, $$T_\alpha(x) := \frac{1}{|x|} - c_{\alpha, x}$$ where $c_{\alpha, x}
= \left\lfloor \frac{1}{|x|} + 1 - \alpha \right\rfloor$ is a positive integer. Each of these maps is associated to a different continued fraction expansion algorithm, and the family $T_\alpha$ interpolates between maps associated to well-known expansions: $T_1 = G$ is the usual Gauss map which generates regular continued fractions, while $T_{1/2}$ is associated to the *continued fraction to the nearest integer*, and $T_0$ generates the *by-excess continued fraction* expansion. For more about $\alpha$-continued fraction expansions, their metric properties and their relations with other continued fraction expansions we refer to [@N], [@Sc], [@IK]. This family has also been studied in relation to the Brjuno function [@MMY], [@MCM].
Every $T_\alpha$ has infinitely many branches, and, for $\alpha>0$, all branches are expansive and $T_\alpha$ admits an invariant probability measure absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. Hence, each $T_\alpha$ has a well-defined metric entropy $h(\alpha)$: the metric entropy of the map $T_\alpha$ is proportional to the speed of convergence of the corresponding expansion algorithm (known as *$\alpha$-euclidean algorithm*) [@BDV], and to the exponential growth rate of the partial quotients in the $\alpha$-expansion of typical values [@NN].
Nakada [@N], who first investigated the properties of this family of continued fraction algorithms, gave an explicit formula for $h(\alpha)$ for $\frac{1}{2} \leq \alpha \leq 1$, from which it is evident that entropy displays a phase transition phenomenon when the parameter equals the golden mean $g:=
\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}$ (see also Figure \[tuningdiagram\], left): $$\label{eq:N81}
h(\alpha)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\pi^2}{6 \log(1 + \alpha)} &
\textup{for } \frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2} < \alpha \leq 1 \\
\frac{\pi^2}{6 \log \frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}} & \textup{for
}\frac{1}{2} \leq \alpha \leq \frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Several authors have studied the behaviour of the metric entropy of $T_\alpha$ as a function of the parameter $\alpha$ ([@C], [@LM], [@NN], [@KSS]); in particular Luzzi and Marmi [@LM] first produced numerical evidence that the entropy is continuous, although it displays many more (even if less evident) phase transition points and it is not monotone on the interval $[0,1/2]$. Subsequently, Nakada and Natsui [@NN] identified a dynamical condition that forces the entropy to be, at least locally, monotone: indeed, they noted that for some parameters $\alpha$, the orbits under $T_\alpha$ of $\alpha$ and $\alpha-1$ collide after a number of steps, i.e. there exist $N, M$ such that: $$\label{mat}
T_\alpha^{N+1}(\alpha) = T_\alpha^{M+1}(\alpha-1)$$ and they proved that, whenever the [*matching condition*]{} holds, $h(\alpha)$ is monotone on a neighbourhood of $\alpha$. They also showed that $h$ has [*mixed monotonic behaviour*]{} near the origin: namely, for every $\delta>0$, in the interval $(0,\delta)$ there are intervals on which $h(\alpha)$ is monotone, others on which $h(\alpha)$ is increasing and others on which $h(\alpha)$ is decreasing.
In [@CT] it is proven that the set of parameters for which holds actually has full measure in parameter space. Moreover, such a set is the union of countably many open intervals, called *maximal quadratic intervals*. Each maximal quadratic interval $I_r$ is labeled by a rational number $r$ and can be thought of as a stability domain in parameter space: indeed, the number of steps $M, N$ it takes for the orbits to collide is the same for each $\alpha \in I_r$, and even the symbolic orbit of $\alpha$ and $\alpha-1$ up to the collision is fixed (compare to *mode-locking* phenomena in the theory of circle maps). For this reason, the complement of the union of all $I_r$ is called the *bifurcation set* or *exceptional set* ${\mathcal{E}}$.
Numerical experiments [@LM], [@CMPT] show the entropy function $h(\alpha)$ displays self-similar features: the main goal of this paper is to prove such self-similar structure by exploiting the self-similarity of the bifurcation set ${\mathcal{E}}$.
The way to study the self-similar structure was suggested to us by the unexpected isomorphism between ${\mathcal{E}}$ and the real slice of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set [@BCIT]. In the family of quadratic polynomials, Douady and Hubbard [@DH] described the small copies of the Mandelbrot set which appear inside the large Mandelbrot set as images of *tuning operators*: we define a similar family of operators using the dictionary of [@BCIT]. (We refer the reader to the Appendix for more about this correspondence, even though knowledge of the complex-dynamical picture is strictly speaking not necessary in the rest of the paper.)
Our construction is the following: we associate, to each rational number $r$ indexing a maximal interval, a *tuning map* $\tau_r$ from the whole parameter space of $\alpha$-continued fraction transformations to a subset $W_r$, called *tuning window*. Note that $\tau_r$ also maps the bifurcation set $\mathcal{E}$ into itself. A tuning window $W_r$ is called *neutral* if the alternating sum of the partial quotients of $r$ is zero. Let us define a *plateau* of a real-valued function as a maximal, connected open set where the function is constant.
\[plateaux\] The function $h$ is constant on every neutral tuning window $W_r$, and every plateau of $h$ is the interior of some neutral tuning window $W_r$.
Even more precisely, we will characterize the set of rational numbers $r$ such that the interior of $W_r$ is a plateau (see Theorem \[last\]). A particular case of the theorem is the following recent result [@KSS]: $$h(\alpha) = \frac{\pi^2}{6 \log(1+g)} \qquad \forall \alpha \in [g^2, g],$$ and $(g^2, g)$ is a plateau (i.e. $h$ is not constant on $[t,g]$ for any $t<g^2$).
On non-neutral tuning windows, instead, entropy is non-constant and $h$ reproduces, on a smaller scale, its behaviour on the whole parameter space $[0,1]$.
\[main\] If $h$ is increasing on a maximal interval $I_r$, then the monotonicity of $h$ on the tuning window $W_r$ reproduces the behaviour on the interval $[0, 1]$, but with reversed sign: more precisely, if $I_p$ is another maximal interval, then
1. $h$ is increasing on $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ iff it is decreasing on $I_p$;
2. $h$ is decreasing on $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ iff it is increasing on $I_p$;
3. $h$ is constant on $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ iff it is constant on $I_p$.
If, instead, $h$ is decreasing on $I_r$, then the monotonicity of $I_p$ and $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ is the same.
![An illustration of Theorem \[main\] is given in the picture: on the left, you see the whole parameter space $[0,1]$, and the graph of $h$. The colored strips correspond to three maximal intervals. On the right, $x$ ranges on the tuning window $W_{1/3} = [\frac{5 - \sqrt{3}}{22}, \frac{\sqrt{3}-1}{2})$ relative to $r = 1/3$. Maximal intervals on the left are mapped via $\tau_r$ to maximal intervals of the same color on the right. As prescribed by Theorem \[main\], the monotonicity of $h$ on corresponding intervals is reversed. Note that in the white strips (even if barely visible on the right) there are infinitely many maximal quadratic intervals. []{data-label="tuningdiagram"}](tuningdiagram2.png)
As a consequence, we can also completely classify the local monotonic behaviour of the entropy function $\alpha \mapsto h(\alpha)$:
\[classmon\] Let $\alpha$ be a parameter in the parameter space of $\alpha$-continued fractions. Then:
1. if $\alpha \notin \mathcal{E}$, then $h$ is monotone on a neighbourhood of $\alpha$;
2. if $\alpha \in \mathcal{E}$, then either
- $\alpha$ is a *phase transition*: $h$ is constant on the left of $\alpha$ and strictly monotone (increasing or decreasing) on the right of $\alpha$;
- $\alpha$ lies in the interior of a *neutral tuning window*: then $h$ is constant on a neighbourhood of $\alpha$;
- otherwise, $h$ has *mixed monotonic behaviour* at $\alpha$, i.e. in every neighbourhood of $\alpha$ there are infinitely many intervals on which $h$ is increasing, infinitely many on which it is decreasing and infinitely many on which it is constant.
Note that all cases occur for infinitely many parameters: more precisely, 1. occurs for a set of parameters of full Lebesgue measure; 2.(i) for a countable set of parameters; 2.(ii) for a set of parameters whose Hausdorff dimension is positive, but smaller than $\frac{1}{2}$; 2.(iii) for a set of parameters of Hausdorff dimension $1$. Note also that all phase transitions are of the form $\alpha = \tau_r(g)$, i.e. they are tuned images of the phase transition at $\alpha = g$ which is described by formula . The largest parameter for which 2.(iii) occurs is indeed $\alpha = g^2$, which is the left endpoint of the neutral tuning window $W_{1/2}$. Moreover, there is an explicit algorithm to decide, whenever $\alpha$ is a quadratic irrational, which of these cases occurs.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In section \[backg\], we introduce basic notation and definitions about continued fractions, and in section \[match\] we recall the construction and results from [@CT] which are relevant in this paper. We then define the tuning operators and establish their basic properties (section \[sec:TW\]), and discuss the behaviour of tuning with respect to monotonicity of entropy, thus proving Theorem \[main\] (section \[sec:mono\]). In section \[hoelder\] we discuss untuned and dominant parameters, and use them to prove the characterization of plateaux (Theorem \[plateaux\] above, and Theorem \[last\]). Finally, section \[sec:class\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[classmon\].
Background and definitions {#backg}
==========================
Continued fractions.
--------------------
The continued fraction expansion of a number $$x = \frac{1}{a_1+ \frac{1}{a_2 + \dots}}$$ will be denoted by $x = [0; a_1, a_2, \dots]$, and the $n^{th}$ convergent of $x$ will be denoted by $\frac{p_n}{q_n}:=[0;a_1,...,a_n]$. Often we will also use the compact notation $x = [0; S]$ where $S = (a_1, a_2, \dots)$ is the (finite or infinite) string of partial quotients of $x$.
If $S$ is a finite string, its length will be denoted by $|S|$. A string $A$ is a *prefix* of $S$ if there exists a (possibly empty) string $B$ such that $S = AB$; $A$ is a *suffix* of $S$ if there exists a (possibly empty) string $B$ such that $S = BA$; $A$ is a *proper suffix* of $S$ if there exists a non-empty string $B$ such that $S = BA$.
Let $S = (s_1, \dots, s_n)$, $T = (t_1, \dots, t_n)$ be two strings of positive integers of equal length. We say that $S < T$ if there exists $0 \leq k < n$ such that $$s_i = t_i \qquad \forall 1 \leq i \leq k
\qquad \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad \qquad
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} s_{k+1} < t_{k+1} & \textup{if }k\textup{ is odd} \\
s_{k+1} > t_{k+1} & \textup{if }k\textup{ is even}
\end{array} \right.$$
This is a total order on the set of strings of given length, and it is defined so that $S < T$ iff $[0; S] < [0; T]$. As an example, $(2, 1) < (1, 1) < (1, 2)$. Moreover, this order can be extended to a partial order on the set of all finite strings of positive integers in the following way:
If $S = (s_1, \dots, s_n)$, $T = (t_1, \dots, t_m)$ are strings of finite (not necessarily equal) length, then we define $S << T$ if there exists $0 \leq k < \min\{n, m\}$ such that $$s_i = t_i \qquad \forall 1 \leq i \leq k
\qquad \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad \qquad
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} s_{k+1} < t_{k+1} & \textup{if }k\textup{ is odd} \\
s_{k+1} > t_{k+1} & \textup{if }k\textup{ is even}
\end{array} \right.$$
As an example, $(2, 1) << (1)$, and $(2, 1, 2) << (2, 2)$. This order has the following properties:
1. if $|S| = |T|$, then $S < T$ if and only if $S << T$;
2. if $X, Y$ are infinite strings and $S << T$, then $[0; SX] < [0; TY]$;
3. if $A\leq B$ and $B<<C$, then $A<<C$.
Fractal sets defined by continued fractions.
--------------------------------------------
We can define an action of the semigroup of finite strings (with the operation of concatenation) on the unit interval. Indeed, for each $S$, we denote by $S \cdot x$ the number obtained by appending the string $S$ at the beginning of the continued fraction expansion of $x$; by convention the empty string corresponds to the identity.
We shall also use the notation $f_S(x) := S \cdot
x$; let us point out that the Gauss map $G(x) := \left\{\frac{1}{x} \right\}$ acts as a shift on continued fraction expansions, hence $f_S$ is a right inverse of $G^{|S|}$ ($G^{|S|}\circ
f_S(x)=x$). It is easy to check that concatenation of strings corresponds to composition $ (ST)\cdot x = S \cdot(T\cdot x)$; moreover, the map $f_S$ is increasing if $|S|$ is even, decreasing if it is odd. It is not hard to see that $f_S$ is given by the formula $$\label{eq:fractrans}
f_S(x)=\frac{p_{n-1}x+p_n}{q_{n-1}x+q_n}$$ where $\frac{p_n}{q_n} = [0; a_1, \dots, a_n]$ and $\frac{p_{n-1}}{q_{n-1}} = [0; a_1, \dots, a_{n-1}]$. The map $f_S$ is a contraction of the unit interval: indeed, by taking the derivative in the previous formula and using the relation $q_n p_{n-1} - p_n q_{n-1}=(-1)^n$ (see [@IK]), $f_S'(x) = \frac{(-1)^n}{(q_{n-1}x + q_n)^2}$, hence
$$\label{contraction}
\frac{1}{4 q(S)^2} \leq |f'_S(x)| \leq \frac{1}{q(S)^2} \qquad \qquad \forall x \in [0,1]$$
where $q(S) = q_n$ is the denominator of the rational number whose c.f. expansion is $S$. A common way of defining Cantor sets via continued fraction expansions is the following:
\[RCS\] Given a finite set $\mathcal{A}$ of finite strings of positive integers, the *regular Cantor set* defined by $\mathcal{A}$ is the set $$K(\mathcal{A}) := \{ x = [0; W_1, W_2, \dots ] \ : \ W_i \in \mathcal{A} \ \forall i \geq 1\}$$
For instance, the case when the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ consists of strings with a single digit gives rise to sets of continued fractions with [*restricted digits*]{} [@Hen].
An important geometric invariant associated to a fractal subset $K$ of the real line is its [*Hausdorff dimension*]{} $\textup{H.dim }K$. In particular, a regular Cantor set is generated by an [*iterated function system*]{}, and its dimension can be estimated in a standard way (for basic properties about Hausdorff dimension we refer to Falconer’s book [@F], in particular Chapter 9). Indeed, if the alphabet $\mathcal{A} = \{S_1, \dots, S_k\}$ is not redundant (in the sense that no $S_i$ is prefix of any $S_j$ with $i \neq j$), the dimension of $K(\mathcal{A})$ is bounded in terms of the smallest and largest contraction factors of the maps $f_W$ ([@F], Proposition 9.6): $$\label{dimbounds}
\frac{\log N}{- \log m_1} \leq \textup{H.dim } K(\mathcal{A}) \leq \frac{\log N}{-\log m_2}$$ where $m_1 := \inf_{\stackrel{W \in
\mathcal{A}}{x \in [0, 1]}} |f_W'(x)|$, $m_2 := \sup_{\stackrel{W \in
\mathcal{A}}{x \in [0, 1]}} |f_W'(x)|$, and $N$ is the cardinality of $\mathcal{A}$.
Matching intervals {#match}
==================
Let us now briefly recall the main construction of [@CT], which will be essential in the following.
Each irrational number has a unique infinite continued fraction expansions, while every rational number has exactly two finite expansions. In this way, one can associate to every rational $r \in
\mathbb{Q} \cap (0,1)$ two finite strings of positive integers: let $S_0$ be the string of even length, and $S_1$ be the one of odd length. For instance, since $3/10=[0;3,3]=[0;3,2,1]$, the two strings associated to $3/10$ will be $S_0=(3,3)$ and $S_1=(3,2,1)$. Let us remark that, if $r=[0;S_0]=[0;S_1]$ then $S_0>>S_1$.
Now, for each $r \in \mathbb{Q} \cap (0,1)$ we define the *quadratic interval* associated to $r$ as the open interval $$I_r:=(\alpha_1,\alpha_0)$$ whose endpoints are the two quadratic irrationals $\alpha_0=[0;\overline{S_0}]$ and $\alpha_1=[0;\overline{S_1}]$. It is easy to check that $r$ always belongs to $I_r$, and it is the unique element of $\mathbb{Q} \cap I_r$ which is a convergent of both endpoints of $I_r$. In fact $r$ is the rational with minimal denominator in $I_r$, and it will be called the *pseudocenter* of $I_r$. Let us define the *bifurcation set* (or *exceptional set* in the terminology of [@CT]) as
$$\label{Edef}
\mathcal{E} := [0,g]\setminus \bigcup_{r \in (0, 1)\cap \mathbb{Q}} I_r$$
The intervals $I_r$ will often overlap; however, by ([@CT], Prop. 2.4 and Lemma 2.6), the connected components of $[0,g]\setminus {\mathcal{E}}$ are themselves quadratic intervals, called *maximal quadratic intervals*. That is to say, every quadratic interval is contained in a unique maximal quadratic interval, and two distinct maximal quadratic intervals do not intersect. This way, the set of pseudocenters of maximal quadratic intervals is a canonically defined subset of $\mathbb{Q} \cap (0,1)$ and will be denoted by $${\mathbb{Q}}_E := \{ r \in (0,1) \ : \ I_r \textup{ is maximal} \}$$ We shall sometimes refer to ${\mathbb{Q}}_E$ as the set of [*extremal rational values*]{}; this is motivated by the following characterization of ${\mathbb{Q}}_E$:
\[stringlemma\] A rational number $r = [0; S]$ belongs to ${\mathbb{Q}}_E$ if and only if, for any splitting $S=AB$ of $S$ into two strings $A$, $B$ of positive length, either $$AB < BA$$ or $A = B$ with $|A|$ odd.
Using this criterion, for instance, one can check that $[0; 3, 2]$ belongs to $\mathbb{Q}_E$ (because $(3, 2) < (2, 3)$), and so does $[0; 3, 3]$, while $[0; 2, 2, 1, 1]$ does not (indeed, $(2, 1, 1, 2) < (2, 2, 1, 1)$). Related to the criterion is the following characterization of $\mathcal{E}$ in terms of orbits of the Gauss map $G$:
$${\mathcal{E}}= \{ x\in[0,1] \ : G^k(x) \geq x \ \ \forall k \in \mathbb{N} \}.$$
For $t\in (0,1)$ fixed, let us also define the closed set $${\mathcal{B}}(t) := \{ x\in[0,1] \ : G^k(x) \geq t \ \ \forall k \in \mathbb{N} \}.$$ To get a rough idea of the meaning of the sets ${\mathcal{B}}(t)$ let us mention that for $t=1/(N+1)$ one gets the set of values whose continued fraction expansion is infinite and contains only the digits $\{1,...,N\}$ as partial quotients. A simple relation follows from the definitions:
\[inclusion\] For each $t \in [0, 1]$, $\mathcal{E} \cap [t, 1] \subseteq \mathcal{B}(t)$.
A thorough study of the sets $\mathcal{B}(t)$ and their interesting connection with $\mathcal{E}$ is contained in [@CT2]. Note that, from Remark \[inclusion\] and ergodicity of the Gauss map, it follows that the Lebesgue measure of $\mathcal{E}$ is zero.
Maximal intervals and matching.
-------------------------------
Let us now relate the previous construction to the dynamics of $\alpha$-continued fractions. The main result of [@CT] is that for all parameters $\alpha$ belonging to a maximal quadratic interval $I_r$, the orbits of $\alpha$ and $\alpha-1$ under the $\alpha$-continued fraction transformation $T_\alpha$ coincide after a finite number of steps, and this number of steps depends only on the usual continued fraction expansion of the pseudocenter $r$:
\[matching\] Let $I_r$ be a maximal quadratic interval, and $r = [0; a_1, \dots, a_n]$ with $n$ even. Let $$\label{eq:index}
N = \sum_{i \textup{ even}} a_i \qquad M = \sum_{i \textup{ odd}} a_i$$ Then for all $\alpha \in I_r$, $$\label{eq:matching}
T_\alpha^{N+1}(\alpha) = T_\alpha^{M+1}(\alpha-1) $$
Equation is called [*matching condition*]{}. Notice that $N$ and $M$ are the same for all $\alpha$ which belong to the open interval $I_r$. Indeed, even more is true, namely the symbolic orbits of $\alpha$ and $\alpha-1$ up to steps respectively $N$ and $M$ are constant over all the interval $I_r$ ([@CT], Lemma 3.7). Thus we can regard each maximal quadratic interval as a stability domain for the family of $\alpha$-continued fraction transformations, and the complement $\mathcal{E}$ as the bifurcation locus. One remarkable phenomenon, which was first discovered by Nakada and Natsui ([@NN], Thm. 2), is that the matching condition locally determines the monotonic behaviour of $h(\alpha)$:
\[Nakada\] Let $I_r$ be a maximal quadratic interval, and let $N,M$ be as in Theorem \[matching\]. Then:
1. if $N < M$, the entropy $h(\alpha)$ is increasing for $\alpha \in I_r$;
2. if $N = M$ it is constant on $I_r$;
3. if $N > M$ it is decreasing on $I_r$.
Tuning {#sec:TW}
======
Let us now define *tuning operators* acting on parameter space, inspired by the dictionary with complex dynamics (see the Appendix). We will then see how such operators are responsible for the self-similar structure of the entropy.
Tuning windows
--------------
Let $r\in
{\mathbb{Q}}_E$ be the pseudocenter of the maximal interval $I_r=(\alpha_1,
\alpha_0)$; if $r=[0;S_0]=[0;S_1]$ are the even and odd expansions of $r$, then $\alpha_i=[0;\overline{S_i}]$ ($i=0,1$). Let us also set $\omega:=[0;S_1\overline{S_0}]$ and define the tuning window generated by $r$ as the interval$$W_r:= [\omega, \alpha_0).$$ The value $\alpha_0$ will be called the *root* of the tuning window. For instance, if $r = \frac{1}{2} = [0; 2] = [0; 1, 1]$, then $\omega
= [0; 2, \overline{1}] = g^2$ and the root $\alpha_0 = [0; \overline{1}] = g$. The following proposition describes in more detail the structure of the tuning windows: a value $x$ belongs to $B(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0]$ if and only if its continued fraction is an infinite concatenation of the strings $S_0$, $S_1$.
\[concat\] Let $r \in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$, and let $W_r = [\omega, \alpha_0)$. Then $${\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0] = K(\Sigma)$$ where $K(\Sigma)$ is the regular Cantor set on the alphabet $\Sigma = \{ S_0, S_1 \}$.
For instance, if $r = \frac{1}{2}$, then $W_{\frac{1}{2}} = [g^2, g)$, and $\mathcal{B}(g^2) \cap[g^2, g]$ is the set of numbers whose continued fraction expansion is an infinite concatenation of the strings $S_0 = (1,1)$ and $S_1 = (2)$.
Tuning operators
----------------
For each $r\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ we can define the [*tuning map*]{} $\tau_r:[0,1]\to [0,r]$ as $\tau_r(0)=\omega$ and $$\label{eq:tuning}
\tau_r([0; a_1, a_2, \dots]) = [0; S_1 S_0^{a_1-1}S_1S_0^{a_2-1}\dots]$$ Note that this map is well defined even on rational values (where the continued fraction representation is not unique); for instance, $\tau_{1/3}([0; 3, 1]) = [0; 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3]=[0; 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1]= \tau_{1/3}([0; 4])$.
It will be sometimes useful to consider the action that $\tau_r$ induces on finite strings of positive integers: with a slight abuse of notation we shall denote this action by the same symbol $\tau_r$.
\[inj\] For each $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$, the map $\tau_r$ is strictly increasing (hence injective). Moreover, $\tau_r$ is continuous at all irrational points, and discontinuous at every positive rational number.
The first key feature of tuning operators is that they map the bifurcation set into a small copy of itself:
\[qrenorm\] Let $r\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$. Then
1. $\tau_r({\mathcal{E}}) = {\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r$, and $\tau_r$ is a homeomorphism of ${\mathcal{E}}$ onto ${\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r$;
2. $\tau_r({\mathbb{Q}}_E)={\mathbb{Q}}_E \cap W_r\setminus \{r\}$.
Let us moreover notice that tuning windows are nested:
\[nested\] Let $r, s \in \mathbb{Q}_E$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $\overline{W_r} \cap \overline{W_s} \neq \emptyset \textup{ with }r < s$;
2. $r = \tau_s(p) \textup{ for some }p
\in \mathbb{Q}_E$;
3. $\overline{W_r} \subseteq W_s$.
Proofs
------
Let us first prove that $\tau_r$ preserves the order between irrational numbers. Pick $\alpha, \beta \in (0,1) \setminus \mathbb{Q}$, $\alpha\neq \beta$. Then $$\alpha:=[0;P,a,a_2,a_3,...], \ \ \ \ \beta:=[0;P,b,b_2,b_3,...]$$ where $P$ is a finite string of positive integers (common prefix), and we may assume also that $a<b$. Then $$\tau_r(\alpha):=[0;\tau_r(P),S_1,S_0^{a-1},S_1,...],
\ \ \ \ \tau_r(\beta):=[0;\tau_r(P),S_1,S_0^{b-1},S_1,...].$$ Since $|S_0^{a-1}|$ is even and $S_1<<S_0$, we get $S_0^{a-1}S_1<<S_0^{b-1}S_1$, whence $S_1S_0^{a-1}S_1>>S_1S_0^{b-1}S_1$. Therefore, since $|P|\equiv|\tau_r(P)|
\mod 2$, we get that either $|P|$ is even, $\alpha>\beta$ and $\tau_r(\alpha)>\tau_r(\beta)$, or $|P|$ is odd , $\alpha<\beta$ and $\tau_r(\alpha)<\tau_r(\beta)$, so we are done. The continuity of $\tau_r$ at irrational points follows from the fact that if $\beta \in (0,1)\setminus {\mathbb{Q}}$ and $x$ is close to $\beta$ then the continued fraction expansions of $x$ and $\beta$ have a long common prefix, and, by definition of $\tau_r$, then their images will also have a long prefix in common, and will therefore be close to each other. Finally, let us check that the function is increasing at each rational number $c > 0$. This follows from the property: $$\label{ratlgap}
\sup_{\stackrel{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q}}{\alpha < c}} \tau_r(\alpha) < \tau_r(c) < \inf_{\stackrel{\alpha \in\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}}{\alpha > c}}\tau_r(\alpha)$$ Let us prove the left-hand side inequality of (the right-hand side one has essentially the same proof). Suppose $c = [0; S]$, with $|S| \equiv 1 \mod 2$. Then every irrational $\alpha < c$ has an expansion of the form $\alpha = [0; S, A]$ with $A$ an infinite string. Hence $\tau_r(\alpha) = [0; \tau_r(S), \tau_r(A)]$, and it is not hard to check that $\sup \tau_r(\alpha) = [0; \tau_r(S), S_1, \overline{S_0}] < [0; \tau_r(S)] = \tau_r(c)$. Discontinuity at positive rational points also follows from .
To prove Propositions \[concat\] and \[qrenorm\] we first need some lemmata.
\[prosuf\] Let $r=[0;S_0]=[0;S_1]\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ and $y$ be an irrational number with c.f. expansion $y = [0; B, S_*, \dots]$, where $B$ is a proper suffix of either $S_0$ or $S_1$, and $S_*$ equal to either $S_0$ or $S_1$. Then $y> [0;S_1]$.
If $B=(1)$ then there is hardly anything to prove (by Prop. \[stringlemma\], the first digit of $S_1$ is strictly greater than $1$). If not, then one of the following is true:
1. $S_0=AB$ and $A$ is a prefix of $S_1$ as well;
2. $S_1=AB$ and $A$ is a prefix of $S_0$ as well.
By Prop. \[stringlemma\], in the first case we get that $BA\geq AB=S_0>>S_1$, while in the latter $BA>>AB=S_1$; so in both cases $BA>>S_1$ and the claim follows.
\[induced\_order\] Let $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$, and $x, y \in [0, 1] \setminus \mathbb{Q}$. Then $$G^k(x) \geq y \ \ \forall k \geq 0$$ if and only if $$G^k(\tau_r(x)) \geq \tau_r(y) \ \ \forall k \geq 0$$
Since $\tau_r$ is increasing, $G^k(x) \geq y$ if and only if $\tau_r(G^k(x)) \geq \tau_r(y)$ if and only if $G^{N_k}(\tau_r(x))
\geq \tau_r(y)$ for $N_k = |S_0|(a_1 + \dots + a_k) +
(|S_1|-|S_0|)k$.
On the other hand, if $h$ is not of the form $N_k$, $G^h(\tau_r(x)) = [0; B, S_*, \dots]$ with $B$ a proper suffix of either $S_0$ or $S_1$, and $S_*$ equal to either $S_0$ or $S_1$. By Lemma \[prosuf\] it follows immediately that $$G^h(\tau_r(x)) > [0; S_1] \geq \tau_r(y)$$
Let us first prove that, if $x\in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0] $ then $x=S\cdot y$ with $y\in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0]$ and $S\in
\{S_0,S_1\}$; then the inclusion $${\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0] \subset K(\Sigma)$$ will follow by induction. If $x\in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0]$ then the following alternative holds
1. $x=S_0\cdot y$ and $ S_0\cdot y=x<\alpha_0=S_0\cdot \alpha_0$, therefore $ y \leq \alpha_0$;
2. $x=S_1\cdot y$ and $ S_1\cdot y=x>\omega=S_1\cdot \alpha_0$, therefore $ y \leq \alpha_0$;
Note that, since the map $y\mapsto S\cdot y$ preserves or reverses the order depending on the parity of $|S|$, in both cases we get to the same conclusion. Moreover, since ${\mathcal{B}}(\omega)$ is forward-invariant with respect to the Gauss map and $x\in \mathcal{B}(\omega)$, then $y=G^k(x) \in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega)$ as well, hence $y\in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega,
\alpha_0]$.
To prove the other inclusion, let us first remark that every $x\in
K(\Sigma)$ satisfies $\omega\leq x\leq \alpha_0$. Now, let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$; either $G^k(x)\in K(\Sigma)$, and hence $G^k(x) \geq \omega$, or $G^k(x)=[0;B,S_*,...]$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[prosuf\], and hence we get that $y> [0;S_1]>\omega$. Since $G^k(x) \geq\omega$ holds for any $k$, then $x\in {\mathcal{B}}(\omega)$.
\(i) Recall the notation $W_r = [\omega, \alpha_0)$, and let $v \in {\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r$. By Remark \[inclusion\], ${\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega, \alpha_0)$, hence, by Proposition \[concat\], $v\in K(\Sigma)$. Moreover, $v < r$ because ${\mathcal{E}}\cap [r, \alpha_0) = \emptyset$. As a consequence, the c.f. expansion of $v$ is an infinite concatenation of strings in the alphabet $\{S_0, S_1\}$ starting with $S_1$. Now, if the expansion of $v$ terminates with $\overline{S_0}$, then $G^k(v) = \omega$ for some $k$, hence $v$ must coincide with $\omega = [0; S_1 \overline{S_0}]$, so $v=\tau_r(0)$ and we are done. Otherwise, there exists some $x \in [0, 1)$ such that $v=\tau_r(x)$: then by Lemma \[induced\_order\] we get that $$G^k(v) \geq v \ \ \forall k \geq 0 \Rightarrow
G^k(x) \geq x \ \ \forall k \geq 0$$ which means $x$ belongs to ${\mathcal{E}}$.
Viceversa, let us pick $x:= \tau_r(v)$ with $v \in {\mathcal{E}}$. By definition of $\tau_r$, $x \in W_r$. Moreover, since $v$ belongs to ${\mathcal{E}}$, $G^n(v) \geq v$ for any $n$, hence by Lemma \[induced\_order\] also $\tau_r(v)$ belongs to ${\mathcal{E}}$. The fact that $\tau_r$ is a homeomorphism follows from bijectivity and compactness.
\(ii) Let $p\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ and $I_p = (\alpha_1, \alpha_0)$ the maximal quadratic interval generated by $p$; by point (i) above also the values $\beta_i:=\tau_r(\alpha_i)$, $(i=0,1)$ belong to ${\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r$. Since $\tau_r$ is strictly increasing, no other point of ${\mathcal{E}}$ lies between $\beta_1$ and $\beta_0$, hence $(\beta_1, \beta_0)= I_s$ for some $s \in
{\mathbb{Q}}_E\cap[\omega, r)$. Since $\tau_r(p)$ is a convergent to both $\tau_r(\alpha_0)$ and $\tau_r(\alpha_1)$, then $\tau_r(p) = s$.
To prove the converse, pick $s\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E\cap [\omega,r)$ and denote $I_s=(\beta_1, \beta_0)$. Again by point (i), $\beta_i:=\tau_r(\alpha_i)$ for some $\alpha_0, \alpha_1 \in {\mathcal{E}}$, and $(\alpha_1, \alpha_0)$ is a component of the complement of ${\mathcal{E}}$, hence there exists $p \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ such that $I_p = (\alpha_1, \alpha_0)$. As a consequence, $s=\tau_r(p)$.
Let us denote $W_s = [\omega(s), \alpha_0(s))$, $W_r = [\omega(r), \alpha_0(r))$, $W_p = [\omega(p), \alpha_0(p))$. Suppose (i): then, since the closures of $W_r$ and $W_s$ are not disjoint, $\omega(s) \leq \alpha_0(r)$. Moreover, $\omega(s) \in\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E} \cap (r, \alpha_0(r)] = \{\alpha_0(r)\}$, hence $\omega(s) \leq r$ because $\omega(s)$ cannot coincide with $\alpha_0(r)$, not having a purely periodic c.f. expansion. Hence $r \in W_s$ and, by Proposition \[qrenorm\], there exists $p \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ such that $r = \tau_s(p)$.
Suppose now (ii). Then, since $r = \tau_s(p)$, also $\alpha_0(r) = \tau_s(\alpha_0(p)) \leq s < \alpha_0(s)$, and $\omega(r) = \tau_s(\omega(p)) \in W_s$, which implies (iii). (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) is clear.
Tuning and monotonicity of entropy: proof of Theorem \[main\] {#sec:mono}
=============================================================
Let $A=(a_1,...,a_n)$ be a string of positive integers. Then its *matching index* $\llbracket A \rrbracket$ is the alternating sum of its digits: $$\label{eq:altersum}
\llbracket A \rrbracket := \sum_{j=1}^{n} (-1)^{j+1} a_j$$ Moreover, if $r = [0; S_0]$ is a rational number between $0$ and $1$ and $S_0$ is its continued fraction expansion of even length, we define the *matching index* of $r$ to be $$\llbracket r \rrbracket := \llbracket S_0 \rrbracket$$
The reason for this terminology is the following. Suppose $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ is the pseudocenter of the maximal quadratic interval $I_r$: then by Theorem \[matching\], a matching condition holds, and by formula $$\label{eq:MNindex}
\llbracket r \rrbracket = \sum_{j = 1}^n (-1)^{j+1} a_j = M - N$$ where $r = [0; S_0]$ and $S_0 = (a_1, \dots, a_n)$. This means, by Proposition , that the entropy function $h(\alpha)$ is increasing on $I_r$ iff $\llbracket r \rrbracket > 0$, decreasing on $I_r$ iff $\llbracket r \rrbracket < 0$, and constant on $I_r$ iff $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$.
\[ss\] Let $r, p \in \mathbb{Q}_E$. Then $$\label{eq:product}
\llbracket \tau_r(p)\rrbracket = - \llbracket r \rrbracket
\llbracket p \rrbracket.$$
The double bracket notation behaves well under concatenation, namely: $$\llbracket AB \rrbracket := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\llbracket A \rrbracket+\llbracket B \rrbracket & \textup{if }|A| \mbox{ even }\\
\llbracket A \rrbracket-\llbracket B \rrbracket & \textup{if }|A| \mbox{ odd }
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $p = [0; a_1,...,a_n]$ and $r=[0;S_0]$ be the continued fraction expansions of even length of $p, r\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$; using the definition of $\tau_r$ we get $$\llbracket \tau_r(p)\rrbracket = \sum_{j=1}^{n} (-1)^{j+1}
\left(\llbracket S_1 \rrbracket-(a_j -1) \llbracket S_0 \rrbracket\right)$$ and, since $n=|A|$ is even, the right-hand side becomes $ \llbracket S_0 \rrbracket \sum_{j=1}^{n}(-1)^j a_j$, whence the thesis.
A quadratic interval $I_r$ is called *neutral* if $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$. Similarly, a tuning window $W_r$ is called *neutral* if $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$.
As an example, the rational $r = \frac{1}{2} = [0; 2] = [0; 1, 1]$ generates the neutral tuning window $W_{1/2} = [g^2, g)$.
[ **Proof of Theorem \[main\].**]{} Let $I_r$ be a maximal quadratic interval over which the entropy is increasing. Then, by Theorem \[matching\] and Proposition \[Nakada\], for $\alpha \in I_r$, a matching condition holds, with $M - N > 0$. This implies by that $\llbracket r \rrbracket > 0$. Let now $I_p$ be another maximal quadratic interval. By Proposition \[qrenorm\] (ii), $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ is also a maximal quadratic interval, and by Lemma \[ss\] $$\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket = - \llbracket r \rrbracket \llbracket p \rrbracket$$ Since $\llbracket r \rrbracket > 0$, then $\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket$ and $\llbracket p \rrbracket$ have opposite sign. In terms of the monotonicity of entropy, this means the following:
1. if the entropy is increasing on $I_p$, then by $\llbracket p \rrbracket > 0$, hence $\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket < 0$, which implies (again by ) that the entropy is decreasing on $I_{\tau_r}(p)$;
2. if the entropy is decreasing on $I_p$, then $\llbracket p \rrbracket < 0$, hence $\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket > 0$ and the entropy is increasing on $I_{\tau_r}(p)$;
3. if the entropy is constant on $I_p$, then $\llbracket p \rrbracket = 0$, hence $\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket = 0$ and the entropy is constant on $I_{\tau_r}(p)$.
If, instead, the entropy is decreasing on $I_r$, then $\llbracket r \rrbracket > 0$, hence $\llbracket \tau_r(p) \rrbracket$ and $\llbracket p \rrbracket$ have the same sign, which similarly to the previous case implies that the monotonicity of entropy on $I_p$ and $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ is the same.
\[neutral\] The same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[main\] shows that, if $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ with $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$, then the entropy on $I_{\tau_r(p)}$ is constant for each $p \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ (no matter what the monotonicity is on $I_p$).
Plateaux: proof of Theorem \[plateaux\] {#hoelder}
=======================================
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \[last\], which characterizes the plateaux of the entropy and has as a consequence Theorem \[plateaux\] in the introduction. Meanwhile, we introduce the sets of *untuned parameters* (subsection \[ss:ut\]) and *dominant parameters* (subsection \[ss:dom\]) which we will use in the proof of the Theorem (subsection \[ss:proof\]).
The importance of being Hölder
------------------------------
The first step in the proof of Theorem \[plateaux\] is proving that the entropy function $h(\alpha)$ is indeed constant on neutral tuning windows:
\[neutraltuning\] Let $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ generate a neutral maximal interval, i.e. $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$. Then the entropy function $h(\alpha)$ is constant on $\overline{W_r}$.
By Remark \[neutral\], we already know that the entropy is locally constant on all connected components of $W_r\setminus {\mathcal{E}}$, which has full measure in $W_r$. However, since $W_r\cap {\mathcal{E}}$ has, in general, positive Hausdorff dimension, in order to prove that the entropy is actually constant on the whole $W_r$ one needs to exclude a devil staircase behaviour. We shall exploit the following criterion:
\[extend\] Let $f : I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a Hölder-continuous function of exponent $\eta \in (0,1)$, and assume that there exists a closed set $C \subseteq I$ such that $f$ is locally constant at all $x\notin C$. Suppose moreover $\textup{H.dim }C < \eta$. Then $f$ is constant on $I$.
Suppose $f$ is not constant: then by continuity $f(I)$ is an interval with non-empty interior, hence $\textup{H.dim } f(I)=1$. On the other hand, we know $f$ is constant on the connected components of $I\setminus C$, so we get $f(I)=f(C)$, whence $$\textup{H.dim }f(C)=\textup{H.dim }f(I)=1.$$ But, since $f$ is $\eta$-Hölder continuous, we also get (e.g. by [@F], prop. 2.3) $$\textup{H.dim }f(C)\leq \frac{ \textup{H.dim }C }{\eta}$$ and thus $\eta \leq \textup{H.dim }C$, contradiction.
Let us know check the hypotheses of Lemma \[extend\] are met in our case; the first one is given by the following
\[hexp\] For all fixed $0< \eta < 1/2$, the function $\alpha \mapsto h(\alpha)$ is locally Hölder-continuous of exponent $\eta$ on $(0,1]$.
We are now left with checking that the Hausdorff dimension of $\mathcal{E} \cap W_r$ is small enough:
\[TW\] For all $r \in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$, $$\textup{H.dim } {\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r \leq \frac{\log 2}{\log 5}<1/2.$$
Let $r\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$, $r=[0;S_0]=[0;S_1]$ and $\overline{W_r}=[\omega, \alpha]$. By Remark \[inclusion\] and Proposition \[concat\], $${\mathcal{E}}\cap W_r \subset {\mathcal{B}}(\omega) \cap [\omega,\alpha]=K(\Sigma), \ \ \ \ \mbox{ with } \ \ \ \Sigma = \{ S_0, S_1\}.$$ Note we also have $K(\Sigma) = K(\Sigma_2)$ with $\Sigma_2 = \{S_0S_0,S_1S_0,S_1S_0,S_1S_1\}$ and, by virtue of we have the estimate $$|f'_{S_iS_j}(x)|\leq \frac{1}{q(S_iS_j)^2}, \ \ \ i,j \in \{0,1\}.$$ On the other hand, setting $Z_0=(1,1)$ and $Z_1=(2)$ we can easily check that $$q(S_iS_j)\geq q(Z_iZ_j)=5 \ \ \ \forall i,j \in \{0,1\};$$ whence $|f'_{S_iS_j}(x)|\leq \frac{1}{25}$ and, by formula , we get our claim.
Proposition \[neutraltuning\] now follows from Lemma \[extend\], Theorem \[hexp\] and Lemma \[TW\].
Untuned parameters {#ss:ut}
------------------
The set of *untuned parameters* is the complement of all tuning windows: $$UT := [0, g] \setminus \bigcup_{r \in \mathbb{Q} \cap (0, 1)} W_r$$
Note that, since $I_r \subseteq W_r$, $UT \subseteq \mathcal{E}$. Moreover, we say that a rational $a\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ is [*untuned*]{} if it cannot be written as $a=\tau_r(a_0)$ for some $r,a_0 \in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$. We shall denote by ${\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}$ the set of all $a\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ which are untuned. Let us start out by seeing that each pseudocenter of a maximal quadratic interval admits an “untuned factorization”:
\[factorization\] Each $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ can be written as: $$\label{eq:utfactor}
r = \tau_{r_m} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_1}(r_0), \ \ \ \ \textup{with } r_i \in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}\ \forall i\in \{0,1,...,m\}.$$ Note that $m$ can very well be zero (when $r$ is already untuned).
A straightforward check shows that the tuning operator has the following associativity property: $$\label{eq:associativity}
\tau_{\tau_p(r)}(x)=\tau_p \circ \tau_r (x) \qquad \forall p,r \in {\mathbb{Q}}_E, \ x\in (0,1)$$ For $s=[0;a_1,...,a_m]\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$ we shall set $\|s\|_1:=\sum_{1}^{m}a_i$; this definition does not depend on the representation of $s$, moreover $$\|\tau_p(s)\|_1=\|p\|_1 \|s\|_1 \qquad \forall p,s \in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$$ The proof of follows then easily by induction on $N=\|r\|_1$, using the fact that $\max (\|p\|_1,\|s\|_1)\leq \|\tau_p(s)\|_1 /2$.
As a consequence of the following proposition, the connected components of the complement of $UT$ are precisely the tuning windows generated by the elements of $\mathbb{Q}_{UT}$:
\[cantorut\]
- $$UT = [0, g] \setminus \bigcup_{r \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}} W_r;$$
- if $r, s \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$ with $r \neq s$, then $\overline{W_r}$ and $\overline{W_s}$ are disjoint;
- if $x \in \overline{UT} \setminus UT$, then there exists $r \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$ such that $x = \tau_r(0)$.
(i). It is enough to prove that every tuning window $W_r$ is contained in a tuning window $W_s$, with $s \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$. Indeed, let $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$; either $r \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$ or, by Lemma \[factorization\], there exists $p \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ and $s \in
\mathbb{Q}_{UT}$ such that $r = \tau_s(p)$, hence $W_r \subseteq
W_s$.
(ii). By Lemma \[nested\], if the closures of $W_r$ and $W_s$ are not disjoint, then $r = \tau_s(p)$, which contradicts the fact $r
\in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$.
(iii). By (i) and (ii), $\overline{UT}$ is a Cantor set, and each element $x$ which belongs to $\overline{UT} \setminus UT$ is the left endpoint of some tuning window $W_r$ with $r \in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}$, which is equivalent to say $x = \tau_r(0)$.
\[HDUT\] The Hausdorff dimension of $UT$ is full: $$\textup{H.dim }UT = 1$$
By the properties of Hausdorff dimension, $$\textup{H.dim } \mathcal{E} = \max \{ \textup{H.dim }UT, \sup_{r\in
\mathbb{Q}_{UT}} \textup{H.dim }\mathcal{E}\cap W_r \}$$ Now, by [@CT], $\textup{H.dim }\mathcal{E}= 1$, and, by Lemma \[TW\], $\textup{H.dim }\mathcal{E} \cap W_r < \frac{1}{2}$, hence the claim.
Dominant parameters {#ss:dom}
-------------------
A finite string $S$ of positive integers is *dominant* if it has even length and $$S = AB << B$$ for any splitting $S = AB$ of $S$ into two non-empty strings $A$, $B$.
That is to say, dominant strings are smaller than all their proper suffixes. A related definition is the following:
A quadratic irrational $\alpha \in [0, 1]$ is a *dominant parameter* if its c.f. expansion is of the form $\alpha = [0; \overline{S}]$ with $S$ a dominant string.
For instance, $(2, 1, 1, 1)$ is dominant, while $(2, 1, 1, 2)$ is not (it is not true that $(2, 1, 1, 2) << (2)$). In general, all strings whose first digit is strictly greater than the others are dominant, but there are even more dominant strings (for instance $(3, 1, 3, 2)$ is dominant).
\[domextreme\] By Proposition \[stringlemma\], if $S$ is dominant then $[0; S]\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E$.
A very useful feature of dominant strings is that they can be easily used to produce other dominant strings:
\[newdom\] Let $S_0$ be a dominant string, and $B$ a proper suffix of $S_0$ of even length. Then, for any $m \geq 1$, $S_0^m B$ is a dominant string.
Let $Y$ be a proper suffix of $S_0^mB$. There are three possible cases:
1. $Y$ is a suffix of $B$, hence a proper suffix of $S_0$. Hence, since $S_0$ is dominant, $S_0 >> Y$ and $S_0^m B >> Y$.
2. $Y$ is of the form $S_0^kB$, with $1 \leq k < m$. Then by dominance $S_0 >> B$, which implies $S_0^{m-k}B >> B$, hence $S_0^m B >> S_0^k B$.
3. $Y$ is of the form $CS_0^k B$, with $0 \leq k < m$ and $C$ a proper suffix of $S_0$. Then again the claim follows by the fact that $S_0$ is dominant, hence $S_0 >> C$.
\[notwoconsec\] A dominant string $S_0$ cannot begin with two equal digits.
By definition of dominance, $S_0$ cannot consist of just $k \geq 2$ equal digits. Suppose instead it has the form $S_0 = (a)^k B$ with $k \geq 2$ and $B$ non empty and which does not begin with $a$. Then by dominance $(a)^k B < < B$, hence $a << B$ since $B$ does not begin with $a$. However, this implies $aB << aa$ and hence $aB << (a)^kB = S_0$, which contradicts the definition of dominance because $aB$ is a proper suffix of $S_0$.
The reason why dominant parameters turn out to be so useful is that they can approximate untuned parameters:
\[density\] The set of dominant parameters is dense in $UT \setminus \{ g\}$. More precisely, every parameter in $UT \setminus \{g\}$ is accumulated from the right by a dominant parameter.
\[rightaprrox\] Every element $\beta \in \overline{UT} \setminus \{ g\}$ is accumulated by non-neutral maximal quadratic intervals.
We shall prove that either $\beta \in UT \setminus \{ g\}$, and $\beta$ is accumulated from the right by non-neutral maximal quadratic intervals, or $\beta=\tau_s(0)$ for some $s\in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}$, and $\beta$ is accumulated from the left by non-neutral maximal quadratic intervals.
If $\beta\in UT$ then, by Proposition \[density\], $\beta$ is the limit point from the right of a sequence $\alpha_n = [0; \overline{A_n}]$ with $A_n$ dominant. If $\llbracket A_n \rrbracket \neq 0$ for infinitely many $n$, the claim is proven. Otherwise, it is sufficient to prove that every dominant parameter $\alpha_n$ such that $\llbracket A_n \rrbracket = 0$ is accumulated from the right by non-neutral maximal intervals. Let $S_0$ be a dominant string, with $\llbracket S_0 \rrbracket = 0$, and let $\alpha := [0; \overline{S_0}].$ First of all, the length of $S_0$ is bigger than $2$: indeed, if $S_0$ had length $2$, then condition $\llbracket S_0 \rrbracket = 0$ would force it to be of the form $S_0 = (a, a)$ for some $a$, which contradicts the definition of dominant. Hence, we can write $S_0 = AB$ with $A$ of length $2$ and $B$ of positive, even length. Then, by Lemma \[newdom\], $S_0^m B$ is also dominant, hence $p_m := [0; S_0^m B] \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ by Remark \[domextreme\]. Moreover, $\alpha < p_m$ since $S_0 << B$. Furthermore, $S_0$ cannot begin with two equal digits (Lemma \[notwoconsec\]), hence $\llbracket A \rrbracket \neq 0$ and $\llbracket S_0^m B \rrbracket = \llbracket B \rrbracket = \llbracket S_0 \rrbracket - \llbracket A \rrbracket \neq 0$. Thus the sequence $I_{p_m}$ is a sequence of non-neutral maximal quadratic intervals which tends to $\beta$ from the right, and the claim is proven.
If $\beta \in \overline{UT} \setminus UT$, then by Proposition \[cantorut\] (iii) there exists $s\in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}$ such that $\beta=\tau_s(0)$. Since $\overline{UT}$ is a Cantor set and $\beta$ lies on its boundary, $\beta$ is the limit point (from the left) of a sequence of points of $UT$, hence the claim follows by the above discussion.
Characterization of plateaux {#ss:proof}
----------------------------
A parameter $x \in \mathcal{E}$ is *finitely renormalizable* if it belongs to finitely many tuning windows. This is equivalent to say that $x = \tau_r(y)$, with $y \in UT$. A parameter $x \in \mathcal{E}$ is *infinitely renormalizable* if it lies in infinitely many tuning windows $W_r$, with $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$. Untuned parameters are also referred to as [*non renormalizable*]{}.
We are finally ready to prove Theorem \[plateaux\] stated in the introduction, and indeed the following stronger version:
\[last\] An open interval $U \subseteq [0, 1]$ of the parameter space of $\alpha$-continued fraction transformations is a plateau for the entropy function $h(\alpha)$ if and only if it is the interior of a neutral tuning window $U = \overset{\circ}{W_r}$, with $r$ of either one of the following types:
$$\begin{array}{llr}
(NR) & r \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}, \llbracket r \rrbracket = 0 & \textup{(non-renormalizable case)} \\
(FR) & r=\tau_{r_1}(r_0) \ with
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
r_0\in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}, & \llbracket r_0 \rrbracket =0\\
r_1\in {\mathbb{Q}}_E, & \llbracket r_1 \rrbracket \neq 0
\end{array} \right. & \textup{(finitely renormalizable case)}
\end{array}$$
Let us pick $r$ which satisfies (NR), and let $W_r = [\omega, \alpha_0)$ be its tuning window. By Proposition \[neutraltuning\], since $\llbracket r \rrbracket =0$, the entropy is constant on $\overline{W_r}$. Let us prove that it is not constant on any larger interval. Since $r \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$, by Proposition \[cantorut\], $\alpha_0$ belongs to $UT$. If $\alpha_0 = g$, then by the explicit formula the entropy is decreasing to the right of $\alpha_0$. Otherwise, by Proposition \[rightaprrox\], $\alpha_0$ is accumulated from the right by non-neutral maximal quadratic intervals, hence entropy is not constant to the right of $\alpha_0$. Moreover, by Proposition \[cantorut\], $\omega$ belongs to the boundary of $UT$, hence, by Proposition \[rightaprrox\], it is accumulated from the left by non-neutral intervals. This means that the interior of $W_r$ is a maximal open interval of constance for the entropy $h(\alpha)$, i.e. a plateau.
Now, suppose that $r$ satisfies condition (FR), with $r = \tau_{r_1}(r_0)$. By the (NR) case, the interior of $W_{r_0}$ is a plateau, and $W_{r_0}$ is accumulated from both sides by non-neutral intervals. Since $\tau_{r_1}$ maps non-neutral intervals to non-neutral intervals and is continuous on ${\mathcal{E}}$, then $W_r$ is accumulated from both sides by non-neutral intervals, hence its interior is a plateau.
Suppose now $U$ is a plateau. Since $\mathcal{E}$ has no interior part (e.g. by formula ), there is $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ such that $I_r$ intersects $U$, hence, by Proposition \[Nakada\], $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$ and actually $I_r \subseteq U$. Then, by Lemma \[factorization\] one has the factorization $$r = \tau_{r_n} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_1} (r_0)$$ with each $r_i \in \mathbb{Q}_{UT}$ untuned (recall $n$ can possibly be zero, in which case $r = r_0$). Since the matching index is multiplicative (eq. ), there exists at least one $r_i$ with zero meatching index: let $j \in \{0, \dots, n\}$ be the largest index such that $\llbracket r_j \rrbracket = 0$. If $j = n$, let $s := r_n$: by the first part of the proof, the interior of $W_s$ is a plateau, and it intersects $U$ because they both contain $r$ (by lemma \[nested\], $r$ belongs to the interior of $W_s$), hence $U = \overset{\circ}{W_s}$, and we are in case (NR).
If, otherwise, $j < n$, let $s:= \tau_{r_n} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_{j+1}}(r_j)$. By associativity of tuning (eq. ) we can write $$s = \tau_{s_1}(s_0)$$ with $s_0 := r_j$ and $s_1 := \tau_{r_n} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_{j+2}}(r_{j+1})$. Moreover, by multiplicativity of the matching index (eq. ) $\llbracket s_1 \rrbracket \neq 0$, hence $s$ falls into the case (FR) and by the first part of the proof the interior of $W_s$ is a plateau. Also, by construction, $r$ belongs to the image of $\tau_s$, hence it belongs to the interior of $W_s$. As a consequence, $U$ and $\overset{\circ}{W_s}$ are intersecting plateaux, hence they must coincide.
Classification of local monotonic behaviour {#sec:class}
===========================================
\[inftypes\] Any non-neutral tuning window $W_r$ contains infinitely many intervals on which the entropy $h(\alpha)$ is constant, infinitely many over which it is increasing, and infinitely many on which it is decreasing.
Let us consider the following sequences of rational numbers $$s_n := [0; n, 1]$$ $$t_n := [0; n, n]$$ $$u_n := [0; n+1, n, 1, n]$$ It is not hard to check (e.g. using Proposition \[stringlemma\]) that $s_n, t_n, u_n$ belong to $\mathbb{Q}_E$. Moreover, by computing the matching indices one finds that, for $n > 2$, the entropy $h(\alpha)$ is increasing on $I_{s_n}$, constant on $I_{t_n}$ and decreasing on $I_{u_n}$. Since $W_r$ is non-neutral, by Theorem \[main\] $\tau_r$ either induces the same monotonicity or the opposite one, hence the sequences $I_{\tau_r(s_n)}, I_{\tau_r(t_n)}$ and $I_{\tau_r(u_n)}$ are sequences of maximal quadratic intervals which lie in $W_r$ and display all three types of monotonic behaviour.
[**Proof of Theorem \[classmon\]**]{}. Let $\alpha \in [0, 1]$ be a parameter. If $\alpha \notin \mathcal{E}$, then $\alpha$ belongs to some maximal quadratic interval $I_r$, hence $h(\alpha)$ is monotone on $I_r$ by Proposition \[Nakada\], and by formula the monotonicity type depends on the sign of $\llbracket r \rrbracket$.
If $\alpha \in \mathcal{E}$, there are the following cases:
1. $\alpha = g$. Then $\alpha$ is a phase transition as described by formula ;
2. $\alpha \in UT \setminus \{g\}$. Then, by Proposition \[rightaprrox\], $\alpha$ is accumulated from the right by non-neutral tuning windows, and by Lemma \[inftypes\] each non-neutral tuning window contains infinitely many intervals where the entropy is constant, increasing or decreasing; the parameter $\alpha$ has therefore mixed monotonic beahaviour.
3. $\alpha$ is finitely renormalizable. Then one can write $\alpha = \tau_r(y)$, with $y \in UT$. There are three subcases:
- $\llbracket r \rrbracket \neq 0$, and $y = g$. Since $\tau_r$ maps neutral intervals to neutral intervals and non-neutral intervals to non-neutral intervals, the phase transition at $y = g$ gets mapped to a phase transition at $\alpha$.
- $\llbracket r \rrbracket \neq 0$, and $y \neq g$. Then, by case (2) $y$ is accumulated from the right by intervals with all types of monotonicity, hence so is $\alpha$.
- If $\llbracket r \rrbracket = 0$, then by using the untuned factorization (Lemma \[factorization\]) one can write $$\alpha = \tau_{r_m} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_0}(y) \qquad r_i \in {\mathbb{Q}_{UT}}$$ Let now $j \in \{ 0, \dots, m\}$ be the largest index such that $\llbracket r_j \rrbracket = 0$. If $j = m$, then $\alpha$ belongs to the neutral tuning window $W_{r_m}$: thus, either $\alpha$ belongs to the interior of $W_{r_m}$ (which means by Proposition \[neutraltuning\] that the entropy is locally constant at $\alpha$), or $\alpha$ coincides with the left endpoint of $W_{r_m}$. In the latter case, $\alpha$ belongs to the boundary of $UT$, hence by Proposition \[rightaprrox\] and Lemma \[inftypes\] it has mixed behaviour. If $j < m$, then by the same reasoning as above $\tau_{r_j} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_0}(y)$ either lies inside a plateau or has mixed behaviour, and since the operator $\tau_{r_m} \circ \dots \circ \tau_{r_{j+1}}$ either respects the monotonicity or reverses it, also $\alpha$ either lies inside a plateau or has mixed behaviour.
4. $\alpha$ is infinitely renormalizable, i.e. $\alpha$ lies in infinitely many tuning windows. If $\alpha$ lies in at least one neutral tuning window $W_r = [\omega, \alpha_0)$, then it must lie in its interior, because $\omega$ is not infinitely renormalizable. This means, by Proposition \[neutraltuning\], that $h$ must be constant on a neighbourhood of $\alpha$. Otherwise, $\alpha$ lies inside infinitely many nested non-neutral tuning windows $W_{r_n}$. Since the sequence the denominators of the rational numbers $r_n$ must be unbounded, the size of $W_{r_n}$ must be arbitrarily small. By Lemma \[inftypes\], in each $W_{r_n}$ there are infinitely many intervals with any monotonicity type and $\alpha$ displays mixed behaviour.
Note that, as a consequence of the previous proof, $\alpha$ is a phase transition if and only if it is of the form $\alpha = \tau_r(g)$, with $r \in \mathbb{Q}_E$ and $\llbracket r \rrbracket \neq 0$, hence the set of phase transitions is countable. Moreover, the set of points of $\mathcal{E}$ which lie in the interior of a neutral tuning window has Hausdorff dimension less than $1/2$ by Lemma \[TW\].
Finally, the set of parameters for which there is mixed behaviour has zero Lebesgue measure because it is a subset of $\mathcal{E}$. On the other hand, it has full Hausdorff dimension because such a set contains $UT \setminus \{g\}$, and by Lemma \[HDUT\] $UT$ has full Hausdorff dimension.
Appendix: Tuning for quadratic polynomials {#appendix-tuning-for-quadratic-polynomials .unnumbered}
==========================================
The definition of tuning operators given in section \[sec:TW\] arises from the dictionary between $\alpha$-continued fractions and quadratic polynomials first discovered in [@BCIT]. In this appendix, we will recall a few facts about complex dynamics and show how our construction is related to the combinatorial structure of the Mandelbrot set.
Tuning for quadratic polynomials {#tuning-for-quadratic-polynomials .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
Let $f_c(z) := z^2 + c$ be the family of quadratic polynomials, with $c \in \mathbb{C}$. Recall the *Mandelbrot set* $\mathcal{M}$ is the set of parameters $c \in \mathbb{C}$ such that the orbit of the critical point $0$ is bounded under the action of $f_c$.
The Mandelbrot set has the remarkable property that near every point of its boundary there are infinitely many copies of the whole $\mathcal{M}$, called *baby Mandelbrot sets*. A *hyperbolic component* $W$ of the Mandelbrot set is an open, connected subset of $\mathcal{M}$ such that all $c \in W$, the orbit of the critical point $f^n(0)$ is attracted to a periodic cycle. Douady and Hubbard [@DH] related the presence of baby copies of $\mathcal{M}$ to renormalization in the family of quadratic polynomials. More precisely, they associated to any hyperbolic component $W$ a *tuning map* $\iota_W : \mathcal{M} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ which maps the main cardioid of $\mathcal{M}$ to $W$, and such that the image of the whole $\mathcal{M}$ under $\iota_W$ is a baby copy of $\mathcal{M}$.
External rays {#external-rays .unnumbered}
-------------
A coordinate system on the boundary of $\mathcal{M}$ is given by external rays. Indeed, the exterior of the Mandelbrot set is biholomorphic to the exterior of the unit disk $$\Phi : \{ z \in \mathbb{C} \ : \ |z| > 1 \} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \setminus \mathcal{M}$$ The *external ray* at angle $\theta$ is the image of a ray in the complement of the unit disk: $$R(\theta) := \Phi(\{ \rho e^{2 \pi i \theta} \ : \ \rho > 1\})$$ The ray at angle $\theta$ is said to *land* at $c \in \partial\mathcal{M}$ if $\lim_{\rho \to 1} \Phi(\rho e^{2\pi i \theta}) = c$. This way angles in $\mathbb{R} / \mathbb{Z}$ determine parameters on the boundary of the Mandelbrot set, and it turns out that the binary expansions of such angles are related to the dynamics of the map $f_c$. The tuning map can be described in terms of external angles in the following terms. Let $W$ be a hyperbolic component, and $\eta_0$, $\eta_1$ the angles of the two external rays which land on the root of $W$. Let $\eta_0 = 0.\overline{\Sigma_0}$ and $\eta_1 = 0.\overline{\Sigma_1}$ be the (purely periodic) binary expansions of the two angles which land at the root of $W$. Let us define the map $\tau_W : \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} /\mathbb{Z}$ in the following way: $$\theta = 0.\theta_1\theta_2\theta_3 \dots \mapsto \tau_W(\theta) = 0.\Sigma_{\theta_1}\Sigma_{\theta_2}\Sigma_{\theta_3}\dots$$ where $\theta = 0.\theta_1 \theta_2 \dots$ is the binary expansion of $\theta$, and its image is given by substituting the binary string $\Sigma_0$ to every occurrence of $0$ and $\Sigma_1$ to every occurrence of $1$.
The map $\tau_W$ has the property that, if the ray of external angle $\theta$ lands at $c \in \partial\mathcal{M}$, then the ray at external angle $\tau_W(\theta)$ lands at $\iota_W(c)$.
The real slice {#the-real-slice .unnumbered}
--------------
If we now restrict ourselves to the case when $c \in [-2, \frac{1}{4}]$ is real, each map $f_c$ acts on the real line, and has a well-defined topological entropy $h(f_c)$. A classical result is the
The entropy of the quadratic family $h(f_c)$ is a continuous, decreasing function of $c \in [-2, \frac{1}{4}]$.
If $W$ is a real hyperbolic component, then $\iota_W$ preserves the real axis. We will call the *tuning window relative to $c_0$* the intersection of the real axis with the baby Mandelbrot set generated by the hyperbolic component $W$ with root $c_0$. Also in the case of quadratic polynomials, plateaux of the entropy are tuning windows:
$h(f_c) = h(f_{c'})$ if and only if $c$ and $c'$ lie in the same tuning window relative to some $c_0$, with $h(f_{c_0}) > 0$.
The set of angles $\mathcal{R}$ corresponding to external rays which land on the real slice of the Mandelbrot set $\partial \mathcal{M} \cap \mathbb{R}$ has a nice combinatorial description: in fact it coincides, up to a set of Hausdorff dimension zero, with the set $$\mathcal{R} := \{ \theta \in \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} \ :\ T^{k+1}(\theta) \leq T(\theta) \ \forall k \geq 0 \}$$ where $T(x) := \min \{ 2x, 2-2x \}$ is the usual tent map (see [@BCIT], Proposition 3.4). A more general introduction to the combinatorics of $\mathcal{M}$ and the real slice can be found in [@Za].
Dictionary {#dictionary .unnumbered}
----------
By using the above combinatorial description, one can establish an isomorphism between the real slice of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set and the bifurcation set $\mathcal{E}$ for $\alpha$-continued fractions. Indeed, the following is true:
The map $\varphi : [0, 1] \rightarrow [0,\frac{1}{2}]$ $$[0; a_1, a_2, \dots ] \mapsto 0.0\underbrace{1\dots 1}_{a_1}\underbrace{0\dots0}_{a_2}\dots$$ is a continuous bijection which maps the bifurcation set for $\alpha$-continued fractions $\mathcal{E}$ to the set of real rays $\mathcal{R} \cap [0, \frac{1}{2}]$.
As a corollary, $$\begin{array}{c} I_r = (\alpha_1, \alpha_0) \\
\textup{ is a maximal quadratic interval }
\end{array}
\Leftrightarrow
\begin{array}{c}
(\varphi(\alpha_1), \varphi(\alpha_0)) \\
\textup{is a real hyperbolic component}
\end{array}$$
Let us now check that the definition of tuning operators given in section \[sec:TW\] and the Douady-Hubbard tuning correspond to each other via the dictionary:
Suppose $W$ is a real hyperbolic component and let $c \in \partial \mathcal{M} \cap \mathbb{R}$ be its root. Moreover, let $\eta_0 \in [0, \frac{1}{2}]$ be the external angle of a ray which lands at $c$. Suppose $\eta_0$ has binary expansion $$\eta_0 = 0.\overline{0\underbrace{1\dots1}_{b_1}\underbrace{0\dots0}_{b_2} \dots \underbrace{0\dots0}_{b_n -1}}$$ Then, for each $x \in [0, 1]$, $$\tau_W(\varphi(x)) = \varphi(\tau_r(x))$$ with $r = [0; b_1, \dots, b_n]$.
Suppose $x = [0; a_1, a_2, \dots]$ so that $\tau_r(x) = [0; S_1 S_0^{a_1-1} S_1 S_0^{a_2-1} \dots]$. Then by definition $$\varphi(\tau_r(x)) = 0.01^{b_1}\dots0^{b_n-1}1 \left( 0^{b_1} \dots 1^{b_n} \right)^{a_1-1} 0^{b_1} \dots 1^{b_n-1}0\left(1^{b_1} \dots 0^{b_n} \right)^{a_2-1} \dots=$$ $$= 0.\left(01^{b_1}\dots0^{b_n-1} \right)\left( 1 0^{b_1} \dots 1^{b_n-1}\right)^{a_1} \dots = 0.\Sigma_0 \Sigma_1^{a_1}\Sigma_0^{a_2}\Sigma_1^{a_3}\dots = \tau_W(\theta)$$ where $\theta = 0.01^{a_1}0^{a_2}\dots = \varphi(x) $.
Let us point out that thinking in terms of binary expansions often simplifies the combinatorial picture: as an example, since the monotonicity of $\tau_W$ is straightforward, the dictionary gives a simpler alternative proof of Lemma \[inj\].
[99]{} , [*Dynamics of continued fractions and kneading sequences of unimodal maps*]{}, to appear in Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. (A), available at arXiv:1012.2131 \[math.DS\].
, [*Dynamical analysis of [$\alpha$]{}-[E]{}uclidean algorithms*]{}, J. Algorithms, [**44**]{} (2002), 1, 246–285.
, [*Dinamiche caotiche e misure invarianti*]{}, Tesi di Laurea, University of Florence, 1995.
, [*The entropy of $\alpha$-continued fractions: numerical results*]{}, Nonlinearity [**23**]{} (2010) 2429-2456.
, [*A canonical thickening of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and the entropy of $\alpha$-continued fractions*]{}, to appear in Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, available on CJO 2011 doi:10.1017/S0143385711000447.
, [*The bifurcation locus for the set of bounded type numbers*]{}, arXiv:1109.0516 \[math.DS\].
, [*Topological entropy of unimodal maps: monotonicity for quadratic polynomials*]{}, Real and complex dynamical systems ([H]{}illerød, 1993), NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 464, 65–87, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1995.
, [*On the dynamics of polynomial-like mappings*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), [**18**]{} (1985), 2, 287–343.
, [*Fractal geometry: mathematical foundations and applications*]{}, Wiley, Chichester, 1990.
, [*A polynomial time algorithm for the [H]{}ausdorff dimension of continued fraction [C]{}antor sets*]{}, J. Number Theory, [**58**]{} (1996), 1, 9–45.
Mathematics and its Applications, 547. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002.
, [*Natural extensions and entropy of $\alpha$-continued fractions*]{}, arXiv:1011.4283 \[math.DS\].
, [*On the entropy of Japanese continued fractions*]{}, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. [**20**]{} (2008), 673–711.
, [*Continued fractions and [B]{}rjuno functions*]{}, Continued fractions and geometric function theory (CONFUN) (Trondheim, 1997), J. Comput. Appl. Math. [**105**]{} (1999), 1-2, 403–415.
, [*The [B]{}rjuno functions and their regularity properties*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**186**]{} (1997), 2, 265–293.
, [*On iterated maps of the interval*]{}, Dynamical systems ([C]{}ollege [P]{}ark, [MD]{}, 1986–87), Lecture Notes in Math. 1342, 465–563, Springer, Berlin, 1988.
, [*Metrical theory for a class of continued fraction transformations and their natural extensions*]{}, Tokyo J. Math. [**4**]{} (1981), 399–426.
, [*The non-monotonicity of the entropy of $\alpha$-continued fraction transformations*]{}, Nonlinearity [**21**]{} (2008), 1207–1225.
, [*Ergodic theory of fibred systems and metric number theory*]{}, Oxford Science Publications, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
, [*The entropy of $\alpha$-continued fractions: analytical results*]{}, arXiv:0912.2379 \[math.DS\].
, [*External rays and the real slice of the [M]{}andelbrot set*]{}, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems [**23**]{} (2003), 2, 637–660.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Solving for molecular excited states remains one of the key challenges of modern quantum chemistry. Traditional methods are constrained by existing computational capabilities, limiting the complexity of the molecules that can be studied or the accuracy of the results that can be obtained. Several quantum computing methods have been suggested to address this limitation. However, these typically have hardware requirements which may not be achieved in the near term. We propose a variational quantum machine learning based method to determine molecular excited states aiming at being as resilient as possible to the defects of early Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers and demonstrate an implementation for $H_2$ on IBMQ. Our method uses a combination of two parametrized quantum circuits, working in tandem, combined with a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to iteratively find the eigenstates of a molecular Hamiltonian.'
author:
- Jules Tilly
- Glenn Jones
- Hongxiang Chen
- Leonard Wossnig
- Edward Grant
title: Computation of molecular excited states on IBMQ using a Discriminative Variational Quantum Eigensolver
---
Studies of chemical reactions are currently limited by our knowledge of the total energy and electronic structure of molecules. The electronic state of a molecule can be excited, as in photochemical (catalytic) processes or when characterizing molecules during spectroscopic measurements. The ability to simulate the excited electronic structure perfectly, will help to identify more efficient reactions and develop new materials.\
Photochemistry and photocatalysis have a range of potential industrial applications that are key to developing a sustainable chemical industry. These range from photo-electrochemical reduction of $CO_{2}$, low-T ammonia synthesis, to understanding how enzymes function in photosynthesis and inspiring biological analogues (see for instance [@Karim2018; @Yazdi2018]). Excited electronic states are key to understanding the link between the light-matter interaction and chemical transformation.\
Unfortunately, there are inherent limitations to using classical computational techniques to solve for a molecule’s excited electronic structure. Molecular system complexity scales factorially in the number of electrons, making even simple molecules difficult to analyse exactly. However, the advent of quantum computers opens the possibility to address these specific computational challenges, with unprecedented accuracy.\
Our algorithm uses a quantum machine learning method to find excited states of molecules and uses the ample research already conducted on parametrized quantum circuits [@Mitarai2018; @Kandala2017; @Mitarai2019; @Izmaylov2019; @Grant2019; @Benedetti2019_2]. From the knowledge of a complex function defining the energy profile of a molecule, we can create an approximate substitute model and then use the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) to identify the ground state and energy of the molecule [@Peruzzo2013].\
Typically, resolving energy spectra reduces to the computational task of diagonalizing a large matrix representing the Hamiltonian of a molecule. An ideal way to find matrix eigenvectors using a quantum computer is the Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) algorithm, which could offer an exponential speed-up over the best classical algorithms. It is estimated, however, that proper application of this algorithm would require the fault-tolerant quantum computing devices to work reliably. Whitfield et al. [@Whitfield2011], and separately Jones et al. [@Jones2012], estimate that QPE would require $o{\sim}10^6$ to $o{\sim}10^9$ circuit depth, where depth is defined as the highest number of gate operations that need to be applied to any of the qubits used to implement the algorithm.\
Variational methods, such as the VQE theorized by Peruzzo et al. [@Peruzzo2013], are hybrid classical-quantum methods able to operate with much more reasonable gate requirements. The VQE could prove a valuable tool for approximating the ground state energy of large molecular systems even on Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum devices (NISQ) [@Preskill2018]. It has been shown to be implementable on many platforms, and displays significantly more resilience to control errors than QPE.\
Several methods have been proposed to calculate excited states using quantum computers. These usually rely on the VQE as a starting point. Most notably, McClean et al. [@McClean2017] (see also Colless et al. [@Colless2018]) proposed a method based on quantum subspace expansion and Santagi et al. [@Santagati2018] proposed a method based on Von-Neumann entropy. Alternative algorithms, tailored to work on NISQ computers, have also been put forward. In particular Higgott et al. [@Higgott2019] developed a variational method in which VQE objectives are minimized concurrent to the overlap between a known ground state and a parametrized state. Endo et al. [@Endo2018], extended by McArdle et al. [@McArdle2018], proposed calculating excited states of molecules using a variational method based on imaginary time evolution.\
While these could likely prove effective as quantum computers develop, they remain of limited use on NISQ devices as they require deep quantum circuits and/or a large number of measurements. For instance, the Quantum-subspace expansion methods will be very sensitive to noise. Using a restricted Hilbert space expansion and diagonalization of noisy matrices can lead to systematic biases (see for example [@Blunt2018]).\
We propose here a method designed to require as little as possible from early NISQ devices in order to focus on the earliest practical application of the technology. Our method relies on combining an orthogonality objective with an energy minimization objective (also named VQE objective). At a high level, the Discriminative VQE (DVQE) aims at finding a state orthogonal to the ground state which at the same time is at a minimum of the Hamiltonian energy landscape. This will correspond to an approximation of the first excited state: the Hylleraas-Undheim and MacDonald [@Hylleraas1930; @MacDonald1933] theorem implies that the energy of state orthogonal to the ground state (or any number of lower excitation states) acts as an upper bound for the next eigenvalue.\
Rather than directly minimizing the overlap of the excited state of interest with the previous excited states and/or the ground state (as is done for instance in [@Higgott2019]), our method uses a combination of two quantum circuits collaborating to learn parametrization angles and reproduce unknown excited states. Our technique takes inspiration from Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks (QGAN). In a classical Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), an initial Generator network (denoted by $G$) is trained to fake an unknown data structure by learning how to fool a Discriminator network (denoted by $D$). The Discriminator is trained to distinguish between the generated data structure and the unknown data structure. The QGAN is an adaptation of this algorithm where the data structure is replaced by a pure quantum state. The parametrized quantum circuit is trained to generate an approximation of an unknown pure state [@Lloyd2018; @Benedetti2019].\
In our case however, the logic of the QGAN is reversed. Instead of trying to fool the Discriminator, the Generator learns to create a state which makes it as easy as possible for the Discriminator to distinguish between a known quantum state (for instance, a simulated ground state) and the generated state. In effect, the Generator is identical to the ansatz circuit used for the VQE, although with different parameters. Borrowing from the QGAN logic, one can see that this change would result in producing a state which is as different from the known state as possible. In classical problems, this approach rarely makes sense. In quantum problems however, a state which is all but a given reference state result will be in the latter’s orthogonality space.\
There are an infinite number of physically meaningful orthogonal states to a given quantum state. The VQE objective is used to guide the learning of the Generator towards a single orthogonal state. It is easy to see that a state which is orthogonal to a ground state and at the same time minimizes the energy of the entire orthogonal subspace must be the first excited state.\
First consider a series of pure states $\rho_{s_{i}} {=} \Ket{s_{i}}\Bra{s_{i}}$, with $i {\in} [0, n]$ representing adequate approximations of the first $n$ excited states of a Hamiltonian $H$. It is assumed that we have a pre-trained quantum circuit that can produce these states using indexed parameters $\theta_i$ (which can be obtained using the VQE and previous iterations of this algorithm). We are looking for a way to determine the $n+1$ state: $\rho_{s_{n+1}} {=} \Ket{s_{n+1}}\Bra{s_{n+1}}$.\
For this, consider a state $\rho_{g}$ generated through a parametrized quantum circuit applied to an initial state $\Ket{0}\Bra{0}^{\otimes d}$, and which is initiated as state $\rho_{n}$. We denoted this Generator circuit as $G(\theta)$, with parameters $\theta$. We have $\rho_{g}{=}G(\theta)\Ket{0}\Bra{0}G^\dagger(\theta)$.
\[fig:circuitnes\] @C=2.0em @R=1.5em [ && & && &\
&& && & &\
&& & & & &\
&& & & & & ]{}
Consider a Discriminator quantum circuit labelled $D(\phi)$, which is tasked with distinguishing between any of the known states and the output of the Generator. In order to accomplish this task, it takes as input either any of the known states, or $\rho_{g}$, randomly but with equal probability. It is followed by a Positive Operator Value Measurement (POVM). Because of the discriminative objective of the circuit, we can limit the required POVM outcome to only two elements: 0 if the Discriminator identifies one of the known states, and 1 if it identifies the generated state. We can therefore map the POVM to a single ancilla qubit, also input to the Discriminator (see quantum circuit: FIG. \[fig:circuitnes\]). We define $P_0$ as the projector of the circuit output state onto the zero state of the ancilla qubit.\
Based on this, and considering that the Generator cost function must also take into consideration the energy minimization objective we can define two subsequent cost functions that need to be minimized iteratively, for the Generator first and the Discriminator second. At optimum, the Generator cost function converges to the energy of the $n^{th}$ excited state:\
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{(n)}_{gen}(\theta) &= \Bra{0}G^\dagger(\theta) H G(\theta)\Ket{0} \nonumber \\
&+ \gamma Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi)],
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(n)}_{disc}(\phi) &= Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi)] \nonumber \\
&-\sum_{n}Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_{s_{i}}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi)].
\end{aligned}$$
We added a weighting factor $\gamma$ to the Generator cost function. This is to guarantee that the minimum of the optimization problem is indeed the state of index $n + 1$. For this, we must have $\gamma > (n + 1)(E_{n+1} - E_0)$. The derivation for the cost functions, convergence demonstration and explanation for the $\gamma$ factor can be found in supplementary materials. We can find a suitable $\gamma$ for all states by computing the maximum energy, running a VQE on the inverse Hamiltonian and taking the difference between the lowest energy state and the highest energy state.\
It is worth noting that the Generator cost function is identical for any excitation level, while a term is added to the Discriminator at each new level of excitation calculated (one for each level of excitation). Therefore, there is a linear increase in the number of terms to be calculated with the number of excited states.\
In order to test our algorithm, we first simulated the excitation levels of the 2-qubit $H_2$ Hamiltonian obtained using the Bravyi-Kitaev transformation in the STO-3G basis (results presented in FIG. \[fig:H2dis\_sim\]) We have used an optimization cycle of three iterations for the Discriminator followed by three iterations of the Generator, repeated iteratively until convergence. The Generator is composed of a two layer hardware efficient ansatz, resulting in a total of 8 parameters, and the Discriminator is composed of three such layers (applied on 3 qubits and hence 18 parameters). The algorithm first computes the ground state using the VQE and continues to determine the first excited state. Each subsequent excited state is computed iteratively once convergence has been reached on the previous one. Typically, a precision of $10^{-3}$ is achieved within $20$ iterations of the model using the Rprop optimizer [@Riedmiller1993].\
\[fig:H2dis\_sim\] {width="1.\columnwidth"}
**
We tested the algorithm on a 4-qubit version of the $LiH$ Hamiltoninan. Convergence was achieved with a depth of 5 for the Generator and 8 for the Discriminator and circa $100$ iterations for each new level of excitation in order to reach a precision of $10^{-3}$. It is worth noting that we used the Rprop optimizer in all cases and that the computation required could be improved using a different optimization strategy. (Optimization path for the $LiH$ excited states at bond distance of $1.595$ a.u. is presented in supplementary materials).
\[fig:H2dis\_qpu\] {width="1.\columnwidth"}
**
We implemented our algorithm on IBMQ London and Vigo Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) for the $H_2$, two-qubit Hamiltonian (results presented in FIG. \[fig:H2dis\_qpu\]). Instead of using Rprop, we used the Rotosolve algorithm for which convergence is reached significantly faster [@Ostaszewski2019] at the expense of not being parallelizable. Read-out errors are mitigated using the IBMQ Qiskit Ignis tool (see Supplementary Material). We computed both ground state through VQE and first state using DVQE. We found that both achieved about $10^{-2}$ accuracy, though more tests would be required to determine whether errors increase for higher excited states.\
Higher accuracy will require stronger error mitigation methods or lower circuit error rates. In particular we estimated that, given the depth of circuits used and based on the data provided by IBMQ, our circuit error on runs of the Generator was about $2\%$ on all QPUs and of roughly $8\%$ on runs of the full DVQE (Generator plus Discriminator).\
We have shown that one can find an accurate approximations of molecular energy spectra using the DVQE method, which can operate within the restrictions of NISQ devices. As for all the other excited states methods proposed for NISQ, scalability remains under question until larger QPUs become readily available.\
With this in mind, we believe our method offers the following advantages:\
1. It is decisively NISQ friendly. Our method only requires rotation gates and entangling gates and only one additional qubit compared to a VQE.\
2. Our orthogonality objectives rely on single qubit measurements (as we use ancilla qubits), reducing exposure to read-out errors.\
3. The method used to enforce orthogonality does not require perfect optimization and is therefore quite resilient to noise resulting from circuit depth.\
4. The excited state is directly and variationally minimized, rather than being inferred through non-linear postprocessing (as it is the case for example in analytic continuation of imaginary time or in subspace diagonalization). This in turn reduces exposure to systematic bias in the estimation result.\
The main advantage of using such variational methods is the potential to obtain more accurate energy estimates for molecular systems, which would be otherwise intractable with high level quantum chemical methods (configuration interaction or coupled cluster). However, significant hardware improvements are required in order for our method to be useful for practical applications that could outperform classical computers. At present, we estimate for quantum computing to become industrially relevant, for example in the pharmaceutical industry, small drug molecules such as Morphine ($C_{17}H_{19}NO_{3}$) with 152 electrons, Caffeine ($C_{8}H_{10}N_{4}O_{2}$) with 102 electrons, Viagra ($C_{22}H_{30}N_{6}O_{4}S$) with 252 electrons, Paracetamol ($C_{8}H_{9}NO_{2}$) with 80 electrons, would need to be tractable. Broader application could be found for small inorganic complexes, such as those found in dye-sensitized solar cell like Ru-12 ($Ru_{2}Cl_{4}(C_{10}H_{14})_{2}$), which features 304 electrons. Given this number of electrons, we estimate that 600 to 1000 qubits would be required to model molecules that are currently only tractable on a classical computer with approximate calculations (e.g. density functional theory).\
We would like to thank Pr. Jonathan Tennyson, Dr. George Booth and Dr. Thomas Rogers for their detailed feedback and advice. \[1\]\[1\][\#1]{}
[26]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}
**SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL**
**Derivation of the value function**
Consider an application of the Discriminative Variational Quantum Eigensolver (DVQE) circuit in which only the ancilla qubit is measured, The methodology to derive the DVQE value function is analogous to that developed for the Quantum Generative Adversarial Network (QGAN) in [@Benedetti2019]. We note $\rho_g$ the output state of the Generator and $\rho_{s_i}$ the excited state of index $i$. Similarly, we note the state of all qubits after the DVQE circuit $\rho_{Dg}$ for the generated state, and $\rho_{Ds_{i}}$ for any state $i \in [0, n]$. Recalling that we note $D(\phi)$ the operator resulting from the Discriminator circuit, $G(\theta)$ the operator resulting from the Generator circuit (we omit the $\phi$ and $\theta$ in our notations), that $\rho_g = G\Ket{0}\Bra{0}^{\otimes d}G^{\dagger}$, and that $\rho_{s_{i}}$ represent any known energy state of the molecule, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{Dg} = D(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger,\\
\rho_{Ds_{i}} = D(\rho_{s_{i}}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger,
\end{aligned}$$ where one can observe that we have now added an ancilla qubit, the necessity of which is explained later on.
The Discriminator therefore outputs a mixture $\rho_{D_{mix}} = p(g)\rho_{D_g} + \sum_i p(s_i)\rho_{D_{s_i}}$, with $p(g)$ and $p(s_i)$ the probabilities of presenting the generated or any state $s_i$ to the Discriminator. We conduct a Positive Operator Valued Measurment (POVM) on the output state, with projectors $P_b$, with $b$ indexing the possible measurement outcomes such that $\sum_b P_b = \mathbb{1}$. Each possible measurement outcome $P_{b}$, can occur with a probability $p(b) = Tr[P_{b} \rho_{mix}]$, following Borns rule. The Discriminator can either be right and the POVM identifies correctly the input state, or the Discriminator can be wrong and the POVM identifies the incorrect input state. The process through which the POVM identifies the input state is refered to as the decision rules.\
Following Bayes’ theorem, this decision rule should select the index $b$ which maximizes the posterior probability, or argmax$_{x\in \{g,s_i\}} p(x|b)$. It has been shown that this decision function (Bayes’ decision function) has the lowest probability of error of any possible decision function [@Fuchs1996].
Our value function is built in order for the Discriminator to minimize the probability of error on a given measurement outcome. The probability of the measurement resulting in a correct decision is max$_{x∈\{g,s_i\}} p(x|b)$. Therefore, using Bayes’ decision function, the probability of error when observing any element of the set $\{P_b\}$, can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{err}(\{P_b\}) &= \sum_{b}(1 - \max_{x}p(x|b))p(b) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{b}\min_{x}p(x|b)p(b). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ This equality is verified as the classification decision is done only over two possible categories: the Discriminator identifies a generated state $g$ or the Discriminator identifies any of the known states $s_i$. We therefore have $1 - \max_x p(x|b) = \min_x p(x|b)$. Given that by Bayes’ formula $ p(x|b)p(b) = p(b|x)p(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{err}(\{P_b\}) &= \sum_{b}\min_{x}p(b|x)p(x) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{b}\min_{x}Tr[P_{b}\rho_{x}]p(x).
\end{aligned}$$ The objective function for the Discriminator being to minimize the probability of error for any given outcome obtained, it can be described by $$p_{err}^* = \min_{\{b\}}p_{err}(\{P_b\}),$$ where $\{P_b\}$ represents the set of projectors corresponding to all possible measurement outcomes.
In our algorithm, we want the Discriminator to distinguish a generated state from any known state $\rho_{s_i}$. Therefore, the outcome of the POVM corresponds to the following: 0 is mapped to all the known states ($\rho_{s_{i}}$); 1 is mapped to the generated state ($\rho_{g}$).\
Noting $p(g)$ and $p(s_{i})$ the probabilities of the generated state and of any known state being presented to the Discriminator, the objective function is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
&p_{err}^* = \min_{\{P_{0}, P_{1}\}}(p(0|g)p(g) + \sum_{i}p(1|s_{i})p(s_{i})) \nonumber \\
&= \min_{\{P_{0}, P_{1}\}} (Tr[P_{0}\rho_{Dg}]p(g) + \sum_{i}Tr[P_{1}\rho_{Ds_{i}}]p(s_{i})) \nonumber \\
&= \min_{\{P_{0}\}}(Tr[P_{0}\rho_{Dg}]p(g) + \sum_{i}Tr[(\mathbb{1} - P_{0})\rho_{Ds_{i}}]p(s_{i})) \nonumber \\
&= \min_{\{P_{0}\}}( Tr[P_{0}\rho_{Dg}]p(g) - \sum_{i}Tr[P_{0}\rho_{Ds_{i}}]p(s_{i})) + \sum_{i} p(s_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$ However this is also dependent on the action of the Generator. The objective of the Generator is $\min P_{err}^*$ w.r.t. $\rho_{g}$. Incorporating this objective in the equation above we get the following shared objective function: $$\begin{aligned}
& \min_{\{\rho_{g}\}}\min_{\{P_{0}\}}(Tr[P_{0}\rho_{Dg}]p(g) - \sum_{i}Tr[ P_{0}\rho_{Ds_{i}}]p(s_{i})) + \sum_{i} p(s_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$ Due to the discriminative objective of the circuit, we can limit the required POVM outcome to only two elements: 0 if the Discriminator identifies the original state, and 1 if it identifies the generated state. We can map the POVM to a single ancilla qubit also input to the Discriminator. In the case we have $P_b=\mathbb{1}^{\otimes d}\otimes \Ket{b}\Bra{b}, b \in [0, 1]$. Re-writing the state as the output of the quantum circuit we obtain the value function $\min_{\{\theta\}}\min_{\{\phi\}}V(\theta, \phi)$. Discarding the parametrization indices $\theta$ and $\phi$ we therefore aim to minimize $$\begin{aligned}
V(\theta, \phi) &= Tr\left[P_{0}D(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger\right] p(g) \nonumber \\
&- \sum_{i=0}^n Tr\left[P_{0}D(\rho_{s_{i}}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger\right] p(s_{i}) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{i=0}^n p(s_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$ The above value function is sufficient for the Generator to find at least one state belonging to the space orthogonal to all known states. However it does not guarantee that the state generated is $\rho_{s_{n + 1}}$. In order to do so, we can add a VQE objective to the value function, whereby the Generator will also aim at finding a state which then minimizes the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. Preemptively, we note that the weighting between both objectives is important in making sure the value function does converge to the desired excited state. In order to parametrize this weighting, we introduce a factor $\gamma$ the value of which is discussed in the following section. Re-writing the value function accordingly, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{value_func}
V(\theta, \phi) &= \Bra{0}G^\dagger H G\Ket{0} \nonumber \\
&+ \gamma\left[Tr[P_{0}D(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger\right] p(g) \nonumber \\
&-\gamma\sum_{i=0}^n Tr\left[P_{0}D(\rho_{s_{i}}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger\right] p(s_{i}) \nonumber \\
&+ \gamma\sum_{i=0}^n p(s_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$
**Convergence demonstration**
Consider a generic state $\Ket{\psi} = \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}\alpha_i\Ket{s_i}$ such that $\Ket{\psi}= G(\theta)\Ket{0}$ (recalling that $d$ refers to the dimension of the system, and $n$ refers to the last excited state calculated). We use this state in the value function derived in equation \[value\_func\] (discarding $\theta$ and $\phi$ for readability):
$$\begin{aligned}
V &= \Bra{\psi}H\Ket{\psi} \\ \nonumber
& + \gamma Tr\left[P_0D(\Ket{\psi}\Bra{\psi}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]p(g) \\ \nonumber
& - \gamma \sum_{i=0}^{n}Tr\left[P_0[D(\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_i}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]p(s_i) \\ \nonumber
& + \gamma \sum_{i=0}^n p(s_i).
\end{aligned}$$
The energy states $\Ket{s_i}$ form an eigenbasis for the molecular Hamiltonian which can be written in the form $H = \sum_i E_i\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_i}$. We have $\Bra{s_i}H\Ket{s_i} = E_i$, and we can re-write the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
V &= \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 E_i \\ \nonumber
& + \gamma Tr\left[P_0D(\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\alpha_i\alpha_j^{*}\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_j}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]p(g) \\ \nonumber
& - \gamma \sum_{i=0}^{n}Tr\left[P_0D(\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_i}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]p(s_i) \\ \nonumber
& + \gamma \sum_{i=0}^n p(s_i).
\end{aligned}$$
To simplify the writing, we set $p(g)$ and all $p(s_i)$ to be equiprobable, such that $p(g)=p(s_i)=\frac{1}{n + 1}$ (as we use $n$ known states $\Ket{s_i}$ plus the generated state) and $K_i=\frac{1}{n+1} Tr\left[P_0D(\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_i}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]$ and $k_i = \frac{1}{n+1} Tr\left[P_0D(\sum_{j\neq i}^{d-1}\alpha_i\alpha_j^{*}\Ket{s_i}\Bra{s_j}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^{\dagger}\right]$:
$$\begin{aligned}
V &= \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \gamma K_i) + \sum_{i=0}^{d-1} \gamma k_i \\ \nonumber
& - \gamma \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_i + \frac{n \gamma}{n+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
From here, we can see that the choice of set of parameters $\theta$, for the Generator, affect the values of the terms $\alpha_i$ (and therefore, also the terms $k_i$) while the choice of set of parameters $\phi$, for the Discriminator, affect the values of the terms $K_i$ and $k_i$. Both Generator and Discriminator are trained to minimize this value function, and it is clear that, as a result of the terms $k_i$, both need to be trained for a meaningful minimum to be found.\
It is important that the Discriminator is deep enough to be able to perform the classification between generated state and known states, we assume thereafter that it is the case. One can note that while some of the $K_i$ have both positive and negative factors in the value function (namely for $i \in [0, n]$), the $k_i$ all have positive factors. The terms $k_i$ should go to $0$ when the Discriminator is optimized. A similar argument can be made for the terms $K_i$ such that $i \in [n+1, d-1]$.\
Here it is worth noting that these terms are in general not accessible to the user given the states $\Ket{s_i}$ for $i \in [n+1, d-1]$ are not known. However this does not prevent the convergence described above to occur during optimization.\
When the Generator is subsequently optimized, the value of the terms $k_i$ may increase as the $\alpha_i$ terms are updated. Subsequent updates of the Discriminator will bring these values back to $0$. This implies that Generator and Discriminator will need to be updated iteratively for the DVQE to work. To simplify the demonstration, we assume that the terms $k_i$ are sufficiently close to $0$ so that we can ignore them in the following. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simple_eq}
V &= \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \gamma K_i)
- \gamma \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_i + \frac{n \gamma}{n+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the case of optimizing the Generator in the context of Eq. \[simple\_eq\], that is finding a minimum for this equation by only modifying the $\alpha_i$ terms and recalling that $\sum_i |\alpha_i|^2 = 1$. Because the terms $E_i + \gamma K_i$ can be ordered from smallest to largest, optimizing the Generator is equivalent to finding an index $p \in [0, d-1]$ such that $E_p + \gamma K_p < E_i + \gamma K_i $ for all $i \in [0, d-1] \setminus p$. In this case, $\alpha_p$ converges to $1$.\
In order to see that this index $p$ should equate to $n+1$ consider the ideal case in which the Discriminator is fully optimized and in which all $K_i$ with $i \in [0, n]$ are equal to $\frac{1}{n + 1}$. The last two terms in the Eq. \[simple\_eq\] cancel each other and we obtain a simplified value function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simple_eq2}
V &= \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \gamma K_i),
\end{aligned}$$ which can be re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simple_eq3}
V &= \sum_{i=n+1}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \gamma K_i) + \sum_{i=0}^{n}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \gamma K_i).
\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[simple\_eq3\]) is important to understand how the algorithm behaves in a noisy environment, where the Discriminator cannot be fully optimized. However before discussing this, let us consider the case where the Discriminator perfectly succeeds at its task rendering $K_i = \frac{1}{n+1}$ for $i \in [0, n]$ and $K_i = 0$ for $i \in [n + 1, d - 1]$. We now have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simple_eq4}
V &= \sum_{i=n+1}^{d-1}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i) + \sum_{i=0}^{n}|\alpha_i|^2 (E_i + \frac{\gamma}{n+1}).
\end{aligned}$$ Once again, the action of optimizing the Generator will result in one of the $\alpha_i$ being equal to $1$, and the others to $0$. To make sure that it is $\alpha_{n+1}$ we must have $E_{n+1} < E_0 + \frac{\gamma}{n+1}$ or, the $\gamma$ factor, weighting the VQE and orthogonality objectives in the value function must obey $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma_eq}
\gamma > (n + 1)(E_{n+1} - E_0).
\end{aligned}$$
In a more general case, considering equation \[simple\_eq4\], for the state $n + 1$ to be the lowest energy of the value function, it must be that $(E_{n+1} + \gamma K_{n+1})$ is lower than $(E_{i} + \gamma K_{i})$ for any $i$ between $0$ and $d-1$ except $n + 1$. Therefore, given that together the Discriminator and the Generator push $K_i$ towards $0$ for $i$ greater than $n$ and towards $1$ for $i$ lower or equal to $n$ then it is possible for the algorithm to converge to the right state given a large enough $\gamma$ factor even if the Discriminator is not fully optimized. This is a particular advantage for NISQ computers where full optimization of the Discriminator and Generator may be impossible due to circuit and read-out errors creating an optimization barrier.\
We noticed however that in the case of a noisy QPU, using a $\gamma$ factor that is too high may result in the algorithm converging to the wrong value. That is because noise can prevent convergence to $0$ of the $k_i$ terms. If the Discriminator fails to bring close to $0$ the term $k_{n+1}$, it may be that the minimum of the value function is reached when more than one $\alpha$ term is non-zero.\
It is worth noting that the term $\frac{n \gamma}{n + 1}$ at the end of the value function has no impact on the optimization (as it has a null gradient in all parameters of the function). We could discard it and find the same optimal point. The value function at optimal point would be different but we would still find the eigenstate and eigenenergy.\
All together, by grouping the terms of the value function dependent on $\theta$ and the terms of the value function dependent on $\phi$, we find the cost functions of the Generator and of the Discriminator which have already been outlined in the main body of this article:
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{(n)}_{gen}(\theta) &= \Bra{0}G^\dagger(\theta) H G(\theta)\Ket{0} \nonumber \\
&+ \gamma Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_g\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi)],
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{(n)}_{disc}(\phi) &= Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_{g}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi)] \nonumber \\
&-\sum_{n}Tr[P_{0}D(\phi)(\rho_{s_{i}}\otimes\Ket{0}\Bra{0})D^\dagger(\phi))].
\end{aligned}$$
**Simulation results for $LiH$**
In FIG. \[fig:LiH\] we present the expected value of the $LiH$ Hamiltonian with respect to the state produced by the Generator throughout our optimization schedule. Whenever the convergence criteria is met, the algorithm automatically begins to compute the following excited state. We used the Rprop optimizer for this run and can clearly see that increasing the system size significantly increases the number of DVQE iterations required to reach convergence. However, the method was successful in achieving the desired accuracy, with limited depth (5 for Generator, 8 for the Discriminator).
\[fig:LiH\] {width="1.\columnwidth"}
**
**Implementation on a QPU**
Running an algorithm on a QPU remains computationally costly. We focused on minimizing the number of single instruction requests to the QPU required to run the algorithm to an appropriate level of convergence. Each of our instruction requests covers the Rotosolve optimization of one angle for either the Generator or the Discriminator. It includes requests to conduct estimation (through a given number of measurements, or shots) of the three expectation value terms required to complete a Rotosolve iteration.\
Given the $H_2$ Hamiltonian on two qubits, we used a circuit of depth 2 for the Generator and of depth 3 for the Discriminator, with each layer composed of two rotation gates ($R_X$ and $R_Y$) and an entangling gate. Hence we had to optimize 8 parameters for the Generator, and 18 for the Discriminator. The benefits of further depth could be studied but given our objective of minimizing the number of calls to the QPUs we have not attempted anything further outside of simulation. For each bond distance, we use 2 iterations of the Generator and 2 iterations of the Discriminator for each iteration of the DVQE, and a total of 4 iterations of the DVQE resulting in a total of 208 separate calls to the QPU for each point (in addition to what was required to compute the ground state, usually 2 iterations of the VQE, which has the same depth as the Generator, hence 18 calls).\
This optimization schedule was used only for calculating the energy values at a bond distance of $0.741$. For other bond distances, we performed a warm start by using the $\theta$ and $\phi$ parameters learnt at distance $0.741$ as a starting point for our optimization process. In all cases, one iteration of the VQE and one iteration of the DVQE was sufficient to reach convergence (although more were required to show convergence). In addition, it is worth noting that as the efficacy of the Discriminator is resilient to noise, it is also resilient to small changes in the bond distance. In particular, we noticed that we did not need to re-train the Discriminator in most cases in order to reach convergence. This however may not be true when studying more complex systems and when attempting to achieve higher accuracy (for instance by increasing the number of measurements beyond $8,000$).
Bond distance QPU Energy Exact DVQE
--------------- --------- -------- ----------- ---------- -- -- --
0.491 Ourense Ground -1.047 -1.025
First -0.046 -0.045
0.741 London Ground -1.137 -1.129
First -0.532 -0.519
0.991 Vigo Ground -1.103 -1.108
First -0.741 -0.728
1.241 Vigo Ground -1.048 -1.040
First -0.840 -0.832
1.491 Vigo Ground -0.999 -0.991
First -0.889 -0.880
1.741 Vigo Ground -0.967 -0.964
First -0.913 -0.908
1.991 Ourense Ground -0.949 -0.943
First -0.924 -0.919
: \[tab:table1\]Detailed results of DVQE runs on IBMQ - values given are average of the last round of Rotosolve iteration (all in a.u.)
In order to reduce the number of shots conducted, we used a ramping-up schedule for the circuit estimate. The first few iterations of the circuit are done with a low numbers of shots, and the final iteration of the DVQE was done using $8,000$ measurements. Energies are then calculated using the final $\theta$ obtained and using repeated $8,000$ shots run to obtain an average.\
It is worth noting that while we used Rotosolve for the implementation on a QPU, we used Rprop for the simulation. There are good reasons to think that this algorithm will be more relevant on a multi-core QPU than on a single QPU with a large number of qubits. Multi-core QPUs could offer tremendous opportunities for parallelization. Because calculations of angles under Rotosolve are co-dependent on each other, it offers less parallelization than gradient based methods such as Rprop where all angle gradients can be calculated in parallel. Whether Rotosolve or gradient based methods will be more efficient remains to be seen, however as long as QPUs are single core, Rotosolve will likely perform better for actual QPU runs, while Rprop (and other efficient gradient based methods) will be significantly more efficient for simulations.\
Errors on the measurement results were mitigated using the IBM Qiskit Ignis error mitigation tool. The process is described here briefly. We first measure the quantum computer prepared in one of the $2^n$ computational basis, where $n$ is the number of qubits. This could be easily achieved with quantum circuits using Pauli X gates and measurements. Using the measurement outcomes of the $2^n$ circuits, we could construct an estimate of the matrix $M$ defined element-wise as:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M_{i,j} &= \text{Probability}\{\text{measured state }i|\text{prepared in state j}\} \\ \nonumber
&i,j\in\{0,1,\cdots 2^n-1\} \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then, we would like to apply the inverse of $M$ to the measurement outcomes in the experiments. This is achieved by solving the following optimization problem:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x = \mathrm{argmin}_X |Y - M X|,\, \text{subject to} \sum_i X_i = \sum_i Y_i \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $Y$ is the vector of raw measurement outcome and $x$ is the vector of error mitigated measurement outcome. In the $i$th position of each vector is the number of occurrence of the measurement outcome in state $i$. The vector norm is defined as $|v| = v\cdot v$.\
The detailed results obtained are presented in table \[tab:table1\]. The model was developed and tested using Hyrax. The simulations were conducted using a TensorFlow backend simulator, while the actual tests on QPUs used a Qiskit backend linked to IBMQ.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
S. Khalil$^{1,2,\dagger}$ and E. Torrente-Lujan$^{3,\dagger}$\
$^1$ Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ,U.K.\
$^2$ Ain Shams University, Faculty of Science, Cairo 11566, Egypt.\
$^3$ Departamento de Física Teórica, C-XI, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain.\
$^\dagger$ E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].
title: 'Neutrino mass and oscillation as probes of physics beyond the Standard Model [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The existence of a so-called neutrino, a light, neutral, feebly interacting fermion, was first proposed by W. Pauli in 1930 to save the principle of energy conservation in nuclear beta decay [@pauli]. The idea was promptly adopted by the physics community; in 1933 E. Fermi takes the neutrino hypothesis, gives the neutrino its name and builds his theory of beta decay and weak interactions. But, it was only in 1956 that C. Cowan and F. Reines were able to discover the neutrino, more exactly the anti-neutrino, experimentally [@cowan]. Danby et al. [@danby] confirmed in 1962 that there exist, at least, two types of neutrinos, the $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$. In 1989, the study of the Z boson lifetime allows to show with great certitude that only three light neutrino species do exist. Only in 2000, it has been confirmed by direct means [@tauneutrino] the existence of the third type of neutrino, the $\nu_\tau$ in addition to the $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$. Until here the history, with the present perspective we can say that the neutrino occupies a unique place among all the fundamental particles in many ways and as such it has shed light on many important aspects of our present understanding of nature and is still believed to hold a key role to the physics beyond the Standard Model (SM).
In what respects its mass, Pauli initially expected the mass of the neutrino to be small but not necessary zero: not very much more than the electron mass, F. Perrin in 1934 showed that its mass has to be less than that of the electron. After more than a half a century, the question of whether the neutrino has mass is still one open question, being one of the outstanding issues in particle physics, astrophysics, cosmology and theoretical physics in general. Presently, there are several theoretical, observational and experimental motivations which justify the searching for possible non-zero neutrino masses (see i.e. [@langacker1; @fuk2; @vallereview; @RAMOND2; @wilczek1; @bilenky98; @bilenky9812] for excellent older reviews on this matter).
Understanding of fermion masses in general are one of the major problems of the SM and observation of the existence or confirmation of non-existence of neutrino masses could introduce useful new perspectives on the subject. If they are confirmed as massless they would be the only fermions with this property. A property which is not dictated by any known fundamental underlying principle, such as gauge invariance in the case of the photon. If it is concluded that they are massive then the question is why are their masses so much smaller than those of their charged partners. Although theory alone can not predict neutrino masses, it is certainly true that they are strongly suggested by present theoretical models of elementary particles and most extensions of the SM definitively require neutrinos to be massive. They therefore constitute a powerful probe of new physics at a scale larger than the electroweak scale.
If massive, the superposition postulates of quantum theory predict that neutrinos, particles with identical quantum numbers, could oscillate in flavor space. If the absolute difference of masses among them is small enough then these oscillations could have important phenomenological consequences. Some hints at accelerator experiments as well as the observed indications of spectral distortion and deficit of solar neutrinos and the anomalies on the ratio of atmospheric $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ neutrinos and their zenith distribution are naturally accounted by the oscillations of a massive neutrino. Recent claims of the high-statistics high-precision Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment are unambiguous and left little room for the scepticism as we are going to see along this review.
Moreover, neutrinos are basic ingredients of astrophysics and cosmology. There may be a hot dark matter component (HDM) to the Universe: simulations of structure formation fit the observations only when some significant quantity of HDM is included. If so, neutrinos would be, at least by weight, one of the most important ingredients in the Universe.
Regardless of mass and oscillations, astrophysical interest in the neutrino and their properties arises from the fact that it is copiously produced in high temperature and/or high density environment and it often dominates the physics of those astrophysical objects. The interactions of the neutrino with matter is so weak that it passes freely through any ordinary matter existing in the Universe. This makes neutrinos to be a very efficient carrier of energy drain from optically thick objects becoming very good probes for the interior of such objects. For example, the solar neutrino flux is, together with heliosysmology, one of the two known probes of the solar core. A similar statement applies to objects as the type-II supernovas: the most interesting questions around supernovas, the explosion dynamics itself with the shock revival, and, the synthesis of the heaviest elements by the so-called r-processes, could be positively affected by changes in the neutrino flux, e.g. by MSW active or sterile conversions [@supernova]. Finally, ultra high energy neutrinos are called to be useful probes of diverse distant astrophysical objects. Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) should be copious emitters of $\nu$’s, providing both detectable point sources and an observable diffuse background which is larger in fact than the atmospheric neutrino background in the very high energy range [@AGN].
This review is organized as follows, in section 2 we discuss the neutrino in the SM. Section 3 is devoted to the possible ways for generating neutrino mass terms and different models for these possibilities are presented. Neutrino oscillation in vacuum and in matter are studied in section 4. The cosmological and the astrophysical constraints on diverse neutrino properties are summarized in section 5. In section 6 we give an introduction to the phenomenological description of neutrino oscillations in vacuum and in matter. In section 7 we give an extensive description of the different neutrino experiments, their results and their interpretation. Finally we present some conclusions and final remarks in section 7.
The neutrino in the Standard Model.
===================================
The current Standard Model of particles and interactions supposes the existence of three neutrinos. The three neutrinos are represented by two-component Weyl spinors each describing a left-handed fermion. They are the neutral, upper components of doublets $L_i$ with respect the $SU(2)$ group, the weak interaction group, we have, $$L_i\equiv \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_{i} \\ l_i
\end{array}
\right), \hspace{1.2cm} i = (e, \mu, \tau).$$ They have the third component of the weak isospin $I_{3W}=1/2$ and are assigned an unit of the global $i$th lepton number. The three right-handed charged leptons have however no counterparts in the neutrino sector and transform as singlets with respect the weak interaction.
These SM neutrinos are strictly massless, the reason for this can be understood as follows. The only Lorenz scalar made out of them is the Majorana mass, of the form $\nu^t_i \nu_i$; it has the quantum number of a weak isotriplet, with $I_{3W}=1$ as well as two units of total lepton number. Thus to generate a renormalizable Majorana mass term at the tree level one needs a Higgs isotriplet with two units of lepton number. Since in the stricter version of the SM the Higgs sector is only constituted by a weak isodoublet, there are no tree-level neutrino masses. When quantum corrections are introduced we should consider effective terms where a weak isotriplet is made out of two isodoublets and which are not invariant under lepton number symmetry. The conclusion is that in the SM neutrinos are kept massless by a global chiral lepton number symmetry (and more general properties as renormalizability of the theory, see Ref.[@RAMOND2] for an applied version of this argument). However this is a rather formal conclusion, there is no any other independent, compelling theoretical argument in favor of such symmetry, or, with other words, there is no reason why we would like to keep it intact.
Independent from mass and charge oddities, in any other respect neutrinos are very well behaved particles within the SM framework and some figures and facts are unambiguously known about them. The LEP Z boson line-shape measurements imply that are only three ordinary (weak interacting) light neutrinos [@SM; @PDG98]. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constrains the parameters of possible sterile neutrinos, non-weak interacting or those which interact and are produced only by mixing [@BBN]. [*All the existing*]{} data on the weak interaction processes in which neutrinos take part are perfectly described by the SM charged-current (CC) and neutral-current (NC) Lagrangians: $$\begin{aligned}
L_I^{CC}&=&-\frac{g}{\surd 2} \sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau}
\overline{\nu_{L}}_i\gamma_\alpha {l_{L}}_i W^\alpha+ h.c.\\
L_I^{NC}&=&-\frac{g}{2 \cos \theta_W} \sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau}
\overline{\nu_{L}}_i\gamma_\alpha {\nu_{L}}_i Z^\alpha + h.c.\end{aligned}$$ where $Z^\alpha,W^\alpha$ are the neutral and charged vector bosons intermediaries of the weak interaction. The CC and NC interaction Lagrangians conserve three total additive quantum numbers, the lepton numbers $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$ while the structure of the CC interactions is what determine the notion of flavor neutrinos $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$.
There are no indications in favor of the violation of the conservation of these lepton numbers in weak processes and very strong bounds on branching ratios of rare, lepton number violating, processes are obtained, for examples see Table \[tttt1\].
$$\begin{array}{|lcc|lcc|}\hline
R(\mu\to e\gamma) &<& 4.9\times 10^{-11}
& R(\tau\to e\gamma)&<& 2.7\times 10^{-6}\\
R(\mu\to 3 e) &<& 1.0\times 10^{-12}
& R(\tau\to \mu\gamma)&<& 3.0\times 10^{-6}\\
R(\mu\to e(2\gamma))&<& 7.2\times 10^{-11}
& R(\mu\to 3 e)&<& 2.9\times 10^{-6}.\\ \hline
\end{array}$$
From the theoretical point of view, in the minimal extension of the SM where right-handed neutrinos are introduced and the neutrino gets a mass, the branching ratio of the $\mu\to e \gamma$ decay is given by (2 generations are assumed [@muegamma]), $$\begin{aligned}
R(\mu\to e\gamma) & =& G_F \left (\frac{\sin 2\theta\ \Delta m_{1,2}^2}{2 M_W^2}\right )^2
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{1,2}$ are the neutrino masses, $M_W$ is the mass of the $W$ boson and $\theta$ is the mixing angle in the lepton sector. Using the experimental upper limit on the heaviest $\nu_\tau$ neutrino one obtains $R\sim 10^{-18}$, a value far from being measurable at present as we can see from table \[tttt1\] The $\mu\to e \gamma$ and similar processes are sensitive to new particles not contained in the SM. The value is highly model dependent and could change by several orders of magnitude if we modify the neutrino sector for example introducing an extra number of heavy neutrinos.
Neutrino mass terms and models.
===============================
Model independent neutrino mass terms
-------------------------------------
Phenomenologically, Lagrangian mass terms can be viewed as terms describing transitions between right (R) and left (L)-handed states. For a given minimal, Lorenz invariant, set of four fields: $\psi_L,\psi_R,(\psi^c)_L,(\psi^c)_R$, would-be components of a generic Dirac Spinor, the most general mass part of the Lagrangian can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{mass}&=&
m_D \left ( \overline{\psi}_L \psi_R\right )
+\frac{1}{2} m_T \left ( \overline{(\psi_L)^c} \psi_L\right )
+\frac{1}{2} m_S \left ( \overline{(\psi_R)^c} \psi_R\right )+h.c.
\label{e2001}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the newly defined Majorana fields ($\nu^c=\nu,N^c=N$): $\nu=(1/\sqrt 2)
(\psi_L+(\psi_L)^c)$, $N=(1/\sqrt 2) (\psi_R+(\psi_R)^c)$, the Lagrangian $L_{mass}$ can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{mass}&=& \pmatrix{ \overline{\nu} ,& \overline{N} } M
\pmatrix{ \nu \cr N}
\label{e2003}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the neutrino mass matrix defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
M&\equiv&
\pmatrix{ m_T & m_D \cr m_D & m_S }.
\label{e2003b}\end{aligned}$$ We proceed further and diagonalizing the matrix M one finds that the physical particle content is given by two Majorana mass eigenstates: the inclusion of the Majorana mass splits the four degenerate states of the Dirac field into two non-degenerate Majorana pairs.
If we assume that the states $\nu,N$ are respectively active (belonging to weak doublets) and sterile (weak singlets), the terms corresponding to the ”Majorana masses” $m_T$ and $m_S$ transform as weak triplets and singlets respectively. While the term corresponding to $m_D$ is an standard, weak singlet in most cases, Dirac mass term.
The neutrino mass matrix can easily be generalized to three or more families, in which case the masses become matrices themselves. The complete flavor mixing comes from two different parts, the diagonalization of the charged lepton Yukawa couplings and that of the neutrino masses. In most simple extensions of the SM, this CKM-like leptonic mixing is totally arbitrary with parameters only to be determined by experiment. Their prediction, as for the quark hierarchies and mixing, needs further theoretical assumptions (i.e. Ref.[@RAMOND; @RAMOND2] predicting $\nu_\mu-\nu_\tau$ maximal mixing).
We can analyze different cases. In the case of a purely Dirac mass term, $m_T=m_S= 0$ in Eq.(\[e2003\]), the $\nu,N$ states are degenerate with mass $m_D$ and a four component Dirac field can be recovered as $\nu\equiv \nu+N$. It can be seen that, although violating individual lepton numbers, the Dirac mass term allows a conserved lepton number $L=L_\nu+L_N$.
In the general case, pure Majorana mass transition terms, $m_T$ or $m_S$ terms in Lagrangian (\[e2003\]), describe in fact a particle-antiparticle transition violating lepton number by two units ($\Delta L=\pm 2$). They can be viewed as the creation or annihilation of two neutrinos leading therefore to the possibility of the existence of neutrinoless double beta decay.
In the general case where all classes of terms are allowed, it is interesting to consider the so-called ”see-saw” limit in Eq.(\[e2003\]). In this limit taking $m_T\sim 1/m_S \sim 0, m_D<< m_S$, the two Majorana neutrinos acquire respectively masses $m_1 \sim m_D^2/m_S<< m_D$,$ m_2 \sim m_S$. There is one heavy neutrino and one neutrino much lighter than the typical Dirac fermion mass. One of neutrino mass has been automatically suppressed, balanced up (“see-saw”) by the heavy one. The ”see-saw” mechanism is a natural way of generating two well separated mass scales.
Neutrino mass models
--------------------
Any fully satisfactory model that generates neutrino masses must contain a natural mechanism that explains their small value, relative to that of their charged partners. Given the latest experimental indications it would also be desirable that includes any comprehensive justification for light sterile neutrinos and large, near maximal, mixing.
Different models can be distinguished according to the new particle content or according to the scale. According to the particle content, of the different open possibilities, if we want to break lepton number and to generate neutrino masses without introducing new fermions in the SM, we must do it by adding to the SM Higgs sector fields carrying lepton numbers, one can arrange then to break lepton number explicitly or spontaneously through their interactions. But, possibly, the most straightforward approach to generate neutrino masses is to introduce for each neutrino an additional weak neutral singlet.
This happens naturally in the framework of LR symmetric models where the origin of SM parity ($P$) violation is ascribed to the spontaneous breaking of a baryon-lepton (the $B-L$ quantum number) symmetry.
In the $SO(10)$ GUT the Majorana neutral particle $N$ enters in a natural way in order to complete the matter multiplet, the neutral $N$ is a $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1) $ singlet.
According to the scale where the new physics have relevant effects, Unification (i.e. the aforementioned $SO(10)$ GUT) and weak-scale approaches (i.e. radiative models) are usually distinguished [@varios; @varios2].
The anomalies observed in the solar neutrino flux, atmospheric flux and low energy accelerator experiments cannot all be explained consistently without introducing a light, then necessarily sterile, neutrino. If all the Majorana masses are small, active neutrinos can oscillate into the sterile right handed fields. Light sterile neutrinos can appear in particular see-saw mechanisms if additional assumptions are considered (“singular see-saw “ models) with some unavoidable fine tuning. The alternative to such fine tuning would be seesaw-like suppression for sterile neutrinos involving new unknown interactions, i.e. family symmetries, resulting in substantial additions to the SM, (i.e. some sophisticated superstring-inspired models, Ref.[@benakli]).
Finally some example of weak scale models, radiative generated mass models where the neutrino masses are zero at tree level constitute a very different class of models: they explain in principle the smallness of $m_\nu$ for both active and sterile neutrinos. Different mass scales are generated naturally by different number of loops involved in generating each of them. The actual implementation generally requires however the ad-hoc introduction of new Higgs particles with nonstandard electroweak quantum numbers and lepton number-violating couplings [@valle2].
The origin of the different Dirac and Majorana mass terms $m_D,m_S,M_T$ appearing above is usually understood by a dynamical mechanism where at some scale or another some symmetry is spontaneously broken as follows.
First we will deal with the Dirac mass term. For the case of interest, $\nu_L$ and $\nu_R$ are SU(2) doublets and singlets respectively, the mass term describes then a $\Delta I=1/2$ transition and is generated from SU(2) breaking with a Yukawa coupling: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{Yuk}&=&h_i \left (\overline{\nu}_i ,\overline{l_i}\right )_L
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi^0\\
\phi^- \end{array}\right) {N_R}_i + h.c.
\label{e2005}\end{aligned}$$ Where $\phi_0,\phi¯$ are the components of the Higgs doublet. The coefficient $h_i$ is the Yukawa coupling. One has that, after symmetry breaking, $m_D=h_i v/2$ where $v$ is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs doublet. A neutrino Dirac mass is qualitatively just like any other fermion masses, but that leads to the question of why it is so small in comparison with the rest of fermion masses: one would require $h_{\nu_e}<10^{-10}$ in order to have $m_{\nu e}< 10 $ eV. Or in other words: $h_{\nu_e}/h_e\sim 10^{-5}$ while for the hadronic sector we have $h_{up}/h_{down}\sim O(1)$.
Now we will deal with the Majorana mass terms. The $m_S$ term will appear if $N$ is a gauge singlet. In this case a renormalizable mass term of the type $L_N=m_S N^t N$ is allowed by the SM gauge group $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry. However, it would not be consistent in general with unified symmetries, i.e. with a full SO(10) symmetry and some complicated mechanism should be invocated. A $m_S$ term is usually associated with the breaking of some larger symmetry, the expected scale for it should be in a range covering from $\sim$ TeV (LR models) to GUT scales $\sim 10^{15}-10^{17}$ GeV.
Finally, the $m_T$ term will appear if $\nu_L$ is active, belongs to some gauge doublet. In this case we have $\Delta I$=1 and $m_T$ must be generated by either a) an elementary Higgs triplet or b) by an effective operator involving two Higgs doublets arranged to transform as a triplet. In case a), for an elementary triplet $m_T\sim h_T v_T$, where $h_T$ is a Yukawa coupling and $v_T$ is the triplet VEV. The simplest implementation (the old Gelmini-Roncadelli model [@gelmini]) is excluded by the LEP data on the Z width: the corresponding Majoron couples to the Z boson increasing significantly its width. Variant models involving explicit lepton number violation or in which the Majoron is mainly a weak singlet ([@chika], invisible Majoron models) could still be possible. In case b), for an effective operator originated mass, one expects $m_T\sim 1/M$ where $M$ is the scale of the new physics which generates the operator.
A few words about the range of expected neutrino masses for different types of models depending on the values of $m_D,M_{S,T}$. For $m_S\sim 1$ TeV (LR models) and with typical $m_D$’s, one expects masses of order $10^{-1}$ eV, 10 keV, and 1 MeV for the $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$ respectively. GUT theories motivates a big range of intermediate scales $10^{12}-10^{16}$ GeV. In the lower end of this range, for $m_S\sim 10^{12}$ GeV (some superstring-inspired models, GUT with multiple breaking stages) one can obtain light neutrino masses of the order $(10^{-7}$ eV, $10^{-3}$ eV, 10 eV). At the upper end, for $m_S\sim 10^{16}$ (grand unified seesaw with large Higgs representations) one typically finds smaller masses around $(10^{-11}$, $10^{-7}$, $10^{-2}$) eV somehow more difficult to fit into the present known experimental facts.
The magnetic dipole moment and neutrino masses
----------------------------------------------
The magnetic dipole moment is another probe of possible new interactions. Majorana neutrinos have identically zero magnetic and electric dipole moments. Flavor transition magnetic moments are allowed however in general for both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. Limits obtained from laboratory experiments are of the order of a few $\times 10^{-10}\mu_B$ and those from stellar physics or cosmology are $O(10^{-11}-10^{-13})\mu_B$. In the SM electroweak theory, extended to allow for Dirac neutrino masses, the neutrino magnetic dipole moment is nonzero and given, as ([@PDG98] and references therein): $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_\nu&=& \frac{3 e G_F m_\nu}{8 \pi^2 \surd 2}= 3\times 10^{-19} (m_\nu/1\ eV)\mu_B\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. The proportionality of $\mu_\nu$ to the neutrino mass is due to the absence of any interaction of $\nu_R$ other than its Yukawa coupling which generates its mass. In LR symmetric theories $\mu_\nu$ is proportional to the charged lepton mass: a value of $\mu_\nu\sim 10^{-13}-10^{-14}\mu_B$ can be reached still too small to have practical astrophysical consequences.
Magnetic moment interactions arise in any renormalizable gauge theory only as finite radiative corrections. The diagrams which generate a magnetic moment will also contribute to the neutrino mass once the external photon line is removed. In the absence of additional symmetries a large magnetic moment is incompatible with a small neutrino mass. The way out suggested by Voloshin consists in defining a SU(2)$_\nu$ symmetry acting on the space $(\nu,\nu^c)$, magnetic moment terms are singlets under this symmetry. In the limit of exact SU(2)$_\nu$ the neutrino mass is forbidden but $\mu_\nu$ is allowed [@fukugita]. Diverse concrete models have been proposed where such symmetry is embedded into an extension of the SM (left-right symmetries, SUSY with horizontal gauge symmetries [@babu1]).
Aspects of some theoretical models for neutrino mass
====================================================
Neutrino masses in LR models
----------------------------
A very natural way to generate neutrino mass is to minimally extend the SM including additional 2-spinors as right handed neutrinos and at the same time extend the, non-QCD, SM gauge symmetry group to $G_{LR}\equiv SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}\times P $. The resulting model, initially proposed in 1973-1974, is known as the left-right (LR) symmetric model [@mohapatra]. This kind of models were first proposed with the goal of seeking a spontaneous origin for $P$ violation in weak interactions: CP and P are conserved at large energies; at low energies, however, the group $G_{LR}$ breaks down spontaneously at a scale $M_R$. Any new physics correction to the SM would be of order $(M_L/M_R)^2$ where $M_L\sim m_W$; if we choose $M_R>>M_L$ we obtain only small corrections, compatible with present known physics. We can satisfactorily explain in this case the small quantity of CP violation observed in present experiments and why the neutrino mass is so small, as we will see below.
The quarks ($Q$) and leptons ($L$) in LR models transform as doublets under the group $ SU(2)_{L,R}$ as follows: $Q_L,L_L\sim (2,1)$ and $Q_R,L_R\sim (1,2)$. The gauge interactions are symmetric between left and right -handed fermions; therefore before symmetry spontaneous breaking, weak interactions, as the others, conserve parity
The breaking of the gauge symmetry is implemented by multiplets of LR symmetric Higgs fields, the concrete choosing of these multiplets is not unique. It has been shown that in order to understand the smallness of the neutrino mass, it is convenient to choose respectively one doublet and two triplets as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &\sim& (2,2,0)\\
\Delta_L \sim (3,1,2)& ,& \Delta_R \sim (1,3,2).\end{aligned}$$ The Yukawa couplings of these Higgs fields to the quarks and leptons are given by $$\begin{aligned}
L_{yuk} &=& h_1 \bar{L}_L \phi L_R + h_2 \bar{L}_L
\tilde{\phi} L_R + h_1' \bar{Q}_L \phi Q_R + h_2' \bar{Q}_L
\tilde{\phi} Q_R \nonumber\\
&+& f(L_L L_L \Delta_L + L_R L_R \Delta_R) + h.c.\end{aligned}$$
The gauge symmetry breaking proceeds in two steps. The $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ is broken down to $U(1)_Y$ by choosing $\langle \Delta_R^0 \rangle= v_R \neq 0$ since this carries both $SU(2)_R$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$ quantum numbers. It gives mass to charged and neutral right handed gauge bosons, , $$M_{W_R} = g v_R,\quad M_{Z'} = \sqrt{2} g v_R/\sqrt{1-\tan^2 \theta_W}.$$ Furthermore, as consequence of $f$-term in the Lagrangian above this stage of symmetry breaking also leads to a mass term for the right-handed neutrinos of the order $\sim f v_R$.
Next, as we break the SM symmetry by turning on the vev’s for $\phi$ fields as $ \langle \phi \rangle =diag(v_\kappa, v_\kappa')$, with $v_R >> v_\kappa'>> v_\kappa$, we give masses to the $W_L$ and the $Z$ bosons and also to quarks and leptons ($m_e\sim h v_\kappa$). At the end of the process of spontaneous symmetry breaking the two $W$ bosons of the model will mix, the lowest physical mass eigenstate is identified as the observed W boson. Current experimental limits set the limit (see Ref.[@PDG98], at 90% CL) $m_{WR}> 550 $ GeV.
In the neutrino sector the above Yukawa couplings after $SU(2)_L$ breaking by $\langle \phi \rangle \neq 0$ leads to the Dirac masses for the neutrino. The full process leads to the following mass matrix for the $\nu$, $N$, (the matrix M in eq.\[e2003b\]) $$M = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sim 0 & h v_\kappa \\
h v_\kappa & f v_R
\end{array}\right).$$ From the structure of this matrix we can see the [*see-saw*]{} mechanism at work. By diagonalizing M, we get a light neutrino corresponding to the eigenvalue $m_{\nu}\simeq (hv_\kappa)^2/f v_R$ and a heavy one with mass $m_N\simeq f v_R$.
Variants of the basic $LR$ model include the possibility of having Dirac neutrinos as the expense of enlarging the particle content. The introduction of two new singlet fermions and a new set of carefully-chosen Higgs bosons, allows us to write the $4\times 4$ mass matrix [@mohapatrareview]: $$\begin{aligned}
M&=&\pmatrix{
0 &m_D &0 &0 \cr
m_D &0 &0 &f v_R \cr
0 &0 &0 &\mu \cr
0 &f v_R &\mu &0 }.
\label{matrix00}\end{aligned}$$ Matrix \[matrix00\] leads to two Dirac neutrinos, one heavy with mass $\sim f v_R$ and another light with mass $m_\nu\sim m_D \mu /f v_R$. This light four component spinor has the correct weak interaction properties to be identified as the neutrino. A variant of this model can be constructed by addition of singlet quarks and leptons. One can arrange these new particles in order that the Dirac mass of the neutrino vanishes at the tree level and arises at the one-loop level via $W_L-W_R$ mixing.
Left-right symmetric models can be embedded in grand unification groups. The simplest GUT model that leads by successive stages of symmetry breaking to left-right symmetric models at low energies is the $SO(10)$-based model. A example of LR embedding GUT Supersymmetric theories will be discussed below in the context of Superstring-inspired models.
SUSY models: Neutrino masses without right-handed neutrinos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Supersymmetry (SUSY) models with explicit broken $R$-parity provide an interesting example of how we can generate neutrino masses without using a right-handed neutrino but incorporating new particles and enlarging the Higgs sector.
In a generic SUSY model, due to the Higgs and lepton doublet superfields have the same $SU(3)_c\times
SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ quantum numbers, we have in the superpotential terms, bilinear or trilinear in the superfields, that violate baryon and lepton number explicitly. They lead to a mass for the neutrino but also to to proton decay with unacceptable high rates. One radical possibility is to introduce by hand a symmetry that rule out these terms, this is the role of the $R$-symmetry introduced in the MSSM.
A less radical possibility is to allow for the existence in the of superpotential of a bilinear term, i.e. $W = \epsilon_3 L_3 H_2$. This is simplest way to illustrate the idea of generating neutrino mass without spoiling current limits on proton decay. The bilinear violation of $R$-parity implied by the $\epsilon_3$ term leads [@valle] by a minimization condition to a non-zero sneutrino vev, $v_3$. In such a model the $\tau$ neutrino acquire a mass, due to the mixing between neutrinos and neutralinos. The $\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{\mu}$ neutrinos remain massless in this model, it is supposed that they get masses from scalar loop contributions. The model is phenomenologically equivalent to a three Higgs doublet model where one of these doublets (the sneutrino) carry a lepton number which is broken spontaneously. We have the following mass matrix for the neutralino-neutrino sector, in block form the $5\times 5$ matrix reads: $$M = \left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
G & Q \vphantom{Q^t} \\[0.1cm] \hline
Q^t &
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -\mu & 0\\
-\mu & 0 &\epsilon_3\\
0 & \epsilon_3 & 0
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]
\label{matrix}$$ where $G=diag(M_1,M_2)$ corresponding to the two gauginos masses. The $ Q$ is a $2\times3$ matrix containing $v_{u,d,3}$ the vevs of $H_1$, $H_2$ and the sneutrino. The next two rows are Higgsinos and the last one denotes the tau neutrino. Let us remind that gauginos and Higgsinos are the supersymmetric fermionic counterparts of the gauge and Higgs fields.
In diagonalizing the mass matrix $M$, a “see-saw” mechanism is again at work, in which the role of $M_D, M_R$ scale masses are easily recognized. It turns out that $\nu_{\tau}$ mass is given by ($v_3'\equiv \epsilon_3 v_d + \mu v_3$), $$m_{\nu_\tau}\propto \frac{(v_3')^2}{M},$$ where $M$ is the largest gaugino mass. However, in an arbitrary SUSY model this mechanism leads to (although relatively small if $M$ is large) still too large $\nu_{\tau}$ masses. To obtain a realistically small $\nu_{\tau}$ mass we have to assume universality among the soft SUSY breaking terms at GUT scale. In this case the $\nu_{\tau}$ mass is predicted to be small due to a cancellation between the two terms which makes negligible the $v_3'$.
We consider now the properties of neutrinos in superstring models. In a number of these models, the effective theory imply a supersymmetric $E_6$ grand unified model, with matter fields belonging to the $27$ dimensional representations of $E_6$ group plus additional $E_6$-singlet fields. The model contains additional neutral leptons in each generation and neutral $E_6$-singlets, gauginos and Higgsinos. As before but with a larger number of them, all of these neutral particles can mix, making the understanding of neutrino masses quite difficult if no simplifying assumptions are employed.
Several of these mechanisms have been proposed to understand neutrino masses [@mohapatrareview]. In some of these mechanisms the huge neutral mixing mass matrix is reduced drastically down to a $3\times 3$ neutrino mass matrix result of the mixing of the $\nu,\nu^c$ with an additional neutral field $T$ whose nature depends on the particular mechanism. In the basis $(\nu, \nu^c, T)$ the mass matrix is of the form (with $\mu$ possibly being zero): $$M = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & m_D & 0 \\
m_D & 0 & \lambda_2 v_R\\
0 & \lambda_2 v_R & \mu
\end{array} \right).
\label{matrix2}$$ We distinguish two important cases, the R-parity violating case and the mixing with a singlet, where the sneutrinos, superpartners of $\nu^c$, are assumed to acquire a v.e.v. of order $v_R$.
In the first case the $T$ field corresponds to a gaugino with a Majorana mass $\mu$ that can arise at two-loop order. Usually $\mu \simeq 100$ GeV, if we assume $\lambda v_R\simeq 1$ TeV additional dangerous mixing with the Higgsinos can be neglected and we are lead to a neutrino mass $m_\nu\simeq 10^{-1}$ eV. Thus, smallness of neutrino mass is understood without any fine tuning of parameters.
In the second case the field $T$ corresponds to one of the $E_6$-singlets presents in the model [@witten; @mohapatrae6]. One has to rely on symmetries that may arise in superstring models on specific Calabi-Yau space to conveniently restrict the Yukawa couplings. If we have $\mu\equiv 0$ in matrix \[matrix2\], this leads to a massless neutrino and a massive Dirac neutrino. There would be neutrino mixing even if the light neutrino remains strictly massless. If we include a possible Majorana mass term for the $S$-fermion of order $\mu\simeq 100$ GeV we get similar values of the neutrino mass as in the previous case.
It is worthy to mention that mass matrices as that one appearing in expression \[matrix2\] have been proposed without embedding in a supersymmetric or any other deeper theoretical framework. In this case small tree level neutrino masses are obtained without making use of large scales. For example, the model proposed by Ref.[@caldwell1] (see also Ref.[@valle1]) which incorporates by hand additional iso-singlet neutral fermions. The smallness of neutrino masses is explained directly from the, otherwise left unexplained, smallness of the parameter $\mu$ in such a model.
Neutrino masses and extra dimensions
------------------------------------
Recently, models where space-time is endowed with extra dimensions (4+$n$) have received some interest [@dvali]. It has been realized that the fundamental scale of gravity need not be the 4-dimensional “effective” Planck scale $M_P$ but a new scale $M_f$, as low as $M_f\sim$ TeV. The observed Planck scale $M_P$ is then related to $M_f$ in $4+n$ dimensions, by $$\eta^2\equiv \left (\frac{M_f}{M_P}\right )^2 \sim \frac{1}{ M_f^n R^n}$$ where $R$ is the typical length of the extra dimensions. , the coupling is $M_f/M_P \simeq 10^{-16}$ for $M_f \simeq 1$ TeV. For $n=2$, the radii $R$ of the extra dimensions are of the order of the millimeter, which could be hidden from many, extremely precise, measurements that exist at present but it would give hope to probe the concept of hidden space dimensions (and gravity itself) by experiment in the near future.
According to current theoretical frameworks (see for example Ref. [@dvali]), all the SM group-charged particles are localized on a $3$-dimensional hyper-surface ‘brane’ embedded in the bulk of the $n$ extra dimensions. All the particles split in two categories, those that live on the brane and those which exist every where, as ‘bulk modes’. In general, any coupling between the brane and the bulk modes are suppressed by the geometrical factor $\eta$. Graviton and possible other neutral states belongs to the second category. The observed weakness of gravity can be then interpreted as a result of the new space dimensions in which gravity can propagate.
The small coupling above can also be used to explain the smallness of the neutrino mass [@smirnov]. The left handed neutrino $\nu_L$ having weak isospin and hypercharge must reside on the brane. Thus it can get a naturally small Dirac mass through the mixing with some bulk fermion which can be interpreted as right handed neutrinos $\nu_R$: $$L_{mass,Dirac}\sim h \eta H \bar{\nu}_L \nu_R.$$ Here $ H,h$ are the Higgs doublet fields and a Yukawa coupling. After EW breaking this interaction will generate the Dirac mass $m_D = h v \eta \simeq 10^{-5}\ \mathrm{eV}$. The right handed neutrino $\nu_R$ has a whole tower of Kaluza-Klein relatives $\nu_{iR}$. The masses of these states are given by $m_{i} = i/R $, the $\nu_L$ couples with all with the same mixing mass. We can write the mass Lagrangian as $L=\bar{\nu}_L M \nu_R$ where $\nu_L=(\nu_L,\tilde{\nu}_{1L}, ...)$ , $\nu_R=(\nu_0R,\tilde{\nu}_{1R}, ...)$ and the resulting mass matrix $M$ being: $$M = \pmatrix{
m_D & \sqrt{2} m_D & \sqrt{2} m_D & .&\sqrt{2} m_D &. \cr
0 & 1/R & 0 & .&0 & .\cr
0 & 0 & 2/R & . & 0&.\cr
. &. & . & . & k/R&.\cr
. &. & . & . & . &. }
\label{extra2}$$ The eigenvalues of the matrix $M M^{\dag}$ are given by a transcendental equation. In the limit, $m_D R \rightarrow 0$, or $m_D\rightarrow 0$, the eigenvalues are $\sim k/R$, $k\in Z$ with a doubly-degenerated zero eigenvalue.
Other examples can be considered which incorporates a LR symmetry (see for example Ref. [@mohapatra2]), a $SU(2)_R$ right handed neutrino is assumed to live on the brane together with the standard one. In this class of models, it has been shown that the left handed neutrino is exactly massless whereas assumed bulk sterile neutrinos have masses related to the size of the extra dimensions. They are of order $10^{-3}$ eV, if there is at least one extra dimension with size in the micrometer range.
Family symmetries and neutrino masses
-------------------------------------
The observed mass and mixing interfamily hierarchy in the quark and, presumably in the lepton sector might be a consequence of the existence of a number of $U(1)_F$ family symmetries [@froggatt]. The observed intrafamily hierarchy, the fact that for each family $m_{up}>> m_{down}$, seem to require one of these to be anomalous [@familons1; @familons2].
A simple model with one family-dependent anomalous $U(1)$ beyond the SM was first proposed in Ref.[@familons1] to produce the observed Yukawa hierarchies, the anomalies being canceled by the Green-Schwartz mechanism which as a by-product is able to fix the Weinberg angle (see also Ref.[@familons2]).
Recent developments includes the model proposed in Ref.[@RAMOND], which is inspired by models generated by the $E_6\times E_8$ heterotic string. The gauge structure of the model is that of the SM augmented by three Abelian $U(1)$ symmetries $X,Y^{1,2}$, the first one is anomalous and family independent. Two of the them, the non-anomalous ones, have specific dependences on the three chiral families designed to reproduce the Yukawa hierarchies. There are right handed neutrinos which trigger neutrino masses by the see-saw mechanism.
The three symmetries $X,Y^{1,2}$ are spontaneously broken at a high scale M by stringy effects. It is assumed that three fields $\theta_i$ acquire a vacuum value. The $\theta_i$ fields are singlets under the SM symmetry but not under the $X$ and $Y^{1,2}$ symmetries. In this way, the Yukawa couplings appear as the effective operators after $U(1)_F$ spontaneous symmetry breaking.
For neutrinos we have [@ramond3] the mass Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L_{mass}&\sim & h_{ij} L_i H_u N_j^c
\lambda^{q_i+n_j} + M_N \xi_{ij} N_i^c N_j^c
\lambda^{n_i+n_j}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{ij}, \xi_{ij} \simeq
O(1)$. The parameter $\lambda$ determine the mass and mixing hierarchy, $\lambda~=~\langle\theta\rangle/M\sim\sin\theta_c$ where $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo angle. The $q_i, n_i$ are the $U(1)$ charges assigned respectively to left handed leptons $L$ and right handed neutrinos $N$.
These coupling generate the following mass matrices for neutrinos: $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\nu}^D &= & diag(\lambda^{q_1}, \lambda^{q_2} , \lambda^{q_3})\
\hat{h}\ diag(\lambda^{n_1}, \lambda^{n_2} , \lambda^{n_3})
\langle H_u \rangle ,\nonumber\\ M_{\nu} & = & diag(\lambda^{n_1},
\lambda^{n_2} , \lambda^{n_3})\ \hat{\xi}\ diag(\lambda^{n_1},
\lambda^{n_2} , \lambda^{n_3}) M_N.\end{aligned}$$ From these matrices, the see-saw mechanism gives the formula for light neutrinos: $$m_{\nu} \simeq
\frac{\langle H_u \rangle^2}{M} diag(\lambda^{q_1}, \lambda^{q_2},
\lambda^{q_3})\ \hat{h}\ \hat{\xi}^{-1}\ \hat{h}^{T}\
diag(\lambda^{q_1}, \lambda^{q_2}, \lambda^{q_3}).$$ The neutrino mass mixing matrix depends only on the charges assigned to the left handed neutrinos, by a cancellation of right handed neutrino charges by virtue of the see-saw mechanism. There is freedom in assigning charges $q_i$. If the charges of the second and the third generations of leptons are equal ($q_2 = q_3$), then one is lead to a mass matrix which have the following structure: $$m_\nu \sim \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda^6 & \lambda^3 & \lambda^3 \\
\lambda^3 & a & b\\
\lambda^3 & b & c
\end{array} \right) .$$ where $a, b, c \sim O(1)$. This matrix can be diagonalized by a large $\nu_2 - \nu_3 $ rotation, it is consistent with a large $\mu-\tau$ mixing. In this theory, explanation of the large neutrino mixing is reduced to a theory of prefactors in front of powers of the parameter $\lambda$.
Cosmological Constraints {#sectioncosmos}
========================
Cosmological mass limits and Dark Matter
----------------------------------------
There are some indirect constraints on neutrino masses provided by cosmology. The most relevant is the constraint which follows from demanding that the energy density in neutrinos should not be too high. At the end of this section we will deal with some other limits as the lower mass limit obtained from galactic phase space requirements or limits on the abundance of additional weakly interacting light particles.
Stable neutrinos with low masses ($m_\nu{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}\ 1$ MeV) make a contribution to the total energy density of the universe which is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\nu&=& m_{tot}\ n_\nu\end{aligned}$$ where the total mass $m_{tot}=\sum_\nu (g_\nu/2) m_\nu$, with the number of degrees of freedom $g_\nu=4(2)$ for Dirac (Majorana) neutrinos. The number density of the neutrino sea is related to that one of photons by entropy conservation in the adiabatic expansion of the universe, $n_\nu=3/11\ n_\gamma$, and this last one is very accurately obtained from the CMBR measurements, $n_\gamma= 410.5$ cm$^{-3}$ (for a Planck spectrum with $T_0=2.725\pm 0.001\ K\ \simeq 2.35 \times 10^{-4}$ eV). Writing $\Omega_\nu=\rho_\nu/\rho_c$, where $\rho_c$ is the critical energy density of the universe ($\rho_c=3 H_{0}^2/8 \pi G_N$), we have ($m_\nu>> T_0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_\nu h^2& =& 10^{-2}\ m_{tot}\ ( \mathrm{eV}),
\label{cosmoneutrino}\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is the reduced Hubble constant, recent analysis [@hubble] give the favored value: $h=0.71\pm0.08$.
Constrained by requirements from BBN Nucleosynthesis, galactic structure formation and large scale observations, increasing evidence (luminosity-density relations, galactic rotation curves,large scale flows) suggests that [@darkmatter] $$\Omega_{M} h^2= 0.05 - 0.2,$$ where $\Omega_{M}$ is the total mass density of the universe, as a fraction of the critical density $\rho_c$. This $\Omega_{M}$ includes contributions from a variety of sources: photons, baryons, non-baryonic Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and Hot Dark Matter (HDM).
The two first components are rather well known. The photon density is very well known to be quite small: $ \Omega_\gamma h^2= 2.471\times 10^{-5}$. The deuterium abundance BBN constraints [@deuterium] on the baryonic matter density ($\Omega_B$) of the universe $0.017 \leq \Omega_B h^2 \leq 0.021.$
The hot component, HDM is constituted by relativistic long-lived particles with masses much less than $\sim 1$ keV, in this category would enter the neutrinos. Detailed simulations of structure formation fit the observations only when one has some 20 % of HDM (plus $80\%$ CDM), the best fit being two neutrinos with a total mass of 4.7 eV. There seems to be however some kind of conflict within cosmology itself: observations of distant objects favor a large cosmological constant instead of HDM (see Ref.[@HDM] and references therein). One may conclude that the HDM part of $\Omega_M$ does not exceed 0.2.
Requiring that $\Omega_\nu<\Omega_M$, we obtain $\Omega_{\nu} h^2 {\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}\ 0.1$. From here and from Eq.\[cosmoneutrino\], we obtain the cosmological upper bound on the neutrino mass $$m_{tot}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}\ 8\ \mathrm{eV}.$$
Mass limits, in this case lower limits, for heavy neutrinos ($\sim 1$ GeV) can also be obtained along the same lines. The situation gets very different if the neutrinos are unstable, one gets then joint bounds on mass and lifetime, then mass limits above can be avoided.
There is a limit to the density of neutrinos (or weak interacting dark matter in general) which can be accumulated in the halos of astronomical objects (the [*Tremaine-Gunn*]{} limit): if neutrinos form part of the galactic bulges phase-space restrictions from the Fermi-Dirac distribution implies a lower limit on the neutrino mass [@peacock]: $$m_\nu{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}\ 33 \ eV.$$
The abundance of additional weakly interacting light particles, such as a light sterile $\nu_s$, is constrained by BBN since it would enter into equilibrium with the active neutrinos via neutrino oscillations. A limit on the mass differences and mixing angle with another active neutrino of the type $\Delta m^2 \sin^2 2\theta{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}3\times 10^{-6}$ eV$^2$ should be fulfilled in principle. From here is deduced that the effective number of neutrino species is $$N_\nu^{eff}< 3.5-4.5.$$ However systematical uncertainties in the derivation of the BBN bound make it too unreliable to be taken at face value and can eventually be avoided [@foot].
Neutrino masses and lepton asymmetry
-------------------------------------
In supersymmetric LR symmetric models, inflation, baryogenesis (or leptogenesis) and neutrino oscillations can become closely linked.
Baryosinthesis in GUT theories is in general inconsistent with an inflationary universe. The exponential expansion during inflation will wash out any baryon asymmetry generated previously at GUT scale. One way out of this difficulty is to generate the baryon or lepton asymmetry during the process of reheating at the end of the inflation. In this case the physics of the scalar field that drives the inflation, the inflaton, would have to violate CP (see Ref.[@peacock] and references therein).
The challenge of any baryosinthesis model is to predict the observed asymmetry which is usually written as a baryon to photon (number or entropy) ratio. The baryon asymmetry is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
n_B/s\equiv \left ( n_b-n_{\overline{b}}\right )/s.\end{aligned}$$ At present there is only matter and not known antimatter, $n_{\overline{b}}\sim 0$. The entropy density $s$ is completely dominated by the contribution of relativistic particles so is proportional to the photon number density which is very well known from CMBR measurements, at present $s=7.05\ n_\gamma$. Thus, $n_B/s\propto n_b/n_\gamma$. From BBN we know that $n_b/n_\gamma=(5.1\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-10}$ so we arrive to $n_B/s=(7.2\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-11}$ and from here we obtain equally the lepton asymmetry ratio.
It was shown in Ref. [@khalil] that hybrid inflation can be successfully realized in a SUSY LR symmetric model with gauge group $G_{PS}=SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$. The inflaton sector of this model consists of the two complex scalar fields $S$ and $\theta$ which at the end of inflation oscillate about the SUSY minimum and respectively decay into a pair of right-handed sneutrinos ($\nu^c_i$) and neutrinos. In this model, a primordial lepton asymmetry is generated [@yanagita] by the decay of the superfield $\nu^c_2$ which emerges as the decay product of the inflaton. The superfield $\nu^c_2$ decays into electroweak Higgs and (anti)lepton superfields. This lepton asymmetry is subsequently partially converted into baryon asymmetry by non-perturbative EW sphalerons.
The resulting lepton asymmetry [@Laz3] can be written as a function of a number of parameters among them the neutrino masses and mixing angles and compared with the observational constraints above.
It is highly non-trivial that solutions satisfying the constraints above and other physical requirements can be found with natural values of the model parameters. In particular, it is shown that the values of the neutrino masses and mixing angles which predict sensible values for the baryon or lepton asymmetry turn out to be also consistent with values required to solve the solar neutrino problem.
Phenomenology of Neutrino Oscillations
======================================
Neutrino Oscillation in Vacuum
------------------------------
If the neutrinos have nonzero mass, by the basic postulates of the quantum theory there will be in general mixing among them as in the case of quarks. This mixing will be observable at macroscopic distances from the production point and therefore will have practical consequences only if the [*difference*]{} of masses of the different neutrinos is very small, typically $\Delta m{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}1$ eV.
In presence of masses, weak ($\nu_w$) and mass ($\nu_m$) basis of eigenstates are differentiated. To transform between them we need an unitary matrix $U$. Neutrinos can only be created and detected as a result of weak processes, at origin we have a weak eigenstate: $$\nu_w(0)= U \nu_m(0).$$ We can easily construct an heuristic theory of neutrino oscillations if we ignore spin effects as follows. After a certain time the system has evolved into $$\nu_m(t)=\exp (-i H t) \nu_m(0)$$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, free evolution in vacuum is characterized by $H=diag(\dots E_i \dots)$ where $E_i^2=p^2+m_i^2$. In most cases of interest ($E\sim$MeV, $m\sim$eV), it is appropriated the ultrarelativistic limit: in this limit $p\simeq E$ and $E\simeq p+m^2/2p$. The effective neutrino Hamiltonian can then be written $H^{eff}=diag(\dots m_i^2\dots)/2E $ and $$\nu_w(t)= U \exp (-i H^{eff} t) U^\dagger \nu_w(0)=\exp(-i H^{eff}_w t) \nu_w(0).$$ In the last expression we have written the effective Hamiltonians in the weak basis $H^{eff}_w~\equiv~M^2/2E$ with $M\equiv U\ diag(\dots m_i^2 \dots) U^\dagger$. This derivation can be put in a firm basis and one finds again the same expressions as the first terms of rigorous expansions in $E$, see for example the treatment using Foldy-Woythusen transformations in Ref.[@BILENKY].
The results of the neutrino oscillation experiments are usually analyzed under the simplest assumption of oscillations between two neutrino types, in this case the mixing matrix $U$ is the well known 2-dimension orthogonal rotation matrix depending on a single parameter $\theta$. If we repeat all the computation above for this particular case, we find for example that the probability that a weak interaction eigenstate neutrino $(\nu_e)$ has oscillated to other weak interaction eigenstate neutrino $(\nu_{\mu})$ after traversing a distance $l(= c t)$ is $$P(\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_{\mu}; l)=
\sin^2 2\theta \sin^2
\left (\frac{l}{l_{osc}} \right )
\label{oscil1}$$ where the oscillation length is defined by $1/l_{osc}\equiv \delta m^2 l/4 E$ and $\delta m^2 = m_1^2-m_2^2$. Numerically, in practical units, it turns out that $$\frac{\delta m^2l}{4 E} \simeq 1.27\ \frac{\delta m^2 (eV^2)\ l(m) }{E(MeV)}.$$ These probabilities depend on two factors: a mixing angle factor $\sin^2 2 \theta $ and a kinematical factor which depends on the distance traveled, on the momentum of the neutrinos, as well as on the difference in the squared mass of the two neutrinos. Both, the mixing factor $\sin^2 2\theta $ and the kinematical factor should be of $O(1)$ to have a significant oscillations.
Neutrino Oscillations in Matter
-------------------------------
When neutrinos propagate in matter, a subtle but potentially very important effect, the MSW effect, takes place which alters the way in which neutrinos oscillate into one another.
In matter the neutrino experiences scattering and absorption, this last one is always negligible. At very low energies, coherent elastic forward scattering is the most important process. As in optics, the net effect is the appearance of a phase difference, refractive index or equivalently a neutrino effective mass.
This effective mass can considerable change depending on the densities and composition of the medium, it depends also on the nature of the neutrino. In the neutrino case the medium is flavor-dispersive: the matter is usually nonsymmetric with respect $e$ and $\mu,\tau$ and the effective mass is different for the different weak eigenstates [@msw2].
This is explained as follows for the simpler and most important case, the solar electron plasma. The electrons in the solar medium have charged current interactions with $\nu_e$ but not with $\nu_{\mu}$ or $\nu_{\tau}$. The resulting interaction energy is given by $ H_{int} = \sqrt{2}
G_F N_e$, where $G_F$ and $N_e$ are the Fermi coupling and the electron density. The corresponding neutral current interactions are identical for all neutrino species and hence have no net effect on their propagation. Hypothetical sterile neutrinos would have no interaction at all. The effective global Hamiltonian in flavor space is now the sum of two terms, the vacuum part we have seen previously and the new interaction energy: $$H^{eff,mat}_w=H^{eff,vac}_w+ H_{int}
\pmatrix{
1 & 0 & 0\cr
0 & 0 & 0\cr
0 & 0 & 0}
.$$
The practical consequence of this effect is that the oscillation probabilities of the neutrino in matter could largely increase due to resonance phenomena [@msw1]. In matter, for the two dimensional case and in analogy with vacuum oscillation, one defines an effective mixing angle as $$\sin 2\theta_M = \frac{ \sin2\theta/l_{osc}}
{\left[(\cos 2\theta/l_{osc} - G_F N_e/\sqrt{2})^2
+ ( \sin 2\theta/l_{osc} )^2 \right]^{1/2}}.$$ The presence of the term proportional to the electron density can give rise to a resonance. There is a critical density $N_e^{crit}$, given by $$N_e^{crit} = \frac{\delta m^2\cos 2\theta}{2\sqrt{2} E G_F},$$ for which the matter mixing angle $\theta_M$ becomes maximal $(\sin 2 \theta_M \rightarrow
1)$, irrespective of the value of mixing angle $\theta$. The probability that $\nu_e$ oscillates into a $\nu_{\mu}$ after traversing a distance $l$ in this medium is given by Eq.(\[oscil1\]), with two differences. First $\sin 2\theta
\rightarrow \sin 2\theta_M$. Second, the kinematical factor differ by the replacement of $\delta m^2 \rightarrow \delta m^2 \sin
2\theta$. Hence it follows that, at the critical density, $$P_{\mathrm{matter}}(\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_{\mu}; l)_
{(N_e =N_e^{\mathrm{crit}})} = \sin^2 \left ( \sin2\theta\
\frac{l}{l_{osc}}\right ) .
\label{oscil2}$$ This formula shows that one can get full conversion of a $\nu_e$ weak interaction eigenstate into a $\nu_{\mu}$ weak interaction eigenstate, provided that the length $l$ and the energy $E$ satisfy the relations $$\sin 2\theta\
\frac{l}{l_{osc}} = \frac{n \pi}{2} ; \quad n=1,2,..$$ There is a second interesting limit to consider. This is when the electron density $N_e$ is so large such that $\sin 2 \theta_M \rightarrow 0$ or $\theta_M \rightarrow \pi/2$. In this limit, there are no oscillations in matter because $\sin2\theta_M$ vanishes and we have $$P_{\mathrm{matter}}(\nu_e \rightarrow
\nu_{\mu}; l)_{\left (N_e \gg \frac{\delta m^2}{2 \sqrt{2} E G_F}\right )}
\rightarrow 0.$$
Experimental evidence and phenomenological analysis
===================================================
In the second part of this review, we will consider the existing experimental situation. It is fair to say that at present there are at least an equal number of positive as negative (or better ”non-positive”) indications in favor of neutrino masses and oscillations.
Laboratory, reactor and accelerator results.
--------------------------------------------
No indications in favor of a non-zero neutrino masses have been found in direct kinematical searches for a neutrino mass.
From the measurement of the high energy part of the tritium $\beta$ decay spectrum, upper limits on the electron neutrino mass are obtained. The two more sensitive experiments in this field, Troitsk [@troitsk] and Mainz [@mainz], obtain results which are plagued by interpretation problems: apparition of negative mass squared and bumps at the end of the spectrum.
In the Troistk experiment, the shape of the observed spectrum proves to be in accordance with classical shape besides a region $\sim$ 15 eV below the end-point, where a small bump is observed; there are indications of a periodic shift of the position of this bump with a period of “exactly” $0.504\pm 0.003$ year [@troitsknew]. After accounting for the bump, they derive the limit $m_{\nu e}^2=-1.0\pm 3.0\pm 2.1$ eV$^2$, or $m_{\nu e}< 2.5$ eV (95[@troitsknew].
The latest published results by the Mainz group leads to $m_{\nu e}^2=-0.1\pm 3.8\pm 1.8$ eV$^2$ (1998 “Mainz data 1”), From which an upper limit of $m_{\nu e}< 2.9$ eV [@mainz] (95% C.L., unified approach) is obtained. Preliminary data (1998 and 1999 measurements) provide a limit $m_{\nu e}< 2.3$ eV [@mainznew]. Some indication for the anomaly, reported by the Troitsk group, was found, but its postulated half year period is not supported by their data.
Diverse exotic explanations have been proposed to explain the Troitsk bump and their seasonal dependence. The main feature of the effect might be “phenomenologically” interpreted, not without problems, as $^3$He capture of relic neutrinos present in a high density cloud around the Sun [@troitsk; @stephe].
The Mainz and Troitsk ultimate sensitivity expected to be limited by systematics lies at the $\sim 2 $ eV level. In the near future, it is planned a new large tritium $\beta$ experiment with sensitivity $0.6- 1$ eV [@mainznew].
Regarding the heavier neutrinos, other kinematical limits are the following:
- Limits for the muon neutrino mass have been derived using the decay channel $\pi^+\to\mu^+ \nu_\mu$ at intermediate energy accelerators (PSI, LANL). The present limits are $m_{\nu \mu}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}160 $ keV [@PSI].
- A tau neutrino mass of less than 30 MeV is well established and confirmed by several experiments: limits of 28, 30 and 31 MeV have also been obtained by the OPAL, CLEO and ARGUS experiments respectively (see Ref.[@OPAL] and references therein). The best upper limit for the $\tau$ neutrino mass has been derived using the decay mode $\tau\to 5 \pi^\pm \nu_\tau$ by the ALEPH collaboration [@ALEPH]: $m_{\nu\tau}<$ 18 MeV (95% CL).
Many experiments on the search for neutrinoless double-beta decay \[$(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$\], $$(A,Z)\to\ (A,Z+2)\to 2\ e^-,$$ have been performed. This process is possible only if neutrinos are massive and Majorana particles. The matrix element of the process is proportional to the effective Majorana mass $\langle m\rangle=\sum \eta_i U_{ei}^2 m_i$. Uncertainties in the precise value of upper limits are relatively large since they depend on theoretical calculations of nuclear matrix elements. From the non-observation of $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$, the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment gives the most stringent limit on the Majorana neutrino mass. After 24 kg/year of data [@heidelberg99] (see also earlier results in Ref.[@heidelberg]), they set a lower limit on the half-life of the neutrinoless double beta decay in $^{76}$Ge of $T_{1/2}>5.7\times 10^{25}$ yr at 90% CL, thus excluding an effective Majorana neutrino mass $\mid\langle m\rangle\mid >0.2 $ eV (90% CL). This result allows to set strong constraints on degenerate neutrino mass models. In the next years it is expected an increase in sensitivity allowing limits down to the $\mid\langle m\rangle\mid \sim 0.02-0.006$ eV levels (GENIUS I and II experiments, [@genius]).
Many short-baseline (SBL) neutrino oscillation experiments with reactor and accelerator neutrinos did not find any evidence of neutrino oscillations. For example experiments looking for be $\overline{\nu}_e\to\overline{\nu}_e$ or ${\nu}_\mu\to{\nu}_\mu$ dissaperance (Bugey, CCFR [@Bugey; @CCFR]) or oscillations $\overline{\nu}_\mu\to\overline{\nu}_e$ (CCFR,E776[@CCFR; @E776]).
The first reactor long-baseline (L$\sim$ 998-1115 m) neutrino oscillation experiment CHOOZ found no evidence for neutrino oscillations in the ${\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}}$ disappearance mode [@CHOOZ; @CHOOZ99]. CHOOZ results are important for the atmospheric deficit problem: as is seen in Fig.(\[fCHOOZ\]) they are incompatible with an ${{\nu}_{\rm e}}\to {\nu_{\rm \mu}}$ oscillation hypothesis for the solution of the atmospheric problem. Their latest results [@CHOOZ99] imply an exclusion region in the plane of the two-generation mixing parameters (with normal or sterile neutrinos) given approximately by $\Delta m^2 > 0.7~10^{-4}{\mbox{$\textstyle eV^2$}}$ for maximum mixing and ${{\sin^2 2\theta}}> 0.10$ for large ${{\Delta m^2}}$ (as shown approximately in Fig.(\[fCHOOZ\]) (left) which corresponds to early results). Lower sensitivity results, based only on the comparison of the positron spectra from the two different-distance nuclear reactors, has also been presented, they are shown in Fig.(\[fCHOOZ\]) (right). These are independent of the absolute normalization of the antineutrino flux, the cross section and the target and detector characteristics and are able alone to almost completely exclude the SK allowed oscillation region [@CHOOZ99].
The Palo Verde Neutrino Detector searches for neutrino oscillations via the disappearance of electron anti-neutrinos produced by a nuclear reactor at a distance $L\sim 750-890$ m. The experiment has been taking neutrino data since October 1998 and will continue taking data until the end of 2000 reaching its ultimate sensitivity. The analysis of the 1998-1999 data (first 147 days of operation) [@paloverdenew] yielded no evidence for the existence of neutrino oscillations. The ratio of observed to expected number of events: $$\frac{\overline{\nu}_{e,obs}}{\overline{\nu}_{e,MC}}=1.04\pm 0.03\pm0.08.$$ The resulting $\overline{\nu}_e\to\overline{\nu}_x$ exclusion plot is very similar to the CHOOZ one. Together with results from CHOOZ and SK, concludes that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is very unlikely to be due to $\overline{\nu}_\mu\to\overline{\nu}_e$ oscillation.
Los Alamos LSND experiment has reported indications of possible $\overline{\nu}_\mu\to\overline{\nu}_e$ oscillations [@LSND]. They search for $\overline{\nu}_e$’s in excess of the number expected from conventional sources at a liquid scintillator detector located 30 m from a proton beam dump at LAMPF. It has been claimed that a $\overline{\nu}_e$ signal has been detected via the reaction $\overline{\nu}_e p\to e^+ n$ with $e^+$ energy between 36 and 60 MeV, followed by a $\gamma$ from $n p\to d\gamma$ (2.2 MeV).
The LSND experiment took its last beam on December, 1998. The analysis of the complete 1993-1998 data set (see Refs.[@yellin; @Mills; @LSNDnew]) yields a fitted-estimated excess of $\overline{\nu}_e$ of $90.9\pm 26.1$. If this excess is attributed to neutrino oscillations of the type $\overline{\nu}_\mu\to\overline{\nu}_e$, it corresponds to an oscillation probability of $3.3\pm 0.09\pm 0.05\times 10^{-3}$. The results of a similar search for $\nu_\mu\to \nu_e$ oscillations where the (high energy, $60 <E_\nu< 200$ MeV) $\nu_e$ are detected via the CC reaction $C(\nu_e,e^-) X$ provide a value for the corresponding oscillation probability of $2.6\pm 1.0\pm 0.5\times 10^{-3}$ (1993-1997 data).
There are other exotic physics explanations of the observed antineutrino excess. One example is the lepton-number violating decay $\mu^+\to e^+ \overline{\nu}_e \nu_\mu$, which can explain these observations with a branching ratio $Br\sim 0.3 \%$, a value which is lower but not very far from the respective existing upper limits ($Br< 0.2-1\%$, [@PDG98]).
The surprisingly positive LSND result has not been confirmed by the KARMEN experiment (Rutherford- Karlsruhe Laboratories). This experiment, following a similar experimental setup as LSND, searches for $\bar\nu_e$ produced by $\bar\nu_\mu\to\bar\nu_e$ oscillations at a mean distance of 17.6 m. The time structure of the neutrino beam is important for the identification of the neutrino induced reactions and for the suppression of the cosmic ray background. Systematic time anomalies not completely understood has been reported which rest credibility to any further KARMEN claim. They see an excess of events above the typical muon decay curve, which is $4.3$ sigmas off (1990-1999 data, see Ref.[@karmennew]) and which could represent an unknown instrumental effect.
Exotic explanations as the existence of a weakly interacting particle “X”, for example a mixing of active and sterile neutrinos, of a mass $m_X=m_\pi-m_\mu\simeq$ 33.9 MeV have been proposed as an alternative solution to these anomalies and their consequences extensively studied [@karmennew; @relativekarmenanomaly]. This particle might be produced in reactions the $\pi^+\to \mu^+ + X$ and decay as $X\to e^+ e^-\nu$. KARMEN set upper limits on the visible branching ratio $ \Gamma_X=\Gamma ( \pi^+\to \mu^+ + X)/\Gamma ( \pi^+\to \mu^+ + \nu_\mu)
and$ lifetime $\tau_x$. From their results [@karmennew] one obtains the relation ($1<<\tau_x(\mu\ s)<\sim 10^8$) $$\frac{\Gamma_X}{\tau_X (\mu\ s)}\sim 10^{-18}.$$
More concretely, the results are as it follows. About antineutrino signal, the 1990-1995 and early 1997-1998 KARMEN data showed inconclusive results: They found no events, with an expected background of $ 2.88 \pm 0.13 $ events, for $\overline{\nu}_\mu\to\overline{\nu}_e$ oscillations [@KARMEN]. The results of the search Feb. 1997- Dec. 1999 which include a 40-fold improvement in suppression of cosmic induced background has been presented in a preliminary way [@karmennew; @steidl99]. They find this time 9.5 oscillation candidates in agreement with the, claimed, well known background expectation of $10.6\pm 0.6$ events. An upper limit for the mixing angle is deduced: $\sin^ 2 2\theta< 1.7\ 10^{-3}$ (90% C.I.) for large $\Delta m^2\ (= 100$ eV$^2$). The positive LSND result in this channel could not be completely excluded but they are able to exclude the entire LSND favored regions above 2 eV$^2$ and most of the rest of its favored parameter space.
In the present phase, the KARMEN experiment will take data until spring 2001. At the end of this period, the KARMEN sensitivity is expected to be able to exclude the whole parameter region of evidence suggested by LSND if no oscillation signal were found (Fig.\[fLSND\]). The first phase of a third pion beam dump experiment designed to set the LSND-KARMEN controversy has been approved to run at Fermilab. Phase I of ”BooNe” ( MiniBooNe) expects a 10 $\sigma$ signal ($\sim 1000 $ events) and thus will make a decisive statement either proving or ruling it out. Plans are to run early 2001. Additionally, there is a letter of intent of a similar experiment to be carried out at the CERN PS [@BOON; @CERNPS].
The K2K experiment started in 1999 the era of very long-baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment using a well-defined neutrino beam.
In the K2K experiment ($L\sim$ 250 km), the neutrino beam generated by the KEK proton synchrotron accelerator is aimed at the near and far detectors, which are carefully aligned in a straight line. Then, by comparing the neutrino events recorded in these detectors, they are able to examine the neutrino oscillation phenomenon. Super-Kamiokande detector itself acts as the far detector. The K2K near detector complex essentially consists of a one kiloton water Cerenkov detector (a miniature Super-Kamiokande detector).
A total intensity of $\sim 10^{19}$ protons on target, which is about 7% of the goal of the experiment, was accumulated in 39.4 days of data-taking in 1999 [@K2K]. They obtained 3 neutrino events in the fiducial volume of the Super-Kamiokande detector, whereas the expectation based on observations in the front detectors was $12.3^{ +1.7}_{-1.9}$ neutrino events. It corresponds to a ratio of data versus theory $0.84\pm 0.01$. Although the preliminary results are rather consistent with squared mass difference $8\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and maximal mixing, it is too early to draw any reliable conclusions about neutrino mixing. An complete analysis of oscillation searches from the view points of absolute event numbers, distortion of neutrino energy spectrum, and $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ ratio is still in progress.
Solar neutrinos
---------------
Indications in the favor of neutrino oscillations were found in ”all” solar neutrino experiments (along this section and the following ones, we will make reference to results appeared in Refs. [@gallex; @sage; @homestake; @sk9812; @sk9805; @suz1]): The Homestake Cl radiochemical experiment with sensitivity down to the lower energy parts of the $^{8}$B neutrino spectrum and to the higher $^{7}$Be line [@homestake]. The two radiochemical $^{71}$Ga experiments, SAGE and GALLEX, which are sensitive to the low energy pp neutrinos and above [@sage; @gallex] and the water Cerenkov experiments Kamiokande and Super-Kamiokande (SK) which can observe only the highest energy $^{8}$B neutrinos. Water Cerenkov experiments in addition demonstrate directly that the neutrinos come from the Sun showing that recoil electrons are scattered in the direction along the sun-earth axis [@sk9812; @sk9805; @suz1].
Two important points to remark are: a) The prediction of the existence of a global neutrino deficit is hard to modify due to the constraint of the solar luminosity on pp neutrinos detected at SAGE-GALLEX. b) The different experiments are sensitive to neutrinos with different energy ranges and combined yield spectroscopic information on the neutrino flux. Intermediate energy neutrinos arise from intermediate steps of the thermonuclear solar cycle. It may not be impossible to reduce the flux from the last step ($^{8}$B), for example by reducing temperature of the center of the Sun, but it seems extremely hard to reduce neutrinos from $^7$Be to a large extent, while keeping a reduction of $^8$B neutrinos production to a modest amount. If minimal standard electroweak theory is correct, the shape of the $^8$B neutrino energy spectrum is independent of all solar influences to very high accuracy.
Unless the experiments are seriously in error, there must be some problems with either our understanding of the Sun or neutrinos. Clearly, the SSM cannot account for the data (see Fig.\[SSM1\]) and possible highly nonstandard solar models are strongly constrained by heliosysmology studies \[see Fig.(\[SSM2\])\].
There are at least two reasonable versions of the neutrino oscillation phenomena which could account for the suppression of intermediate energy neutrinos. The first one, neutrino oscillations in vacuum, requires a large mixing angle and a seemingly unnatural fine tuning of neutrino oscillation length with the Sun-Earth distance for intermediate energy neutrinos. The second possibility, level-crossing effect oscillations in presence of solar matter and/or magnetic fields of regular and/or chaotic nature (MSW, RSFP), requires no fine tuning either for mixing parameter or neutrino mass difference to cause a selective large reduction of the neutrino flux. This mechanism explains naturally the suppression of intermediate energy neutrinos, leaving the low energy pp neutrino flux intact and high energy $^8$B neutrinos only loosely suppressed. Concrete range of parameters obtained including the latest SK (Super-Kamiokande) data will be showed in the next section.
The SK detector and Results.
----------------------------
The high precision and high statistics Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment initiated operation in April 1996. A few words about the detector itself. SK is a 50-kiloton water Cerenkov detector located near the old Kamiokande detector under a mean overburden of 2700 meter-water-equivalent. The effective fiducial volume is $22.5$ kt. It is a well understood, well calibrated detector. The accuracy of the absolute energy scale is estimated to be $\pm 2.4\%$ based on several independent calibration sources: cosmic ray through-going and stopping muons, muon decay electrons, the invariant mass of $\pi^0$’s produced by neutrino interactions, radioactive source calibration, and, as a novelty in neutrino experiments, a 5-16 MeV electron LINAC. In addition to the ability of recording higher statistics in less time, due to the much larger dimensions of the detector, SK can contain multi-GeV muon events making possible for the first time a measurement of the spectrum of $\mu$-like events up to $\sim 8-10 $ GeV.
The results from SK, to be summarized below, combined with data from earlier experiments provide important constraints on the MSW and vacuum oscillation solutions for the solar neutrino problem (SNP), [@nu98xxx; @smy99; @SKnew]:
[*Total rates.*]{} The most robust results of the solar neutrino experiments so far are the total observed rates. Preliminary results corresponding to the first 825 days of operation of SK (presented in spring’2000, [@SKnew]) with a total number of events $N_{ev}= 11235\pm 180\pm 310$ in the energy range $E_{vis}=6.5-20$ MeV. predict the following flux of solar ${}^8$B neutrinos: $$\phi_{{}^8 B}=(2.45\pm 0.04\pm 0.07)\times 10^6\ cm^{-2}\
sec^{-1},$$ a flux which is clearly below the SSM expectations. The most recent data on rates on all existing experiments are summarized in Table (\[t1\]). Total rates alone indicate that the $\nu_e$ energy spectrum from the Sun is distorted. The SSM flux predictions are inconsistent with the observed rates in solar neutrino experiments at approximately the 20$\sigma$ level. Furtherly, there is no linear combination of neutrino fluxes that can fit the available data at the 3$\sigma$ level \[Fig.(\[SSM1\]\].
[*Zenith angle: day-night effect.*]{} If MSW oscillations are effective, for a certain range of neutrino parameters the observed event rate will depend upon the zenith angle of the Sun (through a Earth matter regeneration effect). Win present statistics, the most robust estimator of zenith angle dependence is the day-night (or up-down) asymmetry, A. The experimental estimation is [@SKnew]: $$\begin{aligned}
A\equiv\frac{N-D}{N+D}=0.032\pm0.015\pm 0.006, \quad (E_{recoil}>6.5\ {\rm MeV}).\end{aligned}$$ The difference is small and not statistically significant but it is in the direction that would be expected from regeneration at Earth (the Sun is apparently neutrino brighter at night). Taken alone the small value observed for A excludes a large part of the parameter region that is allowed if only the total rates would be considered \[see Fig.(\[SOLAR1\])\].
[*Spectrum Shape.*]{} The shape of the neutrino spectrum determines the shape of the recoil electron energy spectrum produced by neutrino-electron scattering in the detector and is independent of the astrophysical source. All the neutrino oscillation solutions (SMA,LMA,LOW and Vacuum) provide acceptable, although not excellent fits to the recoil energy spectrum. The simplest test is to investigate whether the ratio, R, of the observed to the standard energy spectrum is a constant with increasing energy. The null flatness hypothesis is accepted at the 90% CL ($\chi^2\sim 1.5$, [@SKnew]). However, alternative fits of the ratio $R$ to a linear function of energy yields slope values does not discard the presence of distortion at higher energies \[see Figs.(\[SOLAR1\]-\[SOLAR2\]) and next paragraph\].
[*Spectrum shape: the hep neutrino problem.*]{} A small but significant discrepancy appears when comparing the predictions from the global best fits for the energy spectrum at high energies ($E_{\nu}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}
{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}13 $ MeV) with the SK results. From this discrepancy it has been speculated that uncertainties on the $hep$ neutrino fluxes may affect the higher energy solar neutrino energy spectrum. Presently low energy nuclear physics calculations of the rate of the hep reaction are uncertain by a factor of, at least, six. Coincidence between expected and measured ratios is improved when the hep flux is allowed to vary as a free parameter \[see Fig.(\[SOLAR6\]) and Ref.[@SKnew]\]. The best fit is obtained by a combination $\phi\sim 0.45 {}^8\mbox{ B}+16 \mbox{hep}$ ($\chi^2\sim 1.2$. An upper limit on the ratio of experimental to SSM $hep$ flux is obtained: $$\phi_{hep}^{exp}/{ \phi_{hep}^{BP98}}< 15, \ (90\% CL).$$
[*Seasonal Variation.*]{} No evidence for a anomalous seasonal variation of the neutrino flux has been found. The results (SK 825d, $E_{vis}=10-20$ MeV) are consistent with what is expected from a geometrical variation due to the Earth orbital eccentricity ($\chi^2\sim 0.5$ for the null hypothesis, Ref.[@SKnew]).
[*Analysis of data.*]{} From a two-flavor analysis (Ref.[@SKnew], see also Ref.[@bah2; @bahcall99]) of the total event rates in the ClAr, SAGE,GALLEX and SK experiments the best $\chi^2$ fit considering active neutrino oscillations is obtained for $\Delta m^2=5.4\times 10^{-6}$ eV$^2, \sin^2 2\theta=5.0\times 10^{-3}$ (the so called small mixing angle solution, SMA). Other local $\chi^2$ minima exist. The large mixing angle solution (LMA) occurs at $\Delta m^2=3.2\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2, \sin^2 2\theta=0.76$, the LOW solution (lower probability, low mass), at $\Delta m^2=7.9\times 10^{-8}$ eV$^2, \sin^2 2\theta=0.96$. The vacuum oscillation solution occurs at $\Delta m^2=4.3\times 10^{-10}$ eV$^2, \sin^2 2\theta=0.79$. At this extremely low value for the mass difference the MSW effect is inopperant.
For oscillations involving sterile neutrinos (the matter effective potential is modified in this case) the LMA and LOW solutions are not allowed and only the (only slightly modified) SMA solution together with the vacuum solution are still possible.
In the case where all data, the total rates, the zenith-angle dependence and the recoil energy spectrum, is combined the best-fit solution is almost identical to what is obtained for the rates-only case. For other solutions, only the SMA and vacuum solution survives (at the 99% CL). The LMA and the LOW solutions are, albeit marginally, ruled out [@bah2].
[*Solar magnetic Fields and antineutrino flux bounds.*]{} Analysis which consider neutrino propagation in presence of solar magnetic fields have also been presented. In this case a variant, more complicated, version of the MSW effect, the so called RSFP effect could manifest itself. Typically, these analysis yield solutions with ${\Delta m^2}\sim 10^{-7}-10^{-8}$ eV$^2$ for both small and large mixing angles. Spin flavor or resonant spin flavor (RSFP) solutions are much more ambiguous than pure MSW solutions because of necessity of introducing additional free parameters in order to model the largely unknown intensity and profile of solar magnetic field. The recognition of the random nature of solar convictive fields and recent theoretical developments in the treatment of Schroedinger random equations have partially improved this situation, allowing the obtaining of SNP solutions without the necessity of a detailed model description (see recent analysis in [@tor2a; @tor2b; @tor2c; @bykov; @tor5]).
In addition, random RSFP models predict the production of a sizeable quantity of electron antineutrinos in case the neutrino is a Majorana particle.
Presently, antineutrino searches [@tor6] with negative results in Kamiokande and SK are welcome because restrict significantly the, uncomfortably large, parameter space of RSFP models.
A search [@tor6] for inverse beta decay electron antineutrinos has set limits on the absolute flux of solar antineutrinos originated from the solar ${}^8$B neutrino component: $$\Phi_{\overline{\nu}}({}^8 B)< 1.8\times 10^5 \mbox{cm}^{-2} \mbox{s}^{-1},\ (95\% \ \mbox{CL}),$$ a number which is equivalent to an averaged conversion probability bound of (with respect the SSM-BP98 model) $$P<3.5\%\ ( 95\% \ \mbox{CL}).$$
In the future such antineutrinos could be identified both in SK or in SNO experiments setting the Majorana nature of the neutrino. In Ref.[@tor2c] \[see Fig.(\[efig\]) for illustration\] it has been shown that, even for moderate levels of noise, it is possible to obtain a probability for $\nu_e\to \overline{\nu}_e$ conversions about $\sim 1-3\%$ in the energy range 2-10 MeV for large regions of the mixing parameter space while still satisfying present SK antineutrino bounds and observed total rates. In the other hand it would be possible to obtain information about the solar magnetic internal field if antineutrino bounds reach the $1\%$ level and a particle physics solution to the SNP is assumed.
Atmospheric neutrinos
---------------------
Atmospheric neutrinos are the decay products of hadronic showers produced by cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. The composed ratio R $$R\equiv \left ( \mu/e\right )_{DATA}/\left ( \mu/e\right )_{MC}$$ where $\mu/e$ denotes the ratio of the number of $\mu$-like to $e$-like neutrino interactions observed in the experiment or predicted by the simulation is considered as an estimator of the atmospheric neutrino flavor ratio $(\nu_\mu+\overline{\nu}_\mu)/(\nu_e+\overline{\nu}_e).$ The calculations of individual absolute neutrino fluxes have large uncertainties at the $\sim 20\%$ level [@atmfluxes]. However, the flavor flux ratio is known to an accuracy of better than $5\%$ in the energy range GeV. The calculated flux ratio has a value of about 2 for energies $<$ 1 GeV and increases with increasing neutrino energy reaching a value $\sim 10$ at $100$ GeV. The angle distribution of the different fluxes is also an important ingredient in the existing evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations. Calculations show that for neutrino energies higher than a few GeV, the fluxes of upward and downward going neutrinos are expected to be nearly equal; geomagnetic field effects at these energies are expected to be small because of the relative large geomagnetic rigidity of the primary cosmic rays that produce these neutrinos [@atmfluxes].
Prior to the present era dominated by Super-Kamiokande results, anomalous, statistically significant, low values of the ratio $R$ have been repeatedly obtained previously [@experiments; @experiments2] in the water Cerenkov detectors Kamiokande and IMB-3 and in the calorimeter-based Soudan-2 experiment for “sub-GeV” events (E$_{vis}< 1$ GeV). The NUSEX and Frejus experiments reported however results consistent with no deviation from unity with smaller data samples. Kamiokande experiment observed a value of $R$ smaller than unity in the multi-GeV (E$_{vis}>$1 GeV) energy region as well as a dependence of this ratio on the zenith angle. IMB-3, with a smaller data sample, reported inconclusive results in a similar energy range, not in contradiction with Kamiokande observations [@experiments; @experiments2].
Super-Kamiokande (SK) results are completely consistent with previous results at a much higher accuracy level. Specially significant improvements in accuracy have been obtained in measuring the zenith angular dependence of the neutrino events: in summary, the single most significant result obtained by SK is that the flux of muon neutrinos going up is smaller than that of down-going neutrinos.
As we commented before, in addition to the ability of recording higher statistics in less time, due to the much larger dimensions of the detector, the SK detector can contain multi-GeV muon events making possible for the first time a measurement of the spectrum of $\mu$-like events up to $\sim 8-10 $ GeV. From experimental and phenomenological reasons, the SK experiment uses the following event classification nomenclature. According to their origin, events can be classified as [*e-like*]{} (showering, $\nu_e$ or $\overline{\nu}_e$ events) or [*$\mu$-like*]{} (non-showering, $\nu_\mu$ or $\overline{\nu}_\mu$ events). According to the position of the neutrino interaction, they distinguish [*contained events*]{} (vertex in fiducial volume, $98\%$ muon induced), which, depending on their energy, are typed as [*sub-GeV*]{} ($E<\sim 1$ GeV) or [multi-GeV samples]{} ($E<\sim 10$ GeV). Non-contained events can be: [*Upward through-going muons*]{} (vertex outside the detector, muon induced, $E_\nu\sim 500$ GeV) or [*Upward stopping muons*]{} (typically $E_\nu<\sim 50 $ GeV). In all cases, the neutrino path-length covers the full range, from $\sim 10^1$ km for [*down*]{} events to $10^4$ km for [*up*]{} events. In what follows we summarize the present results about total and zenith-angle dependent rates.
[*Total rates.*]{} In the sub-GeV range ($E_{vis}< 1.33$ GeV), From an exposure of 61 kiloton-years (kty) (990 days of operation) of the SK detector the measured ratio $R$ is: $$R_{sub gev}=0.66\pm0.02\pm 0.05.$$ It is not possible to determine from data, whether the observed deviation of $R$ is due to an electron excess of a muon deficit. The distribution of $R$ with momentum in the sub-GeV range is consistent with a flat distribution within the statistical error as happens with zenith angle distributions \[see right plots in Fig.(\[ATM8\])\].
In the multi-GeV range, it has been obtained (for a similar exposure) a ratio $R$ which is slightly higher than at lower energies $$R_{multi gev}=0.66\pm0.04\pm 0.08.$$ For e-like events, the data is apparently consistent with MC. For $\mu$-like events there is a clear discrepancy between measurement and simulation.
[*Zenith Angle.*]{} A strong distortion in the shape of the $\mu$-like event zenith angle distribution was observed \[Plots (\[ATM4\]-\[ATM8\])\]. The angular correlation between the neutrino direction and the produced charged lepton direction is much better at higher energies ( $\sim 15^0-20^0$): the zenith angle distribution of leptons reflects rather accurately that of the neutrinos in this case.
At lower energies, the ratio of the number of upward to downward $\mu$-like events was found to be $$(N_{up}/N_{down})^\mu_{Data}=0.52\pm 0.07$$ while the expected value is practically one: $$(N_{up}/N_{down})^\mu_{MC}=0.98\pm 0.03.$$ The validity of the results has been tested by measuring the azimuth angle distribution of the incoming neutrinos, which is insensitive to a possible influence from neutrino oscillations. This shape agreed with MC predictions which were nearly flat.
Another signal for the presence of neutrino oscillations could be present in the ratio of neutrino events for two well separated energy ranges. This is the case for the ratio between upward through going to upward stopping muon events, both classes correspond to very high energy events. The results and expected values are the following ([@SKmoriond2000; @atmfluxes]) $$\begin{aligned}
\left (N_{stop}/N_{throug}\right )_{Data}^\mu& =&
0.23\pm0.02 \\
\left (N_{stop}/N_{throug}\right )_{MC}^\mu &=& 0.37\pm 0.05.\end{aligned}$$ The ratio of data to MC is $\sim 0.6$. With these results, the probability that they do correspond to no-oscillation scenario is rather low, $P\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ [@SKmoriond2000].
[*Analysis.*]{} Oscillation parameters are measured by several samples (FC, PC, up-stop, up-through). The result is that all samples are overall consistent with each other. This hypothesis fits well to the angular distribution, since there is a large difference in the neutrino path-length between upward-going ($\sim 10^{4}$ Km) and downward-going ($\sim 20$ Km): a zenith angle dependence of $R$ can be interpreted as a clear-cut evidence for neutrino oscillations.
Among the different possibilities, the most obvious solution to the observed discrepancy is $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ flavor neutrino oscillations. $\nu_\mu-\nu_e$ oscillations does not fit however so well, they would also conflict laboratory measurements \[CHOOZ, see figs.(\[fCHOOZ\]-\[ATM6\])\].
Oscillation into sterile neutrinos, $\nu_\mu\to \nu_s$, could also be in principle a good explanation consistent with data. Different tests has been performed for distinguishing $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ from $\nu_\mu\to\nu_s$ oscillations: A possible test of $\nu_\mu\to \nu_s$ vs $\nu_\mu\to \nu_\tau$ oscillations is provided by the study of the $\pi^0/e$ ratio [@nakahata]. In the $\mu-\tau$ case, the $\pi^0$ production due to neutral current interactions do not change, causing the $\pi^0/e$ ratio to be the same as the expectation without neutrino oscillations. In the sterile case such a ratio should be smaller ($\sim$ 83%) than expected because the absence of $\nu_s$ neutral current interactions. $\pi^0$ events experimental identification can be performed by study of their invariant mass distributions compared with Monte Carlo simulations. Present results conclude that the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_s$ oscillation hypothesis is disfavored at the $99\% CL$.
Evidence for oscillations equals evidence for non-zero neutrino mass within the standard neutrino theory. The allowed neutrino oscillation parameter regions obtained by Kamiokande and SK from different analysis are shown in Fig.(\[ATM6\]). Under the interpretation as $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ oscillations, the best fit provide $\Delta m^2=\sim 2-5 \times 10^{-3}$ and a very large mixing angle $\sin^2 2\theta> 0.88$. Unless there is no fine tuning, this suggests a neutrino mass of the order of 0.1 eV. Such a mass implies the neutrino energy density in the universe to be 0.001 of the critical density which is too small to have cosmological consequences. This is of course a very rough argument: specific models, however, may allow larger neutrino masses quite naturally.
Global multi-fold analysis and the necessity for sterile neutrinos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From the individual analysis of the data available from neutrino experiments, it follows that there exist three different scales of neutrino mass squared differences and two different ranges of small and maximal mixing angles, namely: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta m_{sun}^2&\sim 10^{-5}-10^{-8}
\ eV^2\ ,& \sin^2 2\theta\sim 7\times 10^{-3}
(MSW,RSFP), \\
&\sim 10^{-10} \ eV^2,& \sin^2 2\theta\sim 0.8-0.9\ (Vac.); \\
\Delta m_{Atm}^2&\sim 5\times 10^{-3} \ eV^2,&\ \sin^2 2\theta\sim 1\\
\Delta m_{LSND}^2&\sim 3\times 10^{-1}-2\ eV^2&\ \sin^2 2\theta\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}.
\label{e1001}\end{aligned}$$ Fortunely for the sake of simplicity the neutrino mass scale relevant for HDM is roughly similar to the LSND one. The introduction of the former would not change any further conclusion. But for the same reason, the definitive refutation of LSND results by KARMEN or future experiments does not help completely in simplifying the task of finding a consistent framework for all the neutrino phenomenology.
Any combination of experimental data which involves only of the two mass scales can be fitted within a three family scenario, but solving simultaneously the solar and atmospheric problems requires generally some unwelcome fine tuning of parameters at the $10^{-2}$ level. The detailed analysis of Ref.[@BILENKY] obtains for example that solutions with 3 neutrino families which are compatible with the results from SBL inclusive experiments, LSND and solar neutrino experiments are possible. Moreover it has been shown that it is possible to obtain, under simple assumptions but without a detailed fit of all possible parameters, very concrete expressions for the $3\times 3$ mixing matrix, see for example the early Ref.[@tor-quasi], of which the called bi-maximal model of Ref.[@bimaximal] is a particular case. The real problem arises when one add the results from CHOOZ, which rule out large atmospheric $\nu_\mu \nu_e$ transitions and zenith dependence from SK atmospheric data one comes to the necessity of consideration of schemes with four massive neutrinos including a light sterile neutrino. Among the numerous possibilities, complete mass hierarchy of four neutrinos is not favored by existing data [@BILENKY] nor four-neutrino mass spectra with one neutrino mass separated from the group of the three close masses by the ”LSND gap” ($\sim$ 1 eV). One is left with two possible options where two double-folded groups of close masses are separated by a $\sim 1 $ eV gap: $$\begin{aligned}
&(A)&\ \underbrace{\overbrace{\nu_e\to\nu_s: \ m_1< m_2}^{sun}<< \overbrace{\nu_\mu\to \nu_\tau:\ m_3< m_4}^{atm}}_{LSND\sim 1 eV} \\[0.1cm]
&(B)&\ \underbrace{\overbrace{\nu_e\to \nu_\tau: \ m_1< m_2}^{sun}<< \overbrace{\nu_\mu\to\nu_s:\ m_3< m_4}^{atm}}_{LSND\sim 1 eV}.\end{aligned}$$
The two models would be distinguishable from the detailed analysis of future solar and atmospheric experiments. For example they may be tested combining future precise recoil electron spectrum in $\nu e\to \nu e$ measured in SK and SNO ( see Ref.[@SNO] for experiment details and Refs.[@bah10] for performing expectations) with the SNO spectrum measured in CC absorption. The SNO experiment (a 1000 t heavy water under-mine detector) will measure the rates of the charged (CC) and neutral (NC) current reactions induced by solar neutrinos in deuterium: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \nu_e + d \rightarrow p+p+e^-\quad({\rm CC\ absorption})\nonumber \\
&& \nu_x + d \rightarrow p+n+\nu_x\quad({\rm NC\ dissociation}).
\label{reactionNC}\end{aligned}$$ including the determination of the electron recoil energy in the CC reaction. Only the more energetic $^8$B solar neutrinos are expected to be detected since the expected SNO threshold for CC events is an electron kinetic energy of about 5 MeV and the physical threshold for NC dissociation is the binding energy of the deuteron, $E_b= 2.225$ MeV. If the (B) model it is true one expects $\phi^{CC}/\phi^{NC}\sim 0.5$ while in the (A) model the ratio would be $\sim 1$. The schemes (A) and (B) give different predictions for the neutrino mass measured in tritium $\beta$-decay and for the effective Majorana mass observed in neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay. Respectively we have $\mid \langle m\rangle\mid < m_4$ (A) or $<< m_4$ (B). Thus, if scheme (A) is realized in nature this kind of experiments can see the effect of the LSND neutrino mass.
From the classical LEP requirement $N_\nu^{act}=2.994\pm 0.012$ [@PDG98], it is clear that the fourth neutrino should be a $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ singlet in order to ensure that does not affect the invisible Z decay width. The presence of additional weakly interacting light particles, such as a light sterile $\nu_s$, is constrained by BBN since it would enter into equilibrium with the active neutrinos via neutrino oscillations (see Section \[sectioncosmos\]). The limit $\Delta m^2 \sin^2 2\theta< 3\times 10^{-6}$ eV$^2$ should be fulfilled in principle. However systematical uncertainties in the derivation of the BBN bound make any bound too unreliable to be taken at face value and can eventually be avoided [@foot]. Taking the most restrictive options (giving $N_\nu^{eff}< 3.5$) only the (A) scheme is allowed, one where the sterile neutrino is mainly mixed with the electron neutrino. In the lest restrictive case ($N_\nu^{eff}< 4.5$) both type of models would be allowed.
Conclusions and future perspectives.
====================================
The theoretical challenges that the present phenomenological situation offers are two at least: to understand origin and, very particularly, the lightness of the sterile neutrino (apparently requiring a radiatively generated mass) and to account for the maximal neutrino mixing indicated by the atmospheric data which is at odd from which one could expect from considerations of the mixing in the quark sector. Actually, the existence of light sterile neutrinos could even be beneficial in diverse astrophysical and cosmological scenarios (supernova nucleosynthesis, hot dark matter, lepton and baryon asymmetries for example).
In the last years different indications in favor of nonzero neutrino masses and mixing angles have been found. These evidences include four solar experiments clearly demonstrating an anomaly compared to the predictions of the Standard Solar Model (SSM) and a number of other atmospheric experiments, including a high statistics, well calibrated one, demonstrating a quite different anomaly at the Earth scale.
One could argue that if we are already beyond the stage of having only ”circumstantial evidence for new physics”, we are still however a long way from having ”conclusive proof of new physics”. Evidence for new physics does not mean the same as evidence for neutrino oscillations but there exists a significant case for neutrino oscillations and hence neutrino masses and mixing as ”one”, indeed the most serious candidate, explanation of the data.
Non-oscillatory alternative explanations of the neutrino anomalies are also possible but any of them will not be specially elegant or economical (see Ref.[@pakvasa] for a recent summary and references therein): they will involve anyway non-zero neutrino masses and mixing. As a result even if neutrinos have masses and do mix, the observed neutrino anomalies, may be a manifestation of a complicated mixture of effects due to oscillations and effects due to other exotic new physics. The dominant effect would not necessarily be the same in each energy or experimental domain. The list of effects due to exotic physics which have been investigated in some degree in the literature, would include [@pakvasa]: Oscillation of massless neutrinos via FCNC and Non-Universal neutral currents (NUNC) which has been considered as feasible explanation for the solar neutrino observations [@exotic1] and atmospheric neutrinos [@exotic3]. It has also been studied the possibility of decaying neutrinos as possible solutions in the solar case [@exotic2] and in the atmospheric case [@exotic4]. LSND results could be accounted for without oscillations provided that muon conventional decay modes are accompanied by rare modes including standard and/or sterile neutrinos. In this case the energy or distance dependence, typical of the oscillation explanation, would be absent [@exotic0].
Finally, explanations of the neutrino experimental data which involve alterations of the basic framework of known physics (quantum and relativity theory) have been proposed: A similar signature to neutrino decay would be produced by a huge, non-standard, quantum decoherence rate along the neutrino propagation [@exotic5]. Proposed explanations involving relativity effects include gravitationally induced oscillations (see, for example, Ref.[@fogligrav]) or violation of Lorenz invariance [@exotic6]. In the first case it has been suggested that different flavors have different coupling to the gravitational potential. In the second case it is claimed the existence of different maximum speeds for each neutrino specie. In both cases, rather than the usual dependence on $L/E$, one finds a $L\times E$ as a characteristical signature.
Of course, one possible alternative is that one or more of the experiments will turn out to be wrong. This is possible, probable and even desirable from a phenomenologist point of view because his/her task would be considerably simplified as we have seen above. What it is little probable, with all the evidence accumulated by now, is that all the experiments turn out to be simultaneously wrong.
Many neutrino experiments are taking data, are going to start or are under preparation: solar neutrino experiments (SNO and Borexino are of major interest, also HERON, HELLAZ, ICARUS, GNO and others); LBL reactor (CHOOZ, Palo Verde, KamLand) and accelerator experiments (K2K, MINOS, ICARUS and others); SBL experiments (LSND, KARMEN, BooNe and many others). The important problem for any next generation experiment is to find specific and unambiguous experimental probe that the ”anomalies” which has been found are indeed signals of neutrino oscillations and to distinguish among the different neutrino oscillation possibilities (this is specially important in the Solar case). Among these probes, we could include:
- Perhaps the most direct test of SM deviation: to measure the ratio of the flux of $\nu_e$’s (via a CC interaction) to the flux of neutrinos of all types ($\nu_e + \nu_\mu + \nu_\tau$, determined by NC interactions). This measurement will be done hopefully by the SNO experiment in the near future \[see Fig.(\[FUT3\])\].
- Statistically significant demonstration of an energy-dependent modification of the shape of the electron neutrino spectrum arriving at Earth. Besides observing distortion in the shape of $^8$B neutrinos, it will be very important to make direct measurements of the $^7$Be (Borexino experiment) and pp (HERON,HELLAZ) neutrinos.
- Improved observation of a zenith angle effect in atmospheric experiments or their equivalent, a day-night effect in solar experiments.
- And least, but by no means the least, independent confirmation by one or more accelerator experiments.
There is a high probability that in the near future we should know much more than now about the fundamental properties of neutrinos and their masses, mixing and their own nature whether Dirac or Majorana.
The authors are supported by research grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura.
[10]{}
W. Pauli, in Neutrino Physics, p.1, edited by K. Winter, Cambridge University press, 1991.
For further details in neutrino history see the D. Verkindt web page, http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/aneut.html.
A very complete account of neutrino physics including always-updated compilation of experimental results appear in J. Peltoniemi, http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino//index.html
C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F.B. Harrison, H.W. Kruse and A.D. McGuire, [*Science*]{} [**124**]{} (1956) 103. Also in Neutrino Physics, p.41 edited by K. Winter; F. Reines and C. L. Cowan, Phys. Rev. [**113**]{}, (1959) 273
G. Danby, J. M. Gaillard, K. Goulianos, L. M. Lederman, N. Mistry, M. Schwartz and J. Steinberger, .
E872 DONUT collaboration, Fermilab press release, July 21, 2000.
P. Langacker. Talk given at 4th Intl. Conf. on Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Lake Tahoe, CA, 13-18 Dec. 1994, hep-ph/9503327; Published in Trieste HEP Cosmol.1992:0487-522. [*Ibid.*]{}, , hep-ph/9811460. [*Ibid.*]{}., Talk given at 1th Int. Workshop on Weak Interactions and neutrinos (WIN99), Cape Town, SA, 24-30 Jan 1999, hep-ph/9905428.
M. Fukugita. YITP/K-1086. Invited Talk presented at Oji International Seminar ”Elementary Processes in Dense Plasmas”. July 1994.
J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/9809234. Published in “Proc. of New Trends in Neutrino Physics”, May 1999, Ringberg castle, Tegernsee, Germany.
P. Ramond, hep-ph/9809401, . F. Wilczek, hep-ph/9809509, . S.M. Bilenky et al. Summary of the Europhysics neutrino Oscillation Workshop Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7-9 Sep 1998, hep-ph/9906251. S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and C.W. Kim, hep-ph/9902462, Int.J.Mod.Phys.[**A15**]{}(2000) 625.
S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, hep-ph/9812360, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 1. .
J.M. Lattimer, Nucl. Phys.[**A478**]{} (1988) 199c. B. Jegerlehner, F. Neubig, G. Raffelt,. H.T. Janka, E. Mueller, . H.T. Janka, Frontier objects in astrophysics and particle physics, Vulcano 18-23 May 1992. Procs. 345-374 (Edited by F. Giovannelli). L. Nellen, K. Mannheim, P.L. Biermann, . F. Halzen, E. Zas, . S. Sahu, V.M. Bannur, hep-ph/9803487, . W. Bednarek, R.J. Protheroe, astro-ph/9802288.
S.L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. [**22**]{} (1961) 597. S. Weinberg, . R. Bertlmann and H. Pietschmann, . J. Ellis et Al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 32 (1982) 443.
C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 3, 1 (1998). D. E. Groom [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**C15**]{} (2000) 1.
B. D. Fields and K.A. Olive, . G. Steigman, D.N. Schramm and J. Gunn, . K.A. Olive and D. Thomas, Astro. Part. Phys. 7 (1997) 27. C.J. Copi, D.N. Schramm and M.S. Turner, . G. Steigman, K.A. Olive and D.N. Schramm, . K.A. Olive, D.N. Schramm and G. Steigman, .
P. Depommier article in [@klapdor]. S.M. Bilenky et al., .
N. Irges, S. Lavignac and P. Ramond, .
J. Pati and A. Salam, . H. Georgi and S. Glashow, . H. Georgi, in Particles and Fields, 1974, ed. C. Carlson (AIP press, NY, 1975) S. Dimopoulos and F. Wilczek, Proc. 19th Course of the Intl. School of Subnuclear Phys., Erice, Italy, 1981, ed. A. Zichichi (Plenum, NY, 1983). K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, . K.S. Babu, J. Pati and F. Wilczek, hep-ph/9812538, .
M. Gell-mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, ed. F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979). S. Weinberg, . R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, . S. A. Bludman, D.C. Kennedy and P. Langacker, . [*Ibid.*]{}, . A. Zee, ; [**B161**]{} (1985) 141; .
K. Benakli, Y. Smirnov. .
J.T. Peltoniemi, D. Tommasin and J.W.F. Valle. . J.T. Peltoniemi, J.W.F. Valle. .
G.B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli, . H. Georgi et Al., .
Y. Chikashige, R.N. Mohapatra and R.D. Peccei, . M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, .
K. S. Babu, R. N. Mohapatra, . [*Ibid.*]{}, . [*Ibid.*]{}, R. N. Mohapatra. .
J. C. Pati and A. Salam, ; R. N. Mohapatra and J. C.Pati, ; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, .
See also reviews in: R. N. Mohapatra, Unification and Supersymmetry: The frontiers of Quark-lepton physics. Springer Verlag. N.Y. 1986.
Advance Series on Directions in High Energy Physics.- Vol.3 CP violation. Editor: C. Jarlskog. World Scientific, Singapore, 1989.
R.N. Mohapatra article in [@klapdor].
M. A. Diaz, hep-ph/9711435; hep-ph/9712213; J. C. Ramao, hep-ph/9712362. J. W. F. Valle, hep-ph/9808292; hep-ph/9906378.
E. Witten, .
R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, .
D.O. Caldwell and R.N. Mohapatra, . Z.G. Berezhiani and R.N. Mohapatra, . J.W.F. Valle. . N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, ;\
I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, ;\
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, .
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and J. Marchel-Russell, hep-ph/9811448.\
G. Dvali and A. Yu. Smirnove, .
R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nandi, and A. Pérez-Lorenzana, .
C. Froggatt and H. B. Nielson, ;\
M. Leurer, Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, .
L. Ibanez, G.G. Ross, .
P. Binetruy, P. Ramond, .
J. K. Elwood, N. Irges and P. Ramond, .
M. Fukugita, C.J. Hogan, in [*Structure Formation in the Universe*]{}, Proc. of the NATO ASI, Cambridge, 1999. astro-ph/0005060 M. Fukugita, C.J. Hogan, in [@pdg98] (2000) pp.136-138.
J.R. Primack, M.A.K. Gross, astro-ph/0007165; astro-ph/0007187. S. Dodelson and L. Knox, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 3523 \[astro-ph/9909454\]. W. L. Freedman, Phys. Scripta [**T85**]{} (2000) 37 \[astro-ph/9905222\]. N. Kaiser, astro-ph/9809341.
S. Burles and D. Tytler, Astrophys. J. 499 (1998) 699; ibid. 507 (1998) 732.
G.F. Smoot et Al., Astropys. J. 396 (1992) L1. E.L. Wright et Al., Astropys. J. 396 (1992) L13. J.R. Primack, astro-ph/9707285, astro-ph/9610078. E. Gawiser, J. Silk, astro-ph/9806197, Science, 280, 1405 (1998). J. Bond, G. Efstathiou, . S. Dodelson, G. Gyuk and M. Turner, . H.B. Kim and J.E. Kim, . M. White, G. Gelmini and J. Silk, .
J. A. Peacock, “Cosmological Physics”, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, .
R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, hep-ph/0002151, JHEP (2000) 0010.
M. Fukugita and T. Yanagita, ;\
W. Buchmüller and M. Plümacher, ;\
G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, .\
For a recent review in the context of SUSY hybrid inflation see G. Lazarides, hep-ph/9904428.
G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and N. D. Vlachos, .
L. Wolfenstein, ; .
S. P. Mikheyev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Yad. Fiz. 42 (1985) 1442; Nuovo Cim. 9C (1986)17
V. M. Lobashev [*et al.*]{}, . V. M. Lobashev [*et al.*]{}, [*Prepared for 2nd International Conference on Dark Matter in Astro and Particle Physics (DARK98), Heidelberg, Germany, 20-25 Jul 1998*]{}.
V. M. Lobashev, Talk presented at Neutrino ’98 [@nu98].
C. Weinheimer [*et al.*]{}, . V. M. Lobashev, in [*NONE*]{} Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**63**]{} (2000) 962.
J. Bonn [*et al.*]{}, in [*NONE*]{} Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**63**]{} (2000) 969. J. Bonn [*et al.*]{}, in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**87**]{} (2000) 271.
L. Stephenson et Al., Int. Jour. Modern Physics A13-16 (1998) 2765.
C. Daum et Al.. ; .
OPAL Coll. K. Ackerstaff et al., hep-ex/9806035, Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998) 229-237.
ALEPH Collaboration. R. Barate et Al.. Eur. Phys. J. C2 (1998) 395-406.
L. Baudis et al. (Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration), hep-ex/9902014, .
M. Gunther et al., .
H.V. Klapdor-Kleigrothaus, hep-ex/9907040; L. Baudis et Al., GENIUS collab., hep-ph/9910205. L. Baudis, A. Dietz, G. Heusser, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, B. Majorovits and H. Strecker \[GENIUS Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} astro-ph/0005568.
B. Achkar et al., .
A. Romosan et al., . D. Naples et Al. hep-ex/9809023, .
L. Borodovsky et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 274 (1992).
M. Apollonio [*et al.*]{}, .
M. Apollonio et Al. (CHOOZ coll.), hep-ex/9907037, .
F. Boehm [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 072002 \[hep-ex/0003022\]. C. Athanassopoulos et al. (LSND Coll.) ; ; Phys. Rev. [**C54**]{} (1996) 2685; Phys. Rev. [**C58**]{} (1998) 2489 (nucl-ex/9706006); (nucl-ex/9709006).
D.H. White, Talk presented at Neutrino ’98 [@nu98].
S.J. Yellin, hep-ex/9902012.
G. Mills, Proc. to Les Rencontres de Moriond 1999, 13. - 20. March 1999, Les Arc 1800.
I. Stancu \[LSND Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**85**]{} (2000) 78. E. D. Church \[LSND Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. [**A663**]{} (2000) 799.
J. Kleinfeller \[KARMEN Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**87**]{} (2000) 281. K. Eitel \[KARMEN Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} hep-ex/0008002. C. Oehler \[KARMEN Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**85**]{} (2000) 101. T. E. Jannakos \[KARMEN Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**85**]{} (2000) 84.
Some additional references relative to the KARMEN anomaly.
Theoretical descriptions: Barger et Al., . Govaerts et Al., . Gninenko and Krasnikov, .
PSI measurements: Daum et Al., . Bilger et Al., . Bilger et Al., .
B. Armbruster et al. (KARMEN Collaboration), ; Phys. Rev. [**C 57**]{} (1998) 3414; .
M. Steidl (KARMEN Collaboration). Internal report unpublished.
BOONe proposal: http://www.neutrino.lanl.gov/BooNE.
M. Guler et al. ”Letter of intent search for oscillation $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ at the CERN PS”. CERN-SPSC/97-21, SPSC/I 216, October 10, 1997.
Y. Itow \[Super-Kamiokande and K2K Collaborations\], [*In \*La Thuile 1999, Results and perspectives in particle physics\* 3-20*]{}. A. Suzuki [*et al.*]{} \[K2K Collaboration\], hep-ex/0004024, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. [**A453**]{}(2000) 165.
Y. Oyama \[K2K Collaboration\], hep-ex/0004015. H. W. Sobel \[K2K Collaboration\], [*In \*Venice 1999, Neutrino telescopes, vol. 1\* 351-360*]{}. S. Mine \[K2K Collaboration\], [*Given at International Workshop on JHF Science (JHF 98), Tsukuba, Japan, 4-7 Mar 1998*]{}. M. Sakuda \[K2K Collaboration\], KEK-PREPRINT-97-254 [*Submitted to APCTP Workshop: Pacific Particle Physics Phenomenology (P4 97), Seoul, Korea, 31 Oct - 2 Nov 1997*]{}. Y. Oyama \[K2K collaboration\], hep-ex/9803014.
P. Anselmann et al., GALLEX Coll., . W. Hampel et al., GALLEX Coll., . T.A. Kirsten, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 40 (1998) 85-99. W. Hampel et al., (GALLEX Coll.) . M. Cribier, . W. Hampel et al., (GALLEX Coll.) . W. Hampel et al., (GALLEX Coll.) .
A.I. Abazov et al. (SAGE Coll.), . D.N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE Coll.), . J.N. Abdurashitov et al., (SAGE Coll.), Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{} (1999) 055801; astro-ph/9907131. J.N. Abdurashitov et al., (SAGE Coll.), ; astro-ph/9907113. R. Davis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1994) 13. B.T. Cleveland et al., (HOMESTAKE Coll.) . B.T. Cleveland et al., (HOMESTAKE Coll.) Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 505-526. Y. Fukuda et Al. (SK Collaboration), hep-ex/9812011, . Y. Fukuda et Al. (SK Collaboration), hep-ex/9805021, , Erratum-.
Y. Suzuki (Kamiokande Collaboration), Talk given at the 6th International Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, Venice, February 22-24,1994.
Vistas on XXIst Century Particle Physics, Aspen Winter Conference on Particle Physics, January 21, 2000.
Les Rencontres de Moriond 1999, 13.-20. Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs 1800 (France), March 10-17 2000.
31th Intnl. Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP2000), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 24-30 Jul 2000.
K. Martens in . Y. Takeuchi in [@ichep00].
K. Eitel, Proc. to Lake Louise Winter Institute 1999 14. - 20. Feb. 1999, Lake Louise. T. Jannakos, Proc. to Les Rencontres de Moriond 1999, 13.-20. March 1999, Les Arc 1800. M. Steidl, Proc. to Les Rencontres de Physique de la Valle Aoste 1999, 28. Feb.- 06. March 1999, La Thuile.
For a up-date list of references see KARMEN WWW page: http://www-ik1.fzk.de/www/karmen/karmen\_e.html.
M.B. Smy. DPF’99 conference; hep-ex/9903034.
M. Shiozawa in [@moriond00]. T. Toshito, Atmospheric neutrino Results from SK (unpublished).
J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev and A.Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/9807216,.
J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev and A.Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/9905220, .
E. Torrente-Lujan, . E. Torrente-Lujan,. E. Torrente-Lujan, . A.A. Bykov, V.Y. Popov, A.I. Rez, V.B. Semikoz, D.D. Sokoloff, hep-ph/9808342, .
V.B. Semikoz, E. Torrente-Lujan, .
E. Torrente-Lujan, Phys. Lett. [**B494**]{} (2000) 255 \[hep-ph/9911458\]. T.K. Gaisser et al., hep-ph/9608225, .
T.K. Gaisser, hep-ph/0001027, .
T.K. Gaisser, Talk given at NEUTRINO98 (see Ref.[@nu98]), hep-ph/9811315, . M. Honda, Talk given at NEUTRINO98 (see Ref.[@nu98]), hep-ph/9811504, .
K. Kasahara et al., Prepared for ICRC99 (See Ref.[@ICRC99]). Frejus Collaboration, Ch. Berger et al., .
IMB Collaboration, D. Casper et al., .
NUSEX collaboration, M. Aglietta et al., Europhys. Lett. 8 (1989) 611. Kamiokande Collaboration, H.S. Hirata et al., .
Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., .
Soudan Collaboration, W.W.M. Allison et al., .
M. Ambrosio et al., MACRO coll., hep-ex/9807005, .
Y. Fukuda et al. (SuperKamiokande Coll.), hep-ex/9803006,; hep-ex/9807003, . See also Refs. [@sk9812; @sk9805; @suz1].
S.M Bilenky, C. Giunti, W. Grimus. hep-ph/9805411. E. Torrente-Lujan, .
V. Barger, S. Pakvasa, T.J. Weiler and K. Whisnant, . C. Giunti, hep-ph/9810272, .
J. R. Klein \[SNO Collaboration\], [*In \*Venice 1999, Neutrino telescopes, vol. 1\* 115-125*]{}. J. Boger [*et al.*]{} \[SNO Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. [**A449**]{} (2000) 172 \[nucl-ex/9910016\]. A. B. McDonald \[SNO Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{} (1999) 43.
J. N. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev, and A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0002293, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}(2000) 093004.\
N. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev, and A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/9911248, .
S. Pakvasa, hep-ph/9905426. invited talk at the “8th Intl. Symposium on Neutrino telescopes”, Venice, Feb. 1999.
E. Roulet, . M.M. Guzzo, A. Masiero and S. Petcov, . J.N. Bahcall and P. Krastev, hep-ph/9703267.
S. Pakvasa and K. Tennakone, . Z. Berezhiani, G. Fiorentini, A. Rossi and M. Moretti, JETP Lett 55 (1992) 151. A. Acker and S. Pakvasa, . P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins and W.G. Scott, hep-ph/9904297, .
V. Barger, J.G. Learned, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler, . A. Joshipura and S. Rindani, .
S. Bergmann and Y. Grossman, . L.M. Johnson and D. McKay, . S. Tremaine, J.E. Gunn , . O.E. Gerhard, D.N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 389, L9, (1992).
Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, hep-ph/9807511.
G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and G. Scioscia, .
S. Coleman and S.L. Glashow, . S. Glashow, A. Halprin, P.I. Krastev, C.N. Leung and J. Pantaleone, .
Neutrinos. Edited by H.V. Klapdor, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
26th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 99), Salt Lake City, Utah, 17-25 Aug 1999.
18th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (NEUTRINO 98), Takayama, Japan, 4-9 Jun 1998.
6th International Workshop on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP99) Paris, France, 6-10 Sept. 1999.
E. Ma and P. Roy, ; E. Ma, .
G. Lazarides, R. Schaefer and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 1324.
M. Yu. Khlopov and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 265 ;\
J. Ellis, J. E. Kim and D. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 181.
C. Giunti, hep-ph/9802201 (unpublished).
Y. F. Wang, L. Miller and G. Gratta, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 013012 \[hep-ex/0002050\]. F. Boehm [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 3764 \[hep-ex/9912050\]. J. Busenitz \[Palo Verde Collaboration\], [*Prepared for 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 98), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 23-29 Jul 1998*]{}. F. Boehm [*et al.*]{} \[Palo Verde Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{}, 166 (1999). F. Boehm [*et al.*]{} \[Palo Verde Collaboration\], Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**40**]{}, 253 (1998). F. Boehm [*et al.*]{} \[Palo Verde Collaboration\], STANFORD-HEP-96-04 [*Talk given at 17th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Helsinki, Finland, 13-20 Jun 1996*]{}.
T. Kajita, talk given at XVIIIth International Conference on [@nu98].
H. Barth [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{} (1999) 321. C. Weinheimer, Talk presented at Neutrino ’98 [@nu98]. B. Armbruster,Talk presented at the XXXIII$^{nd}$ Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs 1800 (France), March 14-21 1998. K. Eitel and B. Zeitnitz, Talk presented at Neutrino ’98, [@nu98]. (Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.77:212-219 (1999),hep-ex/9809007). B. Zeitnitz, Talk presented at Neutrino ’98, [@nu98].
M. Nakahata (for SK collab.), Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. suppl.) 76 (1999)))) 425-434.
N. Hata and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. [**D56**]{} (1997) 6107 \[hep-ph/9705339\].
J.N. Bahcall and M.H. Pinsonneault, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{} (1995) 781.
J. Christensen-Dalsgaard. Proc. of the 18th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics. Chicago, 15-20 Dec 1996. astro-ph/9702094.
V. Berezinsky, 25th. Intl. Conf. Cosmic ray conference, Durban, 28-July,8-August, 1997; astro-ph/9710126.
J. N. Bahcall and P. I. Krastev, Phys. Lett. [**B436**]{} (1998) 243 \[hep-ph/9807525\]. G. Fiorentini, V. Berezinsky, S. Degl’Innocenti and B. Ricci, Phys. Lett. [**B444**]{} (1998) 387 \[astro-ph/9810083\].
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 1562 \[hep-ex/9807003\].
M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, H. Nunokawa, O. L. Peres and J. W. Valle, Nucl. Phys. [**B543**]{} (1999) 3 \[hep-ph/9807305\].
T. Kajita \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], in [*NONE*]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{} (1999) 123 \[hep-ex/9810001\].
J.N. Bahcall, E. Lisi, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5417 (1996)\].
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M.M. Guzzo, P.I. Krastev, H. Nunokawa, O. Peres, V. Pleitez, J. Valle and R. Zukanovich Funchal. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3202. G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi and A. Marrone, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 117303. R. Foot, C.N. Leung and O. Yasuda, Phys. Lett. B443 (1998) 185.
Figures {#figures .unnumbered}
=======
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
[^1]: *Invited article prepared for the Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society.*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, the problem of finding a generalized Nash equilibrium (GNE) of a networked game is studied. Players are only able to choose their decisions from a feasible action set. The feasible set is considered to be a private linear equality constraint that is coupled through decisions of the other players. We consider that each player has his own private constraint and it has not to be shared with the other players. This general case also embodies the one with shared constraints between players and it can be also simply extended to the case with inequality constraints. Since the players don’t have access to other players’ actions, they need to exchange estimates of others’ actions and a local copy of the Lagrangian multiplier with their neighbors over a connected communication graph. We develop a relatively fast algorithm by reformulating the conservative GNE problem within the framework of inexact-ADMM. The convergence of the algorithm is guaranteed under a few mild assumptions on cost functions. Finally, the algorithm is simulated for a wireless ad-hoc network.'
author:
- 'Farzad Salehisadaghiani, and Lacra Pavel [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'ref.bib'
title: ' **Generalized Nash Equilibrium Problem by the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers** '
---
Introduction
============
The problem of finding a generalized Nash equilibrium (GNE) has recently drawn many attentions due to its applicability in various networked games with coupling constraints such as power grids [@zhu2016distributed], optical networks [@jayash10] and wireless communication networks [@han2012game].
In such games, each player aims to minimize his cost function by taking a proper action in response to other players. Each player’s feasible decision set is dependent on other players’ actions. We are interested in seeking a GNE, which is a point that no player can unilaterally deviate his local action to minimize his cost function.
Due to similarities between this problem and distributed consensus optimization problems (DCOPs), we aim to employ an efficient, robust and fast optimization technique referred to as the [ *alternating direction method of multipliers*]{} (ADMM) to find a GNE of a multi-player game. The key differences between DCOP and GNE problem is that in a DCOP each agent desires to minimize a global objective by controlling a full vector optimization variable. However, in a GNE problem, we have a set of local optimization problems assigned to each player who controls only his action (which is an element of a full vector). This leads to have a sub-optimization problem associated to each player such that each of them is dependent on the other players’ actions.
***Related Works.*** Our work is related to the literature on (generalized) Nash games such as [@jayash8; @facchinei2010generalized; @fischer2014generalized; @ssalehisadaghiani2016distributed] and DCOPs such as [@chang2015multi; @johansson2008distributed]. (G)NE seeking in distributed networked games has recently attracted an increased interest due to many real-world applications. To name only a few, [@parise2015network; @salehisadaghiani2016distributed].
In [@parise2015network], the problem of finding GNE is studied in a networked game. A gradient-based algorithm is designed over a complete communication graph. Convergence proof is analyzed in the presence of delay and dynamic change. Similar to [@zhu2016distributed], the problem of seeking a GNE is discussed in [@yi2017distributed] for the games that players have access to all players’ actions on which their cost depends on. Thus, they exchange only local multipliers not the estimates of others’ actions.
A Nash game with a coupled constraint is considered in [@yin2011nash]. A variational inequality related approach is used to compute a GNE of the game. The authors in [@schiro2013solution] solve a quadratic GNE problem with linear shared coupled constraint using Lemkes method.
Recently, there has been a widespread research on GNE seeking in aggregative games [@zhu2016distributed; @yin2011nash; @schiro2013solution]. Quadratic aggregative games with affine and convex coupling constraints are studied in [@paccagnan2016distributed; @grammatico2016aggregative]. A coordination scheme belonging to a class of asymmetric projection algorithm is presented in [@paccagnan2016distributed] and its convergence to a GNE is then discussed. A model-free dynamic control law, based on monotone operator, is proposed in [@grammatico2016aggregative] to ensure the global convergence to a GNE.
ADMM algorithms, which are in the scope of this paper, have been developed in 70’s to find an efficient way to obtain an optimal point of distributed optimization problems (DOPs) [@bertsekas1999parallel; @boyd2011distributed]. After the re-introduction of this method in [@boyd2011distributed], ADMM has become widely used to locate optimal points of DOPs as a robust and fast technique [@he20121; @wei2012distributed]. An inexact-ADMM algorithm is proposed in [@chang2015multi] for DCOPs with an affine equality constraint. In [@salehisadaghiani2016distributedifac], we develop a methodology to relate a distributed NE problem with no coupled constraint to a DCOP using augmentation technique. It is shown that an NE problem can be treated as a set of sub-optimization problems with an augmented equality constraint for the estimates of the players.
***Contributions.*** Motivated by ADMM methods designed for DCOPs, we develop a relatively fast algorithm for GNE problems within the framework of inexact-ADMM. Players are only aware of their own cost functions (which are not in the form of aggregative but general game), problem data (which is related to a private coupled equality constraint for each player) and action set of all players (they are not aware of the others’ actions). We reformulate the conservative GNE problem into the corresponding Lagrange dual problem and then we augment it [*using local estimates of players’ actions as well as local copies of Lagrange multipliers*]{}. We derive a set of GNE conditions using the associated KKT conditions and finally we develop an inexact-ADMM algorithm based on the augmented Lagrange function which is related to each player. The convergence proof of the algorithm to a GNE of the game is then provided under a few mild assumptions on players’ cost functions.
The paper is organized as follows. The problem statement and assumptions are provided in Section II. In Section III, an inexact-ADMM-like algorithm is derived. Convergence of the proposed algorithm to a GNE of the game is discussed in Section IV. Simulation results are illustrated in Section V and concluding remarks are presented in Section VI.
Problem Statement {#problem_statement}
=================
Consider $V=\{1,\ldots,N\}$ as a set of $N$ players that seek a GNE of a networked game with individual linear coupled constraints. The game is denoted by $\mathcal{G}$ and defined as follows:
- $\Omega_i\subset\mathbb{R}$: Action set of player $i$, $\forall i\in V$,
- $\Omega=\prod_{i\in V}\Omega_i\subset\mathbb{R}^N$: Action set of all players,
- $J_i:\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$: Cost function of player $i$, $\forall i\in V$.
The game $\mathcal{G}(V,\Omega_i,J_i)$ is defined over the set of players, $V$, the action set of player $i\in V$, $\Omega_i$ and the cost function of player $i\in V$, $J_i$.
The players’ actions are denoted as follows:
- $x=(x_i,x_{-i})\in\Omega$: All players actions,
- $x_i\in\Omega_i$: Player $i$’s action, $\forall i\in V$,
- $x_{-i}\!\in\!\Omega_{-i}\!:=\!\prod_{j\in V\backslash\{i\}}\!\Omega_j$:All players’ actions except $i$.
The local data of player $i$ is given as $A^i:=[A_i^i,[A_j^i]_{j\neq i}]\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$ with $A_i^i\in\mathbb{R}^m$, and $b^i\in\mathbb{R}^m$. Note that in this work, we are interested in a more general case in which each player has access only to his own private constraint which has not to be shared with the other players.
\[constraint\] There exists a positive semi-definite matrix $B^i\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ for all $i\in V$ such that, $$A_i^i\in \ker(B^i-I_m),\,A_j^i\in \ker(B^i)\quad j\neq i.$$
Player $i$’s feasible strategy set is then denoted by $\mathcal{X}_i(x_{-i}):=\{x_i\in\Omega_i|A^ix=b^i\}$.
The game is played such that for a given $x_{-i}\in \Omega_{-i}$, each player $i\in V$ aims to minimize his own cost function selfishly w.r.t. $x_i$ subject to a private equality constraint. $$\label{mini_0}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{x_i}{\text{minimize}}
& & J_i(x_i,x_{-i}) \\
& \hspace{0.5cm}\text{s.t.}
& & x_i\in\mathcal{X}_i(x_{-i}).
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ Each optimization problem is run by a particular player $i$ at the same time with other players. Note that can simply accommodate inequality constraints $A^ix\geq b^i$ by adding a slack variable $y\geq 0$ and rewrite the inequality constraint as $A^ix-y=b^i$. Note that the constraint $y\geq 0$ can be enforced by a convex indicator function.
An NE of a game is defined as follows:
\[Nash\_def\] Consider an $N$-player game $\mathcal{G}(V,\Omega_i,J_i)$, each player $i$ minimizing the cost function $J_i:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. A vector $x^*=(x_i^*,x_{-i}^*)\in\Omega$ is called a GNE of this game if $$J_i(x_i^*,{x_{-i}^{*}})\leq J_i(x_{i},{x_{-i}^{*}})\quad\forall x_i\in \mathcal{X}_i(x_{-i}^*),\,\,\forall i\in V.$$
An NE lies at the intersection of all solutions of the set . The key challenges are two-fold. First, each optimization problem in is dependent on the solution of the other simultaneous problems; second, the solutions are coupled through a linear constraint.
Since this game is distributed, no player is aware of the actions, cost functions and constraints of the other players. Thus, each player $i$ maintains an estimate of the other players’ actions. We define a few notations, in the following, for players’ estimates.
- $x^i=(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i)\in\Omega$: Player $i$’s estimate of all players actions,
- $x_i^i\in\Omega_i$: Player $i$’s estimate of his own action which is indeed his action, i.e., $x_i^i=x_i\,\forall i\in V$,
- $x_{-i}^i\in\Omega_{-i}:=\prod_{j\in V\backslash\{i\}}\Omega_j$: Player $i$’s estimate of all other players’ actions except his action,
- $\underline{x}=[{x^1}^T,\ldots,{x^N}^T]^T\in\Omega^N$: Augmented vector of estimates of all players’ actions
Note that all players’ actions can be interchangeably represented as $x=(x_i^i)_{i\in V}$.
We assume that the cost function $J_i$, the action set $\Omega$ and the problem data $A^i,\,b^i$ are the only information available to player $i$. Thus, the players exchange their estimates in order to update their actions. An undirected *communication graph* $G_C(V,E)$ is defined with $E\subseteq V\times V$ denoting the set of communication links between the players. $(i,j)\in E$ if and only if players $i$ and $j$ exchange estimates. In the following, we have a few definitions for $G_C$:
- $N_i:=\{j\in V|(i,j)\in E\}$: Set of neighbors of $i$ in $G_C$,
- $H:=[h_{ij}]_{i,j\in V}$: Adjacency matrix associated with $G_C$ where $h_{ij}=1$ if $(i,j)\in E$ and $h_{ij}=0$ otherwise,
- $D:=\text{diag}\{|N_1|,\ldots,|N_N|\}$: Degree matrix associated with $G_C$.
The following assumption is used for $G_C$.
\[connectivity\] $G_C$ is a connected graph.
We aim to link game to a set of optimization problems whose solutions can be based on the ADMM. Game is equivalently represented as the following problem for $i\in V$. $$\label{mini_11}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{x_i\in\Omega_i}{\text{min}}
& & J_i(x_i,x_{-i}) \\
& \hspace{0.2cm}\text{s.t.}
& & A^ix=b^i.
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^m$ be the joint Lagrange dual variable associated with the linear constraint $A^ix=b^i\,\forall i\in V$. The Lagrange dual problem of can be written as follows for $i\in V$. $$\label{mini_22}
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^m}{\text{max}}\underset{x_i\in\Omega_i}{\text{min}}
& & J_i(x_i,x_{-i})+\lambda^T(A^ix-b^i).
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ Note that we are interested in computing a variational GNE of the game since we assumed a common Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ for each player in . Using the estimates of the actions $x^i$ and the local copies of the Lagrange dual variables $\lambda^i$ for $i\in V$, we reformulate so that the objective function is separable (the estimates are also interpreted as the local copies of $x$). Moreover, the slack variables $t^{ls}|_{\{l\in V,\,s\in N_l\}}\in\Omega$ and $p^{ls}|_{\{l\in V,\,s\in N_l\}}\in\mathbb{R}^m$ are employed to enforce that the local copies are equivalent. $$\label{mini_33}
\hspace{-0cm}\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\lambda^i\in\mathbb{R}^m,p^{ls}}{\text{max}}\,\underset{x_i^i\in\Omega_i,t^{ls}}{\text{min}}
& & J_i\!(\!x_i^i,x_{-i}^i)\!+\!\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\!+\!{\lambda^i}^T(A^ix^i\!-\!b^i)\\
& \hspace{1cm}\text{s.t.}
& & x^l=t^{ls}\quad\forall l\in V,\,\forall s\in N_l,\\
& & & x^s=t^{ls}\quad\forall l\in V,\,\forall s\in N_l,\\
& & & \lambda^l=p^{ls}\quad\forall l\in V,\,\forall s\in N_l,\\
& & & \lambda^s=p^{ls}\quad\forall l\in V,\,\forall s\in N_l,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i):=\begin{cases}0&\text{if }x_i^i\in\Omega_i\\\infty&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$ is an indicator function of the feasibility constraint $x_i^i\in\Omega_i$. Note that the solution of is equivalent to that of , i.e., $x_i^i=x_i,\,\lambda^i=\lambda$ for all $i\in V$. The ADMM is then employed to solve in a distributed manner. A characterization of the NE for game could be obtained by finding the KKT conditions on . Let $\{u^{ls},v^{ls},w^{ls},z^{ls}\}_{l\in V,s\in N_l}$ with $u^{ls},v^{ls}\in \mathbb{R}^N$ and $w^{ls},z^{ls}\in \mathbb{R}^m$ be the Lagrange multipliers associated with the four constraints in , respectively. The corresponding Lagrange function for player $i$, $\forall i\in V$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}L_i\Big(x_i^i, \{t^{ls}, u^{ls}, v^{ls}\},\lambda^i, \{p^{ls}, w^{ls}, z^{ls}\}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}:= J_i(x_i^{i},x_{-i}^{i})+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^{i})+{\lambda^{i}}^T(A^ix^{i}-b^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}{u^{ls}}^T(x^l-t^{ls})+{v^{ls}}^T(x^s-t^{ls}),\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}-\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}{w^{ls}}^T(\lambda^l-p^{ls})+{z^{ls}}^T(\lambda^s-p^{ls}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $({{x}^{i}}^*, {{{\lambda}^{i}}^*})_{i\in V}$ and $\{{{u}^{ls}}^*,{{v}^{ls}}^*,{{w}^{ls}}^*,{{z}^{ls}}^*\}_{l\in V,\,s\in N_l}$ be a pair of primal and dual optimal solution to . Let denote $\sum_{j\in N_i}u^{ij}+v^{ji}:=U^i$ and $\sum_{j\in N_i}w^{ij}+z^{ji}:=W^i$ for notational simplicity. The KKT conditions are summarized as follows for $i\in V,\,j\in N_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kkt_dual}
\hspace{-0.8cm}\begin{cases}\nabla_iJ_i({{x}^{i}}^*)+\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}({{x}_i^{i}}^*)+{\lambda^i}^{*T}A_i^i+{U_i^i}^*=0,\\
A^i{{x}^{i}}^*-b^i-{W^i}^*=\textbf{0}_m,\\
{{x}^{i}}^*={{x}^{j}}^*,\,{{\lambda}^{i}}^*={{\lambda}^{j}}^*,\\
{{u}^{ij}}^*+{{v}^{ij}}^*=\textbf{0}_N,\,{{w}^{ij}}^*+{{z}^{ij}}^*=\textbf{0}_m,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_iJ_i(\cdot)$ is gradient of $J_i$ w.r.t. $x_i$ and $\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(\cdot)$ is a subgradient of $\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}$ at $x_i$. By and Assumption \[connectivity\], ${{x}^{1}}^*\!=\!\ldots\!=\!{{x}^{N}}^*\!:=\!x^*$ and ${{\lambda}^{1}}^*\!=\!\ldots\!=\!{{\lambda}^{N}}^*\!:=\!\lambda^*$. Then, the GNE of , $x^*$, satisfies the following equations $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Nash_equations}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_iJ_i({x}^*)+\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}({x_i}^*)+{\lambda^{*}}^TA_i^i+{U_i^i}^*=0,\\
A^ix^{*}-b^i-{W^i}^*=\textbf{0}_m,\\
{u^{ij}}^*+{v^{ij}}^*=\textbf{0}_N,\,{w^{ij}}^*+{z^{ij}}^*=\textbf{0}_m.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In the following, we state a few assumptions for the existence of a GNE.
\[assump\] For every $i\in V$,
- $\Omega_i\subset\mathbb{R}$ is compact and convex
- $\mathcal{X}_i(x_{-i})$ is non-empty for every $x_{-i}$
- $J_i(x_i,x_{-i})$ is $C^1$ in $x_i$, jointly continuous in $x$ and convex in $x_i$, for every $x_{-i}$.
The convexity of $\Omega_i$ implies that the indicator function $\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}$ is convex. This yields that there exists at least one bounded subgradient $\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}$.
\[Lip\_assump\] Let $F:\Omega^N\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^N$, $F(\underline{x}):=[\nabla_iJ_i(x^i)]_{i\in V}$ be the pseudo-gradient vector (game map) where $\underline{x}:=[{x^1}^T,\ldots,{x^N}^T]^T\in\Omega^N$. $F$ is cocoercive $\forall\underline{x}\in\Omega^N$ and $\underline{y}\in\Omega^N$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}(F(\underline{x})-F(\underline{y}))^T(x-y)\geq \sigma_F\|F(\underline{x})-F(\underline{y})\|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_F>0$.
Distributed Inexact-ADMM Algorithm
==================================
Our objective is to find an ADMM-like algorithm for computing a GNE of $\mathcal{G}(V,\Omega_i,J_i)$ using only imperfect information over the communication graph $G_C(V,E)$.
The algorithm is elaborated in the following steps:\
1- ***Initialization Step:*** Each player $i\in V$ maintains an initial estimate for all players’ actions, $x^i(0)\in\Omega$ and an initial Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda^i(0)\in\mathbb{R}^m$. The initial values of $u^{ij}(0),v^{ij}(0),w^{ij}(0)$ and $z^{ij}(0)$ are all set to be zero for all $i\in V$, $j\in N_i$.\
2- ***Communication Step:*** At iteration $T(k)$, each player $i\in V$ exchanges his previous estimate of the other players’ actions $x^i(k-1)$ and his dual Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^i(k-1)$ with his neighbors $j\in N_i$.\
3- ***Action Update Step:*** At this moment all players update their actions, estimates and Lagrange multiplier via the ADMM. For each player $i\in V$, let the augmented Lagrange function associated with be as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Augmented_Lag}
&&\hspace{-1cm}L_i^a\Big(x_i^i, \{t^{ls}, u^{ls}, v^{ls}\},\lambda^i, \{p^{ls}, w^{ls}, z^{ls}\}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}:= J_i(x_i^{i},x_{-i}^{i})+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^{i})+{\lambda^{i}}^T(A^ix^{i}-b^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}+\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}{u^{ls}}^T(x^l-t^{ls})+{v^{ls}}^T(x^s-t^{ls})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}-\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}{w^{ls}}^T(\lambda^l-p^{ls})+{z^{ls}}^T(\lambda^s-p^{ls})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}+\frac{c}{2}\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}(\|x^l-t^{ls}\|^2+\|x^s-t^{ls}\|^2)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}-\frac{c}{2}\sum_{l\in V}\sum_{s\in N_l}(\|\lambda^l-p^{ls}\|^2+\|\lambda^s-p^{ls}\|^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $c>0$ is a scalar coefficient. Consider the ADMM algorithm associated with based on :
The dual Lagrange multipliers $u^{ij},v^{ij},w^{ij},z^{ij}$ update rules $\forall i\in V,j\in N_i$ are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}u^{ij}(k)=u^{ij}(k-1)+\frac{c}{2}\big(x^i(k-1)-x^j(k-1)\big),\label{u_update_ADMM}\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}v^{ij}(k)=v^{ij}(k-1)+\frac{c}{2}\big(x^j(k-1)-x^i(k-1)\big),\label{v_update_ADMM}\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}w^{ij}(k)=w^{ij}(k-1)+\frac{c}{2}\big(\lambda^i(k-1)-\lambda^j(k-1)\big),\label{w_update_ADMM}\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}z^{ij}(k)=z^{ij}(k-1)+\frac{c}{2}\big(\lambda^j(k-1)-\lambda^i(k-1)\big).\label{z_update_ADMM} \end{aligned}$$
The update rule for the slack variable $t^{ij}\in\mathbb{R}^N$, $\forall i\in V, j\in N_i$, which is based on , is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tijavalesh}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}t^{ij}(k)=\text{arg }\min_{t^{ij}} L_i^{a}\Big(x^i(k-1), \{t^{ls},u^{ls}(k),v^{ls}(k)\},\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\lambda^i(k-1),\{p^{ls}(k-1),w^{ls}(k),z^{ls}(k)\}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}=\text{arg }\min_{t^{ij}}\Big\{-(u^{ij}(k)+v^{ij}(k))^Tt^{ij}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\frac{c}{2}(\|x^i(k-1)-t^{ij}\|^2+\|x^j(k-1)-t^{ij}\|^2)\Big\}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}=\frac{1}{2c}(u^{ij}(k)+v^{ij}(k))+\frac{1}{2}(x^i(k-1)+x^j(k-1)).\label{x_i^i_ADMM}\end{aligned}$$ The initial conditions $u^{ij}(0)=v^{ij}(0)=\textbf{0}_N$ $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$ along with and suggest that $u^{ij}(k)+v^{ij}(k)=\textbf{0}_N$ $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i,\,k>0$. Then, yields, $$t^{ij}(k)=\frac{x^i(k-1)+x^j(k-1)}{2}.\label{t_ij_simp}$$
Similarly the update rule for $p^{ij}\in\mathbb{R}^m$ $\forall i\in V, j\in N_i$ is represented as the following: $$p^{ij}(k)=\frac{\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)}{2}.\label{p_ij_simp}$$ The local estimate update for all $i\in V$ is a min-max optimization problem based on . $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^i start}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}x_i^i(k)\!=\!\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i\in\mathbb{R}}\max_{\lambda^i\in\mathbb{R}^m}\!L_i^{a}\Big(x_i^i, \{t^{ls}(k), u^{ls}(k), v^{ls}(k)\},\lambda^i,\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\{p^{ls}(k), w^{ls}(k), z^{ls}(k)\}\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\max_{\lambda^i}\Big\{J_i(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i(k-1))+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-{\lambda^i}^Tb^i+{\lambda^i}^TA_i^ix_i^i+{\lambda^i}^TA_{-i}^ix_{-i}^i(k-1)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+{U_i^i}(k)^Tx_i^i-{W^i}(k)^T\lambda^i\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|x_i^i-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|\lambda^i-\frac{\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2\Big\}\quad\forall i\in V.\label{x_i^i_ADMM_bef}\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation of , we used and . The next min-max problem is equivalent in the sense that its solutions for $x_i^i$ and $\lambda^i$ are equivalent to the solutions of . $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^ivasat}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}x_i^i(k)=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\max_{\lambda^i}\Big\{J_i(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i(k-1))+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|x_i^i-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2+{U_i^i}(k)^Tx_i^i\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+{\lambda^i}^T\Big(A_i^ix_i^i+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^i(k-1)-b^i-{W^i}(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\Big)-c|N_i|\|\lambda^i\|^2\Big\}\quad\forall i\in V.\label{x_i^i_ADMM_bef}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the last two lines of , we complete the squared term as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^ifaghatlambda^i}
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}x_i^i(k)=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\max_{\lambda^i}\Big\{J_i(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i(k-1))+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|x_i^i-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2+{U_i^i}(k)^Tx_i^i\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}-c|N_i|\Big\|\lambda^i-\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}\Big[c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}-{W^i}(k)+A_i^ix_i^i+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^i(k-1)-b^i\Big]\Big\|^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+\frac{1}{4c|N_i|}\Big\|c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}-{W^i}(k)+A_i^ix_i^i+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^i(k-1)-b^i\Big\|^2\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Only the third line of is dependent on $\lambda^i$ which is the maximization variable. Thus, to maximize w.r.t. $\lambda^i$, we let $\lambda^i(k)$ be as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lambda^i}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\lambda^i(k)=\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A_i^ix_i^{i}(k)+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^{i}(k-1)-b^i\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}-{W^i}(k)+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\frac{\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)}{2}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting back into , we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^ighableproximation}
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}x_i^i(k)=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\Big\{J_i(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i(k-1))+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|x_i^i-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2+{U_i^i}(k)^Tx_i^i\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+\frac{1}{4c|N_i|}\Big\|c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}-{W^i}(k)+A_i^ix_i^i+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^i(k-1)-b^i\Big\|^2\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ We simplify by using a proximal first-order approximation for $J_i(x_i^i,x_{-i}^i(k-1))$ and the last term in around $x^i(k-1)$; thus using inexact ADMM it follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^ighableakhar}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}x_i^i(k)=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\Big\{\Big[\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))+\frac{{A_i^i}^T}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A^ix^i(k-1)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}-b^i-{W^i}(k)+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\Big)\Big]^T.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.(x_i^i-x_{i}^i(k-1))+\frac{\beta_i}{2}\|x_i^i-x_{i}^i(k-1)\|^2
+\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big\|x_i^i-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big\|^2+{U_i^i}(k)^Tx_i^i\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_i>0$ is a penalty factor for the proximal first-order approximation for $i\in V$. We obtain an equivalent problem to in the following such that its gradient w.r.t. $x_i^i$ is equivalent to that of . $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_i^ioptimal}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}x_i^i(k)=\text{arg }\min_{x_i^i}\Big\{\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i)+\frac{\alpha_i}{2}\Big\|x_i^i-\alpha_i^{-1}\Big(\beta_ix_i^i(k-1)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}-\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-{U_i^i}(k)+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}-\frac{{A_i^i}^T}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A^ix^{i}(k-1)-b^i-{W^i}(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)\Big)\Big)\Big\|^2\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i:=\beta_i+2c|N_i|$. Let $\text{prox}_{g}^{a}[s]:=\text{arg }\min_{x}\{g(x)+\frac{a}{2}\|x-s\|^2\}$ be the proximal operator for the non-smooth function $g$. Note that $\text{prox}_{\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}}^{\alpha_i}[s]=T_{\Omega_i}[s]$ where $T_{\Omega_i}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\Omega_i$ is an Euclidean projection. Then for each player $i$, $\forall i\in V$ we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}x_i^i(k)=T_{\Omega_i}\Big[\alpha_i^{-1}\Big(\gamma_ix_i^i(k-1)-\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-{U_i^i}(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}x_i^j(k-1)-\frac{{A_i^i}^T}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^{i}(k-1)-b^i-{W^i}(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)\Big)\Big)\Big],\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma_i:=\beta_i+c|N_i|-\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}{A_i^i}^TA_i^i$.
Eventually, after updating his action and dual Lagrange multiplier, each player $i$ takes average of the received information with his estimate and updates his estimate as follows: $$x_{-i}^i(\!k\!)\!=\!\frac{1}{2}\!\Big(\!x_{-i}^i(\!k\!-\!1\!)\!+\!\underbrace{\frac{1}{|N_i|}\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!x_{-i}^j\!(\!k\!-\!1\!)}_{\text{RECEIVED INFORMATION}}\Big)\!-\underbrace{\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}\!{U_{-i}^i}\!(k)}_{\text{PENALTY TERM}},\label{x_-i_Update}$$ where $c>0$ is a scalar coefficient which is also used in . Note that in , the penalty term is associated with the difference between the estimates of the neighboring players (Equations , ).
Then the ADMM algorithm is represented as in Algorithm 1.
**initialization** $x^i(0)\in\Omega$, $\lambda^i(0)\in\mathbb{R}^m$, $U^{i}(0)=\textbf{0}_N$ and $W^{i}(0)=\textbf{0}_m$ $\forall i\in V$ players $i$, $j$ $\forall j\in N_i$ exchange $x^i(k-1)$, $x^j(k-1)$, $\lambda^i(k-1)$ and $\lambda^j(k-1)$. $U^i(k)\!=\!U^i(k-1)\!+\!c\sum_{j\in N_i}(x^i(k-1)-x^j(k-1))$ $W^i(k)\!=\!W^i(k-1)\!+\!c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)\!-\!\lambda^j(k\!-\!1))$ $x_i^i(k)=T_{\Omega_i}\Big[\alpha_i^{-1}\Big(\gamma_ix_i^i(k-1)-\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))$ $-{U_i^i}(k)+c\sum_{j\in N_i}x_i^j(k-1)$ $-\frac{{A_i^i}^T}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^{i}(k-1)-b^i-{W^i}(k)$ $+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)\Big)\Big)\Big]$ $\lambda^i(k)=\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A_i^ix_i^{i}(k)+A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^{i}(k-1)-b^i$ $-{W^i}(k)+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\frac{\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1)}{2}\Big)$ $x_{-i}^i(k)=\frac{\sum_{j\in N_i}x_{-i}^j(k-1))}{|N_i|}-\frac{U_{-i}^i(k-1)}{2c|N_i|}$
Convergence Proof {#convergence_proof}
=================
\[theorem\_convergence\_rate\] Let $\beta_i>0$ be player $i$’s penalty factor of the approximation in the inexact ADMM Algorithm \[ADMMalgorithm\] which satisfies $$\label{condition}
\sigma_F>\frac{1}{2\beta_{i}-\frac{\|A_i^i\|^2}{c|N_i|}},$$ where $\sigma_F$ is a positive constant for the cocoercive property of $F$, $A_i^i$ is player $i$’s problem data and $N_i$ is the number of neighbors of player $i$. Under Assumptions \[constraint\]-\[Lip\_assump\], the sequence $\{x^i(k)\}$ $\forall i\in V$, generated by Algorithm \[ADMMalgorithm\] converges to $x^*$ NE of game .
[*Proof*]{}. From step 7 in Algorithm 1, we obtain the following optimality condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optmal}
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))+\beta_i(x_i^i(k)-x_{i}^i(k-1))
+\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+\frac{{A_i^i}^T}{2c|N_i|}\Big(A^ix^{i}(k-1)-b^i-W^i(k)\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k-1)+\lambda^j(k-1))\Big)+U_i^i(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big(x_i^i(k)-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big)=0\quad\forall i\in V,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Adding and subtracting $A_i^ix_i^i(k)$ from the second line of and using , it leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{darakhar1}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))
+\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))+{A_i^i}^T\lambda^i(k)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\delta_i(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))+U_i^i(k)\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big(x_i^i(k)-\frac{x_i^i(k-1)+x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big)=0\quad\forall i\in V,\nonumber\vspace{-0cm}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_i:=\beta_i-\frac{1}{2c|N_i|}{A_i^i}^TA_i^i$. Adding the first Nash condition and multiplying by $(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)$, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optimalx_inahayi}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k-1)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))-\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*\Big)^TA_i^i(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\delta_i(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(U_i^i(k)-{U_i^i}^*\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+2c\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!\Big(\!x_i^i(k)\!-\!\frac{x_i^i(k-1)\!+\!x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\!\Big)^T\!(\!x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^*)\!=\!0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, from we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{darakhar2}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\textbf{0}_m=-A_i^ix_i^{i}(k)-A_{-i}^ix_{-i}^{i}(k-1)+b^i\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}+W^i(k)+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\lambda^i(k)-\frac{\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)}{2}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)-\lambda^i(k-1)-\lambda^j(k-1)),\end{aligned}$$ Note that by and , $W^i(k+1)=W^i(k)+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\lambda^i(k)-\frac{\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)}{2}$. Then, We add the second Nash condition to . Moreover, using Assumption \[constraint\], there exists a matrix $B^i$ such that we multiply into and then multiply the result by $(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OptimalLamndanahayi}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}0=-(x_i^{i}(k)-x_i^*)^T{A_i^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(W^i(k+1)-{W^i}^*\Big)^T{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)-\lambda^i(k-1)-\lambda^j(k-1))^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*).\end{aligned}$$ Adding to , it yields, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optimalbeforx-i}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k-1)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))-\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\delta_i(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(U_i^i(k)-{U_i^i}^*\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(W^i(k+1)-{W^i}^*)^T{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)-\lambda^i(k-1)-\lambda^j(k-1))^T.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+2c\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!\Big(\!x_i^i(k)\!-\!\frac{x_i^i(k-1)\!+\!x_i^j(k-1)}{2}\Big)^T\!(x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^*)=0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last equation that we need to add it to is the one associated with $x_{-i}^i$, , and multiplied by $(x_{-i}^i-x_{-i}^*)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u_for_-i_*_mult}
&&\hspace{-1cm}U_{-i}^i(k)^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}+2c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big(x_{-i}^i(k)-\frac{x_{-i}^i(k-1)+x_{-i}^j(k-1)}{2}\Big)^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}.(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Adding to , and using and for simplification, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optimalghablejam}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k-1)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))-\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\Big(\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))-\partial_i\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^*)\Big)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\delta_i(x_i^i(k)-x_i^i(k-1))^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!(u_i^{ij}(k+1)\!+\!v_i^{ji}(k+1)\!-\!{u_i^{ij}}^*\!-\!{v_i^{ji}}^*)^T\!(x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\sum_{j\in N_i}(u_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)+v_{-i}^{ji}(k+1))^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\sum_{j\in N_i}(w^{ij}(k+1)+z^{ji}(k+1)-{w^{ij}}^*-{z^{ji}}^*)^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}(\lambda^i(k)+\lambda^j(k)-\lambda^i(k-1)-\lambda^j(k-1))^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.{B^i}^T(\lambda^i(k)-\lambda^*).\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c\sum_{j\in N_i}\Big(x^i(k)+x^j(k)-x^i(k-1)-x^j(k-1)\Big)^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)=0.\end{aligned}$$ The second and third terms are bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cauchy_Schewwrtz}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\Big(\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))\!-\!\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\Big)^T\!(x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^i(k-1))\geq\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\frac{-1}{2\rho}\!\|\!\nabla_iJ_i(x^i(k-1))\!-\!\nabla_iJ_i(x^*)\!\|^2\!-\!\frac{\rho}{2}\!\|\!x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^i(k-1)\!\|^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for any $\rho>0$ $\forall i\in V$. By the convexity of $\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}$ (Assumption \[assump\]), we have for the third term, $$\label{convexity_of_Indicator}
(\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^i(k))-\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(x_i^*))^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\geq 0.$$ Using and in and summing over $i\in V$, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optim_equation_Nash_combo_multiplic_Revised_Sum}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Big(F(\underline{x}(k-1))-F(\underline{x}^*)\Big)^T(x(k-1)-x^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}-\frac{1}{2\rho}\|F(\underline{x}(k-1))-F(\underline{x}^*)\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1)\|_{M_1}^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1))^T\text{diag}((\delta_ie_ie_i^T)_{i\in V})(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\!\sum_{i\in V}\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!(\!u_i^{ij}(k+1)\!+\!v_i^{ji}(k+1)\!-\!{u_i^{ij}}^*\!-\!{v_i^{ji}}^*\!)^T\!(\!x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^*\!)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(u_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)+v_{-i}^{ji}(k+1))^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+\frac{2}{c}(\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}^*)^T\text{diag}(({B^i}^T)_{i\in V})(\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}+c(\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}(k-1))^T((D+H)\otimes I_m)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.\text{diag}(({B^i}^T)_{i\in V})(\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}^*)+c(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1))^T\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}.((D+H)\otimes I_N)(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}^*)\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_1:=\text{diag}((\rho e_ie_i^T)_{i\in V})$, $\underline{x}^*=[{{x^1}^*}^T,\ldots,{{x^N}^*}^T]^T$, $\underline{\lambda}=[{{\lambda^1}}^T,\ldots,{{\lambda^N}}^T]^T$ and $\underline{\lambda}^*=[{{\lambda^1}^*}^T,\ldots,{{\lambda^N}^*}^T]^T$. Moreover, $\underline{w}=(w^i)_{i\in V}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}$ and $w^i=(w^{ij})_{j\in N_i}\in\mathbb{R}^{m|N_i|}$ and also $\underline{w}^*=({w^i}^*)_{i\in V}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}$ and ${w^i}^*=({w_i^{ij}}^*)_{j\in N_i}\in\mathbb{R}^{m|N_i|}$.
We bound the first term using Assumption \[Lip\_assump\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Cocoe_in_equat}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\Big(F(\underline{x}(k-1))-F(\underline{x}^*)\Big)^T(x(k-1)-x^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}\geq\sigma_F\|F(\underline{x}(k-1))-F(\underline{x}^*)\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ We also simplify the fourth and the fifth lines in . Since $G_C$ is an undirected graph, for any $\{a_{ij}\}$, $\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}a_{ij}=\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}a_{ji}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simpil_u_underline_bef}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\sum_{i\in V}\!\sum_{j\in N_i}\!(u_i^{ij}(k+1)\!+\!v_i^{ji}(k+1)\!-\!{u_i^{ij}}^*\!-\!{v_i^{ji}}^*)^T\!(x_i^i(k)\!-\!x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(u_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)+v_{-i}^{ji}(k+1))^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}=\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(u_i^{ij}(k+1)-{u_i^{ij}}^*)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(v_i^{ij}(k+1)-{v_i^{ij}}^*)^T(x_i^j(k)-x_i^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}u_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}v_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)^T(x_{-i}^j(k)-x_{-i}^*).\end{aligned}$$ Note that by and as well as the initial conditions for Lagrange multipliers $u^{ij}(0)=v^{ij}(0)=\textbf{0}_N$ $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$, we obtain, $$\label{u+v=0}u^{ij}(k)+v^{ij}(k)=\textbf{0}_N\quad \forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i,\,k>0.$$ Substituting into and using , we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simpil_u_underline}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(u_i^{ij}(k+1)-{u_i^{ij}}^*)^T(x_i^i(k)-x_i^j(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}u_{-i}^{ij}(k+1)^T(x_{-i}^i(k)-x_{-i}^j(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}=\frac{2}{c}\sum_{i\in V}\sum_{j\in N_i}(u^{ij}(k+1)-{u_i^{ij}}^*e_i)^T(u^{ij}(k+1)-{u^{ij}}(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}:=\frac{2}{c}(\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}^*)^T(\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}(k)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\underline{u}=(u^i)_{i\in V}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}$ and $u^i=(u^{ij})_{j\in N_i}\in\mathbb{R}^{N|N_i|}$ and also $\underline{u}^*=({u^i}^*)_{i\in V}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}$ and ${u^i}^*=({u_i^{ij}}^*)_{j\in N_i}\otimes e_i\in\mathbb{R}^{N|N_i|}$. Using and , for $\rho=\frac{1}{2\sigma_F}$ becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optim_equation_Nash_combo_multiplic_Revised_Sum_simpil}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1)\|_{M_1}^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1))^TM_2(\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+(\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}(k-1))^TQ(\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}^*)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\frac{2}{c}(\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}^*)^T(\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}(k))\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\frac{2}{c}(\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}^*)^TB(\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}(k))\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_2:=\text{diag}\Big((\delta_i e_ie_i^T)_{i\in V}\Big)+c((D+H)\otimes I_N)$, $B:=\text{diag}(({B^i}^T)_{i\in V})$ and $Q:=c((D+H)\otimes I_N)B$. Note that, $$\label{D+A_L}
c((D+A)\otimes I_N)=c((D^{\frac{1}{2}}(2I-L_{N})D^{\frac{1}{2}})\otimes I_N),$$ where $L:=D-H$, $D^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $D^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $L_N:=D^{-\frac{1}{2}}LD^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ are the Laplacian of $G_C$, the square root and reciprocal square root of $D$ and the normalized Laplacian of $G_C$, respectively. Since $D\succ 0$, $D^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ exist, it is shown in that $\lambda_{\max}(L_N)\leq2$. Then yields that $c((D+H)\otimes I_N)\succeq0$. This concludes $M_2\succeq0$. Moreover, by Assumption \[constraint\], $B\succeq 0$. We use the following inequality in for every $\{a(k)\}$ and $M\succeq 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}(a(k)-a(k-1))^TM(a(k)-a^*)=\frac{1}{2}\|a(k)-a^*\|_M^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1cm}+\frac{1}{2}\|a(k)-a(k-1)\|_M^2-\frac{1}{2}\|a(k-1)-a^*\|_M^2.\end{aligned}$$ Then becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optim_equation_Nash_combo_multiplic_Revised_Sum_simpil_square}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\Big\{\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}^*\|^2_{M_2}+\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}^*\|^2_{Q}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}^*\|^2+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}^*\|_B^2\Big\}\leq\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\Big\{\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k-1)-\underline{x}^*\|^2_{M_2}+\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\lambda}(k-1)-\underline{\lambda}^*\|^2_{Q}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{u}(k)-\underline{u}^*\|^2+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{w}(k)-\underline{w}^*\|_B^2\Big\}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1)\|_{M_2-M_1}^2-\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}(k-1)\|^2_Q\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}(k)\|^2-\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}(k)\|_B^2.\end{aligned}$$ By the condition , $M_2-M_1\succ0$. Then implies the following two results:
1. $\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}^*\|^2_{M_2}+\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}^*\|^2_{Q}+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}^*\|^2+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}^*\|_B^2\rightarrow\theta$, for some $\theta\geq0$,
2. $\begin{cases}\underline{x}(k)-\underline{x}(k-1)\rightarrow\textbf{0}_{N^2}\\
\underline{\lambda}(k)-\underline{\lambda}(k-1)\rightarrow\textbf{0}_{mN}\\
\underline{u}(k+1)-\underline{u}(k)\rightarrow\textbf{0}_{N\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}\\
\underline{w}(k+1)-\underline{w}(k)\rightarrow\textbf{0}_{m\sum_{i\in V}|N_i|}\end{cases}$.
Result 1 implies that the sequences $\{x^i(k)\},\,\{\lambda^i(k)\},\,\{u^{ij}(k)\}$ and $\{w^{ij}(k)\}$ (similarly $\{v^{ij}(k)\}$ and $\{z^{ij}(k)\}$) are bounded and have limit points denoted by $\bar{x}^i,\,\bar{\lambda}^i,\,\bar{u}^{ij}$ and $\bar{w}^{ij}$ ($\bar{v}^{ij}$ and $\bar{z}^{ij}$), respectively. Then, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\theta=\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\bar{x}}(k)-\underline{x}^*\|^2_{M_2}+\frac{1}{2}\|\underline{\bar{\lambda}}(k)-\underline{\lambda}^*\|^2_{Q}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{\bar{u}}(k+1)-\underline{u}^*\|^2+\frac{1}{c}\|\underline{\bar{w}}(k+1)-\underline{\bar{w}}^*\|_B^2\end{aligned}$$ Result 2 along with and yield $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$, $$\label{xi=xjlambdai=lambdaj}
\bar{x}^i=\bar{x}^j:=\bar{x},\,\bar{\lambda}^i=\bar{\lambda}^j:=\bar{\lambda}$$ Moreover, by we arrive at, $$\label{u+v=0tilda}\bar{u}^{ij}+\bar{v}^{ij}=\textbf{0}_N\quad \forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i.$$ Similarly, $\bar{w}^{ij}+\bar{z}^{ij}=\textbf{0}_m\quad \forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$. Result 2 also implies that by , and : $$\begin{aligned}
&&\nabla_iJ_i(\bar{x})+\partial\mathcal{I}_{\Omega_i}(\bar{x}_i)+\sum_{j\in N_i}(\bar{u}_i^{ij}+\tilde{v}_i^{ji})=0,\label{optim_equation_tilda}\\
&&A^i\bar{x}-b^i-\sum_{j\in N_i}{\bar{w}^{ij}}+{\bar{z}^{ji}}=\textbf{0}_m.\label{shabihnash}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing - with , it follows $\forall i\in V,\,j\in N_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\bar{x}^i=x^*\,(\underline{\bar{x}}=\underline{x^*}),\,\bar{\lambda}^i=x^*\,(\underline{\bar{\lambda}}=\underline{\lambda^*}),\label{xxlambdatilde=lambdastar}\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\bar{u}^{ij}={u^{ij}}^*\,(\underline{\bar{u}}=\underline{u^*}),\,\bar{w}^{ij}={w^{ij}}^*\,(\underline{\bar{w}}=\underline{w^*}).\label{wtilde=wstar}\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof. $\hfill\blacksquare$
Simulation Results
==================
In this section, we simulate our algorithm for a wireless ad-hoc network (WANET). Consider a WANET with 16 nodes and 16 multi-hop communication links as in Fig. 1 (a). There are 15 users who aim to transfer data from a source to a destination. Solid line represents a link $L_j,\,j\in\{1,\ldots,16\}$ and dashed line displays a path $R_i,\,i\in\{1,\ldots,15\}$ that is assigned to user $i$ to transfer data. Each link $L_j$ has a positive capacity $C_j>0$ that restricts the users’ data flow .
The data flow of user $i$ is denoted by $x_i$ such that $0\leq x_i\leq 10$. For each user $i$, a cost function $J_i$ is defined as in [@ssalehisadaghiani2016distributed]: $$\label{Cost_fcn_gen}
J_i(x_i,x_{-i}):=\sum_{j:L_j\in R_i}\frac{\kappa}{C_j-\sum_{w:L_j\in R_w}x_w}-\chi_i \log(x_i+1),$$ where $\kappa>0$ and $\chi_i>0$ are network-wide known and user-specific parameters, respectively.
The problem is to find a GNE of the game which is played over a communication graph $G_C$ (depicted in Fig. 1 (b)). We assume a common constraint $x_1+x_3+x_5=14$ between the players. It is straightforward to check the Assumptions 2,3 and 4 on $G_C$ and the cost functions. The users’ flow rate and the dual Lagrange multipliers (they converge to 0) as well as the normalized error are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 for $\chi_i=15$ $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,15\}$ and $C_j=15$ $\forall j\in\{1,\ldots,16\}$.
 \[fig:minipage1\]
 \[fig:minipage1\]
 \[fig:minipage1\]
Conclusions
===========
A distributed GNE seeking algorithm is designed within the framework of inexact-ADMM. Each player is only aware of his own cost function, problem data and action set of all players. Each player exchanges the estimates of other players’ actions along with the local copy of his Lagrange multiplier with his communication neighbors. An inexact-ADMM algorithm is then derived to find a GNE of the game. Convergence of the algorithm is then provided under mild conditions on cost functions.
[^1]: The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G4, Canada (e-mails: [[email protected], [email protected]]{}).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We analyzed four Spitzer/IRAC observations at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m of the primary transit of the exoplanet GJ436b, by using blind source separation techniques. These observations are important to investigate the atmospheric composition of the planet GJ436b. Previous analyses claimed strong inter-epoch variations of the transit parameters due to stellar variability, casting doubts on the possibility to extract conclusively an atmospheric signal; those analyses also reported discrepant results, hence the necessity of this reanalysis. The method we used has been proposed in [@mor14] to analyze 3.6 $\mu$m transit light-curves of the hot Jupiter HD189733b; it performes an Independent Component Analysis (ICA) on a set of pixel-light-curves, i.e. time series read by individual pixels, from the same photometric observation. Our method only assumes the independence of instrumental and astrophysical signals, and therefore guarantees a higher degree of objectivity compared to parametric detrending techniques published in the literature. The datasets we analyzed in this paper represent a more challenging test compared to the previous ones.\
Contrary to previous results reported in the literature, our results (1) do not support any detectable inter-epoch variations of orbital and stellar parameters, (2) are photometrically stable at the level $\sim$10$^{-4}$ in the IR, and (3) the transit depth measurements at the two wavelengths are consistent within 1$\sigma$. We also (4) detect a possible transit duration variation (TDV) of $\sim$80 s (2 $\sigma$ significance level), that has not been pointed out in the literature, and (5) confirm no transit timing variations (TTVs) $\gtrsim$30 s.
author:
- 'G. Morello, I. P. Waldmann, G. Tinetti, I. D. Howarth'
- 'G. Micela'
- 'F. Allard'
title: 'Revisiting Spitzer transit observations with Independent Component Analysis: new results for the GJ436 system'
---
Introduction
============
Transit spectroscopy and differential photometry are largely used to investigate the composition and structure of exoplanetary atmospheres. The large majority of transiting exoplanets are “hot Jupiters”, i.e. planets with size similar to Jupiter orbiting very closely to their host star (semimajor axis $\sim 0.01 - 0.5$AU). Their typical surface temperatures are $\gtrsim 1000$K.
GJ436b is a Neptune-sized planet orbiting around an M dwarf with radius $\sim$0.46$R_{\odot}$ at a distance $\sim$0.03 AU. This planet is interesting for several reasons. It is one of the smallest (radius $\sim$4.3$R_{\oplus}$) and coolest ($\sim 700$K) exoplanet for which optical-to-IR spectra have been measured [@gil07; @dem07; @alo08; @cou08; @cac09; @dem09; @pont09; @bal10; @ste10; @bea11; @knu11; @knu14]. The primary transit depth is $\sim$0.7$\%$. Another peculiarity of GJ436b is its high orbital eccentricity ($e \sim$0.16), inferred from radial velocity measurements [@man07] and from secondary eclipse phasing [@dem09]. Both the physical and dynamical properties of GJ436b are debated in the literature.
[@man07] and [@dem07] investigated the origin of the high orbital eccentricity of GJ436b, concluding that the circularization timescale ($\sim$10$^8$ yr) is significantly smaller than the age of the system ($\gtrsim$6$\times$10$^9$). [@man07] also found a long trend in radial velocity measurements; they suggested the presence of an external perturber on a wider orbit to explain both the high eccentricity of GJ436b and the long trend in radial velocity measurements. [@rib08] hypothesized a Super-Earth on a close orbit to explain those evidences, later retracted. Transit timing variations (TTVs) reported by [@alo08; @cac09] do not support any evidence of external perturbers. [@ste12] claimed the possible detection of two nearby sub-Earth-sized exoplanets transiting in GJ436 system; according to the authors, the dynamic of the proposed system is consistent with the current non-TTV-detections.
Based on multiwavelength infrared eclipse measurements, [@ste10] proposed a high CO-to-CH$_4$ ratio compared to thermochemical equilibrium models for hydrogen-dominated atmospheres. Their atmospheric model includes disequilibrium processes, such as vertical mixing and polymerization of methan to explain the observed deficiency of CH$_4$. [@bea11] suggested strong CH$_4$ absorption at 3.6, 4.5, and 8.0 $\mu$m Spitzer/IRAC passbands from primary transit observations, and their reanalysis of secondary eclipse data is consistent with this detection. [@knu11] measured significant time variations of the transit depths at the same wavelengths, which strongly affect the inferred transmission spectrum. They attributed such variations to the stellar activity and found that different results are obtainable depending on the observations considered. By rejecting those observations that they believe to be most strongly affected by stellar activity, their final results support CO as the dominant carbon molecule, with very little, if any, CH$_4$. More recent Hubble/WFC3 observations in the 1.2$-$1.6 $\mu$m wavelength interval, analyzed by [@knu14], indicate a featureless transmission spectrum, which is consistent with relatively hydrogen-poor atmosphere with a high cloud or haze layer.
In this paper we reanalyze four transit light-curves obtained with Spitzer/IRAC at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m passbands (channels 1 and 2 of IRAC). We adopt a non-parametric data detrending technique, based on Independent Component Analysis (ICA) applied to single pixel-light-curves, to ensure a higher degree of objectivity. This method has proven to give robust results, when applied to the transits of the hot-Jupiter HD189733b observed with IRAC at 3.6 $\mu$m [@mor14]. We further test here the performance of this detrending technique with the more challenging datasets of the Neptune-sized planet GJ436b, for which the transit depth is comparable with the amplitude of the instrumental pixel-phase signal, and the transit duration is very similar to the period of that signal. Additionally, we discuss the stellar and orbital stability of the GJ436 system, the repeatability of transit measurements, potentially affected by stellar, planet, and instrument variability, and the atmospheric contribution. We discuss the reliability of our results in light of other observations reported in the literature, in particular [@bea11; @knu11; @knu14].
Data Analysis
=============
Observations
------------
We analyze four photometric observations of GJ436b, which are part of the Spitzer program ID 50051. They include two 3.6 and two 4.5 $\mu$m primary transits as detailed in Tab. \[tab1\].
[ccccc]{} Obs. Number & Detector & Wavelength ($\mu$m) & UT Date & Orbit Number\
1a & IRAC, ch1 & 3.6 & 2009 Jan 9 & 234\
1b & IRAC, ch1 & 3.6 & 2009 Jan 28 & 241\
2a & IRAC, ch2 & 4.5 & 2009 Jan 17 & 237\
2b & IRAC, ch2 & 4.5 & 2009 Jan 31 & 242\
Each observation consists of 1829 exposures using IRAC’s sub-array mode, taken over 4.3 hr: 0.8 hr on the primary transit of the planet, the remaining 3.5 hr before and after transit. The interval between consecutive exposures is 8.4 s. Each exposure includes 64 consecutive frames integrated over 0.1 s. We replaced the single frames of each exposure with their averages to reduce the random scatter, and the computational time[^1]. During an observation, the centroid of the star GJ436 is stable to within one pixel.
Detrending method, light-curve fitting and error bars {#ssec:errors}
-----------------------------------------------------
Here we outline the main steps of the analysis, i.e. data detrending, light-curve fitting and estimating parameter error bars. Further details are reported in [@mor14].
To detrend the transit signals from single observations, we performed an ICA decomposition over selected pixel-light-curves, i.e. time series from individual pixels. We considered 5$\times$5 arrays of pixels with the stellar centroids at their centers. In this way, we obtain a set of maximally independent components: one of them is the transit signal, others may be instrumental systematics and/or astrophysical signals. Observed light-curves are linear combinations of these independent components, the coefficients of the linear combinations can be calculated by fitting the out-of-transit parts. To estimate the transit signal in a robust way, the fit is performed on the out-of-transit of the relevant integral light-curve, i.e. the sum of the pixel-light-curves from the array used, including all the non-transit components plus a constant term. The detrended transit signal is obtained by subtracting all the non-transit components, properly scaled by their fitting coefficients, from the integral light-curve. It is renormalized by the mean value on the out-of-transit, so that the out-of-transit level is unity.
After the extractions of the detrended and normalized transit time series, we modelled them by using the [@ma02] analytical formulae. We originally assumed the orbital period, $P$, and the epoch of the first transit, $E_{tr}$, reported by [@cac09]; the eccentricity, $e$, and the argument of periastron, $\omega$, reported by [@man07]; they are consistent with those reported by previous papers [@but04; @gil07; @dem09], and more accurate. We tested two different sets of quadratic limb darkening coefficients for the star [@how11b], $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, derived by an Atlas [@kur70; @how11] and a Phoenix [@all95; @all01] models (see Sec. \[ssec:ldc\]). With these settings, we estimated the planet-to-star radii ratio, $p = \frac{r_p}{R_s}$, the orbital semimajor axis in units of stellar radii, $a_0 = \frac{a}{R_s}$, and inclination, $i$. First estimates were obtained through a Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm [@lag98]; they were used as optimal starting points for an Adaptive Metropolis algorithm with delayed rejection [@haa06], generating chains of 20,000 values. Updated best estimates and (partial) error bars of the parameters, $\sigma_{par,0}$, are the means and standard deviations of the relevant (gaussian distributed) sampled chains, respectively. The final parameter error bars are: $$\label{eqn:sigmapar}
\sigma_{par} = \sigma_{par,0} \sqrt{ \frac{ \sigma_{0}^2 + \sigma_{ICA}^2 }{ \sigma_{0}^2}}
\label{eqn:sigma_par}$$ $\sigma_{0}^2$ is the sampled likelihood variance, approximately equal to the variance of the residuals for the best transit model; $\sigma_{ICA}^2$ is a term estimating the uncertainty associated to the ICA extraction (see App. \[sec:app0\] for further details).
For completeness, and for comparison with the literature, we also calculated the transit depth, $p^2$, the impact parameter, $b$, and the transit duration, $T$, where (see [@ford08]): $$b = a_0 \cos{i} \frac{1-e^2}{1+e \sin{ \omega}}$$ $$T = \frac{P \sqrt{1-b^2}}{ \pi a_0} \frac{ \sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e \sin{ \omega}}
\label{eqn:T}$$
For a more thorough analysis, we performed other fits with different choices of the free parameters, introducing a phase-shift parameter to consider possible timing error/variations, and simultaneous fits on more than one multiple light-curves with some common free parameters.
Application to observations {#ssec:application}
---------------------------
Fig. \[fig1\] reports the raw “integral light-curves” observed. The main systematic effect for IRAC channels 1 and 2 observations is an almost regular undulation with period $\sim$3000 s, so-called pixel-phase effect, because it depends on the relative position of the source centroid with respect to a pixel center [@faz04; @mc06]. This effect is particularly difficult to detrend from these datasets because its timescale is similar to the transit duration, and its amplitude is comparable to the transit depth. Recently, a time dependence of the pixel-phase effect has been suggested [@ste10; @bea11].
If considering the whole datasets for detrending, our ICA algorithm is able to remove most of the non-flatness on the out-of-transits, and visibly improve the in-transit shapes, but some visible issues remain (see Fig. \[fig16\]). We noted that results improve significantly if rejecting a number of data points from the beginning of each observation. It is discussed on a statistical basis in Sec. \[ssec:pcc\]. A possible explanation is that first data points contain a long-tail variation until stabilization of the instruments ([@faz04], see also App. \[sec:app0added\]); this is not a crucial point for the data analysis. In the rest of this paper we discuss the results obtained after rejecting the first 450 exposures from each observation, corresponding to $\sim$3780 s, for which the ICA performances are optimal. It is worth to point out that different choices (including no data rejections) give consistent results (within 1 $\sigma$), with larger or similar error bars.
### Limb darkening coefficients {#ssec:ldc}
Tab. \[tab2\] reports the quadratic limb darkening coefficients used at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m IRAC passbands. Both the Atlas and Phoenix models are computed with T$_{eff}$ = 3680 K, $\log{g}$ = 4.78 [@tor09], and solar abundances [@asp09].
[ccc]{} Atlas & 3.6 $\mu$m & 4.5 $\mu$m\
$\gamma_1$ & 5.489 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$ & 1.331 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$\
$\gamma_2$ & 3.0653 $\times$ 10$^{-1}$ & 2.8396 $\times$ 10$^{-1}$\
Phoenix & 3.6 $\mu$m & 4.5 $\mu$m\
$\gamma_1$ & 3.87 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ & 3.27 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$\
$\gamma_2$ & 2.3615 $\times$ 10$^{-1}$ & 1.8193 $\times$ 10$^{-1}$\
Results
=======
Tests of pixel-phase correlations {#ssec:pcc}
---------------------------------
To investigate the effectiveness of the data detrending we measure the correlations of the signals with the pixel-phase position, before and after the corrections. We refer to the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PCC), defined as: $$PCC = \frac{ cov(X,Y)}{ \sigma_X \sigma_Y}$$ where $cov(X,Y)$ is the covariance of the signals $X$ and $Y$, $\sigma_X$ and $\sigma_Y$ are the standard deviations. In this context, $X$ and $Y$ are temporal series of fluxes and pixel-phases. The PCCs are measured over three intervals, i.e. pre-, in-, and post-transit, where the astrophysical signals are expected to be almost flat [^2]. In general -1$\le$PCC$\le$+1, where +1 is total positive correlation, -1 is total negative correlation, and 0 is no correlation. Fig. \[fig3\] reports the temporal series of pixel-phases. Fig. \[fig4\] reports the values of the PCCs measured on the pre-, in-, and post-transit for each observation, uncorrected, corrected without and with pre-transit truncation. The original data are strongly anticorrelated with the pixel-phase, with PCC$\lesssim$-0.9 for channel 1, and PCC$\sim$-0.7 for channel 2. After the ICA detrending including all the data, these correlations are significatively reduced ($|$PCC$| <$0.3). If we remove the first 450 data points, the ICA detrending generally performs significantly better ($|$PCC$| \sim$10$^{-3}$-7$\times$10$^{-2}$). Fig. \[fig5\] reports the level of significance of the residual correlations in the detrended data, calculated with a permutation test. When we reject the first 450 data points, the residual correlations in the detrended data are below 1.5 $\sigma$, except for Obs. 2a, for which the residual correlation is higher in any case. The residual correlations without the cut of the first 450 data points are larger, i.e. $>$4 $\sigma$ in the post transit, with the exception of Obs. 1b, for which the residual correlations are below 1 $\sigma$ in any case.
Fitting $p$, $a_0$ and $i$ {#sec:starting_fits}
--------------------------
Fig. \[fig6\] reports the detrended light-curves, binned over 7 points, with the relative best transit models, and the residuals. The transit models in Fig. \[fig6\] are computed with $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ Phoenix coefficients. Analogous transit models computed with $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ Atlas coefficients are very similar, with average standard deviations $\lesssim$1.9$\times$10$^{-5}$, and maximum discrepacies $\lesssim$10$^{-4}$. Discrepancies between the transit models and the detrended light-curves are at the level $\sim$2.0$\times$10$^{-4}$ for IRAC channel 1, and $\sim$2.6$-$2.9$\times$10$^{-4}$ for IRAC channel 2, therefore it is not possible to distinguish between Atlas and Phoenix models from the data. Best parameter results and error bars are reported in Fig. \[fig7\], in Tab. \[tab4\] and \[tab5\]. Atlas and Phoenix stellar models lead to two systematically different parameter sets, but within the error bars. All the parameters from different observations are comparable within 1$\sigma$, even neglecting the detrending errors ($\sigma_{ICA}$), except the transit durations for Obs 1a and 1b. This is discussed in the following sections.
### Combining observations {#sec:combined_fits}
We performed two couples of simultaneos fits, one for the 3.6 $\mu$m and one for the 4.5 $\mu$m light-curves, with Atlas and Phoenix limb darkening coefficients, assuming common orbital parameters ($a_0$ and $i$), and potentially different transit depths ($p$), in order to cancel the effects of parameter intercorrelations. The assumption that orbital parameters are the same during each observation is very reliable, because they are sparse over a short period of time (less than 1 month, 9 planetary orbital periods), so that variations due to relativistic effects, external perturbers or tidal effects, would be very small compared to the error bars [@alo08; @jor08; @pal08].
The results of these combined fits are reported in Fig. \[fig8\], \[fig9\], in Tab. \[tab6\] and \[tab7\]. The 4.5 $\mu$m transit depths become identical, with an intermediate value between the two determined with separate fits; the 3.6 $\mu$m transit depths slightly diverges, but their separation is still less than 1$\sigma$. The standard deviations of residuals between the detrended light-curves and the transit models increase of $\sim$2$-$3$\times$10$^{-6}$ for Obs 2a and 2b (negligible), and of $\sim$7$-$8$\times$10$^{-6}$ for Obs 1a and 1b (comparable with the $\sigma_0$ uncertainties). The assumption of common orbital parameters for Obs 2a and 2b may be valid, being the consequent transit models as good as the individually fitted ones. Being the transit depths also identical, the two light-curves are very well approximated by the same transit model. The original discrepancies between the two sets of transit parameters were enlarged by their intercorrelations. The same assumption for Obs 1a and 1b lead to worse transit models and more divergent transit depths, but, in both cases, not dramatically.
Timing variations {#ssec:TTV}
-----------------
We performed transit model-fits with a free phase-shift in addition to $p$, $a_0$, and $i$, in order to investigate the effect of possible timing variations. Fig. \[fig10\] reports the time-shifts obtained. No evidence of timing variation have been detected, with upper limits $<$30 s. Both Atlas and Phoenix stellar models lead to the same shifts. Other parameter estimates are not affected.
Discussion
==========
Comparing observations
----------------------
Fig. \[fig11\] and \[fig12\] report the superpositions of 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m light-curves respectively, and the residuals. In both cases the mean value of the in-transit residuals is small ($\lesssim$5$\times$10$^{-5}$), but the transit 1b is clearly longer than transit 1a, as measured by transit duration ($T$) parameters. As $T$ is function of the orbital parameters and stellar model, this is the reason why simultaneous fits with common orbital parameters and stellar model do not behave very well. We also note that the ingresses of transits 2a and 2b have different slopes.
The difference between $p^2$ values at the two wavelengths is (on average) $\sim$5$\times$10$^{-5}$, then there is no evidence of differences in planetary atmosphere’s absorption at the two wavelengths.
The orbital parameters at the two wavelengths are also comparable, as detailed in Sec. \[sec:starting\_fits\] and \[sec:combined\_fits\]. Simultaneous fits over the four observations with common orbital parameters do not add any information.
Comparison with previous analyses of the same observations
----------------------------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig7\] reports the parameter values obtained in this paper for the individual observations with the analogues reported by [@bea11; @knu11]. Our results suggest a constant value of the transit depth (largely within 1$\sigma$) both between the 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m observations, and for the two wavelengths. [@knu11] report variations of the transit depth with a 3.4$\sigma$ significance between the two epochs at 3.6 $\mu$m, and 2.1$\sigma$ at 4.5 $\mu$m, which they attributed to stellar activity. [@bea11] also obtained significant differences between different epochs at the same wavelength, but they attributed such discrepancies to an unfavorable transit-systematic phasing, then they discarded those epochs from the analysis. Our error bars are generally comparable to the ones reported in both previous papers, but in some cases they are larger up to a factor $\sim$2. This is not surprising, because we are not making any prior assumptions about the signals, to guarantee a high degree of objectivity [@mor14; @wal12; @wal13]. We conclude that our detrending method lead to more robust results than the previous ones in the literature, and they show no evidence of stellar activity variations at $\sim$10$^{-4}$ photometric level. Recent results from Hubble/WFC3 observations at 1.2$-$1.6 $\mu$m [@knu14] also show no significant transit depth variations over four observations in about 2 months.
Comparison with other observations
----------------------------------
Fig. \[fig13\] compares our estimated transit depth values at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m (averaged over the observations at the same wavelength) with the most recent results at 1.2$-$1.6 $\mu$m [@knu14]. The resulting spectrum is featureless within the error bars. However, when comparing transit depth measurements at different wavelengths, we should ensure that the GJ436 system is uniformly modelled, i.e. same stellar model and orbital parameters. A uniform multiwavelength reanalysis is required to confirm this result, and investigate potential small features.
Our non-detection of TTVs higher than $\sim$30 s (see Sec. \[ssec:TTV\]) is consistent with previous analyses in the infrared [@alo08; @cac09; @pont09; @bal10; @knu11; @knu14]. We measured a significant TDV ($\sim$80 s) between Obs 1a and 1b; we did not find any study of TDVs for GJ436b in the literature, but injecting parameters from [@knu11] into our Eq. \[eqn:T\] we obtain a similar trend for the same observations. More observations are required to investigate the cause of the apparent TDV between Obs 1a and 1b, whether it is due to a perturber (as currently required to explain the high orbital eccentricity), a stellar phenomenon, or something else.
Conclusions
===========
We have applied a blind signal-source separation method, firstly proposed by [@mor14], to analyze other photometric data of primary transits of an exoplanet, and extending its validity to the Spitzer/IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m band. These datasets were more challenging to analyze, because of the lower transit depth, comparable with the amplitude of the instrumental pixel-phase signal, the transit duration, very similar to the period of said signal, and possible stellar variability.
We obtain consistent results between transits at different epochs, ruling out stellar activity variations within $\sim$10$^{-4}$ photometric level. We do not detect any significant difference for the transit depth at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m, neither with the recent measurements at 1.2$-$1.6 $\mu$m [@knu14], supporting the hypothesis of a flat transmission spectrum. We measure a TDV of $~$80 s between transits separated by 7 orbits (2 $\sigma$ significance level), but no significant TTVs; more measurements are required to investigate the possible presence of a perturber, and its nature. Also, more uniform analyses at other wavelengths are required to get a more reliable transmission spectrum.\
G. Morello is funded by UCL Perren/Impact scholarship (CJ4M/CJ0T). I. P. Waldmann is funded by the European Research Council Grant “Exolights”. G. Tinetti is funded by the Royal Society. G. Micela is supported by “Progetto Premiale - A Way to Other Worlds”, funded by Italian Minister for University and Scientific Research”.
ICA
===
Rationale {#sec:app0added}
---------
ICA is a special case of “blind source separation” technique, i.e. it aims to separate original source signals from observations with minimal assumptions. The assumptions for standard ICA [^3] are:
1. the source signals are statistically independent;
2. observations are linear mixtures of the source signals;
3. the number of distinguishable observations is not smaller than the number of sources.
The first condition is easily verified if the signals have different origins, i.e. the astronomical target, other background objects, and the instruments. Additionally, some studies found that ICA algorithms can separate also signals that are not exactly independent [@hyv00; @hyv01].
The second condition is more questionable, given that some instrumental systematics might be multiplicative rather than additive. Alternative ICA algorithms consider non-linear mixing of the source signals, but some additional information are required to perform the separation, and, in general, there is not a unique solution [@hyv01]. Based on the following evidences, we found that, for Spitzer/IRAC light-curves, the classic assumption of linear mixing leads to reliable and robust results:
- detrended light-curves present a low level of residual scatter, compared to the literature [@bea11; @knu11];
- planetary and stellar parameters measured at different epochs are consistent (this is not a necessary condition);
- non-transit components have the same characteristics, e.g. periodicity and amplitude, of known instrumental systematics.
This seems to be in contrast with the standard (empirical) pixel-phase effect method used to detrend Spitzer data [@faz04]: flux measurements are correlated with the position of the centroid on a pixel, the cause of this is assumed to be an intra-pixel sensitivity variation, hence the systematics model is multiplied to the astrophysical signal. We are now investigating this question through simulated observations (Morello et al., in prep.); we report here our preliminary results:
- either inter- and intra-pixel effects (or both) can originate systematics similar to the ones observed in Spitzer;
- inter-pixel effects are additive, as in our ICA model;
- intra-pixel effects are not additive, but the ICA algorithm is still able to significantly reduce their presence in the light-curves (our simulations currently indicate a reduction by a factor of 7 for the amplitudes of systematic components from an original 3.5$\times$10$^{-3}$ photometric level, outperforming the pixel-phase method by a factor of 2.3-3.3).
The third condition is case-dependent, since the number of components is not known a priori, and the number of pixels is limited by the width of the PSF. Also, if all the pixels contain the same systematic signals with the same weights relative to the astrophysical signal, the pixel-light-curves would not be distinguishable, and separation would be impossibile. Given the results obtained, we infer that we have a sufficient number of distinguishable pixel-light-curves to detrend our signals up to a 2$\times$10$^{-4}$ photometric precision.
Performances of MULTICOMBI algorithm
------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the ability of ICA to separate different kinds of signals. It depends on the particular algorithm used, in our case MULTICOMBI [@tic08]. MULTICOMBI is a powerful tool, that optimally mixes two complementary algorithms, i.e. EFICA [@kol06], designed to separate non-gaussian signals, and WASOBI [@yer00], specialized to separate gaussian auto-regressive and time-correlated components.
We tested MULTICOMBI performances with simulated observations of planetary transits affected by a large variety of systematic signals, including non-stationary signals with changing frequencies and amplitudes, sudden change points, transient behaviours, and long-term monotonic drifts. In all cases the algorithm successfully dentrended the systematic components, except monotonic drifts (see Fig. \[fig14\] and \[fig15\] for some examples). Spitzer/IRAC lightcurves typically start with a drift before stabilization; this would explain the improved performance if rejecting part of the earlier data points.
A more detailed analysis of the performances of the ICA detrending method adopted in this paper for different instrument cases, i.e. inter- or intra-pixel effects, amplitude and frequency of the systematics, temporal structures, non-stationarity, individual pixel peculiarities, is ongoing (Morello et al., in prep.).
The calculation time for a MULTICOMBI session is, in our cases less than 3 s. We are considering a number of signals $d=$25, and N$\sim$10$^{3}$ data points. For non-binned datasets, i.e. $N\sim$10$^{5}$ data points, the calculation time varies in the range 45-105 s, then it is, in general, case dependent. We measured the computation time for different values of $d$ and $N$, and found that the algorithm complexity scales as $\mathcal{O}(d^2N)$, as predicted for EFICA in [@kol06].
ICA errors {#sec:app0}
----------
If ICA were able to separate the original source signals perfectly, the parameter error bars would be fully determined by the residual scatter on the detrended light-curve. In general, we expect this not to be the case, since any detrending method would introduce some bias in the parameter estimates. We model such unknown bias as an additive uncertainty, $\sigma_{ICA}$, in the time series, leading to Eq. \[eqn:sigmapar\]. [@mor14] report the following formula for $\sigma_{ICA}$: $$\label{eqn:sigmaica}
\sigma_{ICA}^2 = f^2 \left ( \sum_{j} o_j^2 \textbf{ISR}_j + \sigma_{ntc-fit}^2 \right )$$ where $\textbf{ISR}$ is the so-called Interference-to-Signal-Ratio matrix, $o_j$ are the coefficients of the non-transit-components, $m$ is their number, $\sigma_{ntc-fit}$ is the standard deviation of residuals from the referent raw light-curve, out of the transit, $f$ is the normalising factor for the detrended light-curve. The sum on the left takes into account the precision of the components extracted by the algorithm; $\sigma_{ntc-fit}$ indicates how well the linear combination of components approximates the out-of-transit. Note that, while the first term increases with the number of components considered (see Sec. \[ssec:errors\]), the second term decreases. The optimal strategy is to remove all the extracted non-transit components from the raw light-curve, though many results obtained by removing the most significant components (to be determined) are almost identical (see [@mor14], Sec. 2.5.2).
MULTICOMBI code produces two Interference-to-Signal-Ratio matrices, $\textbf{ISR}^{EF}$, associated to the algorithm EFICA, and $\textbf{ISR}^{WA}$, associated to the algorithm WASOBI. In [@mor14] we estimated the global $\textbf{ISR}$ as the arithmetic mean of $\textbf{ISR}^{EF}$ and $\textbf{ISR}^{WA}$; this a very conservative estimate, which does not take into account the outperforming separation capabilities of MULTICOMBI compared to EFICA and WASOBI; here we suggest a more appropriate definition: $$\label{eqn:ISR}
\textbf{ISR}_{i,j} = min \left ( \textbf{ISR}_{i,j}^{EF}, \textbf{ISR}_{i,j}^{WA} \right )$$
In the cases analyzed in [@mor14] the contributions of the $\textbf{ISR}$ terms were $\sim$10$\%$ of the total error bars, then adopting the new definition of $\textbf{ISR}$ would not modify the results significantly. Here, we find that the $\textbf{ISR}$ contributions to the error bars are comparable with the other terms, probably because some instrumental systematics and the transit signals have similar timescales and amplitudes, making the separation more uncertain. Tab. \[tab3\] reports the values of $\sigma_{ICA}$ obtained for each observations, with $\textbf{ISR}$ calculated according to Eq. \[eqn:ISR\], and according to the arithmetic mean definition.
[ccccc]{} Obs. number & $\sigma_{ICA}$ & $\sigma_{ICA}$ (max)\
1a & 4.24$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 5.97$\times$10$^{-4}$\
1b & 3.41$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 4.52$\times$10$^{-4}$\
2a & 2.79$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 3.07$\times$10$^{-4}$\
2b & 3.97$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 6.42$\times$10$^{-4}$\
The error bars obtained in this paper with the definition in Eq. \[eqn:ISR\] are consistent with results from the same tests of robustness reported in [@mor14], i.e. different number of components, pixel arrays, and partial time series. For completeness, tables in App. \[tables\] report the error bars obtained from residual scatter only, including $\sigma_{ICA}$ with **ISR** defined as in Eq. \[eqn:ISR\], and with the previous definition of **ISR**. The relative difference between error bars obtained with the two definitions of **ISR** is 0$-$30$\%$, which, in general, may be important for atmospheric characterization, but it does not affect the conclusions obtained in this paper.
Full datasets analysis {#sec:app1}
======================
Fig. \[fig16\] reports the detrended light-curves obtained using the whole datasets. As stated in Sec. \[ssec:application\], the systematics originally present in the raw light-curves are greatly reduced (see Fig. \[fig1\]), but there are still visible trends at all phases of the transits. Quantitative measurements of these trends, based on the correlations with the pixel-phase, have been discussed in Sec. \[ssec:pcc\], together with the trends obtained by rejecting the first 450 data points before processing. Also, standard deviation of residuals between the light-curves and the transit models are larger for the cases with no preliminary data rejection (but for Obs 1b the difference is not significant). Removing the first 450 data points after ICA processing may reduce the scatter, but it does not improve the reliability of the light-curves, because trends are present at all times.
Results extracted from these worse-quality light-curves are less robust, but they are consistent with accepted results within 1 $\sigma$. Also, error bars are largely underestimated if neglecting the uncertainties due to the detrending process. It may induce to erroneously detect inter-epoch transit depth variations.
Alternative transit model-fits {#sec:app2}
==============================
Free limb darkening
-------------------
We performed transit model-fits with one free limb darkening parameter (linear or quadratic) in addition to the other free parameters ($p$, $a_0$, and $i$). The standard deviations of residuals between the detrended light-curves and the transit models do not change, among the models obtained with Atlas, Phoenix, free linear and free quadratic limb darkening coefficients. The parameter error bars are larger by factors in the range 1$-$3 for the free quadratic case, even much larger for the free linear case. Best parameter estimates may be more affected by intercorrelations. The pure quadratic limb darkening is a better approximation of the real case, because in both Atlas and Phoenix models the quadratic coefficients are greater than the linear ones. Fig. \[fig17\] reports the estimates for the quadratic limb darkening coefficients, $\gamma_2$.
Note that:
1. they are comparable (within 1$\sigma$) with the theoretical values;
2. error bars are larger than the differences between Atlas and Phoenix values;
3. error bars do not allow to distinguish the values at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m.
Interestingly, the best estimate of $\gamma_2$ for Obs 1b is the most distant from the other values (but within 1$\sigma$), and the correspondent transit duration is now equal for Obs 1a and 1b. Although the value $\gamma_2 \simeq$0 is not reliable, it is important to note that the measured transit duration, as defined in Eq. \[eqn:T\], depends on the stellar intensity distribution and limb darkening model adopted, then:
- stellar variability is a possible cause for observed TDVs;
- TDVs measured from observations at different wavelengths must be taken carefully.
Free eccentricity
-----------------
We performed transit model-fits with free eccentricity, $e$, in addition to the other free parameters ($p$, $a_0$, and $i$). Eccentricity has not a great impact on the transit models: best estimates of the other parameters do not change significantly with respect to previous ones (with $e=0.16$), although best estimates for the eccentricity for different observations varies over a large range (0.08$-$0.22). Also, residuals between light-curves and models are not affected.
Free argument of periastron
---------------------------
We performed transit model-fits with free argument of periastron, $\omega$, in addition to the other free parameters ($p$, $a_0$, and $i$). They do not constrain $\omega$ very well ($\sigma_{ \omega} \sim$24$-$34); $a_0$ and $i$ are strictly correlated with $\omega$, and their error bars are $\sim$3 times larger than ones obtained with $\omega$ fixed. Also, the distributions of $\omega$, $a_0$, and $i$, are asymmetric, because best $\omega$ values are close to the edge of the range of admissible values. It is interesting to note that other parameters, such as $p$, $b$, and $T$, are not affected by $\omega$ degeneracies: their posterior distributions are indistinguishable from the ones obtained with $\omega$ fixed.
Free phase-shift
----------------
We performed transit model-fits with a free phase-shift in addition to other free parameters, in order to investigate the effect of possible timing variations. Results are very similar for each fitting configuration, with no evidence of timing variation below $\sim$30 s, as stated in Sec. \[ssec:TTV\]. The free phase-shift does not affect other parameter estimates, except in the cases with free argument of periastron ($\omega$): timing variations and orbit precession are highly correlated.
Fitting $p$, $a_0$, and $i$ with components’ coefficients
---------------------------------------------------------
We experimented an alternative method to estimate the transit parameters and the coefficients of the independent components simultaneously, by modeling the raw lightcurves as linear combinations of the components plus a transit model. In this way, we can investigate possible correlations between transit parameters and mixing coefficients, and test the stability of an ICA model over the whole observation. If results were significantly different than the ones obtained by estimating the mixing coefficients on the out-of-transit only, it would indicate that something different has happened during the transit, either astrophysical or instrumental in nature. For the datasets analyzed in this paper, results are consistent with accepted values within 1 $\sigma$. It is worth to note that partial error bars, $\sigma_{par,0}$, obtained from the MCMCs are similar to the ones obtained with $p$, $a_0$, and $i$ only free parameters (in some cases even smaller). This indicates that the main cause of uncertainty attributed to the detrending method is not given by the mixing coefficients, but the intrinsic errors on the components extracted.
Tables
======
Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1995, , 445, 433 Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, , 556, 357 Alonso, R., Barbieri, M., Rabus, M., Deeg, H. J., Belmonte, J. A., & Almenara, J. M. 2008, , 487, L5 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, , 47, 481 Ballard, S., Christiansen, J. L., Charbonneau, D., Deming, D., Holman, M. J., Fabrycky, D., A’Hearn, M. F., Wellnitz, D. D., Barry, R. K., Kuchner, M. J., Livengood, T. A., Hewagama, T., Sunshine, J. M., Hampton, D. L., Lisse, C. M., Seager, S., & Veverka, J. F. 2010, , 716, 1047 Barriga, E. S., Pattichis, M., Ts’o, D., Abramoff, M., Kardon, R., Kwon, Y., & Soliz, P. 2011, Med. Image Anal., 15, 35 Beaulieu, J. P., Tinetti, G., Kipping, D. M., Ribas, I., Barber, R. J., Cho, J. Y. K., Polichtchouk, I., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., Griffith, C. A., Batista, V., Waldmann, I. P., Miller, S., Carey, S., Mousis, O., Fossey, S. J., & Aylward, A. 2011, , 731, 16 Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Laughlin, G., & Lissauer, J. J. 2004, , 617, 580 Cáceres, C., Ivanov, V. D., Minniti, D., Naef, D., Melo, C., Mason, E., Selman, F., & Pietrzynski, G. 2009, , 507, 481 Coughlin, J. L., Stringfellow, G. S., Becker, A. C., López-Morales, M., Mezzalira, F., and Krajci, T. 2008, , 689, L149 Deming, D., Harrington, J., Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S. B., Bowman, W. C., & Horning, K. 2009, , 667, L199 Demory, B.-O., Gillon, M., Barman, T., Bonfils, X., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Queloz, D., Udry, S., Bouchy, F., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mallmann, F., Pepe, F., & Perrier, C. 2007, , 475, 1125 Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004, , 154, 10 Ford, E. B., Quinn, S. N., & Veras, D. 2008, , 678, 1407 Gillon, M., Pont, F., Demory, B. O., Mallmann, F., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Queloz, D., Shporer, A., Udry, S., & Vuissoz, C. 2007, , 472, L13 Haario, H., Laine, M., Mira, A., & Saksman, E. 2006, Statistics and Computing, 16, 339 Howarth, I. D. 2011, , 413, 1515 Howarth, I. D. 2011, , 418, 1165 Hyvärinen, A., & Oja, E. 2000, Neural Networks, 13, 411 Hyvärinen, A., Karhunen, J., & Oja, E. 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Independent Component Analysis, ISBN: 0-471-40540-X Igual, J., Vergara, L., Camacho, A., & Miralles, R. 2002, Neurocomputing, 50, 419 Jordán, A., & Bakos, G. Á. 2008, , 685, 543 Kipping, D. M. 2009, , 392, 181 Kipping, D. M. 2009, , 396, 1797 Knutson, H. A., Madhusudhan, N., Cowan, N. B., Christiansen, J. L., Agol, E., Deming, D., Désert, J. M., Charbonneau, D., Henry, G. W., Homeier, D., Langton, J., Laughlin, G., & Seager, S. 2011, , 735, 27 Knutson, H. A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D. 2014, Nature, 505, 66 Koldovský, Z., Tichavský, P., & Oja, E. 2006, IEEE Transations on Neural Networks, 17, 1265 Kurucz, R. L. 1970, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Special Report, No. 309 Lagarias, J. C., Reeds, J. A., Wright, M. H., & Wright, P. E. 1998, SIAM Journal of Optimization, 9, 112 Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, , 580, L171 Maness, H. L., Marcy, G. W., Ford, E. B., Hauschildt, P. H., Shreve, A. T., Basri, G. B., Butler, R. P., & Vogt, S. S. 2007, , 119, 90 Morales-Caldéron, M., Stauffer, J. R., Davy Kirkpatrick, J., Carey, S., Gelino, C. R., Barrado y Navascués, D., Rebull, L., Lowrance, P., Marley, M. S., Charbonneau, D., Patten, B. M., Megeath, S. T., & Buzasi, D. 2006, , 653, 1454 Morello, G., Waldmann, I. P., Tinetti, G., Peres, G., Micela, G., & Howarth, I. D. 2014, , 786, 22 Pál, A., & Kocsis, B. 2008, , 389, 191 Ribas, I., Font-Ribera, A., & Beaulieu, J. P. 2008, , 677, L59 Pont, F., Gilliland, R. L., Knutson, H., Holman, M., & Charbonneau, D. 2009, , 393, L6 Stevenson, K. B., Harrington, J., Nymeyer, S., Madhusudhan, N., Seager, S., Bowman, W. C., Hardy, R. A., Deming, D., Rauscher, E., & Lust, N. B. 2010, Nature, 464, 1161 Stevenson, K. B., Harrington, J., Lust, N. B., Lewis, N. K., Montagnier, G., Moses, J. I., Visscher, C., Blecic, J., Hardy, R. A., Cubillos, P., & Campo, C. J. 2012, , 755, 9 Stone, J. V., Porrill, J., Porter, N. R., & Wilkinson, I. D. 2002, NeuroImage, 15, 407 Tichavský, P., Koldovský, Z., Yeredor, A., Gómez-Herrero, G., & Doron, E. 2008, IEEE Transations on Neural Networks, 19, 421 Torres, G. 2009, , 671, L65 Waldmann, I. P. 2012, , 747, 12 Waldmann, I. P., Tinetti, G., Deroo, P., Hollis, M. D. J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2013, , 766, 7 Yeredor, A. 2000, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 7, 197
[^1]: Computational time is dominated by the time for transit fitting, which strongly depends on the algorithms (and settings) used. In our case, transit fitting time was of several hours, and it scales as $\mathcal{O}(dN)$, being $d$ the number of free transit parameters, and $N$ the data points.
[^2]: We used the following definitions: pre-transit ($\phi <$ -0.0082); in-transit (-0.00433 $< \phi < $0.00416); post-transit ($\phi > $0.0082). These have been decided so that all the transit models obtained during the analysis, modified with no limb darkening, are flat in these three intervals. We checked that other reasonable choices of the limits do not affect this analysis.
[^3]: There are some variants of ICA which do include prior information, e.g. [@bar11; @igu02; @sto02].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Detecting changes in high-dimensional time series is difficult because it involves the comparison of probability densities that need to be estimated from finite samples. In this paper, we present the first feature extraction method tailored to change point detection, which is based on an extended version of Stationary Subspace Analysis. We reduce the dimensionality of the data to the most non-stationary directions, which are most informative for detecting state changes in the time series. In extensive simulations on synthetic data we show that the accuracy of three change point detection algorithms is significantly increased by a prior feature extraction step. These findings are confirmed in an application to industrial fault monitoring.'
author:
- |
Duncan A.J. Blythe, Paul von Bünau, Frank C. Meinecke,\
Klaus-Robert Müller
title: 'Feature Extraction for Change-Point Detection using Stationary Subspace Analysis'
---
Introduction
============
Change point detection is a task that appears in a broad range of applications such as biomedical signal processing [@Biomed2; @EEGPrin; @KohlmorgenKybernetics], speech recognition [@Speech1; @Speech2], industrial process monitoring [@ChangePoint; @Narendra], fault state detection [@Fault1] and econometrics [@Econ1; @Econ2]. The goal of change point detection is to find the time points at which a time series changes from one macroscopic state to another. As a result, the time series is decomposed into segments [@ChangePoint] of similar behavior. Change point detection is based on finding changes in the properties of the data, such as in the moments (mean, variance, kurtosis) [@ChangePoint], in the spectral properties [@Spectral], temporal structure [@DistBased2] or changes w.r.t. to certain patterns [@Pattern]. The choice of any of these aspects depends on the particular application domain and on the statistical type of the changes that one aims to detect.
For a large family of general segmentation algorithms, state changes are detected based on comparing the empirical distributions between windows of the time series [@DistBased1; @DistBased4; @DistBased2]. Estimating and comparing probability densities is a difficult statistical problem, particularly in high dimensions. However, not all directions in the high dimensional signal space are informative for change point detection: often there exists a subspace in which the distribution of the data remains constant over time (stationary). This subspace is irrelevant for change point detection, but increases the overall dimensionality. Moreover, stationary components with a high signal power can make change points invisible to the observer and also to detection algorithms. For example, there are no change points visible in the time series depicted in the left panel of Figure \[fig:tempseg\_intro\], even though there exists one direction in the two-dimensional signal space which clearly shows two change points, as it can be seen in the middle panel. However, the non-stationary contribution is not visible in the observed signal because of its relatively low power (right panel). In this example, we also observe that it does not suffice to select channels individually, as neither of them appears informative. In fact, in many application domains such as biomedical engineering [@ZieheBio; @EEGPrin; @ECGBook] or geophysical data analysis [@Geophysics], it is most plausible that the data is generated as a mixture of underlying sources that we cannot measure directly.
In this paper we show how to extract useful features for change point detection by finding the most non-stationary directions using Stationary Subspace Analysis [@PRL:SSA:2009]. Even though there exists a wide range of feature extraction methods for classification and regression [@Guyon:2003q], to date no specialized procedure for feature extraction or for general signal processing [@HaykinSig] has been proposed for change point detection. In controlled simulations on synthetic data, we show that for three representative change point detection algorithms the accuracy is significantly increased by a prior feature extraction step, in particular if the data is high dimensional. This effect is consistent over various numbers of dimensions and strengths of change points. In an application to fault monitoring, where the ground truth is available, we show that the proposed feature extraction improves the performance and leads to a dimensionality reduction where the desired state changes are clearly visible. Moreover, we also show that we can determine the correct dimensionality of the informative subspace.
The remainder of this paper is organized is follows. In the next Section \[sec:FeEx\], we introduce our feature extraction method that is based on an extension of Stationary Subspace Analysis. Section \[sec:Sim\] contains the results of our simulations and in Section \[sec:Real\] we present the application to fault monitoring. Our conclusions are outlined in the last Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Feature Extraction for Change-Point Detection {#sec:FeEx}
=============================================
Feature extraction from raw high-dimensional data has been shown to be useful not only for improving the performance of subsequent learning algorithms on the derived features [@Guyon:2003q], but also for understanding high-dimensional complex physical systems where the relevant information is difficult to identify. In many application areas such as Computer Vision [@Foerstner:1994q], Bioinformatics [@Saeys:2007q; @Morris:2005q] and text classification [@Lewis:1991q], defining useful features is in fact the main step towards successful machine learning. General feature extraction methods for classification and regression tasks are based on maximizing the mutual information between features and target [@Torkkolla:2003q], explaining a given percentage of the variance in the dataset [@Schoelkopf:1998q], choosing features which maximize the margin between classes [@Li:2006q] or selecting informative subsets of variables through enumerative search (wrapper methods) [@Guyon:2003q]. However, for change-point detection no dedicated feature extraction has been proposed [@ChangePoint]. Unlike in classical supervised feature selection, where a target variable allows us to measure the informativeness of a feature, for change-point detection we cannot tell whether a feature elicits the changes that we aim to detect since there is usually no ground truth available. Even so, feature extraction is feasible following the principle that a useful feature should exhibit significant distributional changes over time. Reducing the dimensionality in a pre-processing step should be particularly beneficial to the change-point detection task: most algorithms either explicitly or implicitly make approximations to probability densities [@DistBased2; @DistBased4] or directly compute a divergence measure based on summary statistics, such as the mean and covariance [@ChangePoint] between segments of the time series — both are hard problems whose sample complexities grow exponentially with the number of dimensions.
As we have seen in the example presented in Figure \[fig:tempseg\_intro\], selecting channels individually (univariate approach) is not helpful or may lead to suboptimal features. The overall data may be non-stationary notwithstanding the fact that each dimension seems stationary. Moreover, a single non-stationary source may be expressed across a large number of channels. It is therefore more sensible to estimate a linear projection of the data which contains as much information relating to change points as possible. In this paper, we demonstrate that finding the projection to the most non-stationary direction using Stationary Subspace Analysis significantly increases the performance of change-point detection algorithms.
In the remainder of this section, we first review the SSA algorithm and show how to extend it towards finding the most non-stationary directions. Then we show that this approach corresponds to finding the projection that is most likely to be non-stationary in terms of a statistical hypothesis test.
Stationary Subspace Analysis
----------------------------
Stationary Subspace Analysis [@PRL:SSA:2009] factorizes a multivariate time series $x(t) \in \R^D$ into stationary and non-stationary sources according to the linear mixing model, $$x(t) = A {\mathbf s}(t) = \begin{bmatrix} A^{\s} & A^{\n} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} s^{\s}(t) \\ s^{\n}(t) \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:mixing_model}$$ where $s^\s(t)$ are the $d_s$ stationary sources, $s^\n(t)$ are the $d_n$ ($d_n+d_s = D$) non-stationary sources and $A$ is an unknown time-constant invertible mixing matrix. The spaces spanned by the columns of the mixing matrix $A^{\s}$ and $A^{\n}$ are called the $\s$- and $\n$-spaces respectively. Note that in contrast to Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [@ICABook], there is no independence assumption on the sources $s(t)$.
The aim of SSA is to invert the mixing model (Equation \[eq:mixing\_model\]) given only samples from the mixed sources $x(t)$, i.e. we want to estimate the demixing matrix $\hat{B}$ which separates the stationary from the non-stationary sources. Applying $\hat{B}$ to the time series $x(t)$ yields the estimated stationary and non-stationary sources $\hat{s}^\s(t)$ and $\hat{s}^\n(t)$ respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:applying_solution}
\begin{bmatrix} \hat{s}^\s(t) \\ \hat{s}^\n(t) \end{bmatrix}
=
\hat{B} x(t)
=
\begin{bmatrix} \hat{B}^\s \\ \hat{B}^\n \end{bmatrix} x(t)
=
\begin{bmatrix} \hat{B}^\s A^\s & \hat{B}^\s A^\n \\ \hat{B}^\n A^\s & \hat{B}^\n A^\n \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \hat{s}^\s(t) \\ \hat{s}^\n(t) \end{bmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ The submatrices $\hat{B}^\s \in \R^{d_s\times D}$ and $\hat{B}^\n \in \R^{(d_n)\times D}$ of the estimated demixing matrix $\hat{B}$ project to the estimated stationary and non-stationary sources and are called -projection and -projection respectively. The estimated mixing matrix $\hat{A}$ is the inverse of the estimated demixing matrix, $\hat{A} = \hat{B}^{-1}$.
The inverse of the SSA model (Equation \[eq:mixing\_model\]) is not unique: given one demixing matrix $\hat{B}$, any linear transformation *within* the two groups of estimated sources leads to another valid separation, because it leaves the stationary resp. non-stationary nature of the sources unchanged. But also the separation into - and -sources itself is not unique: adding stationary components to a non-stationary source leaves it non-stationary, whereas the converse is not true. That is, the -projection can only be identified up to arbitrary contributions from the stationary sources. Hence we cannot recover the true -sources, but only the true -sources (up to linear transformations). Conversely, we can identify the true -space (because the -projection is orthogonal to it) but not the true -space. However, in order to extract features for change-point detection, our aim is not to recover the true non-stationary sources, but instead the *most* non-stationary ones.
An SSA algorithm depends on a definition of stationarity, that the -projection aims to satisfy. In the SSA algorithms [@PRL:SSA:2009; @HarKawWasBun10SSA], a time series $X_t$ is considered stationary if its mean and covariance is constant over time, i.e $$\begin{aligned}
\E[X_{t_1}] & = \E[X_{t_2}] \\
\E[X_{t_1} X_{t_1}^\top] & = \E[X_{t_2} X_{t_2}^\top],\end{aligned}$$ for all pairs of time points $t_1, t_2 \in \NN_0$. This is a variant of weak stationarity [@Pri83Spectral] where we do not take time structure into account. Following this concept of stationarity, the SSA algorithm [@PRL:SSA:2009] finds the -projection $\hat{B}^\s$ that minimizes the difference between the first two moments of the estimated -sources $\hat{s}^\s(t)$ across epochs of the time series, since we cannot estimate the mean and covariance at a single time point. Thus we divide the samples from $x(t)$ into $n$ non-overlapping epochs defined by the index sets $\mathcal{T}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{T}_n \subset \NN_0$ and estimate the epoch mean and covariance matrices, $$\begin{aligned}
\emu_i = \frac{1}{|T|} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}_i} x(t) \hspace{0.5cm} \text{ and } \\ \hspace{0.5cm}
\esi_i = \frac{1}{|T|-1} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{T}_i} \left( x(t)-\emu_i \right)\left( x(t)-\emu_i \right)^\top ,\end{aligned}$$ respectively for all epochs $1 \leq i \leq n$. Given an -projection, the epoch mean and covariance matrix of the estimated -sources in the $i$-th epoch are $$\begin{aligned}
\emu^\s_i = \hat{B}^\s \emu_i \hspace{0.5cm} \text{ and } \hspace{0.5cm}
\esi^\s_i = \hat{B}^\s \esi_i ( \hat{B}^\s )^\top .\end{aligned}$$ The difference in the mean and covariance matrix between two epochs is measured using the Kullback-Leibler divergence between Gaussians. The objective function is the sum of the difference between each epoch and the average epoch. Since the -sources can only be determined up to an arbitrary linear transformation and since a global translation of the data does not change the difference between epoch distributions, without loss of generality we center and whiten[^1] the data such that average epoch’s mean and covariance matrix are, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:avg_epoch}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \emu_i = 0 \hspace{0.5cm} \text{ and } \hspace{0.5cm} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \esi_i = I .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we can restrict the search for the true -projection to the set of matrices with orthonormal rows, i.e. $\hat{B}^\s (\hat{B}^\s)^\top = I$. Thus the optimization problem becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}^s & =
\argmin_{B B^\top = I} \; \sum_{i=1}^N \KLD \Big[ \Gauss(\emu^\s_i,\esi^\s_i) \; \Big|\Big| \; \Gauss(0,I) \Big] \notag \\
& = \argmin_{B B^\top = I} \; \sum_{i=1}^N \left(
- \log\det\esi^\s_i
+ (\hat{\mu}^\s_i)^\top \emu^\s_i \right) ,
\label{eq:ssa_objfun}\end{aligned}$$ which can be solved efficiently by using multiplicative updates with orthogonal matrices parameterized as matrix exponentials of antisymmetric matrices [@PRL:SSA:2009; @Plu05] [^2].
Finding the Most Non-Stationary Sources
---------------------------------------
In order to extract useful features for change-point detection, we would like to find the projection to the most non-stationary sources. However, the SSA algorithms [@PRL:SSA:2009; @HarKawWasBun10SSA] merely estimate the projection to the most stationary sources, and choose the projection to the non-stationary sources to be orthogonal to the found -projection, which means that all stationary contributions are projected out from the estimated -sources. The justification for this choice is that it maximizes the non-stationarity of the -sources in the case where the covariance between the true - and -sources is constant over time. This, however, may not always be the case: significant non-stationarity may well be contained in changing covariance between - and -sources. In fact we observe this in our application to fault monitoring. Thus, in order to find the most non-stationary sources, we also need to optimize the -projection. Before we turn to the optimization problem, let us first of all analyze the situation more formally.
![ The left panel shows two epoch covariance matrices $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ where the non-stationarity is confined to changes in the variance along one direction, hence the most non-stationary projection $\hat{B}^\n$ is orthogonal to the true stationary projection $B^\s$. This is not the case in the situation depicted in the right panel: here, the covariance of the two dimensions changes between $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, so that we can find a non-stationary projection that is more non-stationary than the orthogonal complement of the true -projection. \[fig:nstat\_optim\] ](fig_nstat_optim.pdf){width="87mm"}
We consider first a simple example where we have one stationary and one non-stationary source with corresponding normalized basis vectors $\| A^\s \| = 1$ and $\| A^\n \| = 1$ respectively, and let $\phi$ be the angle between the two spaces, i.e. $\cos \phi = A^{\s \top} A^\n$. We will consider an arbitrary pair of epochs, $\mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mathcal{T}_2$, and show which projection $\hat{B}^\n$ maximizes the difference in mean $\Delta_\mu$ and variance $\Delta_\sigma$ between $\mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mathcal{T}_2$.
Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be bivariate random variables modeling the distribution of the data in the two epochs respectively. According to the linear mixing model (Equation \[eq:mixing\_model\]), we can write $X_1$ and $X_2$ in terms of the underlying sources, $$\begin{aligned}
X_1 & = A^\s X_s + A^\n X_{n_1} \\
X_2 & = A^\s X_s + A^\n X_{n_2} \end{aligned}$$ where the univariate random variable $X_s$ represents the stationary source and the two univariate random variables $X_{n_1}$ and $X_{n_2}$ model the non-stationary sources, in the epochs $\mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mathcal{T}_2$ respectively. Without loss of generality, we will assume that the true -projection $B^\s = (A^\n)^\perp$ is normalized, $\| B^\s \| = 1$. In order to determine the relationship between the true -projection and the most non-stationary projection, we write it in terms of $B^\s$ and $A^\n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defnproj}
\hat{B}^\n = \alpha B^\s + \beta A^{\n \top}, \end{aligned}$$ with coefficients $\alpha, \beta \in \R$ such that $\| \hat{B}^\n \| = 1$. In the next step, we will observe which -projection maximizes the difference in mean $\Delta_\mu$ and covariance $\Delta_\sigma$ between the two epochs $\mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mathcal{T}_2$. Let us first consider the difference in the mean of the estimated -sources, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\mu = \E[ \hat{B}^\n X_1 ] - \E[ \hat{B}^\n X_2 ] = \hat{B}^\n A^\n ( \E[X_{n_1}] - \E[X_{n_2}] ) .\end{aligned}$$ This is maximal for $\hat{B}^\n A^\n = 1$, i.e. when $\hat{B}^\n$ is orthogonal to $B^\s$. Thus, with respect to the difference in the mean, choosing the -projection $\hat{B}^\n$ to be orthogonal to the -projection is always optimal, irrespective of the type of distribution change between epochs.
Let us now consider the difference in variance $\Delta_\sigma$ of the estimated -sources between epochs. This is given by, $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta_\sigma = \Var[ \hat{B}^\n X_1 ] - \Var[ \hat{B}^\n X_2 ] = \beta^2 ( \Var [ X_{\n_1} ] - \Var [ X_{\n_2} ] )
\\ + 2 \left[ \alpha \cos \left(\phi + \frac{\pi}{2}\right) + \beta \cos \phi \right] \underbrace{( \Cov[ X_\s, X_{\n_1} ] - \Cov[ X_\s, X_{\n_2} ] )}_{= \Delta_{\sigma_{\s \n}}} .\end{gathered}$$ Clearly, when there is no change in the covariance of the - and the -sources between the two epochs, i.e. $\Delta_{\sigma_{\s \n}} = 0$, the difference $\Delta_\sigma$ is maximized for $\hat{B}^\n = (B^\s)^\perp$. See the left panel of Figure \[fig:nstat\_optim\] for an example. However, when the covariance between - and -sources does vary, i.e. $| \Delta_{\sigma_{\s \n}}|>0$, the projection $(B^\s)^\perp$ is no longer the most non-stationary. To see this, consider the derivative of $\Delta_\sigma$ with respect to the $\alpha$ at $\alpha = 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \Delta_\sigma / \partial \alpha |_{\alpha=0} = 2 \cos \left(\phi + \frac{\pi}{2}\right) \Delta_{\sigma_{\s \n}} . \end{aligned}$$ Since this derivate does not vanish, $\alpha = 0$ (see Equation \[eq:defnproj\]) is not an extremum when $|\Delta_{\s \n}|>0$, which means that the most non-stationary projection is not orthogonal to the true -projection. This is the case in the right panel of Figure \[fig:nstat\_optim\].
Thus, in order to find the projection to the most non-stationary sources, we also need to maximize the non-stationarity of the estimated -sources. To that end, we simply maximize the SSA objective function (Equation \[eq:ssa\_objfun\]) for the -projection, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}^\n = \argmax_{B B^\top = I} \; \sum_{i=1}^N \left(
- \log\det\esi^\n_i
+ (\hat{\mu}^\n_i)^\top \emu^\n_i \right) ,
\label{eq:ssa_nobjfun}\end{aligned}$$ where $\esi_i^\n = \hat{B}^\n \esi_i (\hat{B}^\n)^\top$ and $\hat{\mu}^\n_i = \hat{B}^\n \emu_i$ for all epochs $1 \leq i \leq N$.
Relationship to Statistical Testing
-----------------------------------
In this section we show that maximizing the SSA objective function to find the most non-stationary sources can be understood from a statistical testing point-of-view, in that it also maximizes the $p$-value for rejecting the null hypothesis that the estimated directions are stationary.
More precisely, we maximize the $p$-value for a statistical hypothesis test that compares two models for the data: the null hypothesis $H_0$ that each epoch follows a standard normal distribution vs. the alternative hypothesis $H_A$ that each epoch is Gaussian distributed with individual mean and covariance matrix. Let $X_1, \ldots, X_N$ be random variables modeling the distribution of the data in the $N$ epochs. Formally, the hypothesis can be written as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hyp}
& H_0 : X_1, \ldots, X_N \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I) \\
& H_A : X_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_1, \Sigma_1), \ldots, X_N \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_N, \Sigma_N)\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the statistical test tells us whether we should reject the simple model $H_0$ in favor of the more complex model $H_A$. This decision is based on the value of the test statistics, whose distribution is known under the null hypothesis $H_0$. Since $H_0$ is a special case of $H_A$ and since the parameter estimates are obtained by Maximum Likelihood, we can use the likelihood ratio test statistic $\Lambda$ [@Likelihood], which is the ratio of the likelihood of the data under $H_0$ and $H_A$, where the parameters are their maximum likelihood estimates.
Let $\mathcal{X} \subset \R^{d_n}$ be the data set which is divided into $N$ epochs $\mathcal{T}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{T}_n$ and let $\emu^\n_1, \ldots, \emu^\n_N$ and $\esi^\n_1, \ldots, \esi^\n_N$ be the maximum likelihood estimates of the mean and covariance matrices of the estimated -sources respectively. Let $p_{\mathcal{N}}(x ; \mu, \Sigma)$ be the probability density function of the multivariate Gaussian distribution. The likelihood ratio test statistic is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(\mathcal{X}) = - 2 \log \frac{ \prod_{x \in \mathcal{X}} p_{\mathcal{N}}(x ; 0, I) }
{
\prod_{i=1}^N \prod_{x \in \mathcal{T}_i} p_{\mathcal{N}}(x ; \emu^\n_i , \esi^\n_i)
}\end{aligned}$$ which is approximately $\chi^2$ distributed with $\frac{1}{2} N d_n (d_n+3)$ degrees of freedom. Using the facts that we have set the average epoch’s mean and covariance matrix to zero and the identity matrix respectively, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \emu^\n_1 = 0 \hspace{0.5cm} \text{ and } \hspace{0.5cm} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \esi^\n_i = I, \end{aligned}$$ the test statistic simplifies to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teststat}
\Lambda(\mathcal{X}) = -\frac{d_s}{2} N + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N N_i \left( - \log \det \esi^\n_i + \| \emu^\n_i \|^2 + \text{tr}(\esi^{\n}_i) \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $N_i = | \mathcal{T}_i |$ is the number of data points in the $i$-th epoch. If every epoch contains the same number of data points ($N_1 = \cdots = N_N$), then maximizing the SSA objective function (Equation \[eq:ssa\_nobjfun\]) is equivalent to maximizing the test statistic (Equation \[eq:teststat\]) and hence minimizing the $p$-value for rejecting the simple (stationary) model for the data.
As we will see in the application to fault monitoring (Section \[sec:Real\]), the $p$-value of this test furnishes a useful indicator of the number of informative directions for change point detection. More specifically, we increase the number of candidate stationary sources until the test returns that they are significantly non-stationary. As long as the $p-$value is large, we may safely conclude that these estimated stationary sources ($\hat{B}^\s{\mathbf s}(t)$) are stationary and that they may be removed without loss of informativeness for change point detection. In the specific case of change point detection, removing additional directions may lead to increases in performance as a result of the reduced dimensionality: this is of course a data dependent question.
In Figure \[fig:p\_values\] we illustrate the results of the procedure for choosing $d_s$, the number of stationary sources. We use the dataset described below in Section \[sec:Sim\]. The procedure for choosing $d_s$ is as follows: for each $\hat{d_s}$ from $1,\dots,D$, where $D$ is the dimensionality of the data set we compute the projection to the stationary sources. For each $\hat{d_s}$ we calculate the test statistic $\Lambda(\mathcal{X})$. We then choose $d_s$ to be the largest such $d_s'$ such that we do not reject the null hypothesis, at the $p = \alpha$ confidence level, given in Equation \[eq:hyp\]. We display the $p$-values obtained using SSA for a fixed value for simulated data’s dimensionality $D=10$ and the number of stationary sources ranging from $d_1 = 1, \dots, 9$ and the chosen parameter ranging from $1, \dots, 9$. The confidence level $\alpha = 0.01$ for rejection of the null hypothesis $H_0 = \text{\emph{The projected data is stationary}}$ returns the correct $d_s$ on average in all cases.
Simulations {#sec:Sim}
===========
In this section we demonstrate the ability of SSA to enhance the segmentation performance of three change-point detection algorithms on a synthetic data setup. The algorithms are single linkage clustering with divergence (SLCD) [@Gower69SingleLinkage] which uses the mean and covariance as test statistics, CUSUM [@Page:1954fk], which uses a sequence of hypothesis tests and the Kohlmorgen/Lemm [@DistBased2], which uses a kernel density measure and a hidden Markov model. For each segmentation algorithm we compare the performance of the baseline case in which the dataset is segmented without preprocessing, the case in which the data is preprocessed by projecting to a random subspace and the case in which the dataset is preprocessed using SSA. We compare performance with respect to the following schemes of parameter variation:
1. The dimensionality $D$ of the time series is fixed and $d_n$, the number of non-stationary sources is varied.
2. The number $d_n$ of non-stationary sources is fixed and $d_s$, the number of the stationary sources is varied.
3. $D$, $d_n$ and $d_s$ are fixed and the power $p$ between the changes in the non-stationary sources is varied.
For two of the change point algorithms which we test, SLCD and Kohlmorgen/Lemm, all three parameter variation schemes are tested. For CUSUM the second scheme does not apply as the method is a univariate method.
For each setup and for each realization of the dataset we repeat segmentation on the raw dataset, the estimated non-stationary sources after SSA preprocessing for that dataset and on a $d_n$ dimensional random projection of the dataset. The random projection acts as a comparison measure for the accuracy of the SSA-estimated non-stationary sources for segmentation purposes.
Setup $D$ $d_n$ $d_s$ $p$ SLCD Kohl./Lemm CUSUM
------- ----- ------- ------- ----- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------------
(1) Fi. \[fig:LinkageROC\], P. 1 Fi. \[fig:KL\_ROC\], P. 1 Fi. \[fig:CUSUM\_ROC\], P. 1
(2) Fi. \[fig:LinkageROC\], P. 2 Fi. \[fig:KL\_ROC\], P. 2 Fi. \[fig:CUSUM\_ROC\], P. 2
(3) Fi. \[fig:LinkageROC\], P. 3 Fi. \[fig:KL\_ROC\], P. 3 Fi. \[fig:CUSUM\_ROC\], P. 3
: Overview of simulations performed and corresponding figures reporting the results. A tick denotes that the corresponding parameter was varied in the experiment. A cross denotes that the corresponding parameter is kept fixed. (“P.” denotes panel within the respective figures and “Fi.” denotes the figure.)
Synthetic Data Generation
-------------------------
The synthetic data which we use to evaluate the performance of change point detection methods is generated as a linear mixture of stationary and non-stationary sources. The data is further generated epoch wise: each epoch has fixed length and each dataset consists of a concatenation of epochs. The $d$ stationary sources are distributed normally on each epoch according to $\Gauss(0,I_{d_s})$. The other $d_n$ (non-stationary) source signals $s^\n(t)$ are distributed according to the active model $k$ of this epoch; this active model is one of five Gaussian distributions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}_k = \Gauss(0,\Sigma_k)$: the covariance $\Sigma_k$ is a diagonal matrix whose eigenvalues are chosen at random from five log-spaced values between $\sigma_1^2 = 1/p$ and $\sigma_5^2 = p$; thus five covariances, corresponding to the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}_k$ of the Markov chain are then chosen in this way. The transition between models over consecutive epochs follows a Markov model with transition probabilities: $$P_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0.9 & i=j \\
0.025 & i\neq j .
\end{cases}$$
Performance Measure {#sec:perform}
-------------------
In our experiments we evaluate the algorithms based on an estimation of the area under the $ROC$ curves (AUC) across realizations of the dataset. The true positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) are defined with respect to the fixed epochs with respect to which we generate the synthetic dataset; a changepoint may only occur between two such epochs of fixed length. Each of the changepoint algorithms, which we test, reports changes with respect to the same division into epochs as per the synthetic dataset: thus the TPR and FPR are well defined.
We use the AUC because it provides information relating to a range of TPR and FPR. In signal detection the tradeoff achieved between TPR and FPR depends on operational constraints: cancer diagnosis procedures must achieve a high TPR perhaps at the cost of a higher than desirable FPR. Network intrusion detection, for instance, may need to compromise the TPR given the computational demands set by too high an FPR. In order to assess detection performance across all such requirements the AUC provides the most informative measure: all tradeoffs are integrated over.
More specifically, each algorithm is accompanied by a parameter $\tau$ which controls the trade off between TPR and FPR. For SLCD this is the number of clusters, for CUSUM this is the threshold set on the log likelihood ratio and for the Kohlmorgen/Lemm this is the parameter controlling how readily a new state is assigned to the model.
Single Linkage Clustering with Symmetrized Divergence Measure (SLCD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Linkage Clustering with a symmetrized distance measure is a simple algorithm for change point detection which has, however, the advantage of efficiency and of segmentation based on a parameter independent distance matrix (thus detection may be repeated for differing tradeoffs between TPR and FPR without reevaluating the distance measure). In particular, segmentation based on Single Linkage Clustering [@Gower69SingleLinkage] computes a distance measure based on the covariance and mean over time windows to estimate the occurrence of changepoints: the algorithm consists of the following three steps.
1. The time series is divided into 200 epochs for which we estimate the epoch-mean and epoch-covariance matrices $\{ ( \hat{\boldsymbol \mu}_i, \hat{\Sigma}_i ) \}_{i=1}^{200}$.
2. The dissimilarity matrix $D \in \R^{200 \times 200}$ between the epochs is computed as the symmetrized Kullback-Leibler divergence $\KLD$ between the estimated distributions (up to the first two moments), $$\begin{aligned}
D_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \KLD\left[ \Gauss(\hat{\boldsymbol \mu}_i, \hat{\Sigma}_i ) \; || \; \Gauss(\hat{\boldsymbol \mu}_j, \hat{\Sigma}_j ) \right] + \\
\frac{1}{2} \KLD\left[ \Gauss(\hat{\boldsymbol \mu}_j, \hat{\Sigma}_j ) \; || \; \Gauss(\hat{\boldsymbol \mu}_i, \hat{\Sigma}_i ) \right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gauss({\boldsymbol \mu}, \Sigma)$ is the Gaussian distribution.
3. Based on the dissimilarity matrix $D$, Single Linkage Clustering [@Gower69SingleLinkage] (with number of clusters set to $k=5$) returns an assignment of epochs to clusters such that a changepoint occurs when two neighbouring epochs do not belong to the same cluster.
### Results
The results of the simulations for varying numbers of non-stationary sources in a dataset of 30 channels are shown in Figure \[fig:LinkageROC\] in the first panel. When the degree to which the changes are visible is lower, the SSA preprocessing significantly outperforms the baseline method, even for a small number of irrelevant stationary sources.
The results of the simulations for a varying number of stationary dimensions with 2 non-stationary dimensions are displayed in Figure \[fig:LinkageROC\] in the second panel. For small $d$ the performance of the baseline and SSA preprocessing are similar: SSA’s performance is more robust with respect to the addition of higher numbers of stationary sources, i.e. noise directions. The segmentations produced using SSA preprocessing continue to carry information relating to changepoints for $d_s = 30$, whereas, for $d \geq 12$, the baseline’s AUC approaches $0.5$, which corresponds to the accuracy of randomly chosen segmentations.
The results of the simulations for varying power $p$ in the non-stationary sources with $D = 20$, $d_s = 16$ (no. of stat. sources) and $d_n = 4$ are displayed in Figure \[fig:LinkageROC\] in the third panel. Both the performance of the Baseline and of the SSA preprocessing improves with increasing power change $p$. This effect is evident for lower $p$ for the SSA preprocessing than for the baseline.
An illustration of a case in which SSA preprocessing significantly outperforms the baseline is displayed in Figure \[fig:seg\_illustration\]. The estimated non-stationary sources exhibit a far clearer illustration of the changepoints than the full dataset: the corresponding segmentation performances reflect this fact.
Weighted CUSUM for changes in variance
--------------------------------------
In statistical quality control CUSUM (or cumulative sum control chart) is a sequential analysis technique developed in 1954 [@Page:1954fk]. CUSUM is one of the most widely used and oldest methods for change point detection; the algorithm is an online method for change point detection based on a series of log-likelihood ratio tests. Thus CUSUM algorithm detects a change in parameter $\theta$ of a process $p_\theta(y)$ [@Page:1954fk] and is asymtotically optimal when the pre-change and post-change parameters are known [@ChangePoint]. For the case in which the target value of the changing parameter is unknown, the weighted CUSUM algorithm is a direct extension of CUSUM [@ChangePoint], by integrating over a parameter interval, as follows. The following statistics ${\tilde \Lambda}_j^k$ constitutes likelihood ratios between the currently estimated parameter of the non-stationary process and differing target values (values to which the parameter may change), integrated over a measure $F$.
$${\tilde \Lambda}_j^k = \Bigg{(} \int _{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{p_{\theta_1}(y_j,...,y_k)}{p_{\theta_0}(y_j,...,y_k)}dF(\theta_1) \Bigg{)}$$
Here $y_j,...,y_k$ denote the timepoints lying inside a sliding window of length $k$ whereby $y_k$ indicates the latest time point received. The stopping time is then given as follows:
$$t_a = \mathrm{min}\{ k : \mathrm{max}\{ j \leq k : \mathrm{ln}({\tilde \Lambda}_j^k ) \geq h\} \}$$
The function $F$ serves as a weighting function for possible target values of the changed parameter. In principle the algorithm can thus be applied to multi-dimensional data. However, as per [@ChangePoint], the extension of the CUSUM algorithm to higher dimensions is non-trivial, not just because integrating over possible values of the covariance is computationally expensive but also because various parameterizations can lead to the same likelihood function. Given this we test the effectiveness of the algorithm in computing one-dimensional segmentations. In particular we compare the segmentation performed on the one dimensional projection chosen by SSA with the best segmentation of all individual dimensions with respect to hit-rate on each trial. In accordance with [@ChangePoint] we choose $F$ to comprise a fixed uniform interval containing all possible values of the process’s variance. We approximate the integral above as a sum over evenly spaced values on that interval. We approximate the stopping time by setting: $$t_a \approx \mathrm{min}\{ k : \mathrm{ln}({\tilde \Lambda}_{k-W+1}^k ) \geq h\}$$ The exact details of our implementation are as follows. Let $T$ be the number of data points in the data set $X$.
1. We set the window size $W$, the sensitivity constant $h$ and the current time step as $t_c=W+1$ and $\theta_0 = \text{var}(\{x_1,...,x_W\})$ and $\Theta = \{ \theta_1,\ldots,\theta_r \} = \{ c, c + b, c + 2b,\ldots, d\}$.
2. ${\tilde \Lambda}_j^k = \frac{1}{b} \sum_{i = 1}^{r}\frac{p_{\theta_i}(y_j,\ldots,y_k)}{p_{\theta_0}(y_j,\ldots,y_k)}$
3. If $\mathrm{ln}({\tilde \Lambda}_j^k) \geq h$ then a changepoint is reported at time $t_c$ and $t_c$ is updated so that $t_c = t_c + W$ and $\theta_0 = \text{var}(\{x_{t_c - W +1},\ldots,x_{t_c}\})$. We return to step 2.
4. Otherwise if ${\tilde \Lambda}_j^k < h$ no changepoint is reported and $t_c = t_c + 1$. We return to step 2.
### Results
In Figure \[fig:CUSUM\_ROC\], in the left panel, the results for varying numbers of stationary sources are displayed. Weighted CUSUM with SSA preprocessing significantly outperforms the baseline for all values of D (dimensionality of the time series). Here we set $d_n=1$, the number of non-stationary sources, for all values of $d_s$, the number of stationary sources.
In Figure \[fig:CUSUM\_ROC\], the right panel, the results for changes in the power change between ergodic sections $p$ are displayed for $D = 16$, $d_s=15$ and $d_n = 1$. SSA outperforms the baseline for all except very low values of $p$, the power level change, where all detection schemes fail. The simulations show that SSA represents a method for choosing a one dimensional subspace to render uni-dimensional segmentation methods applicable to higher dimensional datasets: the resulting segmentation method on the one dimensional derived non-stationary source will be simpler to parametrize and more efficient. If the true dimensionality of the non-stationary part is $d_n$ then no information loss should be observed.
Kohlmorgen/Lemm Algorithm
-------------------------
The Kohlmorgen/Lemm algorithm is a flexible non-parametric and multivariate method which may be applied in online and offline operation modes. Distinctive about the Kohlmorgen/Lemm algorithm is that a kernel density estimator, rather than a simple summary statistic, is used to estimate the occurence of changepoints. In particular the algorithm is based on a standard Kernel Density Estimator with Gaussian kernels and estimation of the optimal segmentation based on a Hidden Markov Model [@DistBased2]. More specifically if we estimate the densities on two arbitrary epochs $E_i,E_j$ of our dataset $X$ with Gaussian kernels then we can define a distance measure $d$ between epochs via the $L2$-Norm yielding:
$$\begin{aligned}
d(E_i,E_j) = \frac{1}{W^2 (4\pi \sigma^2)^{d/2}} \sum_{w,v = 0}^{W-1} \Bigg( \mathrm{exp}\left( - \frac{(Y_w - Y_v)^2}{4\sigma^2})\right) \\
- 2\mathrm{exp}\left( - \frac{(Y_w - Z_v)^2}{4\sigma^2})\right) \\ + \mathrm{exp}\left( - \frac{(Z_w - Z_v)^2}{4\sigma^2})\right)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$
The final segmentation is then based on the distance matrix generated between epochs calculated with respect to the above distance measure $d$. As per the weighted CUSUM, it is possible to define algorithms whose sensitivity to distributional changes in reporting changepoints is related to the value of a parameter $C$: $C$ controls the probability of transitions to new states in the fitting of the hidden markov model. However, in [@Kohlmorgen:2003fk] it is shown that in the case when all changepoints are known then one can also derive an algorithm which returns exactly that number of changepoints: in simulations we evaluate the performance on the first variant over a full range of parameters to obtain an ROC curve. In addition we choose the parameter $\sigma$ according to the rule of thumb given in [@DistBased2], which sets $\sigma$ proportional to the mean distance of each data point to its $D$ nearest neighbours, where $D$ is the dimensionality of the data: this is evaluated on a sample set. The exact implementation we test is based on the papers [@Kohlmorgen:2003fk] and [@DistBased2]. The details are as follows:
1. The time series is divided into epochs
2. A distance matrix is computed between epochs using kernel density estimation and the $L2$-norm as described above.
3. The estimated density on each epoch corresponds to a state of the Markov Model. So a state sequence is a sequence of estimated densities.
4. Finally, based on the estimated states and distance matrix, a hidden Markov model is fitted to the data and a change point reported whenever consecutive epochs have been fitted with differing states.
### Results
SSA preprocessing improves the segmentation obtained using the Kohlmorgen/Lemm algorithm for all 3 setups of the dataset. In particular: the area under the ROC (AUC) for varying $d_s$ and fixed $D$ are displayed in Figure \[fig:KL\_ROC\], in the first panel, with $D=30$. The area under the ROC (AUC) for varying $d_s$ and fixed $d_n$ are displayed in Figure \[fig:KL\_ROC\], in the second panel, with $d_n=2$. The area under the ROC (AUC) for varying power change in the non-stationary sources $p$ and fixed $D,d$ are displayed in Figure \[fig:KL\_ROC\], in the third panel, with p ranging between 1.1 and 4.0 at increments of 0.1. Of additional interest is that for varying $d_n$ and fixed $D$ the performance of segmentation with SSA preprocessing is superior for higher values of $d_s$: this implies that the improvement of change point detection of the Kohlmorgen/Lemm algorithm due to the reduction in dimensionality to the informative estimated n-sources outweighs the difficulty of the problem of estimating the n-sources in the presence of a large number of noise dimensions.
Application to Fault Monitoring {#sec:Real}
===============================
In this section we apply our feature extraction technique to fault monitoring. The dataset consists of multichannel measurements of machine vibration. The machine under investigation is a pump, driven by an electromotor. The incoming shaft is reduced in speed by two delaying gear-combinations (a gear-combination is a combination of driving and a driven gear). Measurements are repeated for two identical machines, where the first shows a progressed pitting in both gears, and the second machine is virtually fault free. The rotating speed of the driving shaft is measured with a tachometer. [^3]
The pump data set is semi-synthetic insofar as we juxtapose non-temporally consecutive sections of data between the two pump conditions. Sections of data from the first and second machine are spliced randomly (with respect to the time axis) together to yield a dataset with 10,000 time points in seven channels. An illustration of the dataset is displayed in Figure \[fig:CLOSERLOOKDATA\].
Setup
-----
We preprocessed with SSA using a division of the dataset into 30 equally sized epochs and $d$ estimated non-stationary sources, for $d_s$, the no. of stationary sources ranging between $1$ and $6$, where $D=7$ is the dimensionality of the dataset: subsequently we ran the KL algorithm on both the preprocessed and raw data using a window size of $W=50$ and a separation of 50 datapoints between non-overlapping epochs.
Parameter Choice
----------------
To select the parameter, $d_s$ (and thus $d_n = D-d_s$), the number of stationary sources, we use the following scheme: the measure of stationarity over which we optimize for SSA and SSA is given by the loss function in equation (2). For each $d = \text{dim}(V^s)$ we compute the estimated projection to the stationary sources using SSA on the first half of the data available and computed this loss function on the estimated stationary sources on the second half and compared the result to the values of the loss function obtained on the dataset obtained by randomly permuting the time axis. This random permutation should produce, on average, a set of approximately stationary sources regardless of non-stationarity present in the estimated stationary sources for that $d$. In addition a measure of the information relating to non-stationarity lost in choosing the number of stationary sources to be $d_s$, the Baseline-Normalized Integral Stationary Error (BNISE), can be defined as followed: $$\text{BNISE}(d) = \sum_{d'<d} \frac{L_{d'}(\hat{A}^{-1},X) - \mathbf{E}_{X'}(L_{d'}(\hat{A}^{-1}),X')}{\sigma_{X'}(L_{d'}(\hat{A}^{-1},X'))}$$ Where $L_{d'}(\hat{A}^{-1},X)$ denotes the loss function given in equation \[eq:ssa\_objfun\] on the original dataset with stationary parameter $r$ and $L_{r}(\hat{A}^{-1},X')$ the same measure on a random permutation $X'$ of the same dataset.
Results
-------
The results of this scheme and the segmentation are given in Figure \[fig:ParameterPlots\]. For $d_s = 6$ we observe a clearly visible difference between the expected loss function value due to small sample sizes and the loss function value present in the estimated stationary sources. Similarly, looking at the p-values, we observe that for $d_s=1,2$ we do not reject the hypothesis that the estimated $\s-sources$ are stationary, whereas for higher values of $d_s$ we reject this hypothesis. This implies that $d_n \geq 5$. To test the effectiveness of this scheme, segmentation is evaluated for SSA preprocessing at all possible values of $d_s$. The AUC values obtained using the parameter choices $d_s = 1,\ldots,6$ for SSA preprocessing as compared to the baseline case are displayed in Figure \[fig:ParameterPlots\]. An increase in performance with SSA preprocessing is robust, as measured by the AUC values, with respect to varying choices for the parameter $d_s$ as long as $d_s$ is not chosen $\leq 2$. Note that, although, for the dataset at hand, there exists information relating to changepoints in the frequency spectrum taken over time, this information cannot be used to bring the baseline method onto a par with preprocessing with SSA. We display the results in figure \[fig:freq\_pump\] for comparison. Here, segmentation based on a 7-dimensional spectrogram based on each individual channel of the dataset is computed. The best performance over channels, for segmentation on each of these spectrograms is lower than the worst performance achieved on the entire dataset without using spectral information, with or without SSA.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Unsupervised segmentation and identification of time series is a hard problem even in the univariate case and has received considerable attention in science and industry due to its broad applicability that ranges from process control and finance to biomedical data analysis.
In high dimensional segmentation problems, different subsystems of the multivariate time series may exhibit clearer and more informative signals for segmentation than others. The present contribution has harvested this property by decomposing the overall system into stationary and non-stationary parts by means of SSA and using the non-stationary subsystem to determine the segmentation.
Intuitively segmentation can be understood as clustering in a function space (in which the estimated potentials reside) and, as shown in this paper, SSA contributes by choosing the most appropriate function space, which is most informative for the purpose of segmentation.
This generic approach is shown to yield excellent results in simulations, illustrating the novel framework for segmentation made available by SSA. We expect that the proposed dimensionality reduction will be useful on a wide range of datasets, because the task of discarding irrelevant stationary information is independent of the dataset-specific distribution within the informative non-stationary subspace. Moreover, the SSA preprocessing is a highly versatile tool because it can be combined with any subsequent segmentation method.
Applications made along the same lines as in the present contribution are effective only when the non-stationary part of the data is visible in the mean and covariances. The present method may be thus made applicable to general datasets whose changes consist in the spectrum or temporal domain of the data by computing the score function as a further preprocessing step [@ChangePoint]. Future work will also focus on computing the projection to the non-stationary sources directly for data whose non-stationarity is more prominent in the spectrum than in the mean and covariance over time.
[^1]: A whitening transformation is a basis transformation $W$ that sets the sample covariance matrix to the identity. It can be obtained from the sample covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}$ as $W = \hat{\Sigma}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
[^2]: An efficient implementation of SSA may be downloaded free of charge at <http://www.stationary-subspace-analysis.org/toolbox>
[^3]: The dataset can be downloaded free of charge at <http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/~ypma/mechanical.html>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Dynamical studies of local elliptical galaxies and the Fundamental Plane point to a strong dependence of the total mass-to-light ratio on luminosity with a relation of the form $M/L \propto
L^{\gamma}$. The “tilt” $\gamma$ may be caused by various factors, including stellar population properties (metallicity, age and star formation history), IMF, rotational support, luminosity profile non-homology and dark matter (DM) fraction. We evaluate the impact of all these factors using a large uniform dataset of local early-type galaxies from @PS96. We take particular care in estimating the stellar masses, using a general star formation history, and comparing different population synthesis models. We find that the stellar contributes little to the tilt. We estimate the total using simple Jeans dynamical models, and find that adopting accurate luminosity profiles is important but does not remove the need for an additional tilt component, which we ascribe to DM. We survey trends of the DM fraction within one effective radius, finding it to be roughly constant for galaxies fainter than $M_B \sim -20.5$, and increasing with luminosity for the brighter galaxies; we detect no significant differences among S0s and fast- and slow-rotating ellipticals. We construct simplified cosmological mass models and find general consistency, where the DM transition point is caused by a change in the relation between luminosity and effective radius. A more refined model with varying galaxy star formation efficiency suggests a transition from total mass profiles (including DM) of faint galaxies distributed similarly to the light, to near-isothermal profiles for the bright galaxies. These conclusions are sensitive to various systematic uncertainties which we investigate in detail, but are consistent with the results of dynamics studies at larger radii.
author:
- |
C. Tortora$^{1,2}$[^1], N.R. Napolitano$^{2}$, A.J. Romanowsky$^{3}$, M. Capaccioli$^{4,5}$, G. Covone$^{4,6}$\
\
$^1$ INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Via S. Sofia 78, I-95123 - Catania, Italy\
$^2$ INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Salita Moiariello, 16, 80131 - Napoli, Italy\
$^3$ UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\
$^4$ Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli Federico II, Compl. Univ. Monte S. Angelo, 80126 - Napoli, Italy\
$^5$ INAF – VSTceN, Salita Moiariello 16, 80131 - Napoli, Italy\
$^6$ INFN – Sezione di Napoli\
date: Accepted Received
title: 'Central mass-to-light ratios and dark matter fractions in early-type galaxies'
---
\[firstpage\]
dark matter – galaxies : evolution – galaxies : galaxies : general – galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Early-type galaxies (ETGs) are the most massive stellar systems in the Universe, containing much of the cosmic budget of visible and dark matter (DM). They include elliptical (E) and lenticular (S0) galaxies and form a nearly uniform class of objects: usually red, old and with only traces of cold gas and active star formation. The striking regularities in their properties include strong correlations between size (e.g. the effective radius, ) and the surface brightness therein (; @1977ApJ...218..333K), and between kinematics (the central velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$) and luminosity ($L$; @FJ76 [hereafter FJ]).
The two relations above merge into the so-called Fundamental Plane (FP; @DD87 [@Dressler87]), i.e. a relation between the (logarithm of) , and of ETGs. The FP can be interpreted in terms of the virial theorem of relaxed systems, according to which $2T+U=0$ where $U$ is the potential energy and $T$ the kinetic energy. This can be re-written in terms of observed quantities as approximately $L \propto \sigma^{2} \Re$. However, the FP is found observationally to be $L \propto
\sig^{\eta} \Re^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \neq 1$ and $\eta \neq 2$, i.e. a different orientation of the plane in the space of the logarithmic quantities with respect to the virial prediction. This *tilt* of the FP provides insight for the formation and structure of ETGs, and can be interpreted as a variation of the total mass-to-light ratio ($M/L$) with $L$ (@Dressler87) with the simplest parameterization as a power law, $M/L \propto
L^{\gamma}$. The slope, $\gamma$, of this relation could be driven by one or more different factors: a variation in stellar $M/L$ (due to metallicity or age gradient or change in IMF), a variation in the DM content, non-homology, rotational support, etc. (see e.g. ). It is of considerable importance to disentangle these factors using high-quality data at low redshift, in order to use the FP as a guide to galaxy evolution in different environments and cosmic epochs (e.g. @2000ApJ...543..131K [@Bernardi2003; @2005MNRAS.360..693R; @2007ApJ...655...30V]).
Many studies over the years have attempted to decode the FP tilt (e.g. @RC93 [@1995ApJ...445...55H; @1995ApJ...453L..17P; @Pahre98; @1998AJ....116.1606P]; @PS96 [hereafter PS96]; ). The emerging consensus is that stellar populations account for a minor fraction of the tilt (e.g. @TBB2004 [hereafter T+04]; @Cappellari06 [hereafter C+06]; @2008MNRAS.386.1781P [@2008arXiv0807.3829L; @Graves09]; see however @2008ApJ...678L..97J), with the major contributor yet to be firmly identified–which would have ramifications for galaxy formation models (e.g. @1995ApJ...451..525C [@1996MNRAS.280L..13L; @1997MNRAS.284..327K; @1998ApJ...496..713B; @2000MNRAS.316..786F; @2000ApJ...545..181M; @2002MNRAS.335..335C; @2003MNRAS.340..398D; @borr+03; @2003MNRAS.342L..36G; @2003MNRAS.342..501N; @2004MNRAS.349.1052E; @2005MNRAS.360L..50A; @2005ApJ...632L..57O; @2006MNRAS.373..503O; @2005MNRAS.362..184B; @2006MNRAS.369.1081B; @2006MNRAS.370.1445D; @2006ApJ...641...21R; @2006ApJ...643...14S; @2007MNRAS.376.1711A; @2008arXiv0806.3974H]).
An additional complication is that the tilted FP may not be flat, with claims made for curvature [@2006ApJ...638..725Z; @2008ApJ...685..875D; @HydeBern08], and projections of the FP showing a bend at a characteristic magnitude of $M_B \sim -20.5$ (see Section \[sec:sample\]). This transition concords with more general findings of a discontinuity in ETG properties at a similar luminosity (e.g. @2008IAUS..244..289N [@Coccato09]).
Of particular interest is the FP contribution from the central DM content, since connecting luminous galaxies to their DM haloes is one of the key ingredients in modern recipes for galaxy assembly. The DM component of the FP tilt is currently a bone of contention, with findings alternatively of negligible impact (@Gerhard01 [hereafter G+01]; T+04), and of primary importance (@Padmanabhan04 [@2006ApJ...648..826L]; C+06). More generally, several lines of evidence point to a small but significant fraction of DM ($f_{\rm DM}$) inside 1 (e.g. G+01; @2007ApJ...667..176G [@2008MNRAS.383.1343W]), but the galaxies probed are typically very bright Es with $\sigma_0 >
200$ . As data have become available on more “ordinary” ETGs, there are suggestions that their DM properties vary strongly with luminosity, with perhaps even a dichotomy following the classic division of faint, discy, fast-rotating galaxies and bright, boxy, slow-rotators (@Cap+02 [@R+03]; @Nap05 [hereafter N+05]; @2005ApJ...623L...5F [@2008MNRAS.383..857F]; C+06; @vdeB07 [@D+07; @Covone09; @Nap08; @Ruszkowski+09]).
The purpose of this paper is to reexamine all the plausible factors that could contribute to the FP tilt. We will not be directly studying the FP, but rather will survey systematic trends in the central properties of ETGs which factor into the apparent $M/L$ variation, $\gamma$. Our study springs from the classic data-set of central photometry and kinematics of PS96, which is one of the largest such catalogues of local galaxies covering a wide range of luminosities. Our analysis consists of two parts, wherein we independently determine the stellar component of the $M/L$ by stellar populations models, and the total $M/L$ by dynamical models. We take particular care in considering realistic star formation histories, stellar populations modelling systematics, and dynamical contributions from DM.
We briefly describe the galaxy sample in Section \[sec:sample\] and analyze the stellar populations in Section \[sec:MtoL\_star\]. We determine the dynamical masses in Section \[sec:dynM\] and infer the DM fractions in Section \[sec:DM\]. Section \[sec:av\_DM\] considers some implications for galaxy formation, and Section \[sec:conclusions\] draws conclusions and considers future prospects.
Sample {#sec:sample}
======
Our data-set of local ETGs is drawn from PS96[^2]. This is currently one of the largest homogeneous samples of local ETGs available in the literature containing both photometry and kinematics of the galaxy central regions, and the only one including information on the peak rotation velocity (). As discussed in PS96, the colours (extinction- and K-corrected) are measured within 1 , the central velocity dispersions are recovered from long slit spectra[^3] and is defined as the quadratic sum of the maximum rotation on the major and minor axes. Since we are interested in fitting spectral energy distributions (SEDs), we select galaxies with at least two measured colours (most of the selected galaxies have four colours)[^4]. Selecting also for galaxies brighter than $M_{B}=-16$, we recover $\approx 400$ galaxies among which, following the PS96 classification, $\approx 55\%$ are bona fide Es (their subsample 1), $\approx 30\%$ are type S0 and Sa (their subsample 5), and the remaining $\approx 15\%$ are dusty objects, interacting galaxies, dwarf spheroidals, compact, dwarf, low-luminosity and peculiar ellipticals, etc. (subsamples 2, 3, 4 and 6). For the main purposes of this paper, we will use subsample 1 (hereafter “Es”) and 5 (hereafter “S0s”), thus incorporating 335 galaxies, or $\approx 85\%$ of the PS96 sample.
In all the following, we use a cosmological model with $(\Omega_{m},\Omega_{\Lambda},h)=(0.3,0.7,0.7)$, where $h =
H_{0}/100 \, \textrm{km} \, \textrm{s}^{-1} \, \textrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ (@WMAP), corresponding to a universe age of $t_{\rm
univ}=13.5 \, \rm Gyr$[^5].
E galaxies populate a restricted region in the colour-magnitude diagram, the so-called “red sequence”, with a colour range of $B-V \sim 0.9-1$. S0s span a wider range of colours (i.e., $B-V
\sim 0.7-1$) and are fainter than Es on average. The two subsamples follow similar FJ relations $L \propto \sigc^{\eta}$, including a characteristic magnitude ($M_{B} \sim -20.5$) where the relation clearly changes its slope (see left panel of Fig. \[fig:Sample\]). For the E sample, $\eta = 2.9 \pm 0.5$ and $5.6 \pm 1.2$ for the faint and bright galaxies, respectively.
This FJ “dichotomy” has been reported elsewhere [@MG05; @Forbes08], and seems related to systematic changes seen in other optical properties, e.g. the Kormendy relation [@1992MNRAS.259..323C; @2008arXiv0805.0961N], the [@Sersic68] index (@Caon93; @PS97 [hereafter PS97]; @Graham98 [@GG03]) and the size-magnitude relation [@Shen2003; @Bernardi+07; @Lauer+07; @2007MNRAS.377..402D; @2008arXiv0810.4922H]. The latter relation is illustrated for our sample Es in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Sample\], where the faint and bright galaxies have fitted slopes of $0.85 \pm 0.07$ and $0.43 \pm
0.11$, respectively.
We will see that a characteristic luminosity scale is also found to characterize other correlations of ETG parameters.
Stellar mass-to-light ratio {#sec:MtoL_star}
===========================
One of the key aspects of our analysis is determining each sample galaxy’s stellar $M/L$, , which we do by fitting model SEDs to the observed galaxy colours. Although photometric modelling may seem less powerful than detailed spectroscopic fits, most spectroscopic samples are restricted to the very central regions of galaxies and may be very biassed indicators of the stellar populations on scales of $\sim \Re$.
In Section \[sec:stellarmodels\] we describe the modelling procedure and present the recovered stellar populations properties for the sample galaxies. We report the implications for the size-mass relation in Section \[sec:size\_relations\], and for trends in in Section \[sec:stellarML\].
Stellar populations modelling procedure {#sec:stellarmodels}
---------------------------------------
We create a set of synthetic stellar spectra using the prescription of @BC03 [hereafter BC03], which encompasses a wide range of initial metallicities and ages. A [@Salpeter55] or [@Chabrier01; @Chabrier02; @Chabrier03] initial mass function (IMF) is assumed, with initial masses $m$ in the range $0.1-100$. The two IMFs do not influence the colours, but basically affect the estimates, which are $\approx 1.8$ times larger with a Salpeter IMF than with a Chabrier IMF.
To generate a more general and realistic star formation history (SFH), we convolve the BC03 “single burst” models with an exponentially-decaying star formation (SF) rate with time $t$, $\propto e^{-t/\tau}$, where $\tau$ is a characteristic time scale. The choice of BC03 is dictated mostly by its versatility and ability to span the stellar parameter space (metallicities and ages) but it is not the only prescription available on the market. We test for the presence of any modelling systematics by mainly checking two different popular prescriptions, @BdeJ2001 [hereafter BdJ01] and @Maraston05 [hereafter M05] in Appendix \[sec:appA\].
For each galaxy, we fit synthetic spectra to the observed colours ($U-B$, $B-V$, $V-R$ and $V-I$, after convolving the spectra with the appropriate filter bandpass functions), allowing us to estimate the age (), metallicity ($Z$), $\tau$, and hence the stellar mass, $=\YstB \times \LB$ (hereafter we will always quote luminosity and values in the $B$-band, even if not specified). In detail, we build a set of synthetic colours with $Z \in (0.008,~0.02,~0.05)$[^6], $\tau \in (0.1-5) \,
\rm Gyr$ and up to $t_{\rm univ}$[^7]. The fitting procedure consists of generating 100 Monte Carlo realizations of the observed galaxy colour sets assuming Gaussian errors of 0.05 mag per colour, and minimizing a $\chi^2$ statistic between the modelled and observed colours for each realization. The overall best-fit model parameters and their uncertainties are defined as the median and scatter of these 100 best fits[^8].
Our synthetic modelling procedure is more general than the extensively used “simple stellar population” (SSP) model where a galaxy is approximated as experiencing a single burst of star formation (i.e. $\tau=0$; @2000AJ....120..165T [@Maraston05]; see also Appendix \[sec:appA\]). Instead we leave , $\tau$ and $Z$ all as free parameters in order to better represent the wide variety of SFH expected both observationally and theoretically (see e.g. @deLucia06 [@2007ApJ...660L..47N]). The allowed ranges in the parameters will then be larger than in the more simplified SSP case because of the well known degeneracies among them (@Gavazzi02; BC03).
To test the reliability of our modelling technique and the intrinsic parameter scatter, and to check for the presence of spuriously-generated correlations, we run a suite of Monte Carlo simulations. We extract 100 simulated galaxy spectra from our BC03 SED libraries with random , $Z$ and $\tau$ (i.e. with no correlation among these parameters), and apply our generalized fit procedure—comparing the recovered parameters with the input model values. We find that is recovered well, with a scatter of $\sim 10\%$ (see Fig. \[fig:sim\_ML\]). Similar consistency is found for , $Z$ and $\tau$, which have on average larger scatter: $\sim 20\%$, $\sim 30\%$ and $\sim 30\%$ respectively. We check for spurious correlations using a Spearman rank test (@Nrecip), finding that $\tau$ vs show no correlation at the $95\%$ confidence level, but that and $Z$ are weakly correlated, which is a common effect in stellar populations analyses, However, this -$Z$ degeneracy does not affect the inference, which is our primary concern.
After fitting the real data for the complete sample of 335 galaxies, we show some relations between model parameters and other observed galaxy quantities in Fig. \[fig:various\_stellar\_correlations\]. From this Figure it is evident that the metallicity is generally solar or super-solar ($Z \geq 0.02$) and on average only weakly dependent on other properties such as luminosity – which is fortunate since the BC03 stellar libraries include only a few reference values for $Z$. More striking are the strong correlations involving and $\tau$, such that the brighter, more massive galaxies formed their stars on average on shorter timescales than the fainter, less massive galaxies, while the younger galaxies also had shorter SF timescales (this does [*not*]{} mean that the brighter galaxies are younger, and if the S0s are included, the opposite is clearly true).
\
\
Similar findings on the SFHs of ETGs have been found in observational (e.g. @Gavazzi02 [@Thomas05]) and theoretical (e.g. @deLucia06 [@Romeo+08]) analyses. We will consider this subject in detail in a subsequent paper (@Nap09b, in prep.), and for now summarize some basic parameters. The bright ETGs ($M_{B} \leq -20.5$) have a median $\tau \sim 0.5$ Gyr, while the faint ETGs have $\tau \sim 1$ Gyr. The Es have similar properties, while the S0s have on average more protracted SFHs ($\tau \sim $1–1.5 Gyr). The median for the ETGs is $6.9\pm2\, \Ysun$ ($3.8 \pm 1.1\, \Ysun$) for a Salpeter (Chabrier) IMF, where the quoted errors are the 1 $\sigma$ scatter. The S0s have only slightly smaller median than the Es: $6.2\, \Ysun$ ($3.4\, \Ysun$) and $7.1\, \Ysun$ ($3.9\,
\Ysun$), respectively. However, the two samples differ more strongly in the [*distribution*]{} of , where the Es have a fairly symmetric distribution about the mean, while the S0s have a pronounced tail to low such that the mean value of $5.8\,
\Ysun$ ($3.2\, \Ysun$) differs from the median estimate.
Size-mass relations {#sec:size_relations}
-------------------
An indirect way to test our derived values is to check how the implied scaling relation between size and stellar mass compares to previously established results. Expressing the size-[*luminosity*]{} relation as $\Re\ \propto L^{\alpha_{L}}$, we find a slope for the Es of $\alpha_{L}=0.70 \pm 0.06$, which is slightly steeper than some literature findings of $0.54-0.63$ (@Pahre98, @Bernardi2003, @ML05). However, this slope is very sensitive to the range of luminosities fitted, since we see a difference between the “faint” and “bright” subsamples (see Section \[sec:sample\] and right panel of Fig. \[fig:Sample\]).
For the size-[*mass*]{} relation $\Re\ \propto
M_{\star}^{\alpha_{M}}$, we obtain $\alpha_{M} = 0.65 \pm 0.05$ overall (Fig. \[fig:Reff\_vs\_LB\_and\_mstar\]), consistent with previous estimates for low-redshift galaxies of typically $\sim
0.6$ (@Bernardi2003 [@Shen2003; @ML05]; N+05). This correlation also bends at a characteristic mass scale of $M_* \sim
10^{11.1} \Msun$, with $\alpha_{M}=0.36 \pm 0.13$ and $0.73 \pm
0.12$ for the faint and bright galaxies, respectively (cf. @Shen2003). We find the S0s to have on average smaller $\Re$ than Es of the same mass, and similar $\alpha_{M}$ at high masses, but flattening to $\sim 0$ at low masses.
Luminosity dependence of {#sec:stellarML}
-------------------------
The central regions of ETGs are probably dominated by the stellar mass, so it is of critical importance to ascertain the fraction of the FP tilt that is connected to the stellar population properties. We focus on the relation $\Yst\ \propto
\LB^{\gamma_*}$ in log-log space, fitting to weighted medians of binned data values, with results that are stable to changes in the binning (Fig. \[fig:Ups\_star\_vs\_LB\_Zsol\_tau\_1Gyr\]). For the overall ETG sample, we find a slope of $\gamma_*=0.06\pm 0.01$; the Es have $\gamma_*=0.02 \pm 0.01$, and S0s have $\gamma_*=0.17
\pm 0.03$, although this steeper slope is driven by the very faintest galaxies ($M_B > -19$).
Before taking these results at face value, we investigate possible dependencies on modelling systematics. Changing the IMF from Salpeter to Chabrier does not affect $\gamma_*$, but only the overall normalization of . Adopting a simplified model with as the only free parameter, with $\tau \sim 0.75$ Gyr and $Z
\sim \Zsun$ fixed to the median values for the whole sample (see Section \[sec:stellarmodels\]), the steepens for the faint galaxies and flattens for the bright ones, with an overall result of $\gamma_* \sim 0.16$ (Appendix \[sec:appA\]). An even more simplified SSP model with $\tau=0$ yields about the same $\gamma_*
\sim 0.18$. Thus, we see that allowing for the variations of SF timescales (and metallicity) within the sample is critical to accurately deriving the trends with luminosity. An additional complication, only partially addressed by our model’s protracted exponential SFH, is multiple bursts of SF in a single galaxy which, if corrected for, would probably flatten the slope even further (cf. section 4.7 of C+06).
We next consider alternative stellar populations basis models. As detailed in Appendix \[sec:appA\], adopting the BJ01 or M05 models with the same assumptions would imply shallower and steeper slopes, respectively. This turns out to be the dominant source of uncertainty in the analysis, although the uncertainty is largest for the faintest galaxies ($M_B \gsim -20.5$), and the estimates more stable for the brighter galaxies[^9].
How do our results compare to previous work? As mentioned in Section \[sec:intro\], most recent studies agree that $\gamma_*$ is a relatively small contributor to the total $\gamma$ of the FP. E.g. PS96 inferred from the same data set that $\gamma_* \sim
0.1$, and T+04 found using very different data and techniques that $\gamma_* = 0.07 \pm 0.01$ in the $B$-band[^10]. This general consistency is encouraging, but it should be kept in mind that as just discussed, there remain significant uncertainties in the modelling.
The foregoing conclusions are based upon a universal IMF, but there are suspicions that the IMF may vary with time or environment (e.g. @2008ApJ...674...29V [@2008MNRAS.385..147D]). @RC93 pointed out that a variation in the IMF with luminosity could easily account for the FP tilt. Here we illustrate this point again with a simple toy model, wherein the faint galaxies have a Chabrier IMF, and the bright ones a Salpeter IMF (a more realistic scenario would have the IMF changing smoothly with luminosity). The implied slope would be $\gamma_* \sim 0.3$ (Fig. \[fig:Ups\_star\_vs\_LB\_Zsol\_tau\_1Gyr\_IMFchange\]), which as we will see would be enough to explain the FP tilt with no further ingredients (e.g. no DM).
We lastly examine the correlation of with velocity dispersion: $\Yst \propto \sigc^{\gamma_{\sigma}}$. The fitted slope is $\gamma_{\sigma} \sim 0.2-0.4$ for both Es and S0s (Fig. \[fig: MtoLstar\_vs\_sig0\]). The steepness of this trend relative to $\gamma_*$ suggests that the stellar populations of galaxies are more strongly linked to their dynamical masses than to their luminosities. This issue will be considered in more detail in the following Sections, and as part of a separate analysis in [@Nap09b].
Dynamical mass {#sec:dynM}
==============
Besides , the other fundamental quantity we want to determine is the total dynamical $M/L$, . The usual way the dynamical mass is calculated in FP studies is with the virial relation $$M= \frac{K \sigma_0^{2} r}{G},\label{eq:M_virial}$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $K$ is a pressure correction coefficient (or virial coefficient; e.g. @Padmanabhan04 [@Eke04]; C+06). The $K$ factor subsumes a host of issues such as the aperture wherein $\sigma_0$ is measured, and variations or “non-homologies” in the viewing angles, orbital structures, luminosity profile, DM distribution, etc.
Rather than adopting some approximate value or function for $K$, we will here directly model the non-homologies as much as possible for every individual galaxy in the sample, using the Jeans equations to estimate within 1 . We outline the modelling methods in Section \[sec:dynmeth\], present results based on luminosity profile homology in Section \[sec:hom\] and on more general profiles in Section \[sec:nonhom\].
Dynamical methods {#sec:dynmeth}
-----------------
The basic approach of our dynamical models is to take the observed luminosity profile for each galaxy, along with a parameterized mass model, and solve for the projected velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$ within a central aperture. The mass model parameters are then optimized to match the observed value for $\sigma_0$.
In detail, the steps are the following:
1. We parameterize the luminosity profile $j_*(r)$ by either a (deprojected) @deV48 profile or a more general @Sersic68 model [@Caon93]–which fully takes into account any non-homologies in the stellar density distributions. The functional form for $j_*(r)$ is specified in Appendix B of PS97.
2. We adopt a simplified form for the total cumulative dynamical mass profile $M(r)$ which is either a constant-$M/L$ profile $M(r) =
\Upsilon_0 \, L(r)$ (including the cases where DM is missing or has a cored distribution; see @Burkert95 [@Nap08]), or a singular isothermal sphere (SIS), where $M(r)\propto \sigma_{\rm
SIS}^{2} r$. The latter choice is motivated by evidence from strong gravitational lensing for near-SIS profiles in the central regions of ETGs (e.g. @Kochanek91 [@SLACS3]). These two alternatives bracket the plausible range of mass profiles.
3. We solve the Jeans equation: $${{\rm d}(j_* \sigma_r^2) \over {\rm d}r} + 2\,{\beta(r) \over r}
\,j_* \sigma_r^2 = - j_*(r)\, \frac{GM(r)}{r^2} \ ,
\label{eq:jeans}$$ where $\beta = 1 - \sigma_t^2/\sigma_r^2$ is the anisotropy. This model assumes spherical symmetry and no rotation (cf. @ML05). For simplicity we also assume isotropy ($\beta=0$), in which case the Jeans Eq. (\[eq:jeans\]) can be transformed to: $$\sigma_r^2 (r) = \frac{1}{j_*(r)} \int_r^\infty j_*
\frac{GM}{s^2} {\rm d}s \ . \label{eq:iso}$$
4. We project Eq. (\[eq:iso\]) to obtain the line-of-sight velocity dispersion: $$\sigma_{\rm los}^2 (R) = \frac{2}{I(R)}\,\int_R^\infty \frac{j_*
\sigma_r^2 \,r\,{\rm d}r}{\sqrt{r^2\!-\!R^2}} , \label{eq:siglos}$$ where $$I(R) = 2\,\int_R^\infty \frac{j_*\,r}{\sqrt{r^2\!-\!R^2}}{\rm
d}r \label{eq:IR}$$ is the projected density profile.
5. We integrate $\sigma_{\rm los}$ within a fixed aperture $\Re/8$ to obtain the aperture velocity dispersion, $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$ using the Equation: $$\sigma_{\rm Ap}^2 (R) = \frac{1}{L(R)}\int_0^{R_{\rm eff} /8}
2\pi\,S\,I(S)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2(S)\,{\rm d}S \ ,
\label{eq:sigap}$$ where $L(R) = \int_0^R 2\pi S I(S)\, {\rm d}S$ is the luminosity within the projected radius $R$[^11].
6. We fit the model $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$ to the observed $\sigma_0$ and iterate the preceding steps, varying the free parameters in Eq. (\[eq:iso\]) (i.e. $\sigma_{\rm SIS}$ or $\Upsilon_0$). The resulting best-fit mass profile then provides the total spherical mass-to-light ratio within an effective radius () (which is coincident with $\Upsilon_0$ in the case of the constant-model).
This procedure does not take into account certain factors that could in principle alter the final mass estimates. Firstly, the mass model does not include a central black hole, but we calculate the effect to be negligible[^12]. More importantly, real galaxies are neither spherical nor isotropic in general. We will check the impact of these simplifications later, but here begin with a first-order correction to the isotropic results.
Detailed dynamical models of nearby galaxies have shown that their central stellar parts are close to isotropic [*after subtracting the rotational component*]{} (e.g. G+01; C+06; @Cappellari07). The observed $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$ does incorporate both the projected rotation and dispersion components of the specific kinetic energy ($\sigma_{\rm Ap}^2 = v_{\rm rms}^2 = v^2+\sigma^2$), and the Jeans equations could in principle be reformulated along these lines. However, for many galaxies the rotation is so dominant that it is preferable to include it as an additional, separate term, which would require additional assumptions about the rotation field of each galaxy, and would best entail a non-spherical treatment anyway – all of which is beyond the scope of the current paper.
Here we adopt a heuristic correction to the [*observed*]{} dispersion in order to approximately account for rotational effects. Following PS94, we parameterize the corrected $\sigma_{\rm Ap}'$ by $\sigma_{\rm Ap}' = \sigma_{\rm Ap} \drot$. To estimate we have performed Monte Carlo simulations as in [@Nap01], beginning with a suite of analytical spherical stellar+DM models as described in N+05[^13]. For each model with a fixed gravitational potential, we assume isotropy and an additional rotational component that increases with radius, then solve the Jeans equations and project to $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$. Finally we examine the factor that relates the rotating and non-rotating “measurements” $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$, finding this simple approximation: $$\drot \approx 1+0.05 \frac{\vmax}{\sigc} ,$$ which is calculated for an aperture of 1 and turns out to be valid for a large range of galaxy masses[^14]. We therefore apply this correction to the observed $\sigma_{\rm Ap}$ before matching to the models in step (vi) above. The correction increases the inferred values since rotation at $\sim \Re$ coupled with the $\beta=0$ assumption depresses the central $\sigma_r$ for a given mass profile: a rotational component must be subtracted from the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:iso\]).
The trend with luminosity for the rotation correction in our galaxy sample is shown in Fig. \[fig:delta\_rot\_vs\_MB\], implying corrections of $\sim 1\%$ for the brightest Es, and $\sim
6\%$ for the faintest S0s (as is well known, rotation is a stronger factor on average among fainter ETGs). When plotting results for all galaxies in the sample we use the median $(\vmax/\sigc)$- trend to estimate their . Where possible, we also classify the Es as fast- or slow-rotators, using $\vmax/\sigc\ =0.25$ as the demarcation – a simple scheme that matches the more robust conclusions of C+06 in more than 90% of the overlapping cases.
Results from homologous luminosity profiles {#sec:hom}
-------------------------------------------
We can now derive , starting with the simplest case where we assume no rotation, and a homologous model for the luminosity distribution $j_*(r)$: an $R^{1/4}$ profile which is completely determined by the known and for every galaxy. For the mass profile we assume initially the SIS model. Fitting the data, we show the mass-luminosity results in Fig. \[fig:UpsReff\_SIS\_vs\_LB\] (left panel). Binning the data, we fit the median relation $\Ydyn \propto \LB^{\gamma_{\rm dyn}}$ and find $\gamma_{\rm dyn}=0.21 \pm 0.01$. This is identical to the one for the E subsample alone, $\gamma_{\rm dyn}=0.21 \pm
0.01$ (see Table \[tab:slopes\]). The S0s show a larger scatter and have a global slope of $\gamma_{\rm dyn} = 0.18 \pm 0.03$, which steepens for faint galaxies ($\MB > -20.5$, $\gamma_{\rm
dyn} \sim 0.3$) and appears to flatten or even [*decrease*]{} at higher luminosities ($\gamma_{\rm dyn} \leq 0$). These slope results are scarcely changed by including the rotational correction (see Table \[tab:slopes\]), although the [*normalization*]{} of is increased for the S0s (see Fig. \[fig:UpsReff\_SIS\_vs\_LB\], right), an issue to which we will return in §\[sec:DM\].
\
Model $\gamma_{\rm E}$ $\gamma_{\rm S0}$ $\gamma_{\rm tot}$
---------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- --------------------
$R^{1/4}$+SIS $0.21\pm0.01$ $0.18\pm0.03$ $0.21\pm0.01$
$R^{1/4}$+SIS+rot $0.20\pm0.01$ $0.18\pm0.03$ $0.20\pm0.01$
$R^{1/4}$+const-+rot $0.20\pm0.01$ $0.18\pm0.03$ $0.20\pm0.01$
Sérsic+SIS+rot $0.21\pm0.01$ $0.20\pm0.03$ $0.21\pm0.01$
Sérsic+const-+rot $0.10\pm0.01$ $0.10\pm0.03$ $0.13\pm0.02$
Stars $0.02\pm0.01$ $0.17\pm0.03$ $^{*}$ $0.06\pm0.01$
: Slope of – relation for Es and S0s and different dynamical models (the Sersic profiles assume the $n$- relation discussed in the text). The first five rows are the slope for the total (dynamical) mass, and the last row due to stars only, as derived with our stellar-populations model (Section \[sec:MtoL\_star\]). $^{*}$The faintest S0s have a steeper slope than the brighter ones (see Fig. \[fig:Ups\_star\_vs\_LB\_Zsol\_tau\_1Gyr\]). Uncertainties on slopes are the 1$\sigma$ scatter computed by a bootstrap method.[]{data-label="tab:slopes"}
Previous dynamical studies of ETGs using $j_*$ homology have found a variety of tilt slopes, ranging from $\gamma_{\rm dyn} \sim 0.1$ to $\sim 0.3$ (e.g. @1993ApJ...411...34J [@Bernardi2003; @Padmanabhan04]; T+04). The average of the literature $B$-band values in Table 1 of PS96 yields $\gamma_{\rm dyn}=0.25\pm0.05$, consistent with our result.
Now considering the other extreme assumption for the mass model, constant-, the extrapolation to after fitting to changes the normalization, corresponding to $K=2.05$ at in Eq. (\[eq:M\_virial\]) for SIS, and $K=1.93$ for constant-. The [*slope*]{} of the - relation is on the other hand unchanged (see Table \[tab:slopes\]). The $K$ difference does raise the interesting possibility of mass profile non-homology, e.g. a systematic change with luminosity. As with the IMF toy model in Section \[sec:stellarML\], we can consider an arbitrary case where the faintest galaxies have constant-profiles, and the brightest ones have SIS. This would increase by $\sim 0.02$, i.e. mass non-homology does not appear to be a significant contributor to the FP tilt, assuming $j_*$ homology.
Results from generalized luminosity profiles {#sec:nonhom}
--------------------------------------------
We next relax the $j_*$ homology assumption, allowing for more realistic luminosity profiles based on the Sérsic law, with surface brightness profiles expressed as: $$\mu(R) \propto C-(R/R_{\rm eff})^{1/n},$$ where $C$ is a constant and $n$ is an index of profile curvature which correlates with luminosity, such that the brighter galaxies have higher $n$ (less curved profiles; e.g. @Caon93 [@Graham98; @GG03; @ML05; @2008arXiv0810.1681K]). As illustrated by Eq. (\[eq:jeans\]), for a given dispersion profile, changing the shape of $j_*(r)$ will affect the inferred mass. Thus it is important to explore the impact of $j_*$ non-homology on , which may be expressed as a trend with luminosity $K=K(n|\LB)$. This is all a fancy way to say that [*accurate dynamical results require accurate luminosity profile models.*]{}
The $n$- correlation has been investigated for our galaxy sample by PS97. From the overall ETG sample in their fig. 5, we define a simple relation where $n \sim L_B^{0.2}$ for $M_B > -20$, and $n = 4$ for all the brighter galaxies[^15]. This relation also applies for the E subsample, and we assume that it does for the S0s as well.
\
We now use the $n$- relation to construct the $j_*(r)$ Sérsic profile for each galaxy as needed for the dynamical modeling (Section \[sec:dynmeth\]). Since we have examined the effects of rotation in Section \[sec:hom\], we will here skip over the simplified case of no rotation. The resulting values for both SIS and constant- cases are summarized in Table \[tab:slopes\] and Fig. \[fig:MtoL\_nonhom\]. For the SIS case, relaxing the $j_*$ homology slightly changes the slope $\gamma_{\rm dyn}$. However, in the constant- case, both the luminosity [*and*]{} mass profiles are affected, and significant differences arise. The masses are increased for the fainter galaxies[^16], causing the slope to become shallower overall ($\gamma_{\rm
dyn}=0.13\pm0.02$), and even constant at lower luminosities ($\gamma_{\rm dyn} = 0.05\pm0.04$ and $0.23\pm0.02$ for the faint and bright Es, respectively). The Es and S0s are again not noticeably different in their region of luminosity overlap. In Appendix \[sec:appB\] we investigate systematic uncertainties in these results, whose impact we will consider in the next section.
Now reviewing the results of this and the previous Sections, with the $j_*$ homology assumption, the steep slope relative to ($\gamma_{\rm dyn} = 0.20$ vs $\gamma_*=0.06$) would imply that $\sim75\%$ of the FP tilt is related to DM content or some other factor. Including the (realistic) $j_*$ non-homologies changes the picture somewhat: if all galaxies have SIS mass profiles, the previous conclusion is unchanged. If they have steeper mass profiles, then the dynamical contribution to the tilt decreases, and for the fainter galaxies may even disappear.
Thus our results suggest overall that DM contributes to the tilt for the brightest galaxies, while the contribution for the fainter galaxies is unclear but probably less. This conclusion differs from that of T+04, who found using similar Sérsic models and [*assuming constant-M/L*]{}, no need for a correlation between DM fraction and luminosity.
Their galaxy sample is fainter and much smaller, so their results are actually consistent with ours in general. The exception is for the brightest galaxies, where the higher $n$-values of T+04 lead to less tilt than we find. In any case, it should be noted that reproducing the FP tilt without DM variation is not a unique solution, and as we have shown, DM could still be a primary driver of the tilt.
Dark matter fractions {#sec:DM}
=====================
Having analyzed the trends for stellar and total mass in our galaxy sample, we now examine the implications for DM content. We define the DM fraction within the three-dimensional radius $r=1~\Re$ by: $$\fDM=\frac{\mtot-\mst}{\mtot}=1-\frac{\Yst}{\Ydyn} ,$$\[eq:fDM\] where for physically meaningful results we should have $\Yst\ \leq \Ydyn$ and thus $\fDM\ \geq 0$. Strictly speaking, our derived should be [*deprojected*]{} before computing , but we do not have the information necessary to do so. Given the negative colour gradients in ETGs, we expect the deprojected to be somewhat higher than in projection, and thus the true to be somewhat lower. For this reason and especially because of the large IMF uncertainty, [*the absolute values for are not definitive, but instead the relative variations are more robust and are the focus of our study.*]{}
We now consider the trends found for our galaxy sample, taking as a default the estimates from the generalized ($\age,\tau,Z$) BC03-based stellar populations model, and the estimates from the dynamical models using generalized luminosity profiles (Section \[sec:nonhom\]). As shown in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_nonhom\], increases with luminosity in the E galaxy subsample, but is constant or even [*decreasing*]{} for the S0s. The combined ETG sample has increasing overall, but with the hint of a slope change at $M_B \sim -20.5$, from roughly constant at faint magnitudes to steeply increasing for brighter objects; the trends for the S0s and the correspondingly fainter Es are roughly consistent. These conclusions are valid for both bracketing mass profile cases (SIS and constant-), although the slope change is less apparent for the SIS model. To quantify this breakdown, we have measured the slopes $\gamma_{DM}$ of –relation for the two models, and found that $\gamma_{\rm DM} \sim
0.5$ for $\log \LB \gsim 10.4 \, \Lsun$ and $\gamma_{\rm DM} \sim
0$ for $\log \LB \lsim 10.4 \, \Lsun$, clearly inconsistent within the errors.
The trends with luminosity are mirrored by similar correlations with the velocity dispersion as we show in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_vs\_sig0\_nonhom\]. Here the slope is steeper in general because of the combined effect of the - correlation shown in Fig. \[fig: MtoLstar\_vs\_sig0\] and the stronger dependence between and .
The DM fraction is typically $\fDM\ \sim 0.3$ assuming a Salpeter IMF, with a broad range for individual galaxies from $\sim 0$ to $\sim 0.9$ (rms scatter of $\sim 0.15$). About 15% of the galaxies have, within the errors, $\fDM\ < 0$ (typically those with low surface brightness $\mu_{\rm eff}$), an unphysical result which may indicate that the Salpeter IMF is inaccurate (cf. C+06); adopting a Chabrier IMF would imply more DM, with $\fDM\ \sim 0.6$ typically, and only a tiny handful of galaxies with $\fDM\ < 0$. Changing the IMF also flattens slightly the luminosity dependence of , since this quantity is not directly proportional to .
We next look for any DM differences between the fast-rotator and slow-rotator Es, following the classification in Section \[sec:dynmeth\]. However, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_1\], there is no discernible difference; slow and rotators typically have $\fDM\ \sim 0.35$ and $\sim 0.25$, respectively, but this is consistent with a simple luminosity effect, since fast rotators are fainter on average than slow rotators. This result appears contrary to the finding of C+06 (based on more detailed dynamical models and somewhat different stellar populations constraints for a much smaller galaxy sample) that there is an discontinuity between slow and fast rotators.
We also compare S0s in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_1\], where it appears that their declining trend of with luminosity is inconsistent with the Es in the same luminosity range. However, we caution that our spherical dynamical models are most questionable for the S0s, so the overall situation appears consistent with a continuous trend of with luminosity for all ETGs, independent of morphology and rotation. For the rest of the paper, we will therefore generally lump all these ETG sub-classes together as one population.
Before continuing further, we check once more the effects of systematic uncertainties, as detailed in Appendix \[sec:appC\]. Despite the uncertainties, our default model is consistent with results on DM content at larger radii, and we therefore consider the overall mild increase of to be robust, with the inflection at intermediate luminosities perhaps less so.
How do our results compare to previous studies of DM trends in ETG centres? The analysis most similar to ours is from T+04. As discussed in Section \[sec:nonhom\], they found no indication of a correlation between and luminosity, but their sample was primarily of faint galaxies, where we also found the correlation is weak. If we adopted higher Sérsic indices for the brightest galaxies, the correlation would also weaken for them, but this scenario would seemingly be inconsistent with large-radius tracers of DM (see App. \[sec:appC\]).
[@borr+03] modelled a large sample of ETGs dynamically and claimed that the flatness of the FP would not permit centrally-concentrated DM halos as predicted by cosmological models. Their results imply $\gamma_* = 0.27 \pm 0.04$, thereby explaining all the tilt through the stellar populations – in flat contradiction to our $\gamma_* = 0.06 \pm 0.01$. This is mainly the consequence of their choices to not allow for a systematic variation of the virial DM fraction with luminosity in their model, and to use homologous $j_*(r)$ profiles which we have seen produce misleading results.
Finally, [@Padmanabhan04] analyzed a large sample of SDSS ETGs, using a combination of stellar populations and dynamical models. Although the different redshift ranges make comparisons not straightforward, their results do appear roughly equivalent to ours, with $\gamma_* \sim 0$ and $\gamma_{\rm dyn} \sim 0.17$, and even a hint of a flattening of the slope at lower luminosities. Note however that they used an inaccurate homologous $j_*(r)$ profile.
Implications: dark matter and galaxy formation {#sec:av_DM}
==============================================
The trends we have seen for as a function of luminosity could provide fresh clues to galaxy formation. The most basic interpretation of central DM variations is that they reflect variations in [*total*]{} DM within the virial radius. Assuming that the Universal baryon fraction is roughly conserved from galaxy to galaxy, the implication is then that higher means lower efficiencies of star formation . In this respect, the trends we find are qualitatively expected. Both observations and theory point to a universal U-shaped trend of (or equivalently virial ) with luminosity, and a peak efficiency at $M_* \sim 10^{11} M_\odot$ (e.g. @Benson2000 [@MH02]; N+05; @vdeB07).
Physically, the lowest-mass galaxies are least able to retain their primordial gas content long enough to form many stars, since their gravitational potential wells are not deep enough to prevent ejection from supernovae feedback. More massive galaxies are increasingly able to inhibit feedback and form more stars, but at a certain mass scale, additional processes kick in such as AGN feedback, inhibiting gas cooling and decreasing again (e.g. @2006MNRAS.370.1651C [@2006ApJ...643...14S; @Kaviraj07; @Tortora2009]). Thus, the lowest-mass and the highest-mass galaxies are the most DM-dominated. Our current galaxy sample does not extend faint enough to discern any U-shape, but the change we see in the trend below scales of $M_B \sim -20.5$ or $M_* \sim
10^{11} M_\odot$ does coincide with the generically expected minimum of DM content. The consistencies of the trends for the ETG sub-types (S0s, fast-rotator Es, slow-rotator Es) suggest that the dominant driver of star formation is mass, not angular momentum.
It is of course a stretch to draw firm conclusions about virial quantities based on data from scales $\ll \Re$. The central DM content that we are actually probing may be decoupled from the overall DM content in several ways: the central DM density reflects the ambient density at the time of initial halo collapse; the baryons could have interacted with the DM and changed its distribution; and the quantity that we measure is somewhat dependent on the particular values of for the stars rather than simply probing the DM properties. To allow for such effects, and to provide quantitative marks for comparison to cosmological theory, we now consider the properties of the DM alone, in terms of its average density within some small radius, .
In order to make critical comparisons with a literature study discussed below, we estimate within 2 , extrapolating our usual models outwards in radius. We present this result vs stellar mass for the whole ETG sample in Fig. \[fig:rho\_dm\], using a Salpeter IMF and alternatively the SIS or constant-mass profile. Although these bracketing mass profiles gave similar results for within 1 , at 2 they start to diverge more, giving noticeably different results for . The less massive galaxies have increasingly dense DM halos, apparently reaching a plateau of $\rhoDM\ \sim 0.05$ $M_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ at masses below $\log M_*/M_\odot \sim 11$.
As a reality check, we compare the results for flattened ETGs in the Coma cluster from @Thomas08 [hereafter T+08], who used detailed three-integral axisymmetric dynamical models of stellar kinematics to decompose the galaxies into their stellar and DM mass components. Their values from their NFW halo model match up remarkably well with our SIS-based results. T+08 fitted their data with a logarithmic density-mass trend which would imply very high central for the faintest galaxies. However, as we can see in the Figure, such conclusions would involve extrapolating outside the mass range covered by the data, and in fact the T+08 results do show some sign of the density plateau at small masses which we find.
Now we calculate predictions from $\Lambda$CDM cosmological models, adopting an NFW density profile, and the @bull01 mass-concentration relation, as discussed in N+05. The final parameter in this model is the mass ratio between stars and DM within the virial radius, taking plausible values of alternatively $M_*/M_{\rm vir} = 0.1$ or 0.01 (corresponding to $\eSF \sim 6\%$ or $\sim 60\%$, respectively, for a baryon fraction of 0.16; see N+05 and @WMAP). The results for are shown in Fig. \[fig:rho\_dm\], where the model predictions are seen to be fairly consistent with the observations, including the bend in the trend at similar galaxy masses. This bend is not caused by anything intrinsic to the DM itself, but by the radius adopted for measuring the density. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Sample\] (right panel), the mass- relation for ETGs has a bend, which probably explains not only the density trends seen in this section but also the results of the previous section. For bright galaxies, increases rapidly with mass, probing quickly into regions contain more DM, at lower averaged densities. Fainter galaxies have less quickly varying which thus tracks the slowly-varying DM scale radius more closely, so that the observable DM properties are roughly constant.
In more detail, the $\eSF\ = 60\%$ theoretical case coincides roughly with our observational findings assuming a constant-profile, and the $\eSF\ = 6\%$ case coincides nicely with our SIS-based findings. However, neither of these cases is plausible observationally or theoretically for the full range of galaxy masses. Our final case invokes a transition from high for the faint galaxies to low for the bright galaxies, which is generically expected from various lines of evidence. More specifically, motivated by the findings of N+05 based on radially-extended dynamical studies of ETGs (see also e.g., @Nap08), we assume that the bright galaxies have decreasing steadily from 60% to 16% in the mass range of $\log
\mst\ = $ 11–12 $M_\odot$; the faint galaxies have a constant $\eSF\ = 90\%$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:rho\_dm\], this model would be consistent with our SIS findings at the bright end, and with constant- at the faint end. However, the NFW-based models themselves would have roughly SIS profiles for the entire range of luminosity, which means this set of model assumptions is not self-consistent. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the possible combinations of DM parameters that would be fully consistent with the data, but we speculate that the low-luminosity objects have low-concentration DM haloes. Note that changing the IMF to Chabrier would not significantly change these conclusions, since the data curves would shift up and to the left in Fig. \[fig:rho\_dm\].
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The relative amounts of dark and luminous mass in ETGs is crucial information for understanding the internal structure of these systems and their formation mechanisms. In this paper we have analyzed both the stellar and dynamical in the central regions of one of the largest homogeneous samples of local early-type galaxies, provided by PS96.
We estimate the stellar content by accurate stellar population synthesis models of several observed colours using the BC03 prescription. We measure dynamical masses using the observed central velocity dispersion and several simplyfing assumptions in the Jeans equations.
We find that the stellar , $\Yst$, has a shallow trend with luminosity with a slope $\sim 0.06$ for the whole ETG sample (with S0s showing a steeper trend than the Es: see Table \[tab:slopes\]). Dynamical , on the other hand, have a slope for the relation of is $0.21\pm0.01$ when considering ETGs as a (photometrical and kinematical) homologous galaxy family, i.e. fully consistent with results derived in local galaxies’ $B$-band FP.
For the non-homology case (i.e. assuming the Sérsic profile for the light distribution and differential rotation within ), we find that using the SIS model as the total mass distribution does not much affect the slope and thus not the FP tilt either. On the contrary, non-homology can account for as much as $\sim 40\%$ if considering the constant– model, and even more (up to 80%) for the faint systems.
A further $30\%$ (i.e. 0.06/0.21) is provided by the slope. The residual contribution to the slope ($\sim 70\%$ for the SIS model and $30\%$ for constant–) is mainly due to a variation with luminosity of their DM fraction.
It must be stressed that this [*average*]{} budget of $\gamma$ contributions masks a more complicated distribution with luminosity. For instance, for the bright/massive galaxies (i.e. $\log \LB \gsim 10.4 \, \Lsun$ and $\log \mst\gsim 11.3 \,
\Msun$) which have a quasi-$R^{1/4}$ profile and little or no rotation, the effect of the non-homologies is minimal and the slope of the remains steeper than the faint systems where non-homologies can account for almost all the slope $\gamma$. This, obviously, relates to the trend of the DM fractions discussed in Section \[sec:DM\].
Here we have seen that is strongly varying with luminosity and mass. In particular, we observe a dichotomy in DM content of bright and faint Es: galaxy brighter than $M_{B}\sim -20.5$ and more massive than $\log \mst \sim 11-11.3 \, \Msun$ have an increasingly larger while galaxies lying below these luminous and mass scales invert the trend, such that is constant or marginally decreasing with luminosity and mass. When separating the E sample into “slow” and “fast” rotators it is evident that this two-fold trend is mainly found in the fast rotator systems (see Fig. \[fig:fDM\_1\]). These two kinematical varieties do not show large differences in their properties. In particular, we do not find significant evidence for systematically lower for the fast rotator variety (C+06), although with a large scatter one might make such a conclusion using a small statistical sample. The inclusion of the ellipticity and orbital anisotropy would increase the steepness of the faint/less massive sample, but would leave unaffected the bright/massive galaxy range, still maintaining the dichotomy (Fig. \[fig:fDM\_2\], bottom right). As an alternative to a variable DM content, we have briefly analyzed the effect of a change of IMF as a function of luminosity (see Fig. \[fig:Ups\_star\_vs\_LB\_Zsol\_tau\_1Gyr\_IMFchange\]), which could also explain the FP tilt.
The dichotomy adds to other well known ETG correlations as found in the $\mu_e-\Re$ relation, FJ, size-luminosity (or size-mass) relations and in the correlations of Sérsic index with both galaxy size and luminosity, as discussed in Sections \[sec:sample\], \[sec:size\_relations\] and \[sec:dynM\] (@1992MNRAS.259..323C, @PS97, @Shen2003, @MG05, etc.). Our results mirror the DM content in the outskirts of galaxies, where variations of virial $M/L$ as a function of mass and luminosity have been found both in simulations and observational analysis (@Benson2000, @MH02, @vdeB07). A similar dichotomy in DM content is not observed for S0s, which are generally fainter and less massive than Es and are strongly affected by rotational support (influencing the normalization of ). They have a slightly higher DM fraction and show a monotonically decreasing trend with mass and luminosity, consistent with what is known for spiral galaxies (@Persic93).
A continuity in DM content of galaxy as a function of amount of rotational support is possibly shown in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_1\], where we plot DM fractions as a function of luminosity for slow and fast rotators and lenticulars.
Looking at the average central DM density, , we have found that this quantity has a fairly small scatter within the ETG sample. Albeit model dependent – the Sérsic+SIS model providing which are $0.2-0.4$ dex larger than the ones obtained with the const$-\ML$ – the overall trend of the galaxy distribution decreases monotonically with the stellar mass and luminosity in good agreement with independent results obtained by Thomas et al. (2008) for ellipticals in the Coma cluster. Our larger statistical sample, though, has allowed us to discern the presence of a “knee” in the distribution (around the usual mass/luminosity scale at and ) where the relation of the more massive/luminous galaxies bends to a steeper slope than the one followed by the less massive/luminous systems. We have shown that this “knee” can be explained with the change of the slope in the $\Re-\mst$ relation at .
As a robust estimator of the central DM density, can be compared against the expected values for standard NFW profiles. The match found is broadly good, with the results obtained assuming the Sérsic+SIS model favoring high dark-to-luminous mass ratios, i.e. lower star formation efficiencies, while the constant- models fit lower $M_{\rm
vir}/\mst$ values, i.e. higher efficiencies. In order to match up with the picture where galaxies have star formation efficiencies varying with the stellar mass (@Benson2000, @2006MNRAS.368....2D), we have shown that the DM density characteristics should change with the mass with low mass systems being surrounded by more “cored” haloes (well approximated by the constant- models) and high mass systems by “cusped” haloes (here reproduced by the Sérsic+SIS profile).
This [*DM non-homology*]{} could be a possible explanation of the “anomalously” low halo concentration parameters recently found modeling intermediate luminosity galaxies, compared to the giant ellipticals showing “regular” concentration as expected from the $\Lambda$CDM simulations (@Nap09b). In this respect a model like the Einasto profile (@Einasto65, but see also @Navarro04, 2008, @Cardone05, @Graham06) or a phenomenological model including a wide range of innermost density slopes (@Tortora2007) provides suitable working hypotheses to test on larger data sample with extended kinematics (e.g. Atlas3D[^17]; or the PN.S Elliptical Galaxy Survey: @D+07 [@Nap08; @Coccato09]).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for his/her kind report. We also thank Michele Cappellari for fruitful discussions and Claudia Maraston for providing us with her synthetic spectral models. NRN has been funded by CORDIS within FP6 with a Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant, contr. n. MERG-FP6-CT-2005-014774, co-funded by INAF. AJR was supported by the National Science Foundation Grants AST-0507729 and AST-0808099.
[99]{}
Aceves, H., & Vel[á]{}zquez, H. 2005, MNRAS, 360, L50
Almeida, C., Baugh, C. M., & Lacey, C. G. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1711
Bekki, K. 1998, ApJ, 496, 713
Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212B (BdJ01)
Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289 Benson, A.J., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., Baugh, C.M., Lacey, C.G., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 793 Bergond, G., Zepf, S. E., Romanowsky, A. J., Sharples, R. M., & Rhode, K. L., 2006, A&A, 448, 155
Bernardi M. et al., 2003, AJ, 125, 1849
Bernardi, M., Hyde, J. B., Sheth, R. K., Miller, C. J., & Nichol, R. C. 2007, AJ, 133, 1741
Bertin G., Ciotti L., Del Principe M., 2002, A&A, 386, 149
Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton Univ. Press., Princeton. Bolton, A. S., Burles, S. Koopmans, L. V. E., Treu, T., Moustakas, L. A. 2006, ApJ, 638, 703B
Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Treu, T., Koopmans, L. V. E., & Moustakas, L. A. 2007, ApJ, 665, L105
Bolton, A. S., Treu, T., Koopmans, L. V. E., Gavazzi, R., Moustakas, L. A., Burles, S., Schlegel, D. J., & Wayth, R. 2008, ApJ, 684, 248
Borriello, A., Salucci, P. & Danese, L. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1109
Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C.-P., & Quataert, E. 2005, MNRAs, 362, 184
Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C.-P., & Quataert, E. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1081
Bruzual, A. G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Bruzual, G. 2007, ASPC, 374, 303
Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., & Dekel, A. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559
Busarello, G., Capaccioli, M., Capozziello, S., Longo, G., & Puddu, E. 1997, A&A, 320, 415
Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447L, 25B Capaccioli, M., Caon, N., & D’Onofrio, M., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 323 Caon, N., Capaccioli, M. & D’Onofrio, M. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1013 Capaccioli, M., Napolitano, N. R., & Arnaboldi, M. 2002, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0211323
Capelato, H. V., de Carvalho, R. R., & Carlberg, R. G. 1995, ApJ, 451, 525
Cappellari, M. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126 (C+06) Cappellari, M. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 418
Cardone, V. F., Piedipalumbo, E. & Tortora, C. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1325
Cattaneo, A., Dekel, A., Devriendt, J., Guiderdoni, B., & Blaizot, J., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651 Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274
Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 567, 304 Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
Chiosi, C., & Carraro, G. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 335
Coccato, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, in press, arXiv:0811.3203
Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2008, arXiv:0809.4261
Covone G., Paolillo M., Napolitano N. R., Capaccioli, M., Longo G., Kneib J.-P. et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 531
Dantas, C. C., Capelato, H. V., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & de Carvalho, R. R. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 398
Dav[é]{}, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 147
Dekel, A., & Birnboim,Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2
Dekel, A., & Cox, T. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1445
De Lorenzi, F., Gerhard, O., Saglia, R. P., Sambhus, N., Debattista, V. P., Pannella, M., & M[é]{}ndez, R. H. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1729
De Lorenzi, F. et al., 2008, MNRAS, in press, arXiv:0804.3350
De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Croton, D., Kauffmann, G. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 499D
Desroches, L.-B., Quataert, E., Ma, C.-P., & West, A. A. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 402
de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d’ Ap., 11, 247
de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin H.G. Jr., et al., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (RC3) di Serego Alighieri, S., Lanzoni, B., J${\o}$rgensen, I. 2006, ApJ, 652L, 145D
Djorgovski, S. & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59D
D’Onofrio, M., Valentinuzzi, T., Secco, L., Caimmi, R., & Bindoni, D. 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 447
D’Onofrio, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 875
Douglas, N. G., Napolitano, N.R., Romanowsky, A.J., et al., 2007, ApJ, 664, 257 Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., Faber, S. M., Terlevich, R., Wegner, G. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42D
Einasto J., 1965, Trudy Inst. Astroz. Alma-Ata, 51, 87
Eke, V., et al. (2dF team), 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866
Eminian, C., Kauffmann, G., Charlot, S., Wild, V., Bruzual, G., Rettura, A., Loveday, J. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 930 Emsellem, E. et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 721
Evstigneeva, E. A., de Carvalho, R. R., Ribeiro, A. L., & Capelato, H. V. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1052
Faber, S. M. & Jackson, R. E. 1976, ApJ, 204, 668F
Ferreras, I., & Silk, J. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 786
Ferreras, I., Saha, P., & Williams, L. L. R. 2005, ApJ, 623, L5
Ferreras, I., Saha, P., & Burles, S. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 857
Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539L, 9
Fioc, M. & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950 Forbes, D. Lasky, P., Graham, A. & Spitler, L. 2008, arXiv:0806.1090
Gargiulo A. et al. 2009, arXiv:0902.4383
Gavazzi, G., Bonfanti, C., Sanvito, G., Boselli, A., Scodeggio, M. 2002, ApJ, 576, 135G
Gavazzi, R., Treu, T., Rhodes, J. D., Koopmans, L. V. E., Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Massey, R. J., & Moustakas, L. A. 2007, ApJ, 667, 176
Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D., Tremaine, S., Lauer, T. R., Bender, R., Bower, G., Dressler, A. et al. 2003, ApJ, 583,
92
Gerhard, O., Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. & Bender, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 1936 (G+01)
Gonz[á]{}lez-Garc[í]{}a, A. C., & van Albada, T. S. 2003, MNRAS, 342, L36
Graham A. W. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 933
Graham, A., & Colless, M. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 221
Graham A. W. & Guzm$\rm \acute{a}$n R. 2003, AJ, 125, 2936
Graham et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2701
Graves G. J. 2009, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359
Hjorth, J., & Madsen, J. 1995, ApJ, 445, 55
Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., & Hernquist, L. 2008, ApJ, in press, arXiv:0806.3974
Hyde, J. B., & Bernardi, M. 2008a, MNRAS, submitted arXiv:0810.4922
Hyde, J. B., & Bernardi, M. 2008b, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:0810.4924
Jensen, J. B., Tonry, J. L., Barris, B. J., Thompson, R. I., Liu, M. C., Rieke, M. J., Ajhar, E. A., & Blakeslee, J. P. 2003, ApJ, 583, 712
Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., & Kjaergaard, P. 1993, ApJ, 411, 34
Jun, H. D., & Im, M. 2008, ApJ, 678, L97
Kannappan S. J. & Gawiser E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 5
Kaviraj, S., Kirkby, L. A., Silk, J., Sarzi, M. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 960K
Kochanek, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 373, 354
Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 131
Koopmans, L. V. E., Treu, T., Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Moustakas, L. A. 2006, ApJ, 649, 599
Kormendy, J. 1977, ApJ, 218, 333
Kormendy, J., Fisher, D. B., Cornell, M. E., & Bender, R. 2008, ApJS, in press, arXiv:0810.1681
Kritsuk, A. G. 1997, MNRAS 284, 327
Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. P., Gerhard, O., & Bender, R. 2000, A&AS, 144, 53
Kumar, B., Romanowsky A.J. et al. 2009, in prep.
La Barbera, F., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., de la Rosa, I., Coppola, G., & Haines, C. P. 2008, ApJ, in press, arXiv:0807.3829
Lauer, T. R., et al.2007, ApJ, 662, 808
Levine, S. E., & Aguilar, L. A. 1996, MNRAS, 280, L13
Lintott, C. J., Ferreras, I., & Lahav, O. 2006, ApJ, 648, 826
Magorrian, J. et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 Mamon G.A. & [Ł]{}okas, E.L., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 95 Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 (M05)
Maraston, C., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Cimatti, A., Dickinson, M. et al. 2006, Apj, 652, 85 Marinoni, C. & Hudson, M.J. 2002, ApJ, 569, 101
Mathews, W. G., & Brighenti, F. 2000, ApJ, 545, 181
Matkovi$\rm\acute{c}$, A. & Guzm$\rm\acute{a}$n, R. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 289
McGrath, E. J., Stockton, A. & Canalizo, G. 2007, ApJ, 669, 241
Mobasher, B., Guzman, R., Aragon-Salamanca, A., & Zepf, S. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 225
Napolitano, N.R., Arnaboldi, M., Freeman, K.C., Capaccioli, M. 2001, A&A, 377, 784
Napolitano, N.R., Arnaboldi, M., Capaccioli, M., 2002, A&A, 383, 791
Napolitano, N. R., Capaccioli, M., Romanowsky, A. J., Douglas, N. G., Merrifield, M. R., Kuijken, K., Arnaboldi, M., Gerhard, O., Freeman, K. C. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 691 (N+05)
Napolitano, N. R., et al. 2008, IAU Symposium, 244, 289
Napolitano, N. R., et al. 2009a, MNRAS, 393, 329
Napolitano, N. R., et al. 2009b, in preparation
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
Navarro, J.F., Hayashi, E., Power, C., Jenkins, A.R., Frenk, C.S. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1039
Navarro, J.F. et al. 2008, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:0810.1522
Nigoche-Netro, A., Ruelas-Mayorga, A., & Franco-Balderas, A. 2008, A&A, in press, arXiv:0805.0961
Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 901
Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 501
Noeske, K. G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L47
O[ñ]{}orbe, J., Dom[í]{}nguez-Tenreiro, R., S[á]{}iz, A., Serna, A., & Artal, H. 2005, ApJ, 632, L57
O[ñ]{}orbe, J., Dom[í]{}nguez-Tenreiro, R., S[á]{}iz, A., Artal, H., & Serna, A. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 503
Padmanabhan, N. et al. 2004, NewA, 9, 329P
Pahre, M. A., Djorgovski, S. G., & de Carvalho, R. R. 1995, ApJ, 453, L17
Pahre, M.A., Djorgovski, S.G., de Carvalho, R.R., 1998a, AJ, 116, 1591
Pahre, M. A., de Carvalho, R. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 1998b, AJ, 116, 1606
Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T. & Flannery B.P., 1992, Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press)
Persic, M., Salucci, P., Ashman, K. M. 1993, A&A, 279, 343
Proctor, R. N., Lah, P., Forbes, D. A., Colless, M., & Couch, W. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1781
Prugniel, Ph. & Simien F. 1994, A&A, 282, L1 (PS94) Prugniel, Ph. & Simien F. 1996, A&A, 309, 749 (PS96) Prugniel, Ph. & Simien F. 1997, A&A, 321, 111 (PS97)
Reda, F. M., Forbes, D. A., & Hau, G. K. T. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 693
Renzini, A. & Ciotti, L. 1993, ApJ, 416, L49
Rettura A. et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 717
Riciputi, A., Lanzoni, B., Bonoli, S., & Ciotti, L. 2005, A&A, 443, 133
Rines, K., Finn, R., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, ApJ, 665, L9
Robertson, B., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., Franx, M., Hopkins, P. F., Martini, P., & Springel, V. 2006, ApJ, 641, 21
Romanowsky, A. J., Douglas, N. G., Arnaboldi, M., Kuijken, K., Merrifield, M. R., Napolitano, N. R., Capaccioli, M., & Freeman, K. C., 2003, Sci, 301, 1696
Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2009, AJ, submitted, arXiv:0902.3025
Romeo A. D., Napolitano N. R., Covone G., Sommer-Larsen J., Antonuccio-Delogu V., & Capaccioli M. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 13
Ruszkowski M. & Springel V. 2009, ArXiv:0902.0373
Salpeter, E.E. 1955 ApJ, 121, 161
Scodeggio, M., Gavazzi, G., Belsole, E., Pierini, D., & Boselli, A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 1001
Sérsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxies Australes, Observatorio Astronomico de Cordoba
Shankar, F., Lapi, A., Salucci, P., De Zotti, G., & Danese, L. 2006, ApJ, 643, 14
Shen, S., Mo, H.J., White, S.D.M., Blanton, M.R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J., Csabai, I. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978
Scalo, J. M. 1986, Fundam. Cosmic Phys., 11, 1
Schuberth, Y., Richtler, T., Dirsch, B., Hilker, M., Larsen, S. S., Kissler-Patig, M., & Mebold, U. 2006, A&A, 459, 391
Schwarzschild M., 1979, ApJ, 232, 236 Schweizer, F., & Seitzer, P. 2007, AJ, 133, 2132
Spergel, D.N. et al. ApJS, 2003, 148, 175
Teodorescu, A. M., M[é]{}ndez, R. H., Saglia, R. P., Riffeser, A., Kudritzki, R.-P., Gerhard, O. E., & Kleyna, J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 290
Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R. & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 673
Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., Bender, R., Thomas, D., Gebhardt, K., Magorrian, J., Corsini, E. M., Wegner, G. 2008, arXiv:0809.3906
Tonry J. L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J. P., Ajhar E. A., Fletcher A. B., Luppino G. A., Metzger M. R., Moore C. B., 2001, ApJ, 546, 681
Tortora, C., Cardone, V.F. & Piedipalumbo, E. 2007, A&A, 463, 105
Tortora C., Antonuccio-Delogu V., Kaviraj S., Silk J., Romeo A.D., & Becciani U. 2009, submitted to MNRAS
Trager, S. C., Faber, S. M., Worthey, G., & Gonz[á]{}lez, J. J. 2000, AJ, 120, 165
Trujillo, I., Burkert, A. & Bell, E.F. 2004, ApJ, 600, L39 (T+04)
van den Bosch, F.C., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., Weinmann, S.M., Macci$\rm \grave{o}$, A.V., More, S., Cacciato, M., Skibba, R., Kang, Xi 2007, MNRAS, 376, 841
van der Marel, R. P. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 710
van der Marel, R.P. & van Dokkum, P.G. 2007, ApJ, 668, 756 (MD07)
van Dokkum, P. G., & van der Marel, R. P. 2007, ApJ, 655, 30
van Dokkum, P. G. 2008, ApJ, 674, 29
Vazdekis A., Casuso E., Peletier R. F., Beckman J. E., 1996, ApJS, 106, 307
Weijmans, A.-M., Krajnovi[ć]{}, D., van de Ven, G., Oosterloo, T. A., Morganti, R., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1343
Zaritsky, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2006, ApJ, 638, 725
Systematic effects in the stellar populations models {#sec:appA}
====================================================
Here we examine the role of systematic uncertainties in the stellar populations results, using different assumptions and basis models (see, also, similar analysis in [@Rettura06], [@KG07] and [@Conroy08]). First we consider our default model based on BC03, using three different parameterizations for the SFH. In our reference model, $\tau$ and $Z$ (as well as ) are free parameters fitted to each galaxy; a more simplified model has fixed $\tau=1$ Gyr and $Z=Z_\odot$ corresponding to typical values for the whole sample; an even simpler SSP model has $\tau=0$ and $Z=Z_\odot$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\] (left panel), the distributions of in all these models are fairly similar, except in the simplest case which shows a stronger tail to low values of . The impact of these differences is shown in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\_2\] (left panel), where it can be seen that overly restrictive modelling assumptions compensate with large variations in and thus steeper values for $\gamma_*$.
\
Next we compare basis model variations, starting with BC03 and M05. The different input stellar models and treatments of the thermally-pulsing asymptotic giant branch phase (TP-AGB) lead to different predictions for the same colours [@Maraston06][^18]. Comparisons of some parameters derived from the two models with solar metallicity, given the same colour data, are made in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\_2\] (right panels). The inferred ages agree very well for older populations, with M05 returning ages up to $\sim$ 10% higher than BC03, while for younger populations, up to $\sim$ 30% lower. The difference stems from M05 predicting $V-R$ and $V-I$ to be redder for young populations and bluer for old, while $B-V$ is redder for all ages. The implications for are that agreement is good for $\Yst
\gsim \, 6$ , while for lower values the M05 predictions are smaller by up to a factor of two. The extension of the M05 results to smaller values of can also be seen in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\]. The final impact of these systematic differences on the trend of with luminosity is shown in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\_2\] (left panel): M05 yields a more steeply increasing trend.
We finally examine the SSP models from BJ01. BJ01 predict a tight correlation between and galaxy colours[^19]: using relations for the three colours $B-V$, $B-R$ and $V-I$ and minimizing a $\chi^{2}$ function we determine the best fitted for the BdJ01 pescriptions which are shown in Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\] (left panel).\
Assuming a Salpeter IMF, the use of different stellar prescriptions (BC03 vs BdJ01) has a negligible effect on the bulk of the distribution (e.g. solid black lines and blue ones in the Figure). Some of the assumed IMFs in BdJ01 (“scaled” and “modified” Salpeter and the @Scalo86, for further details see BJ01) predict lower , with the Scaled Salpeter and Scalo IMFs giving similar results of the BC03+Chabrier one (red curves in the same Figure). Finally, using BJ01 results for PEGASE (@FR97) prescription we obtain that: 1) a top-heavy IMF with a slope $-0.85$ gives values which are in the between of the Kroupa (2001) IMF (or Chabrier or Scalo) and Salpeter IMF predictions, while 2) a top-light IMF with a slope $-1.85$ give much larger values. Note that distributions using directly BC03 (red and blue lines in left panel of Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\]) have a larger spread around the peak distribution than the BdJ01 results.\
BJ01 results have been plotted in middle panel of Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\_2\] like grey points. The slope of the relation shown in this figure is unchanged if we use the various prescriptions analyzed in the paper above (see distributions using a Salpeter IMF in left panel of Fig. \[fig:Distr\_Upsilon\]); on the contrary, a little change in the zero point is observed.
As a final test, we compare results using different models [*and data*]{} on the same galaxies. As a stellar synthesis model, C+06 fit single burst models (using stellar prescription in @V96), to some line-strength indices. Their estimates are on average $20 \%$ larger than ours (with a scatter of $17\%$). This discrepancy could not be fixed by fitting [@V96] or BC03 SSP models to our galaxy colours. Some systematics can be ascribed, partially, to the extrapolation of line-strength indices (and velocity dispersion) from the very central regions to the effective radius, if some change in the average stellar population is present and unaccounted.
Independent checks on dynamical masses {#sec:appB}
======================================
Given the simplifications of our Jeans models used to derive the dynamical masses (spherical quasi-isotropic models), we test here using independent results whether our methods have introduced any systematic bias for . Our first cross-check is with C+06, who constructed detailed two-dimensional models of nearby ETGs. Our sample has 18 galaxies in common with theirs[^20]. The main differences between the two datasets are: 1) our distance moduli are on average larger ($0.05$ mag) than C+06 but consistent within the scatter; 2) our effective radii are on average $5\%$ larger with a median scatter of $16\%$; 3) the central velocity dispersions from C+06 are lower than the PS96 values by $6 \pm 15 \, \rm km s^{-1}$ (see @Emsellem04).
C+06 constructed flattened, axisymmetric, constant- dynamical models, using both two-integral Jeans models and three-integral @Schwarzschild79 orbit models. Their luminosity models are multi-Gaussian expansions of the observed surface brightness profiles, and thus quite non-homologous. Converting our constant- Sérsic-based results to the $I$-band and to the C+06 distances, we compare to their results in Fig. \[fig:Comp\_Cap06\]. The masses are broadly consistent, with a systematic trend for ours to be higher by $\sim$ 20%.
There are several possible reasons for this residual discrepancy, including rotation, orbital anisotropy variations, and galaxy flattening – all of which were handled in rigorous detail by C+06 but not by our models. Based on the results of @Cappellari07, the anisotropy effect should not correlate strongly with luminosity, but rotation and flattening probably do. We also compare our [*modelled*]{} values of $\sigma_e$ (the velocity dispersion integrated over a 1 aperture, folding in the rotational contribution) with their [*observed*]{} values, to see if our extrapolation from the central aperture could be generating the discrepancy. However, our $\sigma_e$ values turn out to be [*lower*]{} by $13^{+9}_{-8}\, \rm km \, s^{-1}$, which goes the wrong way to explain our [*higher*]{} masses.
Next we consider the detailed spherical dynamical models of G+01, with 16 galaxies in common. After shifting to the same distance scale, our values at are $27\%\pm8\%$ [*lower*]{} on average than theirs. Since their sample was focussed on round galaxies, we suspect again that flattening is playing a key role in the accuracy of our results, but that we have been able to largely compensate for its effects in our simplified modelling.
Finally we turn to the dynamical results of @MD07 [hereafter MD07], who compiled for 60 local galaxies from the literature (@vdM91 [@Magorrian98; @K00; @Gebhardt03]; C+06). The original works made use of various types and quality of data and dynamical models, but should in general be superior to ours. The values are combined after homogenizing the distances and cosmology, and converting to the $B$-band. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Comp\_Cap06\] (right panel), there is good agreement in general, but again a tendency for our results to overestimate the masses by $\sim20\%$, which appears to be an effect of the fainter, flatter galaxies. Note that our extrapolated $\sigma_e$ shows no systematic offset from MD07. In order to potentially correct for a systematic error in our dynamical modelling, we adopt a heuristic correction of $66\%$ and $90\%$ for faint and bright galaxies separately.
Systematic uncertainties for dark matter fraction {#sec:appC}
=================================================
\
We consider finally how various systematic uncertainties could impact the determinations. We first consider the stellar populations models. As detailed in Appendix \[sec:appA\], the model prescription that is used can have a noticeable effect on the trends. We show in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_2\] (upper left panel) the differences engendered in by adopting different models. Among the most plausible models, the results are roughly consistent, but the trend of with luminosity tends to flatten or steepen with the use of M05 or BJ01, respectively, rather than BC03.
We next consider uncertainties in the dynamical models, starting with the assumed mass profile. As shown in Fig. \[fig:fDM\_2\] (upper right panel), the bracketing models of SIS and constant- produce similar results for . Testing the possibility that our $n=4$ Sérsic index for the bright Es is inaccurate, we alternatively take the higher $n-M_B$ relation from @Caon93 as reported in PS97, and find that in a constant- case, for the brighter galaxies decreases and the overall trend is constant with luminosity (Fig. \[fig:fDM\_2\], bottom left panel). However, an SIS profile is probably a better match for these galaxies, and in this case, changing $n$ would not affect the results. Finally, we try to calibrate out the inaccuracies in our simplified Jeans modelling, based on the MD07 results, and find that the values for the fainter galaxies might actually be lower, and the slope with luminosity therefore steeper (Fig. \[fig:fDM\_2\], bottom right panel).
To quantify the effect of ellipticity ($\epsilon$) on our estimates, we have also selected E galaxies with $\epsilon < 0.3$ (as derived by RC3). For these systems, the results are still consistent with an increasing (flat) trend of with luminosity for bright (faint) galaxies.
\
In summary, there are several potential competing systematic effects, and it is not clear which one might win out in biassing the slope. Given this uncertainty, we carry out a different, critical test of confidence in our results. Finding results in the literature for the mass content of galaxies in our sample [*at large radii*]{}, we construct the -gradient parameter introduced by N+05. This simple but powerful metric is calculated from dynamical measurements of at inner and outer radii by the following formula: $$\dML\ = \frac{\Re}{R_{\rm out}-R_{\rm in}}\left(\frac{\Upsilon_{\rm out}}{\Upsilon_{\rm in}} - 1\right) .$$ Given the longer lever arm, when available tells us with greater security whether or not an object is rich or poor in DM[^21]. We compare and in Fig. \[fig:grad\], and confirm that high- objects from the current paper generally have high halo DM content in the literature while low- have small consistent with a lower global DM content.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Downloadable at [http://vizier.cfa.harvard.edu/viz -bin/VizieR?-source=J/A+A/309/749]{}.
[^3]: The authors do not report detailed information about their measurement set-up but, as extensively adopted in literature analyses of this dataset, we will interpret as the luminosity-weighted velocity dispersion within a circular aperture of radius /8.
[^4]: Apparent total magnitudes are on average slightly brighter than those in RC3 catalog (@RC3) by $-0.05\pm 0.1 \, \rm mag$, while the differences of $B-V$ and $U-B$ colours with those in RC3 are $0.00
\pm 0.03$ and $-0.02 \pm 0.03$.
[^5]: The distance scale is critical for normalizing the luminosities and $M/L$s. The distance moduli ($m-M$) from PS96, rescaled to $h= 0.7$, are on average lower those reported in the RC3 catalog (@RC3) by $-0.11^{+0.26}_{-0.20} \, \rm mag$ (uncertainties are $25^{th}$ and $75^{th}$ percentiles), while agreeing closely with estimates from [@Tonry2001] (shifted by $-0.06$ mag to correct to the Cepheid distance scale; @2003ApJ...583..712J) which differs by $0.00^{+0.18}_{-0.16} \, \rm mag$.
[^6]: Lower metallicities would have produced larger than the age of the universe in our assumed cosmology ($\sim 13.5$ Gyr).
[^7]: We allowed $\sim10\%$ scatter around this value in order to account for some intrinsic uncertainty in the age estimates, and thus some of the estimated ages might be slightly larger than 13.5 Gyr.
[^8]: Typical $1 \sigma$ uncertainties on the estimated are $\sim 10-20\%$. In general in this paper, we will fit [*medians*]{} rather than [*means*]{} in order to be more robust to outliers.
[^9]: Including all the systematics, the final slope becomes $\gamma_* = 0.06 \pm 0.01 ^{+0.12}_{-0.04}$.
[^10]: For the modelling, PS96 used fitting relations linking single colours and line-strength index $\rm Mg_{2}$ to the magnitude. T+04 applied the PEGASE prescription [@FR97] to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Early Data Release. T+04 also found $\gamma_* = 0.02
\pm 0.01$ in the $K$-band using 2MASS data [@Bell2003], but one would expect $\gamma_*$ to depend on bandpass because of the changing contributions from the mix of stellar populations.
[^11]: We check that using an aperture of /10 would leave the results almost unchanged. Following T+04, we have also checked that alternatively using fixed apertures of $1''.6$ and $2''.2$, the median values are overestimated by $3^{+3}_{-2} \%$ and $1^{+3}_{-1} \%$, well within the typical uncertainty on each estimate and on the sample’s global scatter.
[^12]: We added an estimated black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$ in the Jeans equations, using $M_{\rm BH}$ predicted by the correlation $\sigc - M_{\rm BH}$ in [@FM2000]. The result was to decrease by $2 \pm 1
\%$.
[^13]: The multicomponent model, in their § 3, includes a Hernquist (1990) stellar distributuion and an NFW [@NFW96; @NFW97] spherical DM halo.
[^14]: This correction is much smaller than that found by PS94 because these authors did not take into account the variations of rotation with radius, nor of measurements made within an aperture rather than along the major axis.
[^15]: PS97 noted that at least one other study found higher values of $n$ for the brightest galaxies, but commented that those results were more sensitive to the outer profiles than to the central regions of relevance here. Similar concerns might apply to the recent smaller galaxy sample of @2008arXiv0810.1681K, but it is beyond the scope of our paper to re-investigate $n$ dependencies in detail. If $n$ were systematically higher for the brighter galaxies, then these systems’ results would be [*lower*]{} (cf. next footnote). Note also that the values that we use were obtained by $R^{1/4}$ fitting in PS96 rather than the self-consistent Sérsic values, which could in principle affect the results for the fainter galaxies.
[^16]: This is because lower $n$ for the fainter galaxies implies shallower central profiles of both luminosity and mass density, and therefore lower central velocity dispersions at a fixed mass, finally requiring higher model masses to match the observations. This effect might be somewhat reversed by the central cusps of light generally found in faint Es to be superimposed on their overall Sérsic profiles, in many cases on spatial scales comparable to the measurement (e.g. @2008arXiv0810.1681K), but it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider this possibility in detail.
[^17]: [http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/atlas3d/]{}
[^18]: Recent preliminary updates of the BC03 models have included an improved TP-AGB treatment [@Bruzual07; @Eminian2008]. The colours and predictions are altered, particularly in the near-infrared, but not substantially for $Z \geq 0.4$ $Z_\odot$. These new models are more similar to M05 than BC03 but for old ages resemble BC03 [@McGrath07].
[^19]: This was obtained for spiral galaxies but it has been proven to work for ETGs as well (BJ01, @Bell2003)
[^20]: Another 7 from their sample did not have measured $B-I$ colours available for making a proper comparison between their $I$-band and our $B$-band results.
[^21]: No attempt is made here to decompose the measurements into stars and DM, i.e. to determine . Instead, the broad premise is that increases more rapidly with radius in galaxies with higher .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A limited feedback-based interference alignment (IA) scheme is proposed for the interfering multi-access channel (IMAC). By employing a novel performance-oriented quantization strategy, the proposed scheme is able to achieve the minimum overall residual inter-cell interference (ICI) with the optimized transceivers under limited feedback. Consequently, the scheme outperforms the existing counterparts in terms of system throughput. In addition, the proposed scheme can be implemented with flexible antenna configurations.'
author:
- 'Hui Gao, Tiejun Lv, Di Fang, Shaoshi Yang, and Chau Yuen, [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Limited Feedback-Based Interference Alignment for Interfering Multi-Access Channels'
---
[Shell : Limited Feedback Based Interference Alignment for Interfering Multi-Access Channels]{}
Interference alignment, interfering multi-access channel, limited feedback.
Introduction
============
Interference alignment (IA) [@cadambe2008interference; @maddah-ali_communication_2008] has been considered as a new paradigm of intelligent interference management in wireless networks. The principle of IA is to align the interference signals into a subspace with minimum dimensions at the receiver, and consequently the degrees-of-freedoms (DoFs) of the desired signals can be maximized. Recently, various IA schemes have been developed for the interfering broadcast channel (IBC) and interfering multi-access channel (IMAC) [@suh_interference_2008; @Downlink_IA_2011; @two-cell_mac_2011; @tranceiver_2012], which are typical models of the cellular networks. It is shown that these IA schemes are capable of improving system throughput in the presence of interference. However, the promise of IA is primarily based on the assumption of global channel state information (CSI) at all transceivers, which requires significant system overhead for CSI.
Aiming at more practical implementations, many IA schemes with limited feedback have been proposed [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012; @Xiaoming1; @JL; @Huiwnnc1]. Of particular interests are the IA schemes for the IMAC with limited feedback [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], where the base station (BS) generates the IA-inspired transmit beamforming (TB) vectors with perfect CSI and then feeds back their quantizations to users for uplink transmission. Although [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] assume ideal IA with perfect CSI, the actual inter-cell interference (ICI) cannot be fully canceled at the BS because of the quantization errors. Therefore, the residual ICI is inevitable with limited feedback, which dramatically reduces the achievable system throughput. Moreover, the quantization strategies in [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] are not able to fully exploit the potential of limited feedback. Although the selected codewords are the best approximations of the IA-inspired TB vectors within the given codebooks in terms of chordal distance, such codewords are not necessarily the ones that minimize the residual ICI, which directly influences the system performance. Finally, the transceiver designs in [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] are constrained by the feasibility of IA and are only applicable to some specific antenna configurations.
In this paper, we propose a limited feedback-based IA scheme for the two-cell IMAC. In contrast to [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], the proposed scheme is capable of minimizing the overall residual ICI of each cell with the given codebooks, and it can be implemented with flexible antenna configuration. To be specific, in each cell the optimal receive filter of BS is first derived with an arbitrary set of TB vectors of the users in the neighbor cell, and then the overall residual ICI of each cell is transformed into a single-variable function of the set of TB vectors. Next, each BS jointly quantizes the TB vectors with a compound codebook and a new criterion aiming to directly minimize the overall residual ICI. In this way, the optimized transceivers are obtained under the framework of limited feedback, which effectively approach perfect IA in terms of the minimum overall residual ICI with the given codebooks. Benefiting from the new quantization strategy, the achievable system throughput of our scheme is significantly improved as compared with [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012]. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the opportunistic IA in [@JL; @Huiwnnc1] are practical IA schemes with limited feedback, which exploit the multi-user diversity inherited in the cellular networks for throughput gains; the joint design of the proposed scheme with opportunistic user scheduling may be an interesting future direction[^5].
System Model
============
{height="3.5cm"}
As illustrated in Fig. 1, a two-cell IMAC is considered, where $\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}_{i}$, $i\in\left\{ 1,2\right\} $, serves $K$ users $\left\{ \mathrm{UE}_{i,k}\right\} _{k=1}^{K}$ in the $i$-th cell. It is assumed that the BS and the user are equipped with $N_{r}$ $(K<N_{r}<2K)$ and $N_{t}$ antennas, and each user transmits a single data-stream. The direct and interference channels from ${{\mathop{\rm UE}\nolimits}_{i,k}}$ to its home ${{\mathop{\rm BS}\nolimits}_{i}}$ and its neighbor $\mathrm{BS}_{i'}$ are denoted as $\mathbf{H}_{i,k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{r}\times N_{t}}$ and $\mathbf{G}_{i,k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{r}\times N_{t}}$, respectively, $i,\, i'\in\{1,2\}$, $i'\neq i$. The entries of $\mathbf{H}_{i,k}$ and $\mathbf{G}_{i,k}$ are assumed to be independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance, i.e., $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. Frequency-division duplexing mode is assumed in this system, and each user sends pilot symbols to both BSs for CSI acquisition. Then $\mathrm{BS}_{i}$ selects the TB vectors from the known codebooks for the users in the neighbor cell by using the estimated CSI of interference channels. The corresponding indices of codewords are exchanged between the two BSs via a backhaul link and then fed back to users to instruct the selection of TB vectors.
During the uplink transmission, all users send information and the received signal at $\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}_{i}$ is given by $$\mathbf{y}_{i}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mathbf{H}_{i,k}\mathbf{v}_{i,k}s_{i,k}+\sum_{n=1}^{K}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}s_{i',n}+\mathbf{n}_{i},$$ where $\mathbf{v}_{i,k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{t}\times1}$ and $s_{i,k}\in\mathbb{C}$ respectively denote the normalized TB vector chosen from $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$’s codebook and the transmitted symbol of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ with an average power of $P$; $\mathbf{n}_{i}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{r}\times1}$ is the noise vector with i.i.d. elements following $\mathcal{CN}(0,N_{0})$. The receiver at $\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}_{i}$ is a cascaded filter $\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}$, where $\mathbf{U}_{i}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{r}\times K}$ and $\mathbf{r}_{i,k}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times1}$ are designed to cancel the ICI and the intra-cell interference for $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$. The column vectors of $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ are normalized and orthogonal to each other. Let us define the effective channel matrix from all the users $\left\{ \mathrm{UE}_{i,k}\right\} _{k=1}^{K}$ to $\mathrm{BS}_{i}$ as $\mathbf{H}_{i,e}=\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}[\mathbf{H}_{i,1}\mathbf{v}_{i,1},...,\mathbf{H}_{i,K}\mathbf{v}_{i,K}]\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times K}$, $\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}$ is then given by the $k$-th normalized row vector of $\mathbf{H}_{i,e}^{-1}$. Based on (1) and the cascaded filter $\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}$, the throughput of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ is given by $$R_{i,k}=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{SNR}\left|\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{H}_{i,k}\mathbf{v}_{i,k}\right|^{2}}{1+\mathrm{SNR}\sum_{n=1}^{K}\left|\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right|^{2}}\right),$$ where $\mathrm{SNR}=\frac{P}{N_{0}}$ denotes the transmit signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and $\sum_{n=1}^{K}\left|\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right|^{2}$ is considered as the final residual ICI[^6]. It is observed from (2) that the residual ICI reduces the system throughput.
Limited Feedback-Based IA Scheme
================================
Transceiver Design with Limited Feedback
----------------------------------------
It is noted that $\mathrm{Col}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i}\right)$ is a $K$-dimension signal subspace where the desired signals of the $K$ users $\left\{ \mathrm{UE}_{i,k}\right\} _{k=1}^{K}$ are further differentiated by $\left\{ \mathbf{r}_{i,k}\right\} _{k=1}^{K}$. Because of the imperfect IA with limited feedback, $\mathrm{Col}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i}\right)$ is inevitably contaminated by the residual ICI. For analytical tractability, we introduce the overall residual ICI within $\mathrm{Col}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i}\right)$ at $\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}_{i}$ as $$I_{i}=\sum_{n=1}^{K}\left\Vert \mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right\Vert ^{2}{\geq}\sum_{n=1}^{K}\left|\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right|^{2},$$ which is shown to be an upper bound of the final residual ICI power after applying $\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}$[^7]. It is observed that $I_{i}$ contains the receive filter $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ and the set of the $K$ TB vectors, denoted as $\mathbf{V}_{i'}:=\left\{ \mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right\} _{n=1}^{K}$. Therefore, both $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$ can be optimized to minimize $I_{i}$ for an improved system performance under limited feedback.
Unlike the quantization strategies in [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], which independently choose $\mathbf{v}_{i',n}$ from $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$’s individual codebook to approximate its IA-inspired TB vector designed with perfect CSI, we aims to jointly choose $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$ from an new compound codebook to directly minimize the overall residual ICI $I_{i}$. It is noted that although [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] may find the best quantization for each IA-inspired TB vector, the selected codewords are not able to directly minimize the residual ICI by jointly optimizing $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$. Noting the potential to further improve system performance with optimized $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$, we base our IA transceiver design directly on the overall residual ICI without the reference or constraint of the IA-inspired TB as [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], and our limited feedback-based IA can fully utilize the given codebooks to achieve the minimal overall residual ICI $I_{i}$.
To start with, we aims to transfer the objective $I_{i}$ into a single variable function only regarding $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$. This is achieved by first deriving the structure of the optimal $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ with arbitrary $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$. Let $\mathbf{U}_{i}=[\mathbf{u}_{i,1},...,\mathbf{u}_{i,K}]$, according to the rotation invariance property of Frobenius norm [@matrix_analysis], we have $$I_{i}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i},\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{K}\mathbf{u}_{i,n}^{H}\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)\mathbf{u}_{i,n},$$ where $\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right):=\mathbf{\tilde{G}}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)\mathbf{\tilde{G}}_{i'}^{H}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ is introduced for simplicity and $\mathbf{\tilde{G}}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=[\mathbf{G}_{i',1}\mathbf{v}_{i',1},...,\mathbf{G}_{i',K}\mathbf{v}_{i',K}]\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{r}\times K}$ is the compound interfering channel at $\mathrm{BS}_{i}$ before further processing. Let us define the ascendingly ordered eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ as $\lambda_{1}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right),...,\lambda_{N_{r}}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ and the corresponding normalized eigenvectors as $\mathbf{w}_{1}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right),...,\mathbf{w}_{N_{r}}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$. For any given $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$, $I_{i}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i},\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ is minimized when $\mathbf{u}_{i,n}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=\mathbf{w}_{n}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$, $n=1,...,K$ [@matrix_analysis], then the optimal $\mathbf{U}_{i}$ can be defined as a function of $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$ as $$\mathbf{U}_{i}^{*}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=\left[\mathbf{w}_{1}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right),...,\mathbf{w}_{K}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)\right].$$ Applying $\mathbf{U}_{i}^{*}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$, $I_{i}$ can be reformulated as $$I_{i}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i}^{*}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right),\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=I_{i}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)=\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)\right).\label{eq:}$$ Comparing (4) and (6), it is observed that the original objective function $I_{i}\left(\mathbf{U}_{i},\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ has been transferred to $I_{i}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ with $\mathbf{U}_{i}^{*}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$, which is a single-variable function regarding $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$ or the quantized TB vectors $\left\{ \mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right\} _{n=1}^{K}$.
Focusing directly on the objective function $I_{i}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$, we propose a joint quantization strategy to choose the optimal $\mathbf{V}_{i'}$ from a compound codebook. As a very brief review and preliminary, it is noted that in [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] $\mathbf{v}_{i',n}$ is individually selected (but not optimized) by $\mathrm{BS}_{i}$ from the randomly generated codebook $\mathcal{C}_{i',n}=\left\{ \mathbf{c}_{i',n,1},\mathbf{c}_{i',n,2},...,\mathbf{c}_{i',n,2^{B}}\right\} $ of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ with the minimum chordal distance criterion, where $\mathbf{c}_{i',n,m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{t}\times1}$ is the normalized codeword with the index $m\in\left\{ 1,2,...,2^{B}\right\} $ and $B$ denotes the number of feedback bits per user. Unlike [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], we enlarge the size of the individual codebook of each user from $2^{B}$ to $2^{KB}$, and jointly select the TB vectors $\left\{ \mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right\} _{n=1}^{K}$ to directly minimize $I_{i}$ with a new strategy. More specifically, we group every $m$-th codeword from each $\mathcal{C}_{i',n}$, $n=1,2,...,K,$ into a compound codeword as $\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(m\right)}=\left\{ \mathbf{c}_{i',1,m},...,\mathbf{c}_{i',K,m}\right\}$ [@joint_Fang], then we collect the $2^{KB}$ compound codewords into a new codebook $\mathcal{C}_{i'}=\left\{ \mathbf{C}_{i',\left(1\right)},\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(2\right)},...,\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(2^{KB}\right)}\right\} $ for the joint quantization $$\mathbf{V}_{i'}^{*}=\left\{ \mathbf{v}_{i',1}^{*},...,\mathbf{v}_{i',K}^{*}\right\} =\arg\min_{\mathbf{V}_{i'}\in\mathcal{C}_{i'}}\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)\right).\label{eq:-1}$$ It is worth pointing out that after the joint quantization, each BS only needs to exchange and fed back one common index $m_{i'}^{*}$ corresponding with $\mathbf{V}_{i'}^{*}$ to all the served $K$ users at the cost of $KB$ bits, which means the total feedback per cell is still the same as [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012]. Upon receiving $m_{i'}^{*}$, $\mathrm{UE}_{i',k}$ uses $\mathbf{v}_{i',k}^{*}=\mathbf{c}_{i',k,m_{i'}^{*}}$ as the TB vector and $\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}_{i}$ uses $\mathbf{U}_{i}^{*}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}^{*}\right)$ to establish its cascaded receive filter.
Finally, the complexity of the proposed scheme is briefly discussed. It is observed (7) mainly includes the construction of $\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{V}_{i'}\right)$ and its singular value decomposition, which cost $2KN_{r}(3N_{t}-1)$ floating point operations (flops) and $O(N_{r}K^{2})$ flops [@matrix_computations], respectively. Since the searching space has a size of $2^{KB}$, it is easy to estimate the overall complexity of the proposed scheme as $O(2^{KB}N_{r}K(3N_{t}+K-1))$. Although our scheme is more complicated than [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], such computation overhead is still affordable at the BS. Moreover, our scheme shows significant throughput gain as compared to [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], which will be validated in the following sections.
$Remark$ $1$: Intuitively, [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] can be considered as the traditional IA schemes with limited feedback. More specifically, the IA-inspired TB vectors are designed before quantization and the achievability of IA mainly relies on the qualities of quantization. However, such quantization aims to approach the IA-inspired TB vectors but not necessarily to the best achievable throughput performance with the given codebooks. In contrast to [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012], we bypass the IA-inspired transceivers before quantization, and we straightforwardly approach IA in terms of the minimal residual ICI by finding the most appropriate codewords within the given codebook. In this sense, our scheme is specifically designed for limited feedback, and it is therefore a limited feedback-based IA scheme. In addition, our scheme is not constrained by the feasibility condition for the IA-inspired transceivers, and can be implemented with flexible antenna configurations.
Performance Analysis
--------------------
In this section, we aims to initially analyze the performance the proposed scheme. For the comparison purpose, we use [@cho_interference_2012] as a reference and set $N_{t}=N_{r}$ accordingly. Then the throughput of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ with perfect feedback is given as $$R_{i,k}^{PFB}=\log_{2}\left(1+\mathrm{SNR}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{r}}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{\tilde{U}}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{H}_{i,k}\mathbf{\tilde{v}}_{i,k}\right|^{2}\right),$$ where $\mathbf{\tilde{r}}_{i,k}$, $\mathbf{\tilde{U}}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{\tilde{v}}_{i,k}$ are obtained by using the IA-inspired transceiver design of [@cho_interference_2012] without quantization. Since $R_{i,k}^{PFB}$ assumes the ICI-free scenario, it can be equivalently considered as the ideal throughput of the proposed scheme for this comparison. Based on $R_{i,k}^{PFB}$ and $R_{i,k}$ in (6), the throughput loss of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ with our scheme is defined as $$\Delta R_{i,k}=R_{i,k}^{PFB}-R_{i,k}.$$ The following theorem gives a upper bound of $\mathbb{E}[\Delta R_{i,k}]$ to better understand the gains of the proposed scheme.
*Theorem 1:* When $N_{t}=N_{r}$, the upper bound of the average throughput loss of $\mathrm{UE}_{i,k}$ with the proposed scheme is $$\mathbb{E}[\Delta R_{i,k}]\leq\log_{2}\left(1+\mathrm{SNR}\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}}\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}\right)\right]\right),$$ where $\left\{ \mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)},\, m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}\right\} $ are some i.i.d. complex central Wishart matrices which follow $\mathcal{CW}_{N_{r}}(K,\mathbf{I}_{N_{r}})$.
We first establish the following inequalities, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\Delta R_{i,k}] & \leq & \log_{2}\left(1+\mathbb{E}\left[\mathrm{SNR}\sum_{n=1}^{K}\left|\mathbf{r}_{i,k}^{H}\mathbf{U}_{i}^{H}\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{v}_{i',n}\right|^{2}\right]\right)\nonumber \\
& \leq & \log_{2}\left(1+\frac{\mathbb{E}[I_{i}]}{N_{0}}\right)\label{eq:-2}\\
& = & \log_{2}\left(1+\mathrm{SNR}\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}}\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}\right)\right]\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows (6) of [@cho_interference_2012], the second inequality follows the inequality in (3), and last equation follows (6) and (7) by treating $\mathbf{A}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(m\right)}\right)$ as $\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}$. Next, we continue to show the distribution of $\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}$. Since $\mathbf{c}_{i',n,m}$ is a normalized vector and the entries of $\mathbf{G}_{i',n}$ are i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$, the entries of $\mathbf{G}_{i',n}\mathbf{c}_{i',n,m}$ are i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. Then it is easy to show that $\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}$ is a complex central Wishart matrix which follows $\mathcal{CW}_{N_{r}}(K,\,\mathbf{I}_{N_{r}})$ [@eigenvalue]. Since the codewords $\mathcal{C}_{i'}$ are i.i.d., it is easy to show that $\left\{ \mathbf{\tilde{G}}_{i'}\left(\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(m\right)}\right),\,\mathbf{C}_{i',\left(m\right)}\in\mathcal{C}_{i'}\right\} $ are also i.i.d., and then the proof is finished.
Based on Theorem 1 and (9), a lower bound of the average throughput with the proposed scheme can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R_{i,k}] & \geq\mathbb{E}[R_{i,k}^{PFB}]\label{eq:-3}\\
& \,\,\,\,\,\,-\log_{2}\left(1+\mathrm{SNR}\cdot\mathbb{E}\left[\min_{m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}}\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}\right)\right]\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is noted that the joint density of the eigenvalues of complex central Wishart matrix is given by (19) of [@eigenvalue]. However, the distribution of $\min_{m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}}\rho_{K}\left(\mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)}\right)$ is still very complicated. Therefore, we resort to the numerical method to evaluate the lower bound in (12) for the comparison with [@cho_interference_2012], which can be simulated faster than $\mathbb{E}[R_{i,k}]$.
$Remark$ $2$: For the comparison purpose with [@cho_interference_2012], the above analysis only focus on the configuration $N_{t}=N_{r}$. Although our scheme is applicable with arbitrary $N_{t}$, it is often assumed that the users have less antennas than the BS. When $N_{t}<N_{r}$, it is noted the elements in $\left\{ \mathbf{A}_{\left(m\right)},\, m\in\{1,...,2^{KB}\}\right\} $ are not independent, and the statistical analysis is more involved and is deferred as future work.
Simulation Results
==================
We first validate the theoretical results related to Theorem 1 and compare our scheme with [@cho_interference_2012]. The system configuration are set as $N_{t}=N_{r}=3$, $K=2$, and the number of feedback bits or $B$ is specified with the simulation curves. In Fig. 2, the inequality (12) are demonstrated, where the simulation results are obtained by performing the proposed scheme, and the analytical results are calculated according to the lower bound in (12). It is shown that the lower bound of the proposed scheme has already exceeded the achievable system throughput of [@cho_interference_2012]. Therefore, the throughput gains of the proposed scheme are proved.
Then we compare the proposed scheme with [@limited_twocell_mac_2012] under a variety of system configurations. As shown in Fig. 3, given the same number of feedback bits $B=4,\,6$, the proposed scheme achieves significant gain over [@limited_twocell_mac_2012] with the system configuration $N_{t}=2$, $N_{r}=3$, $K=2$. Moreover, it is noted that due to the IA-feasibility constraint, [@limited_twocell_mac_2012] is not applicable with the system configuration $N_{r}=4$, $K=3$ and $N_{t}\leq\frac{3}{4}K$, while our scheme is still applicable with arbitrary $N_{t}$, as shown in Fig. 4. It is also observed that the throughput performance of our scheme increase with $N_{t}$ when $N_{r}$, $K$ and $B$ are fixed, which shows the benefit of extra transmit antennas at user.
![System throughput comparison with [@cho_interference_2012], $N_{t}=N_{r}=3$, $K=2$.](Figure2){width="5cm"}
![System throughput comparison with [@limited_twocell_mac_2012], $N_{t}=2$, $N_{r}=3$, $K=2$.](Figure3){width="5cm"}
![System throughput comparison with [@limited_twocell_mac_2012], $N_{r}=4$, $K=3$, $B=4$.](Figure4){width="5cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, a limited feedback-based IA scheme has been proposed for the IMAC. The optimized transceivers have been designed with the performance-oriented quantization strategy to minimize the residual ICI. As a beneficial result, the proposed scheme achieves a significant gain of system throughput and can be implemented with flexible antenna configurations.
[^1]: H. Gao, T. Lv and D. Fang are with the Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Distributed Computing and Service, Ministry of Education, and the School of Information and Communication Engineering, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China 100876 (e-mail: {huigao, lvtiejun, fangdi}@bupt.edu.cn). H. Gao is also with Singapore University of Technology and Design, 20 Dover Drive, Singapore 138682.
[^2]: S. Yang is with the School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ Southampton, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^3]: C. Yuen is with Singapore University of Technology and Design, 20 Dover Drive, Singapore 138682 (email: [email protected]).
[^4]: This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 61271188) and Singapore University of Technology and Design.
[^5]: **Notation:** Bold upper case and lower case letters represent to matrices and vectors, respectively. $\left(\,\cdot\,\right)^{H}$ denotes the Hermitian transpose and $\left(\,\cdot\,\right)^{-1}$ represents the inverse of a matrix. $\left\Vert \,\cdot\,\right\Vert $ represent the Frobenius norm of a matrix. $\mathbb{E}\left[\,\cdot\,\right]$ stands for the expectation. $\rho_{K}(\mathbf{A})$ and ${\rm {Col}}\left({\bf {A}}\right)$ denote the sum of the minimum $K$ eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}$ and the column space of $\mathbf{A}$.
[^6]: It is noted that the actual throughput of IA with limited feedback can almost always be formulated as (2), regardless of the specific IA-inspired TB vectors [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012] before quantization. In addition, we also keep the notation of residual ICI to highlight the transmission with limited feedback, even though we bypass the IA-inspired TB vectors employed in [@cho_interference_2012; @limited_twocell_mac_2012].
[^7]: The inequality in (3) can be easily proved by using the property$\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert \left\Vert \mathbf{b}\right\Vert \geq\left|\mathbf{a}^{H}\mathbf{b}\right|$ with $\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert =1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
It is shown that an oscillatory character of the solutions of the collisionless kinetic equations describing production of the quark-gluon plasma in strong color fields leads to the exponential (thermal-like) transverse-momentum spectra of partons produced in the soft region ($100 \hbox{\,MeV} < p_\perp < 1 \hbox{\,GeV}$). In addition, the production of partons in the very soft region ($p_\perp
< 100 \hbox{\,MeV}$) is clearly enhanced above the thermal-like background.
address: |
The H. Niewodniczański Institute of Nuclear Physics,\
Polish Academy of Sciences,\
31-342 Kraków, Poland\
and\
Institute of Physics, Świȩtokrzyska Academy,\
25-406 Kielce, Poland\
author:
- Wojciech Florkowski
title: SCHWINGER TUNNELING AND THERMAL CHARACTER OF HADRON SPECTRA
---
Introduction
============
The transverse-momentum spectra of hadrons measured at RHIC are very well reproduced by the thermal model [@wbwf]. Since the thermal-like spectra appear also in the collisions of more elementary systems, the questions arises if the thermal behavior observed at RHIC may be truly attributed to the rescattering processes or is it of a completely different origin connected, e.g., with a trivial phase-space dominance effect (for a recent discussion of this and similar issues see Refs. [@rischke; @krzywicki; @qmst; @bim]).
In this paper we follow the idea formulated by Bialas and argue that the thermal shape of the transverse-momentum spectra of hadrons may have its origin in the fluctuations of the string tension. In Ref. [@AB] Bialas showed that the thermal character of the measured transverse-momentum spectra, $${dN_{\rm exp} \over d^2p_\perp} \sim \exp\left(-m_\perp/T\right),
\quad m_\perp = \sqrt{m^2+p^2_\perp}\,,
\label{thermal}$$ may be understood as an effect of the fluctuations of the string tension $\kappa^2$ which appears in the Schwinger formula [@schwinger; @cnn; @gm; @gi], $${dN_{\rm Schwinger} \over d^2p_\perp}
\sim \exp\left(-\pi m^2_\perp/\kappa^2\right).
\label{schwinger}$$ Although the $m_\perp$-dependence in Eqs. (\[thermal\]) and (\[schwinger\]) is different, the appropriate averaging of formula (\[schwinger\]) over $\kappa$ may produce indeed an exponential function, $$\int d\kappa \, P(\kappa) \, \exp\left(-\pi m^2_\perp/\kappa^2\right)
\sim \exp\left(-m_\perp/T\right).
\label{fluct}$$ The explicit (gaussian) form of the distribution $P(\kappa)$ as well as a relation connecting $T$ with the average value of $\kappa^2$, $$T=\sqrt{\langle \kappa^2 \rangle \over 2 \pi},
\label{Tk}$$ was given and discussed in Ref. [@AB].
In this paper we show that the situation described above appears naturally in the kinetic equations describing production of the quark-gluon plasma in strong color fields. In this case, due to the screening effects, the color fields change in time and may even oscillate [@BCDFosc]. As a consequence, the transverse-momentum spectra acquire a form very similar to Eq. (\[fluct\]). The only difference is that $\kappa^2$ should be treated now as a function of time $$\int dt \, P^{\,\prime}(t) \, \exp\left(-\pi m^2_\perp/\kappa^2(t)\right)
\sim \exp\left(-m_\perp/T\right).
\label{tfluct}$$ The form of the distribution $P^{\,\prime}(t)$ is uniquely determined by the kinetic equations and, as we shall see, formula (\[tfluct\]) yields effectively the exponential spectra in the soft region, $100
\hbox{\, MeV}< p_\perp < 1 \hbox{\, GeV}$. For larger values of $p_\perp$ the model based on the Schwinger formula gives the spectrum which decays faster than the exponential function. However, in this region the production of particles becomes a hard process and the use of the Schwinger formula is inadequate. On the other hand, for very small values of $p_\perp$ we find an enhancement above the exponential background, which is a desirable effect in view of the experimental measurements of the pion spectra which consistently show such an increase.
Although there is a formal similarity between our formulas and those used by Bialas, there is also an important physical difference between the two approaches. In our calculations we consider the values of the string tension which are larger than the elementary string tension. This may be a realistic situation in heavy-ion collisions [@bironk]. On the other hand, Bialas considers possible fluctuations of the elementary string tension, which may appear due to stochastic nature of the QCD vacuum [@heid]. Thus, our approach may explain the origin of the thermal spectra observed in heavy-ions but it is not capable of describing the thermal features observed in, e.g., electron-positron annihilations. It is conceivable, however, that the effect of the stochastic vacuum plays an additional role in the heavy-ion collisions leading to even more pronounced thermalization effects.
Tunneling of partons in oscillatory chromoelectric fields
=========================================================
In our approach we use the semi-classical kinetic equations for the quark-gluon plasma written in the abelian dominance approximation [@BCDFosc; @heinz; @egv; @BCapp; @DFhq] $$\left( p^{\mu }\partial _{\mu } \pm g{\mbox{\boldmath $\epsilon$}}_{i}\cdot
{\bf F}^{\mu \nu }p_{\nu }\partial _{\mu }^{p}\right)
G^\pm_{i}(x,p)=\frac{dN^\pm_{i}}{d\Gamma }, \label{kineq}$$ $$\left( p^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }+g{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}_{ij}\cdot
{\bf F}^{\mu \nu }p_{\nu }\partial _{\mu }^{p}\right)
\tilde{{G}}_{ij}(x,p)=
\frac{d{\tilde{N}}_{ij}}{d\Gamma }, \label{kineg}$$ where $G^+_{i}(x,p)\ $, $G^-_{i}(x,p)$ and $\tilde{{G}}_{ij}(x,p)$ are the phase-space densities of quarks, antiquarks and gluons, respectively. Here $g$ is the strong coupling constant and $i,j=(1,2,3)$ are color indices. The terms on the left-hand-side describe the free motion of the particles as well as their interaction with the mean color field $\mathbf{F}_{\mu \nu }$. The terms on the right-hand-side describe production of quarks and gluons due to the decay of the field. In our present calculations we include only the two lightest flavors and neglect the quark masses ($m_\perp=p_\perp$).
We note that Eqs. (\[kineq\]) and (\[kineg\]) do not include any thermalization effects. The latter can be taken into account if the collision integrals are incorporated on the right-hand-side of Eqs. (\[kineq\]) and (\[kineg\]). So far, most of the approaches have included the collision integrals in the relaxation-time approximation [@bbr; @bn; @brs]. A more recent and elaborated treatment of the collision integrals may be found in Ref. [@mrow]. We note also that the semi-classical kinetic equations may be derived within a field-theoretic approach if a separation of different time scales can be achieved: the time scales associated with quantum phase oscillations and amplitudes of pair creation should be much smaller than the time scales associated with the oscillations of the fields [@cm; @kescm; @cekms; @kme].
In the next Sections we shall consider a one-dimensional (i.e., uniform in the transverse direction) boost-invariant system. In this case it is convenient to use the boost-invariant variables introduced in Refs. [@BCprd] $$u=\tau ^{2}=t^{2}-z^{2},\quad w=tp_{\Vert }-zE,\quad \mathbf{p}_{\bot },
\label{binvv1}$$ and also $$v=Et-p_{\Vert }\ z=\sqrt{w^{2}+m_{\perp }^{2}u}. \label{binvv2}$$ From these two equations one can easily find the energy and the longitudinal momentum of a particle $$E=p^{0}=\frac{vt+wz}{u}=p_\perp \cosh y,\quad p_{\Vert
}=\frac{wt+vz}{u}
=p_\perp \sinh y. \label{binvv3}$$ Besides the rapidity $y$, we also introduce the quasirapidity variable $\eta$ which is related to the space-time coordinates $t$ and $z$ by equations $$t= \tau \cosh\eta, \,\,\,\, z=\tau \sinh\eta.
\label{eta}$$ The invariant measure in the momentum space is $$dP = d^2p_\perp {dp_\parallel \over p^0} = d^2p_\perp {dw \over v},
\label{dP}$$ whereas in the Minkowski space-time the appropriate measure has the form $$d^4x = \tau \sinh\eta\,d\tau\,d\eta\,dx\,dy.
\label{d4x}$$ The invariant measure in the phase-space is $d\Gamma = d^4x d^3p/p^0$. In the considered situation, the only non-zero components of the tensor ${\bf F}_{\mu \nu }=(F_{\mu \nu }^{3},F_{\mu \nu }^{8})$ are those corresponding to the color field ${\mbox{\boldmath $\cal
E$}}={\bf F}^{30}$. The quarks and gluons couple to the field ${\mbox{\boldmath $\cal E$}}$ through the charges ${\mbox{\boldmath
$\epsilon$}}_{i}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}_{ij}$ defined in [@BCDFosc; @huang].
Transverse-momentum spectra
===========================
For one-dimensional boost-invariant systems the production rates appearing on the right-hand-side of Eqs. (\[kineq\]) and (\[kineg\]) have a general form [@bajan][^1] $$\frac{dN}{d\Gamma }
= p^{0}\frac{dN}{d^{4}x\ d^{3}p}=\frac{F}{4\pi ^{3}}\left|
\ln \left( 1\mp \exp \left( -\frac{\pi p_{\perp}^{2}}{F}\right) \right)
\right| \delta \left( w-w_{0}\right) v, \label{rate1}$$ where $F$ is the force acting on a parton (for the boost-invariant systems $F$ depends only on $\tau$ and the color charge of a quark or a gluon), $w_{0}$ is the longitudinal momentum gained by a parton during the tunneling process [@bajan; @BCDFtun], $$w_{0} =-\frac{ p_{\perp }^{2}}
{2F},
\label{wf}$$ and the plus/minus sign is connected with the statistics of the tunneling particles (plus for bosons and minus for fermions). Introducing the notation $$\frac{dN}{d\Gamma } = {\cal R}(\tau,p_\perp)
\delta \left( w \mp w_{0}\right) v,
\label{qrate}$$ we find that the transverse-momentum spectra of partons are given by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN}{dy\, d^2p_\perp }
&=& \int d^4x \frac{dN}{d\Gamma } = \pi R^2 \int\limits_0^\infty
d\tau^\prime \, \tau^\prime \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\eta \,
{\cal R}(\tau^\prime,p_\perp) \delta \left( w \mp w_{0}\right) v
\nonumber \\
&=& \pi R^2 \int\limits_0^\infty
d\tau^\prime \, \tau^\prime \,{\cal R}(\tau^\prime,p_\perp), \end{aligned}$$ or more explicitly $$\frac{dN}{dy\, d^2p_\perp } =
{ R^2 \over 4 \pi^2} \, \sum_{\rm all\,\, partons} \,
\int\limits_0^\infty
d\tau^\prime \, \tau^\prime \, F(\tau^\prime)
\left|
\ln \left( 1\mp \exp
\left( -\frac{\pi p_{\perp }^{2}}{F(\tau^\prime)}\right) \right)
\right|.
\label{main}$$ Here we have introduced the sum over all tunneling partons, i.e., quarks and gluons, and $R$ is the transverse radius of our system. However, for simplicity of notation we skip the indices denoting different quantum numbers of partons. The explicit expressions for $F$ and all other details are given in Ref. [@bajan]. In the numerical calculations we use the value $\pi R^2 = 1 \, \hbox{fm}^2$, hence our results describe the production of partons per unit transverse area. Eq. (\[main\]) is the counterpart of Eq. (\[fluct\]) studied by Bialas.
We note that formula (\[main\]) may be alternatively obtained from the Cooper-Frye formalism outlined shortly in the Appendix. We also note that the transverse-momentum spectra have not been calculated so far in the formalism outlined in Sect. 2, only the mean $p_\perp$ was studied in Ref. [@BCapp].
Results
=======
The starting point of our calculation is Eq. (\[main\]). The time dependence of the forces $F$ is known (in the numerical form) from the studies performed in Ref. [@bajan]. In practice, the integration range over $\tau^\prime$ is always finite; the forces $F(\tau^\prime)$ are different from zero only at the initial stage of the evolution of the system ($\tau^\prime < 1.5$ fm). The initial condition for the color field is obtained from the Gauss law
$${\mbox{\boldmath $\cal E$}}_{0}{\,=}
\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma _{g}}{\pi R^{2}}}\,k\,
{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}_{12}.
\label{initcon}$$
Here the string tension $\sigma_g= 3 \sigma_q =$ 3 GeV/fm, and the number of color charges which span the initial field is denoted by $k$ (note that ${\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}_{12}=(1,0)$).
In Figs. 1 and 2 we show our results obtained for $k=2$ and $k=3$. The transverse-momentum spectra are represented by the solid lines. In both cases one can observe that the spectra may be well approximated by the exponential function, especially in the soft region $100 \hbox{\,MeV} < p_\perp < 1 \hbox{\,GeV}$. Hence, the Schwinger tunneling mechanism in time-dependent fields indeed leads to the thermal-like spectra, although no rescattering processes are taken into account in this picture.
The dashed lines in Figs. 1 and 2 represent the exponential functions with the inverse-slope parameter $T$ and the normalization fitted at $p_\perp$ = 350 MeV. The inverse-slope parameters are $T=220$ MeV and $T=270$ for $k=2$ and $k=3$, respectively. We thus see that larger initial fields lead to higher effective temperatures. This is already expected from Eq. (\[Tk\]), since larger initial fields lead to larger fluctuations (changes) of the field in time and, finally, to larger values of the parameter $T$. We may even try to apply Eq. (\[Tk\]) in our case, replacing the average value of $\kappa^2$ by the time average of $F$. In this way we find $T=258$ MeV for $k=2$ and $T=307$ MeV for $k=3$. As we can see, the rough estimate based on Eq. (\[Tk\]) gives the correct magnitude of $T$. In the case $k=2$ we find the mean transverse momentum $\langle p_\perp \rangle$ = 376 MeV and the rapidity density (per unit transverse area) $dN/dy$ = 1.2. In the case $k=3$ we find $\langle p_\perp \rangle$ = 426 MeV and $dN/dy$ = 1.9. These results are consistent with the earlier reported values [@DFhq]
Another interesting feature of the spectra shown in Figs. 1 and 2 is the enhancement of the particle production above the thermal-like background in the very soft region $p_\perp <$ 100 MeV. This type of the behavior is observed in the pion spectra measured by various experiments at CERN and RHIC, and is usually explained as the effect of the resonance decays which give contributions mainly in the low-$p_\perp$ region. The production of such very soft partons occurs in our model at later times when the forces $F$ are small and the production of the particles with large $p_\perp$ is strongly suppressed. In other words, this may be treated as a phase-space effect – when the initial string breaks into many small pieces, only particles with small $p_\perp$ can tunnel and they contribute mainly to the low-$p_\perp$ peak. Nota bene, such type of the behavior was also found in the simulations of the sequential decays of the color-flux tubes [@DFsim].
We conclude that the Schwinger tunneling mechanism in strong varying fields offers an appealing explanation of a very fast formation of the thermal-like system in heavy-ion collisions.
Appendix: Cooper-Frye formula
=============================
The transverse-momentum spectra may be calculated from the Cooper-Frye formula [@CF] $$\frac{dN}{dy\, d^2p_\perp } = \int d\Sigma_\mu(x) p^\mu \,
f(x,p).
\label{CF}$$ In Eq. (\[CF\]) the quantity $d\Sigma_\mu(x)$ is the element of the freeze-out hypersurface and $f(x,p)$ denotes the phase-space distribution function. Assuming that the system is boost invariant in the longitudinal $(z)$ direction and uniform in the transverse $(x,y)$ directions, we may rewrite Eq. (\[CF\]) in the form $$\frac{dN}{dy\, d^2p_\perp } = \int dx \,dy \,d\eta \,v
\,f(\tau,w,p_\perp).
\label{CFbi}$$ Here we used the property $d\Sigma_\mu=u_\mu \tau \,d\eta \,dx \,dy$, which follows from the condition that freeze-out occurs at a constant value of the invariant time $\tau$. We also used the explicit form of the boost-invariant four-velocity, $u^\mu=(t,0,0,z)/\tau$, which gives $p^\mu u_\mu= v/\tau.$ Now using the explicit form for the solutions of the kinetic equations (\[kineq\]) and (\[kineg\]) obtained in Ref. [@bajan] $$f(\tau,w,p_\perp)=\int\limits_0^\tau \,d\tau^\prime \,\tau^\prime
{\cal R}(\tau^\prime,p_\perp) \delta\left( \Delta h(\tau,\tau^\prime)
\pm w - w_0(\tau^\prime,p_\perp) \right)
\label{solu}$$ we arrive at formula (\[main\]).
[99]{}
W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 272302; Phys. Rev. [**C65**]{} (2002) 064905.
D. H. Rischke, Nucl. Phys. [**A698**]{} (2002) 153c.
A. Krzywicki, hep-ph/0204116.
A. Bialas, Nucl. Phys. [**A715**]{} (2003) 95c; J. Rafelski and J. Letessier, Nucl. Phys. [**A715**]{} (2003) 98c; V. Koch, Nucl. Phys. [**A715**]{} (2003) 108c.
T. Biró and B. Müller, hep-ph/0309052.
A. Bialas, Phys. Lett. [**B466**]{} (1999) 301.
J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{} (1951) 664.
A. Casher, H. Neuberger, and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. [**D20**]{} (1979) 179.
N. K. Glendenning and T. Matsui, Phys. Rev. [**D28**]{} (1983) 2890.
M. Gyulassy and A. Iwazaki, Phys. Lett. [**B165**]{} (1985) 157.
A. Bialas, W. Czyż, A. Dyrek, and W. Florkowski, Nucl. Phys. [**B296**]{} (1988) 611.
T. S. Biro, H. B. Nielsen, and J. Knoll, Nucl. Phys. [**B245**]{} (1984) 449.
H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. [**B190**]{} (1987) 177; H. G. Dosch and Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Lett. [**B205**]{} (1988) 339; Yu. A. Simonov, Nucl. Phys. [**B307**]{} (1988) 512.
U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{} (1983) 351; Ann. of Phys. (NY) [**161**]{} (1985) 48; Phys. Lett. [**B144**]{} (1984) 228.
H.-Th. Elze, M. Gyulassy, and D. Vasak, Nucl. Phys. [**B276**]{} (1986) 706; Phys. Lett. [**B177**]{} (1986) 402.
A. Bialas and W. Czyż, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B17**]{} (1986) 635.
A. Dyrek and W. Florkowski, Il Nuovo Cim. [**102A**]{} (1989) 1013; Acta Phys. Pol. [**B22**]{} (1991) 325.
B. Banerjee, R.S. Bhalerao, and V. Ravishankar, Phys. Lett. [**B224**]{} (1989) 16.
R.S. Bhalerao and G. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. [**C61**]{} (2000) 054907.
J.C.R. Bloch, C.D. Roberts and S.M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 117502.
C. Manuel and St. Mrówczyński, hep-ph/0306209.
F. Cooper and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. [**D40**]{} (1989) 456.
Y. Kluger, J. M. Eisenberg, B. Svetitsky, F. Cooper, and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{} (1991) 2427; Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{} (1992) 4659.
F. Cooper, J. M. Eisenberg, Y. Kluger, E. Mottola, and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{} (1993) 190.
Y. Kluger, E. Mottola, and J. M. Eisenberg, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 125015.
A. Bialas and W. Czyż, Phys. Rev. [**D30**]{} (1984) 2371; Zeit. f. Phys. [**C28**]{} (1985) 255.
K. Huang, [*Quarks, Leptons and Gauge Fields*]{}, World Scientific Publ. Co., Singapore 1982, p. 245
K. Bajan and W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B32**]{} (2001) 3035.
A. Bialas, W. Czyż, A. Dyrek, and W. Florkowski, Zeit. f. Physik [**C46**]{} (1990) 439.
A. Dyrek and W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B22**]{} (1991) 325.
F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. [**D10**]{} (1974) 186.
[^1]: We neglect here the finite-size effects in the pseudorapidity space taken into account in Ref. [@bajan], since they have a negligible effect on the time evolution of the system.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Recent observational evidences of accelerating phase of the universe strongly demand that the dominating matter in the universe is in the form of dark energy. In this work, we study the evolution of the apparent and event horizons for various dark energy models and examine their behavior across phantom barrier line.
Keywords: Horizons, Phantom Barrier, Cosmological Evolution.
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The prediction of standard cosmology to have at present a phase of deceleration was ruled out in recent past by a series of observations namely the discovery of 16type Ia supernova(SNIa)by Riess et. al. (2004), WMAP(2003) and SDSS(2004). Using the Hubble telescope these observations has provided a distinct scenario of accelerated expansion of the present day universe. Thus a modification of Einstein equations \cite{} becomes essential to incorporate this observational fact. One can either modify the geometry (i.e., the left hand side of Einstein equation ) or the matter itself(i.e., the R.H.S.) if not both. Due to modification of geometry, one can introduce modified gravitytheory namely $f(R)$ gravity, Brane scenario etc while change in the matter part indicates inclusion of some unknown kind of matters having large negative pressure so that strong energy condition ($\rho+3p>0$) is violated. Such an unknown matter is known as dark energy(DE).
In literature, there are various DE models to match with observational data. The simplest model representing DE is the Cosmological Constant which was introduced by Einstein himself, surprisingly many years before the starting of DE craze. However, this model of DE is not very popular due to many inherent drawbacks (for example fine tuning problem ( Steinhardt 1997)). The other candidates for DE are variable cosmological constant (Shapiro et. al. 2009; Sola et al. 2005 ; Solaet al. 2006 ), the canonical scalar field (Dutta et. al. 2009;Guo et al. 2007; Liddle et. al. 1999;Ratra et al. 1988;Wetterich 1988; Zlatev et al. 1999) (quintessence field), scalar field with negative kinetic energy (phantom field) (Caldwell 2002 ; Caldwell et al. 2003; Nojiri et al. 2003B ; Onemli et al. 2004; Saridakis 2009; Setare et al. 2008; Setare et al. 2009) or a quintom field (Capozziello et al. 2006; Elizalde et al. 2004; Feng et al. 2005; Feng et al. 2006 ; Guo et al. 2005 ; Li et al. 2005 ; Setare 2006 ; Setare et al. 2008A ; Setare et al. 2008B; Setare et al. 2008C ; Setare et al. 2009A; Zhao et al. 2006 ;) (a unified model of quintessence and phantom field). Further a combined effort of quantum field theory and gravity leads to speculate some nature of DE and is known as holographic dark energy (HDE) model ( Copeland et al. 2006; Durrer et al. 2008; Nojiri et al., 2007; Padmanabhan 2002; Sahni 2005 ,2006; Nojiri et. al. 2006B).
In the present work we study the evolution of the horizons(apparent and event) for different DE models namely (a) DE with barotropic equationof state, (b) holographic DE(HDE) and (c) a non interacting two fluid system-HDE and dark matter in the form of dust. The paper is assigned as follows : Basic equations are presented in the section 2, evolution of the horizons are studied for the above three matter systems in section 3, section 4 deals with thermodynamical analysis of the universe bounded by the horizons. The paper ends withdiscussion and concluding remarks in section 5.
Basic equations
================
For simplicity let us start with homogeneous and isotropic model of the universe (namely Friedmann-Robertson-Walker(FRW) model), having line element
$$\label{1}
ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+a^{2}(t)\left[\frac{dr^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}\right]$$
$$=h_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}+R^{2}d\Omega^{2}$$ where $$h_{ab}=diag\left(-1,
\frac{a^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}\right)~~~,~~~(a,~b=0,1~with~~x^{0}=t,
x^{1}=r)$$ and $$d\Omega^{2}=d\theta^{2}+sin^{2}\theta
d\phi^{2}~is~ the~ metric~ on~ unit~ two~ sphere.$$ $R=ar$ is the radius of the sphere(area-radius), ’a’ is the scale factor and $k=0, \pm1$ stands for flat, closed and open model of our universe respectively.
The matter is chosen as a perfect fluid with energy momentum tensor $$\label{2}
T_{\mu\nu}=\left(\rho+p\right)u_{\mu}u_{\nu}-pg_{\mu\nu}$$ So the Einstein field equations are (choosing $8\pi G=1=c$) $$\label{3}
H^{2}+\frac{k}{a^{2}}=\frac{1}{3}\rho$$ $$\label{4}
\dot{H}-\frac{k}{a^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho+p\right)$$ and the energy conservation equation is $$\label{5}
\dot{\rho}+3H\left(\rho+p\right)=0$$
Combining (\[3\]) and (\[4\]) we get, $$\label{6}
\dot{H}+H^{2}=\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{1}{6}\left(\rho+3p\right)$$
The dynamical apparent horizon which is essentially the marginally trapped surface with vanishing expansion, is defined as a sphere of radius $R=R_{A}$ such that $$\label{7}
h^{ab}\partial_{a}R\partial_{b}R=0$$ which on simplification gives $$\label{8}
R_{A}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{H^{2}+\frac{k}{a^{2}}}}$$
The event horizon on the other hand is defined as (Davis 1998) $$R_{E}=-a ~sinh(\tau)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k=-1$$
$$\label{9}
R_{E}=-a\tau~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k=0$$
$$R_{E}=-a~sin(\tau)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k=+1$$ where $\tau$ is the usual conformal time defined as
$$\label{10}
\tau=-\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{a(t)}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|\tau|<\infty$$
Note that if $|\tau |=\infty$, event horizon does not exist. Also the Hubble horizon is given by $$\label{11}
R_{H}=\frac{1}{H}$$ The horizons are related by the following relations (Mazumder 2009): $$R_{A}=R_{H}<R_{E}~~~~~for K=0$$ $$R_{H}<R_{A}<R_{E}~~~~~~for K=-1$$ $$R_{A}<R_{E}<R_{H}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$ $$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~or~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~for K=+1$$ $$R_{A}<R_{H}<R_{E}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$
Evolution of the horizons and consequences
==========================================
The time variation of the horizon radii are given by $$\label{12}
\dot{R}_{A}=-H\left(\dot{H}-\frac{k}{a^{2}}\right)R_{A}^{3}$$ $$\label{13}
\dot{R}_{E}=H R_{E}-\sqrt{1-\frac{k}{a^{2}}R_{E}^{2}}$$ $$\label{14}
\dot{R}_{H}=-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^{2}}$$
One may note that the expression for $\dot{R_E}$ given in references (Davis 1998) and (Mohseni Sadjadi 2006) are true only for $k=0$. So the theorems given in the papers of Davis(1998) and Sadjadi(2006) are only valid flat universe. However, in the present work from the above expression (i.e., equation (13)) we see that $R_{E}$ is an increasing or decreasing function of time that depends only on whether $R_E>~or~<R_A$- it does not depend on the nature of the matter involved as claimed by Davis and Sadjadi.\
We shall now study the variation of the horizons with the evaluation of the universe. Due to observed accelerating phase of the universe, the matter is assumed to be in the form of the DE having equation of state $p=\omega \rho$.\
[**Case I : $\omega$ is constant\
**]{} For simplicity, if we assume the flat model of the universe then from equation (\[6\]) we have $$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{\rho}{3}\left(1-\alpha\right)$$ with $\alpha=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\omega\right)$. Hence in the quintessence era we have $0<\alpha<1$. Now solving the Einstein field equation (\[3\]) and the conservation equation (\[5\]) we have $$\label{15}
\alpha=a_{0}t^{\frac{1}{\alpha}},~~~\rho=\rho_{0}t^{-2}$$ Then the horizons are given by $$\label{16}
R_{E}=\frac{\alpha t}{1-\alpha},~~~~~ R_{A}=\alpha t$$ Hence, over one Hubble time $(t_{H}=\frac{1}{H})$ both have the same time variation, i.e., $$\label{17}
t_{H}\frac{\dot{R_{h}}}{R_{h}}=\alpha~~~~~~(h\equiv E~or~A)$$ Thus there are no significant changes of the two horizons over the Hubble time.\
[**Case II : $\omega$ is variable\
**]{} Here the choice of DE is holographic model. The holographic principle states that the no. of degrees of freedom for a system within a finite region should be finite and is bounded roughly by the area of its boundary. From the effective quantum field theory one obtains the Holographic energy density as (Cohen et al. 1999) $$\label{18}
\rho_{D}=\frac{3c^{2}}{R_{E}}$$ where free dimensionless parameter c is estimated from observation and IR cut off is chosen as $R_{E}$ to get correct expression.
Then using expression (\[18\]) in the conservation equation (\[5\]) the expression for the equation of state parameter is given by $$\label{19}
\omega=-\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_{D}}{c^{2}}-\Omega_{k}}$$ where $\Omega_{D}=\frac{\rho_{D}}{3H^{2}}$ and $\Omega_{k}=\frac{k }{a^{2}H^{2}}$ are the density parameters corresponding to DE and curvature respectively. Now from equations (\[12\]) and (\[13\]) the time variation of the horizons over one Hubble time are given by $$\label{20}
t_{H}\frac{\dot{R}_{A}}{R_{A}}=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\omega\right)=1-\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_{D}}{c^{2}}-\Omega_{k}}$$ and $$\label{21}
t_{H}\frac{\dot{R}_{E}}{R_{E}}=1-\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_{D}}{c^{2}}-\Omega_{k}}$$ So both the horizons have the same time variation over one Hubble time.\
[**Case III : Variable $\omega$ and two fluid syatem\
**]{} Here we consider a non-interacting two fluid system having one component in the form of HDE and the other component as dark matter (in the form of dust). So the Einstein equations for flat FRW model now become
$$\label{22}
H^{2}=\frac{1}{3}\left(\rho_{D}+\rho_{m}\right)$$
$$\label{23}
\dot{H}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho_{D}+\rho_{m}+p_{D}\right)$$
As the fluids are non-interacting so the energy conservation equations are $$\label{24}
\dot{\rho}_{m}+3H\rho_{m}=0$$ and $$\label{25}
\dot{\rho}_{D}+3H\rho_{D}\left(1+\omega\right)=0$$ So from the expression of the energy density for the HDE(given by equation (\[18\])) we have as before $$\label{26}
\omega=-\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}{c}$$ where variation of the density parameter is given by $$\label{27}
\Omega '=\Omega_{D}^{2}\left(1-\Omega_{D}\right)\left\{\frac{1}{\Omega_{D}}+\frac{2}{c\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}\right\}$$ Now the change of the horizons over one Hubble time are given by the expressions $$\label{28}
t_{H}\frac{\dot{R}_{A}}{R_{A}}=\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{D}-\frac{1}{c}\Omega_{D}^{\frac{3}{2}}$$ $$\label{29}
t_{H}\frac{\dot{R}_{E}}{R_{E}}=1-\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}{c}$$ Thus compared to between the the above two cases the changes of the horizons over one Hubble time are not identical, though they do not change significantly.\
Thermodynamics of the Universe and the role of the horizons :
==============================================================
Here we consider the universe bounded by the event or apparent horizon as a thermodynamical system. In the previous section we have shown that neither the apparent horizon nor the event horizon change significantly over one Hubble time scale so equilibrium thermodynamics can be applied here with temperature and entropy on the horizon similar to black holes.\
[**Case I : Matter in the form of perfect fluid :**]{}\
Here matter bounded by the horizon is considered to be in the perfect fluid. The total entropy change can be written as (for details see Mazumder et al 2009) $$\label{30}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_{I}+S_{h}\right)=\frac{4\pi R_{h}^{2}}{T_{h}}\left(\rho+p\right)\dot{R}_{h}$$ where $R_{h}$ is the radius of the horizon(event or apparent), $S_{I}$ and $S_{h}$ are respectively the entropy of the matter bounded by the horizon and that of the horizon, $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and the thermodynamic pressure of the inside matter and $T_{h}$ is the temperature of the horizon as well as of the inside matter for equilibrium thermodynamics. Thus generalised second law of thermodynamics will be valid in quintessence era $(\rho+p>0)$ if the radius of the horizon increases with time while in phantom era $(\rho+p<0)$ the radius of the horizon should decrease.\
[**Case II : Matter in the form of HDE :** ]{}\
If we differentiate the expression for the energy density of the HDE (i.e., equation (\[18\])) then using the energy conservation equation (\[5\]) we obtain (after simplification) $$\label{31}
\dot{R}_{E}=\frac{3}{2}HR_{E}\left(1+\omega\right)$$ As before variation of the total entropy is given by equation (\[30\]) which using (\[31\]) becomes $$\label{32}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_{I}+S_{E}\right)=\frac{6\pi R_{E}^{3}}{T_{E}}\rho_{D}\left(1+\omega\right)^{2}$$ for event horizon. For the apparent horizon using equation (\[12\]) and the Friedmann equation (\[4\]), equation (\[30\]) simplifies to $$\label{33}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_{I}+S_{A}\right)=\frac{2\pi R_{A}^{5}H_{\rho}}{T_{A}}\rho_{D}\left(1+\omega\right)^{2}$$ Thus generalised second law of thermodynamics hold for both the horizons when matter is purely in the form of HDE.\
[**Case III : Non-interacting two fluid system :** ]{}\
Here matter in the universe bounded by the horizon (event or apparent) is in the form of non-interacting two fluid system-one component is HDE $(\rho_{D}, ~p_{D})$ and the other is dark matter in the form of dust $(\rho_{m})$. Then total entropy variation (for details see Mazumder et. al. 2010) is given by $$\label{33}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_{I}+S_{A}\right)=\frac{4\pi R_{h}^{2}}{T_{h}}\left\{\rho_{m}+\rho_{D}\left(1+\omega\right)\right\}\dot{R}_{h}$$ Thus energy density of dark matter plays a key role for the validity of the generalized second law of thermodynamics particularly in phantom era.
Discussions and Concluding remarks:
===================================
We shall now discuss the behavior of the horizons with the evolution of the universe both in Quintessence and Phantom eras. From the conservation equation (5) we see that in Quintessence era $\rho$ is monotonic decreasing which reaches a local minima at the phantom crossing and increases again with the evolution of the universe as shown in Fig I. So the matter density has some short of bouncing behavior at the phantom crossing. However, if the universe starts contracting in phantom era (i.e., $H<0$) then conservation equation demands $\rho$ should still decreases in the phantom era and there is a point of inflexion at the phantom barrier as shown in Fig.II . For both the possibilities in phantom era $\rho$ has peculiar behavior when matter is exotic in nature (i.e., $ \rho+p<0$). In the first case when universe is expanding $\rho$ also increases in the phantom era indicating some matter creation phenomena (of unknown nature) during that epoch. On the other hand, when universe starts contraction in the phantom era, $\rho$ still decreases, indicating destruction of mass in that era.
{height="2.5in" width="3in"}
Fig.I
Fig.I represents the variation of energy density with the evolution of the universe in an expanding model. The dotted vertical line denotes the phantom divide or phantom barrier line.
{height="2.5in" width="3in"}
Fig.II
Fig.II represents the variation of energy density in an contracting model of the universe in phantom era.
{height="2.5in" width="2.5in"}
Fig.III
Fig.III represents variation of event horizon and the apparent horizon respectively in an expanding universe model. The dotted vertical line again denotes the phantom divide line. As the previous diagrams left side of which is denoting the quintessence era whereas the right hand side represents the phantom era.
{height="2.5in" width="2.5in"}
Fig.IV
Like Fig.III, Fig.IV also represents two curves showing the variation of event horizon and apparent horizon. The dotted vertical line denotes the phantom divide line. The left side of which is denoting the quintessence era whereas the right hand side represents the phantom era.
We shall now present a comparative study of the evolution of the horizons across the phantom barrier with the expansion of the universe for the various DE matter distribution in the following tabular form\
[**Table I:comparative study of the two horizons across phantom barrier**]{}\
\
Quintessence Era Phantom Era
------------ --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Apparent (a)For HDE model apparent horizon \(a) For HDE model $R_{A}$ decreases with time.
Horizon increases with the evolution of the universe.
\(b) For other DE model the behavior \(b) $R_{A}$ has same behavior for other
is identical as HDE. DE model as in HDE.
Event (a)For HDE model event horizon \(a) For HDE model $R_{E}$ decreases with time
Horizon increases and hence from equation(\[13\]) and so we have $R_{E}<R_{A}$. The variations
we always have $R_{E}>R_{A}$. are schematically shown in figure $III$
\(b) $R_{E}$ has similar behavior as in HDE, (for \(b) For other DE model, $R_{E}$ may have
other DE models). behavior as in HDE model. Also $R_{E}$ may
still be an increasing function with the
evolution and the nature is schematically
shown in figure $IV$.
\
\
\
We have also studied in the last section the thermodynamics of the universe bounded by the horizons with different DE models. We have assumed the validity of the first law of thermodynamics and examined whether the GSLT holds or not. The conclusions from this thermodynamical study has been presented below in table II.\
[**Table II: Validity of GSLT for different DE model**]{}\
\
Quintessence Era Phantom Era
------------ ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universe (a)For HDE model GSLT is always \(a) GSLT is always satisfied for the HDE model.
bounded satisfied.
by the \(b) For other DE model GSLT is satisfied \(b) Across the phantom barrier GSLT is satisfied.
apparent throughout the evolution. \(c) GSLT will be satisfied provided $\left|1+\omega\right|>\frac{\rho_{m}}{\rho_{D}}$
horizon \(c) For non-interacting 2-fluid system
there is always validity of GSLT.
Universe (a)Thermodynamical system respects \(a) No restriction is needed for the validity
bounded GSLT for HDE model. of GSLT.
by (b)GSLT is obeyed for other DE model. \(b) Validity of GSLT depends on the behavior
the \(c) No restriction is needed for the validity of $R_{E}$. GSLT will be respected for the
event of GSLT for noninteracting 2-fluid system. fig $III$ while it will be violated for fig. $IV$.
horizon \(c) GSLT will be satisfied for variation
of $R_{E}$ according to fig $III$ provided
$|1+\omega|~<~\frac{\rho_{m}}{\rho_{D}}$.
\
\
\
Thus, from the above study we see that both the evolution of the horizons as well as the matter density have some strange behavior in the phantom era, i.e., across the phantom barrier line. therefore, for future work cosmological evolution in phantom region will be done more in details and also it will be interesting to explain the particle creation in the phantom era with the expansion of the universe and possibly the mechanism of particle creation may remove the possible future singularity.\
[**Acknowledgement :**]{}\
RB wants to thank West Bengal State Government for awarding JRF. NM wants to thank CSIR, India for awarding JRF. All the authors are thankful to IUCAA, Pune as this work has been done during a visit.
\
\
\
\
Akbar M., Cai R.G. : [*Phys. Lett B*]{} [**635**]{} (2006) 7.\
Allen, S. W. et al.: [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{}, [**353**]{}, (2004), 457 .\
A.G. Cohen , D.B. Kaplan and A.E. Nelson , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{} (1999) 4971.\
Barrow J. D. : [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**21**]{} (2004)L79.\
Bennett, C. L. et al.: [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**148**]{},(2003),1.\
Cai, R. G., Kim , S. P. :[*JHEP*]{} [**02**]{} (2005) 050.\
Caldwell, R. R. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**545**]{}, (2002) 23.\
Caldwell, R.R., Kamionkowski, M., Weinberg, N. N. : [*Phys. Rev.Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, (2003) 071301.\
Capozziello, S. : [*IJMPD*]{} [**11**]{} (2002) 483.\
Capozziello, S., Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D. :- [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**632**]{} 597 (2006)\
Carroll, S. M., Duvvuri, V. ,Trodden, M. ,Turner, M.S. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{} (2004) 043528.\
Copeland, E.J. , Sami, M., Tsujikawa , S. : [*IJMPD* ]{} [**15**]{} (2006) 1753.\
Davis, P.C.W. : [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**5**]{} (1998)1349.\
Durrer, R. , Marteens , R. : [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**40**]{} (2008) 301.\
Dutta, S. ,Saridakis, E. N., Scherrer, R. J. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**79**]{}, 103005 (2009).\
Elizalde, E, Nojiri, S.,Odintsov, S. D. :-[*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**70**]{} 043539(2004)\
Feng, B. , Wang, X. L.,Zhang, X. M. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{}[**607**]{}, 35 (2005).\
Feng, B., Li, M., Piao, Y.-S., Zhang, X. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**634**]{}, (2006) 101 .\
Guo, Z. K. et al. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**608**]{}, (2005) 177.\
Guo, Z. K.,Ohta, N., Zhang, Y. Z. : [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [*22*]{}, 883(2007).\
Lancoz C. : [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**39** ]{} (1938) 842.\
Li, M.-Z, Feng, B.,Zhang, X.-M : [*JCAP*]{}, [**0512**]{},(2005) 002.\
Liddle, A. R., Scherrer, R. J. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{}, 023509 (1999)\
Mazumder, N., Chakraborty, S. : [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**26**]{} 195016(2009).\
Mazumder, N., Chakraborty, S. : [*Gen.Rel.Grav.*]{}[**42**]{} 813 (2010).\
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{} (2003A)123512.\
Nojiri, S. , Odintsov, S. D. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**562**]{},(2003B) 147.\
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**72**]{}(2005) 023003.\
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{}(2006A) 086005.\
Nojiri , S., Odintsov , S. : [*Gen.Rel.Grav.*]{} [**38**]{} 1285,(2006B).\
Nojiri S., Odintsov, S.D. : [*Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**4**]{} (2007) 115.\
Nojiri , S., Odintsov , S. : [*arXiv:* ]{} [**0801.4843A**]{}\[astro-ph\].\
Nojiri , S. , Odintsov , S. : [*arXiv:*]{} [**0807.0685B**]{} \[hep-th\].\
Nojiri , S., Odintsov , S. : [*arXiv:* ]{} [**1011.0544v2** ]{}\[gr-qc\].\
Onemli, V. K. , Woodard, R. P. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{}, (2004) 107301.\
Padmanabhan, T. : [*Phys.Rept.*]{} [**380**]{} (2002) 235.\
Ratra B., Peebles, P. J. E. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**37**]{}, 3406(1988).\
Riess, A. G. et al.: [*AstroPhys J.*]{} [**607** ]{} (2004)665.\
Tegmark, M. et al.: \[SDSS Collaboration\], [*Phys. Rev. D*]{},[**69**]{}, (2004), 103501 .\
Sadjadi, H.M. : [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**73**]{}(2006) 063525.\
Sahni, V. : [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{} [**782**]{} (2005) 166 .\
Sahni, V. : [*J. Phys. Conf. Ser.*]{} [**31**]{} (2006) 115.\
Saridakis, E. N. : [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**819**]{}, (2009) 6116 .\
Setare, M. R. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**641**]{},(2006) 130.\
Setare, M. R., Sadeghi, J. , Amani, A. R. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**666**]{}, (2008A) 288.\
Setare, M. R., Sadeghi, J., Amani, A.R. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**660**]{}, (2008B) 299 .\
Setare M. R., Saridakis, E. N. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**668**]{}, (2008C) 177.\
Setare M. R., Saridakis, E. N. : [*JCAP*]{} [**0809**]{},(2008D) 026 .\
Setare M. R., Saridakis, E. N. : [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**18**]{},(2009A) 549 .\
Setare, M. R.,Saridakis, E. N. : [*JCAP*]{} [**0903**]{},(2009B)002.\
Shapiro, I. L., Sola, J. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**682**]{}, (2009) 105 .\
Sola, J., Stefancic, H. : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**624**]{},(2005) 147.\
Sola, J.,Stefancic, H. : [*Mod. Phys.Lett.A*]{} [**21**]{}, (2006) 479.\
Steinhardt, P. J.[*Critical Problems in Physics*]{} (1997),Princeton University Press.\
Wetterich,C. : [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**302**]{}, 668 (1988).\
Zhao, W., Zhang, Y. : [*Phys.Rev. D*]{} [**73**]{},(2006) 123509.\
Zlatev, I.,Wang, L. M., Steinhardt, P. J. : [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 896 (1999).\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: The diameter of the world wide web
---
Despite its increasing role in communication, the world wide web (www) remains the least controlled medium: any individual or institution can create websites with unrestricted number of documents and links. This unregulated growth leads to a huge and complex web, which is a large directed graph, whose vertices are documents and edges are the links (URLs) pointing from one document to another. The topology of this graph determines the web’s connectivity and, consequently, our effectiveness in locating information on the www. However, due to its large size (estimated to be at least $8\times10^8$ documents[@giles]), and the continuously changing documents and links, it is impossible to catalogue all vertices and edges. The challenge in obtaining a complete topological map of the www is illustrated by the limitations of the commercial search engines: Northern Light, the search engine with the largest coverage, is estimated to index only $38\%$ of the web[@giles]. While great efforts are made to map and characterize the Internet’s infrastructure[@clatty], little is known about what truly matters in searching for information, i.e., about the topology of the www. Here we take a first step to fill this gap: we use local connectivity measurements to construct a topological model of the www, allowing us to explore and characterize the large scale properties of the web.
To determine the local connectivity of the www, we constructed a robot, that adds to its database all URLs found on a document and recursively follows these to retrieve the related documents and URLs. From the collected data we determined the probability $P_{out}(k)$ ($P_{in}(k)$) that a document has $k$ outgoing (incoming) links. As Figs.$\,$1a and b illustrate, we find that both $P_{out}(k)$ and $P_{in}(k)$ follow a power-law over several orders of magnitude, remarkably different not only from the Poisson distribution predicted by the classical theory of random graphs by Erdős and Rényi[@erdos; @bollobas], but also from the bounded distribution found in recent models of random networks[@strogatz]. The power law tail indicates that the probability of finding documents with a large number of links is rather significant, the network connectivity being dominated by highly connected web pages. The same is true for the incoming links: the probability of finding very popular addresses, to which a large number of other documents point, is non-negligible, an indication of the flocking sociology of the www. Furthermore, while the owner of each web page has complete freedom in choosing the number of links on a document and the addresses to which they point, the overall system obeys scaling laws characteristic only of highly interactive self-organized systems and critical phenomena[@havlin].
To investigate the connectivity and the large-scale topological properties of the www, we construct a directed random graph consisting of $N$ vertices, assigning to each vertex $k$ outgoing (incoming) links, such that $k$ is drawn from the power-law distribution shown in Fig.$\,$1a and b. To achieve this, we randomly select a vertex $i$ and increase its outgoing (incoming) connectivity to $k_i+1$ if the total number of vertices with $k_i+1$ outgoing (incoming) links is less than $NP_{out}(k_i+1)$ ($NP_{in}(k_i+1)$). A particularly important quantity in a search process is the shortest path between two documents, $dl$, defined as the smallest number of URL links one needs to follow to navigate from one document to the other. As Fig.$\,$1c shows, we find that the average of $d$ over all pairs of vertices follows $\langle d\rangle= 0.35 + 2.06\log(N)$, indicating that the web forms a small-world network[@strogatz; @amaral], known to characterize social or biological systems. Using $N=8 \times 10^8$[@giles], we find $\langle d_{www}\rangle=18.59$, i.e., two randomly chosen documents on the web are on average 19 clicks away from each other. Since for a given $N$, $ d$ follows a Gaussian distribution, $\langle d\rangle$ can be interpreted as the [*diameter*]{} of the web, a measure of the shortest distance between any two points in the system. Despite its huge size, our results indicate that the www is a highly connected graph of average diameter of only $19$ links. The logarithmic dependence of $\langle d\rangle$ on $N$ is important to the future potential of the www: we find that the expected $1000\%$ increase in the size of the web over the next few years will change $\langle d\rangle$ from $19$ to only $21$. The relatively small value of $ d$ suggests that an intelligent agent, i.e., who can interpret the links and follow only the relevant one, can find in a short time the desired information by navigating the www. However, this is not the case for a robot, that locates the information based on matching strings: we find that such a robot, aiming to identify a document at distance $\langle d\rangle$, needs to search $M(\langle d\rangle)\simeq0.53N^{0.92}$ documents which, using $N=8\times10^8$[@giles], leads to $M=8\times 10^{7}$, i.e., to $10\%$ of the full www. This indicates that robots cannot benefit from the highly connected nature of the web, their only successful strategy being indexing as large a fraction of the www as possible.
The uncovered scale free nature of the link distributions indicates that collective phenomena play an unsuspected role in the development of the www[@physica], requiring us to look beyond the traditional random graph models[@erdos; @bollobas; @strogatz; @amaral]. A better understanding of the web topology, aided by modeling efforts, is crucial in developing search algorithms or designing strategies for making information widely accessible on the www. The good news is that, due to the surprisingly small diameter of the web, all that information is just a few clicks away.
[**Réka Albert, Hawoong Jeong and Albert-László Barabási**]{}\
[*Department of Physics,*]{}\
[*University of Notre-Dame, Notre Dame,*]{}\
[*Indiana 46556, USA*]{}\
[*email:[email protected]*]{}
Lawrence, S. and Giles, C. L., [*Nature*]{} [**400**]{}, 107-109 (1999). Claffy, K., Monk, T. E. and McRobb, D., [*Nature Web Matters*]{}, Jan. 7 (1999); http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/tomog.html Erdős, P. and Rényi, A., [*Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci*]{} [**5**]{}, 17-61 (1960). Bollobás, B., [*Random Graphs*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1985). Watts, D. J. and Strogatz, S. H., [*Nature*]{} [**393**]{}, 440-442 (1998). Bunde, A. and Havlin, S., [*Fractals in Science*]{} (Springer-Verlag, 1994). Barthélémy, M. and Amaral, L. A. N., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 3180-3183 (1999). Barabási, A.-L., Albert, R. and Jeong, H., http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/990768
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Gustav Holzegel[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'conslawbib.bib'
title: |
Conservation laws and flux bounds\
for gravitational perturbations\
of the Schwarzschild metric
---
Introduction
============
The study of gravitational perturbations of the Schwarzschild spacetime [@schwarzschild1916] in general relativity originates in the pioneering work of Regge and Wheeler [@Regge] more than 50 years ago. Despite a deepened understanding as well as significant refinements and generalizations over the years, see for instance [@Chandrasekhar; @Moncrief; @martelpoisson; @Whiting], a proof of the full linear stability of the Schwarzschild solution was only given in a recent paper of the author in collaboration with Dafermos and Rodnianski [@DHR]. The main result of [@DHR] can be stated as follows:
General solutions ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}$ of the system of gravitational perturbations on Schwarzschild arising from suitably normalised characteristic initial data remain uniformly bounded on the black hole exterior and in fact decay inverse polynomially to a linearised Kerr solution $\mathscr{K}$ after adding to ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}$ a dynamically determined pure gauge solution $\mathscr{G}$, which is itself uniformly bounded by initial data.
The proof of the above theorem relies on recent advances in the black hole stability problem [@KayWald; @Mihalisnotes; @BlueSoffer; @withYakov; @Holzegelspin2], specifically the complete understanding of the scalar wave equation on black hole exteriors. It provides a complete physical space theory for the study of gravitational perturbations adapting some of the classical insights into the structure of gravitational perturbations [@newmanpenrose; @Chandrasekhar; @bardeen1973; @whitingsurvey]. The key ingredients of the proof may be summarised as follows:
- expressing the linearised Einstein equations in a double null gauge
- a complete understanding of “pure gauge" solutions of the resulting linearised system (preserving the double null form) arising from the diffeomorphism invariance of the full non-linear theory
- exploiting the existence of gauge invariant quantities which *decouple* from the full system [@bardeen1973], in particular the Teukolsky null curvature components $\alpha$ and $\underline{\alpha}$
- a physical space transformation mapping solutions of the Teukolsky equation to solutions of the Regge-Wheeler equation, for whose solutions robust decay estimates can be derived (see [@Chandrasekhar] for a fixed frequency version of these transformations applied to individual modes)
- identifying a hierarchical structure in the linearised system allowing to estimate all remaining quantities *through transport equations*
As a byproduct of the proof in [@DHR] one obtains, from the estimates satisfied by the decoupled, gauge-invariant quantities alone, control over the gauge invariant flux[^2] of the linearised shear on the event horizon and the flux of the linearised (weighted) shear on null infinity. As the former can be interpreted as a measure of the total energy leaving through the horizon and the latter as a measure of total energy radiated to null infinity, one may view the boundedness of these fluxes as a weak form of stability. This boundedness alone can already be seen to imply, in particular, “mode stability".
While control over the aforementioned fluxes on the horizon and null infinity in terms of initial data is of course a much weaker stability statement than the full linear stability result of [@DHR] (the latter providing boundedness and decay for *all* dynamical quantities), one may ask whether one can obtain the weaker stability statement directly *without making use of the equations satisfied by decoupled quantities such as ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}$ and ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}$*. In this paper, we prove that this can indeed be done. We give here a rough version of our main theorem, Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] below:
\[theo:mtintro\] General solutions ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}$ of the system of gravitational perturbations arising from suitably normalised characteristic initial data satisfy the following properties: $$\PandocStartInclude{consintro3.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{145}{27}$$
1. The total energy flux of the linearised shear ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}$ along [**any**]{} outgoing null cone $C_{u}$ with $u \geq u_0$, $$\int_{C_u} |\Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 r^2 dv \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \, ,$$ is bounded by initial data, uniformly in $u$.
2. The total energy flux along the event horizon $\mathcal{H}^+$, $$\int_{\mathcal{H}^+} |\Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 r^2 dv \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \, ,$$ is bounded by initial data.
3. The total linearised gravitational energy flux radiated to null infinity $\mathcal{I}^+$ $$\int_{\mathcal{I}^+} |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 r^2 du \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \, ,$$ is bounded by initial data.
We remark immediately that we have stated the theorem for characteristic initial data for convenience (and to make manifest the geometric significance of the terms appearing in the initial data). The asymptotic fluxes are similarly controlled for solutions arising from spacelike initial data.
As mentioned above, the stability statement implicit in Theorem \[theo:mtintro\] is much weaker than the statement of [@DHR]. However, as we will see, the estimate itself requires less control on the initial data: While in [@DHR] certain (up to) second derivatives of curvature were required to be bounded initially to obtain control of the linearised shear on the event horizon, we prove here that initial boundedness of some of the metric and connection coefficients is sufficient to control the total energy fluxes through the event horizon and null infinity.
Key to the proof of Theorem \[theo:mtintro\] are certain conservation laws inherent in the system of gravitational perturbations at the level of the linearised metric and connection coefficients. The existence of such conservation laws for the system of gravitational perturbations on static and stationary axisymmetric vacuum and electro-vacuum spacetimes was pioneered by Friedman [@Friedman], Chandrasekhar [@Chandrasekhar; @Ferrari] and Wald and collaborators [@Lee; @Burnett], one motivation being a deeper conceptual understanding of the the reflection and transmission coefficients summing up to unity in the context of black hole scattering theory. At a very general level, one may understand the existence of conservation laws from the fact that the non-linear Einstein equations arise from a variational principle and that the background with respect to which the linearisation is performed admits a non-trivial timelike Killing field. Recently, the subject of conservation laws in black hole perturbation theory has been revived through important work of Hollands and Wald [@HollandsWald] (see also [@Iyer]), who introduced, for general static or stationary axisymmetric spacetimes, a notion of *canonical energy* based on the symplectic structure on the space of perturbations. See also [@Keir] for generalisations of the canonical energy.
For a general conservation law to be useful in controlling the dynamics of the system, one needs the associated energies to be coercive. Remarkably, the canonical energy of [@HollandsWald] in particular produces manifestly positive energy fluxes through the event horizon and null infinity for axisymmetric perturbations on stationary backgrounds, and for general perturbations if the background is static. Unfortunately, however, it has not yet been shown to produce non-negative energies on a foliation of spacelike slices connecting the event horizon and null infinity, even for gravitational perturbations on Schwarzschild, which is the case under consideration here. It is this fact which has prevented the direct use of the canonical energy to prove weak stability statements.
On the other hand, surprisingly perhaps, the positivity of the fluxes on the horizon and null infinity and the implied *monotonicity* of the canonical energy with respect to a foliation of spacelike slices can already be exploited to establish a weak form of *instability* in classes of spacetimes for which instability can be expected. The basic idea is that if one can find a perturbation of negative initial canonical energy, then the energy will remain negative by monotonicity, which in turn prevents future convergence to zero (or rather, to a pure gauge solution) of the perturbation. This insight goes back to [@Friedman; @HollandsWald] and has been exploited subsequently in [@GreenWald] where a form of superradiant instability is established for linear perturbations in the context of asymptotically anti-de Sitter black hole spacetimes in all dimensions.[^3] Moreover, from the negativity of the canonical energy one can, for a particular class of perturbations, deduce in fact exponential growth of those perturbations [@Prabhu].
Returning to the case of perturbations on Schwarzschild, we emphasise that the conservation laws presented in this paper will a priori also fail to produce manifestly non-negative energy fluxes on general null hypersurfaces, similar to the canonical energy on general spacelike slices discussed above.[^4] Our main achievement here – besides *stating* a conservation law *in a geometric form* based on a double null foliation– is therefore to establish certain positivity properties of the fluxes appearing in it by exploiting the gauge invariance (up to boundary terms) of the fluxes, so that the a priori control promised by Theorem \[theo:mtintro\] can indeed be deduced. Our argument proceeds along the following lines:
1. The conservation law (cf. Section \[sec:bcl\]) is expressed entirely in terms of fluxes through null hypersurfaces, the latter having the advantage that positive definiteness of fluxes is often easier to establish than on spacelike slices.
2. The fluxes appearing are shown to be invariant up to boundary terms (on round $2$-spheres) under the addition (or subtraction) of a large class of pure gauge solutions (PGS); see Section \[sec:ginv\].
3. Subtraction of a suitably chosen PGS, normalised to a fixed outgoing null hypersurface $C_{u_{fin}}$, can be exploited to demonstrate positive definiteness of the flux on that hypersurface *up to a boundary term*. Moreover, the linearised shear appearing in this flux is invariant under the subtraction of the PGS and hence controlled in $L^2$. See Section \[sec:gaugechoice\].
4. Taking the limit of the ingoing hypersurface to null infinity $\mathcal{I}^+$ shows positive definiteness of the corresponding flux (which asymptotes to the linearised shear in $L^2$) up to a boundary term which cancels the boundary term in $3.$ See Sections \[sec:ni\] and the proof in Section \[sec:maintheo\].
The main result emerging from these steps is Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] below. See also directly Corollary \[cor:mtheo\].
For completeness, we end the paper by stating a second, independent, conservation law for the system of gravitational perturbations together with the transformation properties of the corresponding fluxes, cf. Section \[sec:2con\]. Applications of the two conservation laws to the stability problem will be presented elsewhere.
Finally, we expect the conservation laws presented in this paper to generalise to the case of gravitational perturbations on Kerr and their positivity properties to persist at least for axisymmetric perturbations. See [@Dain] for a discussion of coercive conservation laws in the context of axisymmetric perturbations on *extremal* Kerr spacetimes. Note however the presence of the Aretakis instability [@Aretakis2; @Aretakis3] on the event horizon in the extremal case.
.
The system of gravitational perturbations
=========================================
In this section, we will write out the system of gravitational perturbations in the double null formulation as derived in [@DHR]. We begin by recalling a few notational conventions and introduce the differential operators on the Schwarzschild manifold that will appear in the equations in Section \[sec:prelim\]. In Section \[sec:dynq\] we introduce the dynamical quantities of the system and finally collect all equations of the system of gravitational perturbations in Sections \[=lmc\]–\[=lcc\]. The last subsection, Section \[sec:pg\], introduces a class of exact solutions to the system, *pure gauge solutions*, corresponding to infinitesimal diffeomorphisms of the non-linear theory. These will play an important role later.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
-------------
Let $(\tilde{\mathcal{M}},g)$ denote the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime. We denote by $\mathcal{M} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ the manifold with boundary which in Kruskal coordinates [@Wald] corresponds to $\left(0, U_0\right] \times \left[V_0,\infty\right) \times S^2_{U,V}$ with boundary being the event horizon $\mathcal{H}^+=\{0\} \times \left[V_0,\infty\right) \times S^2_{0,V}$. We will consider the linearised Einstein equations on $\left(\mathcal{M},g\right)$ with characteristic initial data defined on the null cones $U=U_0$ and $V=V_0$.
As carried out explicitly in Section 4 of [@DHR] we define from the Kruskal coordinate system a system of double null Eddington-Finkelstein (EF) coordinates in the interior of $\mathcal{M}$ via the relation $U=\exp\left(-u/2M\right)$ and $V=\exp\left(v/2M\right)$, determining in particular $u_0$ and $v_0$. See the figure below. In the interior of $\mathcal{M}$ we can write the Schwarzschild metric in EF coordinates (with $r$ given implicitly in terms of $u,v$ (in particular $\partial_v r =-\partial_u r=\Omega^2$), cf. [@DHR]) as $$g = -4\Omega^2 du dv + r^2\left(u,v\right) \left(d\theta + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2\right) \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{with \ $\Omega^2 := 1 - \frac{2M}{r}$}.$$ We also recall from [@DHR] the null frame $$e_3=\frac{1}{\Omega} \partial_u \ \ \ , \ \ \ e_4=\frac{1}{\Omega} \partial_v \ \ \ , \ \ \ e_1, e_2 \textrm{ a (local) frame on $S^2_{u,v}$}$$ and the associated notion of $S^2_{u,v}$-tensors, specifically $S^2_{u,v}$-scalars, $S^2_{u,v}$-one-forms and symmetric traceless $S^2_{u,v}$-tensors. The linearised equations will be written as a system of equations for such tensors.
The derivative operators $\slashed{\nabla}_3, \slashed{\nabla}_4$ act on these $S^2_{u,v}$-tensors and are defined as the projection of the spacetime covariant derivative in the direction of $\frac{1}{\Omega} \partial_u$ and $\frac{1}{\Omega} \partial_v$ respectively to the tangent space of $S^2_{u,v}$. See Section 4.3.1 of [@DHR].
The derivative operator $\slashed{\nabla}$ denotes the covariant derivative on $S^2_{u,v}$ equipped with the round metric on the sphere of radius $r\left(u,v\right)$, denoted $\slashed{g}$. The following special angular operators will appear repeatedly in the system: $$\slashed{div} \xi := \slashed{\nabla}^A \xi_A \ \ \ , \ \ \ \slashed{curl} \xi := \slashed{\epsilon}^{AB} \slashed{\nabla}_A \xi_B \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ ( \slashed{div} \, \theta)_B := \slashed{\nabla}^A \theta_{AB}$$ the first two mapping an $S^2_{u,v}$-one-form $\xi$ into a scalar and the last mapping a symmetric traceless tensor $\theta$ into a one-form. Here $\slashed{\epsilon}_{AB}$ denotes the components of the volume-form associated with $\left(S^2_{u,v}, \slashed{g}\right)$. We also define the operator $$\slashed{\mathcal{D}}_1^\star \left(h_1,h_2\right) := -\slashed{\nabla}_A h_1 + \slashed{\epsilon}_{AB} \slashed{\nabla}^B h_2$$ mapping a pair of functions $h_1,h_2$ into an $S^2_{u,v}$ one-form. Note that its $S^2_{u,v}$-adjoint is the operator $\slashed{\mathcal{D}}_1^\star \xi := \left(\slashed{div} \xi, \slashed{curl} \xi\right)$ mapping an $S^2_{u,v}$-one-form $\xi$ into a pair of functions. Finally, we define $$2\slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star \xi := -\slashed{\nabla}_A \xi_B -\slashed{\nabla}_B \xi_A + \slashed{g}_{AB} \left(\slashed{\nabla}^C \xi_C\right)$$ mapping a one-form $\xi$ into a symmetric traceless tensor on $S^2_{u,v}$. Note that $\slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star$ is the adjoint of $\slashed{div}$.
The dynamical quantities {#sec:dynq}
------------------------
We now recall the dynamical quantities of the system of gravitational perturbations. See again [@DHR] for details. The dynamical quantities are
- the linearised metric coefficients $$\frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}} \ ,\ {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}\, ,$$ which are two scalars, a one-form and a symmetric traceless two-tensor on $S^2_{u,v}$,
- the linearised connection coefficients $${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\, ,$$ which are four scalars, two one-forms and two symmetric traceless two-tensors on $S^2_{u,v}$,
- the linearised curvature components $${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\ ,\ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\ ,\ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\ ,\ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}$$ which are three scalars[^5], two one-forms and two symmetric traceless $S^2_{u,v}$-tensors.
As in [@DHR] we will also write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scollect}
\mathscr{S}=\left(\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ to denote the collection of all dynamical quantities and refer to a solution of the system of gravitational perturbations by $\mathscr{S}$. Furthermore, linearised metric and connection coefficients will sometimes be denoted collectively by $\Gamma$, linearised curvature components by $R$.
\[rem:smooth\] Because the above linearised quantities are defined with respect to a null frame which is not regular on the event horizon [@DHR], the following linearised quantities can be shown to extend smoothly to the event horizon $\mathcal{H}^+$, cf. in particular Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of [@DHR]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{regq1}
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\, , \, \Omega^{-2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}, \Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \, \Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\, , \, \Omega^{-2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\, , \,
\Omega^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\, , \, \Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\, , \, \Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\, , \, \Omega^{-2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}. \end{gathered}$$
In the following subsections we collect the system of equations satisfied by the dynamical quantities introduced above. These are taken directly from [@DHR], where they are also formally derived by explicit linearisation of the vacuum Einstein equations, $$Ric \left[\boldsymbol{g}\right] = 0 \, .$$ Here we only collect the Schwarzschild background values appearing in the equations below: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^2 = 1- \frac{2M}{r} \ \ , \ \ tr \chi = - tr \underline{\chi} = \frac{2}{r}\Omega \ \ , \ \ \omega=\Omega \hat{\omega} = -\underline{\omega} =-\Omega \hat{\underline{\omega}} = \frac{M}{r^2} \ \ , \ \ \rho = - \frac{2M}{r^3} \ \ , \ \ K = \frac{1}{r^2}. \end{aligned}$$
Equations for the linearised metric components {#=lmc}
----------------------------------------------
The following equations hold for the linearised metric components, ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\, , \, {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stos}
\partial_u \left(\frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}\right) = {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\qquad , \qquad
\partial_v \left(\frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}\right) = {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}- \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stos2}
\sqrt{\slashed{g}}\, \partial_u \left( \frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}_{AB}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}} \right) =2\Omega\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}_{AB}
\ \ \ , \ \ \
\sqrt{\slashed{g}}\, \partial_v \left( \frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}_{AB}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}} \right) &=2\Omega\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}_{AB} + 2\left(\slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}\right)_{AB} ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bequat}
\partial_u {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}^A = 2 \Omega^2\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}^A - {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}^A\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{oml3}
\partial_v \left( {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) = {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\textrm{ \ , \ } \partial_u \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)={\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\textrm{ \ , \ } 2 \slashed{\nabla}_A \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) = {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}_A + {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}_A.\end{aligned}$$
Equations for the linearised Ricci coefficients {#=lRc}
-----------------------------------------------
For ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}$ we have the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtcb}
\partial_v {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}= \Omega^2 \left( 2 \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}+ 2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ 4 \rho \, {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) - \frac{1}{2} \Omega tr \chi \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbtc}
\partial_u {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}= \Omega^2 \left( 2 \slashed{div}\, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ 4\rho \, {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) - \frac{1}{2} \Omega tr \chi \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uray}
\partial_v {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}= - \left(\Omega tr \chi\right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+ 2 \omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+ 2 \left(\Omega tr \chi \right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vray}
\partial_u {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}= - \left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+ 2 \underline{\omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+ 2 \left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi} \right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}},\end{aligned}$$ while for ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}$ we have $$\label{tchi}
\begin{split}
\slashed{\nabla}_3 \left(\Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) + \Omega^{-1} \left(tr \underline{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}= -\Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}\, , \\
\slashed{\nabla}_4 \left(\Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) + \Omega^{-1} \left(tr{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}= -\Omega^{-1} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chih3}
\slashed{\nabla}_3 \left(\Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}+ \frac{1}{2} \left( \Omega tr \chi\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}&= -2 \Omega \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\, , \\
\slashed{\nabla}_4 \left(\Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \left(\Omega tr \chi \right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}+ \frac{1}{2} \left( \Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}&= -2 \Omega \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\, . \label{chih3b}\end{aligned}$$ We also have the (purely elliptic) linearised Codazzi equations on the spheres $S^2_{u,v}$, which read $$\begin{split}
\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}= -\frac{1}{2} \left(tr \underline{\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}+ \frac{1}{2\Omega} \slashed{\nabla}_A {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}, \\
\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}= -\frac{1}{2} \left( tr {\chi}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}-{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ \frac{1}{2\Omega} \slashed{\nabla}_A {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\label{ellipchi} \, .
\end{split}$$ For ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}$ and ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}$ we have the transport equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{propeta}
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}= \frac{1}{2} \left(tr \underline{\chi}\right) \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\right) + {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\textrm{ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ }
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}= - \frac{1}{2} \left( tr {\chi}\right) \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\right) - {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}},\end{aligned}$$ together with the elliptic equations on the spheres $S^2_{u,v}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{curleta}
\slashed{curl} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}= {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\ \ \ , \ \ \ \slashed{curl} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}= -{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\, .\end{aligned}$$ We finally have the transport equations for ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}$ and ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{oml1}
\partial_v {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}= -\Omega \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ 2 \rho {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{oml2}
\partial_u {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}= -\Omega \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ 2 \rho {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and the linearised Gauss equation on the spheres $S^2_{u,v}$, which reads $$\label{lingauss}
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}= -{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}- \frac{1}{4} \frac{tr {\chi}}{\Omega}\left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right) +\frac{1}{2}{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\left(tr \chi tr \underline{\chi} \right) \, .$$
Equations for linearised curvature components {#=lcc}
---------------------------------------------
We finally collect the equations satisfied by the linearised curvature components, which arise from the linearisation of the Bianchi equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}+ \frac{1}{2} tr \underline{\chi}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}+ 2 \underline{\hat{\omega}} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}&= -2 \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}- 3 \rho\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\, , \label{Bianchi1} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ 2 (tr \chi) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}- \hat{\omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}&= \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\, , \label{Bianchi2} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ (tr \underline{\chi}) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ \underline{\hat{\omega}} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}&= \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_1^\star \left(-{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\, \right) + 3\rho \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\, , \label{Bianchi3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ \frac{3}{2} (tr \chi) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}= \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\rho}{\Omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\, , \label{Bianchi4}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}+ \frac{3}{2} (tr \underline{\chi}) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}= -\slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\rho}{\Omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\, , \label{Bianchi5}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}+ \frac{3}{2} (tr \chi) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}&= -\slashed{curl}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\, , \label{Bianchi6} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}+ \frac{3}{2} (tr \underline{\chi}) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}&= -\slashed{curl}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\, , \label{Bianchi7} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}+ (tr \chi) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}+ \hat{\omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}&= \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_1^\star \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\, , \, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}\, \right) - 3 \rho\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\, , \label{Bianchi8} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}+ 2 (tr \underline{\chi}) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}- \hat{\underline{\omega}} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}&= - \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}\, , \label{Bianchi9} \\
\slashed{\nabla}_4 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}+ \frac{1}{2} (tr \chi) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}+ 2 \hat{\omega} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}&= 2 \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}- 3 \rho\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\, . \label{Bianchi10}\end{aligned}$$
A class of pure gauge solutions {#sec:pg}
-------------------------------
There exist special solutions to the system of gravitational perturbations above which correspond to infinitesimal coordinate transformations preserving the double null form of the metric. These are called *pure gauge solutions* of the system of gravitational perturbations. A particular subset of them is identified in the following Lemma, which is proven as Lemma 6.1.1 of [@DHR]. Recall the notation $\Delta_{S^2}=r^2 \slashed{\Delta}$, so $\Delta_{S^2}$ is the Laplacian on the unit sphere with metric $\gamma$.
\[lem:exactsol\] For any smooth function $f=f\left(v,\theta,\phi\right)$, the following is a pure gauge solution of the system of gravitational perturbations: $$\begin{aligned}
2{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}&= \frac{1}{\Omega^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2\right) , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}&= - \frac{4}{r} r^2 \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star \slashed{\nabla}_A f \ , &\frac{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}}}}{\sqrt{\slashed{g}}} &= \frac{2\Omega^2 f}{r} + \frac{2}{r} r^2 \slashed{\Delta}f , \nonumber \\
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}&= -2r^2 \slashed{\nabla}_A \left[ \partial_v \left(\frac{f}{r}\right)\right] , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}&= \frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} r \slashed{\nabla} f , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}&= \frac{1}{\Omega^2} r \slashed{\nabla} \left[\partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2}{r}f\right) \right] \nonumber \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}&= -2\frac{\Omega}{r^2} r^2 \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star \slashed{\nabla} f , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}&= 2 \partial_v \left(\frac{f \Omega^2}{r}\right) , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}&= 2\frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} \left[\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^2} f - f \left(1-2\Omega^2\right) \right] , \nonumber \\
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}&= \frac{6M \Omega^2}{r^4} f , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}&= \frac{6M\Omega}{r^4} r \slashed{\nabla} f , & {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}&= -\frac{\Omega^2}{r^3}\left(\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^2} f + 2f\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}= {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}= {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}= 0 \ \ \ , \ \ \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}= 0 \ \ \ , \ \ \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}= 0 \nonumber \, .$$ We will call $f$ a gauge function.
The class of solutions {#sec:cls}
======================
In [@DHR] we discussed the characteristic initial value problem for the above system of gravitational perturbations. In particular, a notion of smooth characteristic seed initial data was defined to which a unique smooth solution of the system was associated, cf. Theorem 8.1 of [@DHR]. We also defined a notion of asymptotically flat seed initial data. When we talk about a solution $\mathscr{S}$ below, we will always mean a smooth solution arising from the characteristic future initial value problem posed on two null cones $$C_{u_0} =\{ u_0 \} \times \{v \geq v_0\} \times S^2 \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ C_{v_0} =\{ u \geq u_0 \} \times \{v \} \times S^2$$ as illustrated by the figure in the introduction. The restriction to smooth is of course not needed but convenient in the considerations below.
In [@DHR] we exhibited a $4$-parameter family of explicit solutions to the system of gravitational perturbations, the linearised Kerr solutions, denoted collectively by $\mathscr{K}$. These solutions are supported only on the spherical harmonics $\ell=0,1$. We proved in Theorem 9.2 of [@DHR] that any solution of the system supported only on the harmonics $\ell=0,1$ is equal to the sum of (a member of) $\mathscr{K}$ and an (explicit) pure gauge solution. This fact allows one to restrict to solutions supported on $\ell\geq 2$:
Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a solution of the system of gravitational perturbations. We say that $\mathscr{S}$ is supported on $\ell \geq 2$, if any scalar quantity of $\mathscr{S}$ has vanishing projection to the $\ell=0$ and $\ell=1$ spherical harmonics (see [@DHR]) and if any one-form $\xi$ of $\mathscr{S}$ satisfies that the scalars $\slashed{div} \xi$ and $\slashed{curl} \xi$ have vanishing projection to the $\ell=1$ spherical harmonic.
Adding pure gauge solutions $\mathscr{G}$ to a given solution $\mathscr{S}$ can moreover be used to achieve certain gauge conditions on the initial data (“normalise the data"). We recall them below. Compared with [@DHR] we distinguish here between “partially" initial data normalised and “fully" initial data normalised solutions supported on $\ell \geq 2$. This is merely to state the theorem of this paper with minimal assumptions.
We call $\mathscr{S}$ a [**partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$**]{} of the system of gravitational perturbations if $\mathscr{S}$ is supported on $\ell \geq 2$ and the initial data satisfies
1. The horizon gauge conditions, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hgc}
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\left(\infty,v_0,\theta,\phi\right)=0 \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ \left(\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\right) \left(\infty,v_0,\theta,\phi\right)=0 \, . \end{aligned}$$
2. The basic round sphere condition at infinity, i.e. the linearised Gauss-curvature satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{v \rightarrow \infty} r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}\left(u_0,v,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \ \ \ \ \textrm{along the null hypersurface $C_{u_0}$.} \label{rsc}\end{aligned}$$
Note that both horizon gauge conditions are evolutionary, i.e. a solution $\mathscr{S}$ satisfying (\[hgc\]) satisfies ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}=0$ and $\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}=0$ along *all* of $\mathcal{H}^+$. This follows directly from the transport equations for these quantities along $\mathcal{H}^+$. Similarly, the round sphere condition can be seen to be evolutionary, i.e. $r^2K^{(1)}$ vanishes as $v\rightarrow \infty$ along any cone $C_u$ with $u_0 \leq u<\infty$. See Proposition 9.4.1 and Corollary A.1 of [@DHR].
We call $\mathscr{S}$ a [**fully initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$**]{} if it is partially initial data normalised supported on $\ell \geq 2$ and if the initial data of $\mathscr{S}$ satisfy in addition
1. The second round sphere condition at infinity, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{v \rightarrow \infty} r^2 \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\hat{\slashed{g}}}}\left(u_0,v,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \ \ \ \ \textrm{holds along the null hypersurface $C_{u_0}$.} \label{rscm}\end{aligned}$$
2. The lapse and shift gauge condition, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lapsegc}
{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}= w\left(\theta,\phi\right) \ \ \ \ \textrm{holds along both $C_{u_0}$ and $C_{v_0}$}\end{aligned}$$ for a smooth function $w\left(\theta,\phi\right)$ on the unit sphere which has vanishing projection to $\ell=0,1$, and $${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{b}}=0 \textrm{ \ \ \ \ holds along $C_{u_0}$.}$$
Partially and fully initial data normalised solutions supported on $\ell \geq 2$ will typically be denoted by ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ consistent with the notation in [@DHR].
Below we also want to take certain limits of the solution as $v \rightarrow \infty$ for fixed $u$ (or a fixed bounded subset of $u$ values). For this, the following definition is convenient:
\[def:extendskri\] We call a solution $\mathscr{S}$ [**extendible to null infinity**]{} if the following weighted quantities of $\mathscr{S}$ have well-defined finite limits on null infinity[^6] for some $0<s<1$ $$\label{decreten}
\begin{split}
r^{3+s} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\alpha}}}\ , \ r^{3+s}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\ , \ r^3{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}, \ r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}, \ r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\ , \ r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\alpha}}}\ , \ r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{K}}\, , \\
r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\ , \ r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\ , \ r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\ , \ r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\ , \ r^2 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\, , \, r^3 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\ , \ r^{2+s} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\ , \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\ , \ r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\ , \ r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\ , \ {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\, .
\end{split}$$ In addition, denoting an arbitrary representative of the quantities in (\[decreten\]) by $\mathcal{Q}$, for any fixed $u_{fin}$ with $u_0<u_{fin}<\infty$ the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\left[u_0,u_{fin}\right] \times \{ v\geq v_0\} \times S^2} |\mathcal{Q}| \leq C\left[u_{fin}\right]\end{aligned}$$ holds with the constant $C\left[u_{fin}\right]$ depending only on $u_{fin}$ (and the initial data) but not on $v$.
In Theorems 9.1 and 9.2 of [@DHR] and Theorem A.1 of the appendix of [@DHR] we proved the following statement, which expresses the fact that there is no restriction in considering [**fully initial data normalised solutions supported on $\ell \geq 2$ which are extendible to null infinity**]{}:
Given asymptotically flat to order $n\geq 12$ smooth characteristic seed initial data set (see Definition 8.2 of [@DHR]) with corresponding solution $\mathscr{S}$, we can construct a pure gauge solution $\mathscr{G}$ of the system of gravitational perturbations and a linearised Kerr solution $\mathscr{K}$, both explicitly computable and controllable from the seed data, such that ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime=\mathscr{S}+\mathscr{G}-\mathscr{K}$ is a fully initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ which is extendible to null infinity.
Our distinction between partially and fully initial data normalised above emphasises that we will only exploit the validity of a subset of the gauge conditions of [@DHR] on the solution to obtain our main theorem. We note in particular that both the initial data normalised solution ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ and the horizon-renormalised solution ${\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ of [@DHR] are partially initial data normalised in the language of this paper.
We end this section with the following simple observation (see the quantity ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{Z}}$ in [@DHR]):
\[prop:idc\] Consider ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$. As $u \rightarrow \infty$ along the initial cone $C_{v_0}$ we have $$r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}-4 \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\left(v_0,u,\theta,\phi\right) = \mathcal{O}\left(\Omega^4\right)$$ and also the angular commuted version $$r^2 \slashed{\Delta} \left( r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}-4 \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\left(v_0,u,\theta,\phi\right)\right) = \mathcal{O}\left(\Omega^4\right) \, .$$
Equations (\[dbtc\]), (\[oml2\]) along $C_{v_0}$ yield $$\partial_u \left( r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}- 4M \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) = -\frac{8M}{r^2} \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}+\frac{8M}{r^2} \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\Omega^4\right) \, ,$$ where we have used the horizon gauge conditions and the smoothness of the solution at the horizon (cf. Remark \[rem:smooth\]). By the horizon gauge condition (\[hgc\]), the quantity in brackets vanishes on the horizon and hence integration yields the desired result. The second claim follows by trivial commutation and the smoothness of the solution.
The basic conservation law {#sec:bcl}
==========================
In this section we define, for a smooth solution of the system of gravitational perturbations, basic energy fluxes on null hypersurfaces (Section \[sec:eflux\]). For $\mathscr{S}$ a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ that is extendible to null infinity we explicitly obtain the limiting fluxes on the horizon and null infinity. Finally, we state and prove a conservation law relating the fluxes (Section \[sec:cl\]).
The energy fluxes {#sec:eflux}
-----------------
Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a smooth solution of the system of gravitational perturbations (cf. Section \[sec:cls\]). For any $u_0\leq u_1<u_2 \leq \infty$ and $v_0\leq v_1 < v_2 \leq \infty$ let us define the fluxes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vflux}
F_v \left[\Gamma , \mathscr{S} \right] \left(u_1,u_2\right)= \int_{u_1}^{u_2} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \Bigg[ -2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}- \frac{1}{2} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
- \frac{4M}{r^2} \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+2\Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 + \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uflux}
F_u \left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_1,v_2\right)= \int_{v_1}^{v_2} d v \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \Bigg[ -2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- \frac{1}{2} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
+ \frac{4M}{r^2} \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+2\Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2 + \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \Bigg] \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the flux (\[vflux\]) remains well defined at the horizon, i.e. in the limit $u_2 \rightarrow \infty$ by the smoothness of the solution at the horizon. Similarly, for a solution that extends to null infinity (cf. Definition \[def:extendskri\]) the flux (\[uflux\]) remains well defined as $v_2 \rightarrow \infty$ for any fixed $u$.
### The flux on the horizon
If the solution $\mathscr{S}={\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ is partially initial data normalised supported on $\ell \geq 2$ we have for any fixed $v_0 \leq v_1<v<\infty$ the horizon limit $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aq}
F_{\infty}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_1,v\right) = \lim_{u \rightarrow \infty} F_{u}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_1,v\right) = \int_{v_1}^v d v \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \left[ \Omega^2 | {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ since ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}=0$ on $\mathcal{H}^+$ and the quantities $\Omega^{-2}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}$ and ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}$ are regular on the event horizon. In fact, one easily sees that the validity of the horizon gauge condition ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}=0$ on $S^2_{\infty,v_0}$ alone for a general $\mathscr{S}$ is sufficient for concluding the limit (\[aq\]).
### The flux on null infinity {#sec:ni}
To investigate the limiting flux on null infinity, we consider $\mathscr{S}={\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ which extends to null infinity (cf. Definition \[def:extendskri\]). Let us fix $u_0 \leq u_1<u_2<\infty$ and a large $v$ which we will eventually send to infinity. Note that we have $v\sim r$ in $\mathcal{M} \cap \{v\geq v_0\} \cap \{u_1 \leq u \leq u_2\}$ with the constant implicit in $\sim$ depending on $u_1,u_2,v_0$. From (\[lingauss\]) we have $$r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}= -4 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}+ \mathcal{O}\left(r^{-1}\right) \ \ \ \ \textrm{along any cone $C_{u}$ with $u<\infty$.}$$
We now observe that the third term in the integrand of (\[vflux\]) will vanish in the limit $v\rightarrow \infty$ while the first, second and fourth will combine to a pure boundary term. The details are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
-2 \int_{u_1}^{u_2} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ & r^2 \sin \theta \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}= -2\int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi r^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\Bigg|^{u_2}_{u_1} \nonumber \\
&+2 \int_{u_1}^{u_2} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \ {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\left(2 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}- \frac{1}{r}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+ \mathcal{O} \left(r^{-3}\right)\right) \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the transport equation (\[dbtc\]) and recalled ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\sim r^{-2}$ from Definition \[def:extendskri\]. By the same definition ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\sim r^{-2}$ and hence we see that in the limit $$\begin{aligned}
\label{niflux}
\lim_{v \rightarrow \infty} F_{v} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(u_1,u_2\right) = & \lim_{v \rightarrow \infty} \int_{u_1}^{u_2} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \left(u,v\right) \nonumber \\
+ &\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2}\int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\left(u,v\right)\Bigg|^{u_2}_{u_1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This is reminiscent of the Bondi mass loss formula, with the first term on the right hand side representing the flux of gravitational energy between retarded times $u_1$ and $u_2$. We summarise the above as
\[prop:nullit\] Let ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ be a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ that extends to null infinity (Definition \[def:extendskri\]). Then for $u_0 \leq u_1<u_2<\infty$ the flux (\[vflux\]) satisfies (\[niflux\]) in the limit on null infinity.
The conservation law {#sec:cl}
--------------------
The following conservation law holds:
\[prop:conslaw\] Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a solution to the system of gravitational perturbations.\
For any $u_0<u_1< u_2\leq \infty$ and $v_0 < v_1<v_2 < \infty$ we have the conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
F_v\left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(u_0,u_1\right)+ F_u \left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_0,v_1\right) = F_{v_0} \left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(u_0,u_1\right) + F_{u_0}\left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_0,v_1\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Direct computation using the null structure and Codazzi equations. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_v \left( r^2 \Big[ -2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}- \frac{1}{2} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\right)^2
- \frac{4M}{r^2} \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+2\Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 + \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \Big] \right) \nonumber \\
=-2 \left(r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right) \left(-\Omega^2 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)\right) - 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}r^2 \left(+ \frac{2M}{r^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+\frac{4\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\right) \nonumber \\
- r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\cdot r \left( \Omega^2 \left[ 2 \slashed{div} \underline{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{8M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] + \frac{\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)
-4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\nonumber \\
-4M \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) \left( \Omega^2 \left[ 2 \slashed{div} \underline{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{8M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] - \frac{\Omega^2}{r} \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right) \right) \nonumber \\
+4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 + 4r \Omega^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\left( + \Omega^2 \underline{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} - \Omega r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}\right)
+ 2r \Omega{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\cdot \Omega \left(\Omega^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}- 2\Omega r \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star \underline{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_u \left(r^2 \Big[ -2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- \frac{1}{2} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)^2
+ \frac{4M}{r^2} \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+2\Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2 + \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \Big]\right) \nonumber \\
=-2 \left(r^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\right) \left(-\Omega^2 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)\right) - 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}r^2 \left(-\frac{2M}{r^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}-\frac{4\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\right) \nonumber \\
- r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\cdot r \left(\Omega^2 \left[ 2 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{8M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] - \frac{\Omega^2}{r}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\right) + 4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\nonumber \\
+ 4M \left( {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right) \left(\Omega^2 \left[ 2 \slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{8M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] - \frac{\Omega^2}{r} \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}- {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)\right)\nonumber \\
-4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2 + 4r \Omega^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\left( - \Omega^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ \Omega r {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}\right)
+ 2r \Omega {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\cdot \Omega \left(-\Omega^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}- 2\Omega r \slashed{\mathcal{D}}_2^\star {\eta} \right) \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Summing the two expressions and integrating over $\int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi$ (which we do not write out, instead “$\equiv$" indicates equality after this integration) we find the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\equiv -2 r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\left(-\Omega^2 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)\right) - 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}r^2 \left(+ \frac{2M}{r^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+\frac{4\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\right) \nonumber \\
- 2r^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\cdot \left( \Omega^2 \left[ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] \right)
-4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\nonumber \\
-2 r^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\left(-\Omega^2 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3}{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)\right) - 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}r^2 \left(-\frac{2M}{r^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}-\frac{4\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\right) \nonumber \\
- 2r^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\cdot \left(\Omega^2 \left[ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}-\frac{4M}{r^3} {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right] \right) + 4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\nonumber \\
+ 4M \left( {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)\Omega^2 \left( 2 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}- 2 \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\right) \nonumber \\
+4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 -4r^2 \Omega^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) -4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2
+ 4 r^2 \Omega^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}- \slashed{div}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From this further cancellations in the first two lines are obvious and an additional integration by parts yields $$\begin{aligned}
\equiv - 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}r^2 \left(+\frac{2M}{r^2}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}+ \frac{4\Omega^2}{r}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}\right)
- 2r^2{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\cdot \Omega^2 \left[ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\right]
-4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\nonumber \\
- 2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}r^2 \left(-\frac{2M}{r^2}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}-\frac{4\Omega^2}{r} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}\right)
- 2r^2 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\cdot \Omega^2 \left[ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\right] + 4M \cdot {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\nonumber \\
+ 8M \Omega^2 {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\left( \slashed{div}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}- \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\right)
+4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 -4r^2 \Omega^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}+ \slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) -4M \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2
+ 4 r^2 \Omega^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}\left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}- \slashed{div}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right) \nonumber \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is seen to vanish after a further integration by parts in the angular variables and inserting the linearised Codazzi equation (\[ellipchi\]).
The following figure illustrates the conservation law for a region bounded by the initial cones $C_{u_0}$ and $C_{v_0}$ and the future null cones given by $u_1=u_{fin}$ and $v_1=v_{fin}$. This is how it will be applied later. $$\PandocStartInclude{consss.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{638}{23}$$
Gauge invariance of the $u$-flux modulo boundary terms {#sec:ginv}
======================================================
In this section, we compute how the flux $F_u\left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_1,v_2\right)$ transforms under the addition of a pure gauge solution generated by a gauge function $f\left(v, \theta,\phi\right)$. To derive these formulae we will not need any gauge conditions on the solution. We have
\[prop:gaugechange\] Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a solution of the system of gravitational perturbations. Let $f\left(v,\theta,\phi\right)$ be a smooth gauge function generating a pure gauge solution $\mathscr{G}$ of the system of gravitational perturbations as in Lemma \[lem:exactsol\]. Finally, set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{S} = \tilde{\mathscr{S}} + \mathscr{G}\end{aligned}$$ thereby defining a new solution $\tilde{\mathscr{S}}$. Then the flux on fixed constant-$u$ hypersurfaces satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
F_u \left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_0,v\right)= F_u \left[\Gamma, \tilde{\mathscr{S}}\right] \left(v_0,v\right) + \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi\left( \mathcal{G} \left(v, u,\theta,\phi\right)-\mathcal{G} \left(v_0, u,\theta,\phi\right)\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{finge}
\mathcal{G} \left(v, u,\theta,\phi\right) = & \left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 \frac{6M}{r^2}
- \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}}-{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}} \right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}} \nonumber \\
&+ f \Omega^2 \left(2r^2 \left(-\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\right)
- f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts ${\mathscr{S}}$ or ${\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}$ indicate whether the geometric quantity is associated with the solution ${\mathscr{S}}$ or ${\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}$. In other words, the difference of the fluxes in the old and in the new gauge is a pure boundary term.
According to Lemma \[lem:exactsol\], the *integrand* of the $u$-flux in (\[uflux\]) changes to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{newintegrand}
f_u\left[\Gamma, \mathscr{S}\right] := -2 \left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_v \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right) \right) \left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2\frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} \left(\Delta_{S^2} f + f \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right) \nonumber \\
- \frac{1}{2} \left( {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2 \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \right)^2 \nonumber \\
+ \frac{4M}{r^2} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right) \left( {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2 \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \right) \nonumber \\
+2\Omega^2 \Big|{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \Omega^{-2} r \slashed{\nabla} \left(\partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right)\right) \Big|^2 +\Omega^2 |{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}|^2 .$$ Upon expanding there are three types of terms in (\[newintegrand\]): The first type will produce the (integrand of the) flux in the new gauge, the second are mixed terms (“involving one $f$") and the third are the remaining terms (involving two $f$’s). As the terms of the first type are easily collected we focus on the latter two. We keep the convention that “$\equiv$" denotes equality after integration over the unit $S^2$ (which allows integration by parts over the angular variables).
### Mixed terms {#mixed-terms .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} \equiv - {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \ \partial_v \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right) - 4 {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} \left(\Delta_{S^2} f + f \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \nonumber \\
-2{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \ \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) + \frac{8M}{r^2} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \nonumber \\
+ \frac{2M}{r^2} \Omega^{-2} \partial_v \left(f\Omega^2\right) {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} - 4 r \slashed{div}\, {{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}} \ \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
We denote these six terms by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} \equiv \mathcal{A}_1 + \mathcal{A}_2 + \mathcal{A}_3 + \mathcal{A}_4 +\mathcal{A}_5 + \mathcal{A}_6 \, .\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a1com}
\mathcal{A}_1 \equiv &-\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(r^2 {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{ \partial_v (f\Omega^2)}{r}\left[2 r \slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2r {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}- \frac{8M}{r^2} {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} +{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} +{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right] \, , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a2com}
\mathcal{A}_2 \equiv -\frac{4}{r^2} \partial_v \left( {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \left(\Delta_{S^2} f\Omega^2 + f \Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right)+ \frac{16M}{r^4} f \Omega^4 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \nonumber \\
+ 2 \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + \slashed{div}\, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}} \right)_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \partial_v \left(f\Omega^2\right) + \frac{4}{r^2} \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \ \partial_v \left(f\Omega^2\right) \end{aligned}$$ and we can therefore write $\mathcal{A}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &\equiv
\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 f\right) \Big[ 2\slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}
-\frac{1}{r}\Omega^{-2} \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{4}{r^2} \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right){{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}
+\frac{1}{r} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \Big] \nonumber \\
&+ f\Omega^2 \left[\frac{8M}{r^4} \Omega^2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2 \frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{4}{r} \Omega^2 \slashed{div}\, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right] +\mathcal{B}_1 + \mathcal{B}_2 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{B}_1$ and $\mathcal{B}_2$ are the boundary terms (i.e. the first term of (\[a1com\]) and (\[a2com\]) respectively) encountered above. We now write the term multiplying $\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 f\right)$ as a boundary term: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} \equiv \mathcal{B}_1 + \mathcal{B}_2 +\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \left(\frac{2}{r} r^3 \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\right) \right) \nonumber \\ + \frac{2}{r} \Omega^4 f \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)
- 2\frac{\Omega^2}{r} f \left(\Omega^2 \slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \Omega^2 \slashed{div}\, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{3M}{r^2}{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\
- \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\ - f\Omega^2 \left( \frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{8M}{r^3}\right) {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}
+4 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \frac{f\Omega^2}{r^2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \nonumber \\
+ 4 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left( f\Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right){{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\
- 4 \frac{1}{r^2} f\Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right){{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} - \frac{16M}{r^4} f \Omega^4 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \nonumber \\
+ \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \cdot r {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right)\nonumber \\
- \frac{f\Omega^4}{r^2} \left[2 r \slashed{div}\,{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2r {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} - \frac{8M}{r^2} {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right] \nonumber \\
+ f\Omega^4 \left[\frac{8M}{r^4} {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + 2 \frac{1}{r^2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{4}{r} \slashed{div} \,{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right] \nonumber \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that all terms which are not boundary terms cancel. For the above we have used the evolution equation (which holds for both ${\mathscr{S}}$ and ${\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}$ as the pure gauge solution is a solution of the system) $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_v \left(r^3 \left(\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\right)\right) = \Omega^2 r^2 \slashed{div} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}\right)+ 3M {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\end{aligned}$$ which is easily derived from (\[Bianchi4\]) and (\[propeta\]), as well as the propagation equations (\[uray\]) and (\[dtcb\]).
We summarise this as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} \equiv &-\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(r^2 {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{4}{r^2} \partial_v \left( {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \left(\Delta_{S^2} f\Omega^2 + f \Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \left(\frac{2}{r} r^3 \left(\slashed{div} \,{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\right) \right) \nonumber \\
&- \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\
&+ 4 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left( f\Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \cdot r {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} \equiv &-\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(r^3 {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v \left(\frac{f\Omega^2}{r}\right)\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \left(2r^2 \left(-\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}+ {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right)\right) \right) \nonumber \\
&- \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
### Remaining terms {#remaining-terms .unnumbered}
We turn to the remaining quadratic terms in (\[newintegrand\]) since the terms which produce the flux expression in the new gauge are easily taken care of. Here we have $$\begin{aligned}
-2 \left( \partial_v \left(\Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right) \right) \left( \frac{\Omega^2}{r^2} \left(\Delta_{S^2} f + f \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right)
- 2 \left(\partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \right)^2 \nonumber \\
+ \frac{4M}{r^2} \left(\frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\right) \left( 2 \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right) \right)
+2\Omega^{-2} \Big| r \slashed{\nabla}_A \left(\partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right)\right) \Big|^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and we will refer to this expression as $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}} = \tilde{\mathcal{A}}_1 + ... + \tilde{\mathcal{A}}_4\end{aligned}$$ We have (recall $\gamma$ denotes the round metric on the unit sphere) $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_1 &= -\frac{2}{r^2} \partial_v \left( \Omega^{-2} \partial_v (f\Omega^2)\left(\Delta_{S^2} f\Omega^2 + f \Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{2}{r^2} \Omega^{-2} \partial_v \left(f \Omega^2\right) \left(\Delta_{S^2} \partial_v ( f \Omega^2)+ \partial_v (f \Omega^2) \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) + f \Omega^4 \frac{4M}{r^2} \right) \nonumber \\
&\equiv-\frac{2}{r^2} \partial_v \left( \Omega^{-2} \partial_v ( f\Omega^2)\left(\Delta_{S^2} f\Omega^2 + f \Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right)+\frac{4M}{r^2} \partial_v \left( \frac{1}{r^2} (f\Omega^2)^2 \right) \nonumber \\
&- \frac{2}{r^2} \Omega^{-2} |\partial_v \left(\nabla_{S^2} f \Omega^2\right)|_{\gamma}^2 + \frac{2}{r^2} \Omega^{-2} \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) | \partial_v (f\Omega^2)|^2 + \frac{8M}{r^5} f^2 \Omega^6 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_2 &= -2 \frac{1}{r^2} \left(\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 f\right) \right)^2+2 \frac{\Omega^2}{r^3} \partial_v \left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 - 2 \frac{f^2 \Omega^8}{r^4} \nonumber \\
&=-2 \frac{1}{r^2} \left(\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 f\right) \right)^2+2 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2}{r} \left( \Omega^2 f\right)^2\right) - \frac{4M}{r^5} \Omega^6 f^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_3 &= \frac{4M}{r^3} \Omega^{-2} \left(\partial_v (f \Omega^2)\right)^2 - \frac{2M}{r^4} \partial_v \left(f\Omega^2\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&=\frac{4M}{r^3} \Omega^{-2} \left(\partial_v (f \Omega^2)\right)^2 - \frac{2M}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{1}{r^2} \left(f\Omega^2\right)^2\right) - \frac{4M}{r^5} \Omega^6 f^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_4 &= +2 \frac{\Omega^{-2}}{r^2} |\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right)|_{\gamma}^2-2 \frac{1}{r^3} \partial_v \left|\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right|_{\gamma}^2 + 2 \frac{|\nabla_{S^2} f|_{\gamma}^2 \Omega^6}{r^4} \nonumber \\
&= +2 \frac{\Omega^{-2}}{r^2} |\partial_v \left(\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right)|_{\gamma}^2-2 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{1}{r} \left|\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right|_{\gamma}^2\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We see that all terms except boundary terms cancel and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}} &= -\frac{2}{r^2} \partial_v \left( \Omega^{-2} \partial_v ( f\Omega^2)\left(\Delta_{S^2} f\Omega^2 + f \Omega^2 \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) \right) \right)+\frac{4M}{r^2} \partial_v \left( \frac{1}{r^2} (f\Omega^2)^2 \right) \nonumber \\
&+2 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2}{r} \left( \Omega^2 f\right)^2\right)
- \frac{2M}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{1}{r^2} \left(f\Omega^2\right)^2\right)-2 \frac{1}{r^2} \partial_v \left(\frac{1}{r} \left|\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right|_{\gamma}^2\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is also a pure boundary term.
### Summary {#summary .unnumbered}
In summary, we have proven the desired proposition for $\mathcal{G}$ being $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G} \left(v, u,\theta,\phi\right) = -\frac{2}{r} \left|\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right|_{\gamma}^2 + \left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 \left(\frac{2}{r} - \frac{2M}{r^2}\right) - \Omega^{-2} r^3 \partial_v \left(\frac{\Omega^2 f}{r}\right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}} \nonumber \\
-rf \Omega^2 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}} - {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) + f \Omega^2 \left(2r^2 \left(-\slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
- f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which can be simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G} \left(v, u,\theta,\phi\right) = + \left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 \left(\frac{2}{r} - \frac{2M}{r^2}\right)
- \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}}-{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right){\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}} \nonumber \\
-\frac{2}{r}f \Omega^4 \left(\Delta_{S^2} f + f \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right)\right) + f \Omega^2 \left(2r^2 \left(-\slashed{div} \, {\underline{\eta}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
- f \Omega^2 \cdot \frac{1}{r}\left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) r^2 \Omega^{-2} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} -\frac{2}{r} \left|\Omega^2 \nabla_{S^2} f\right|_{\gamma}^2\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and after further integration by parts in the angular variables to the expression appearing in (\[finge\]).
Choice of the gauge function normalised to the cone $C_{u_{fin}}$ {#sec:gaugechoice}
=================================================================
Let ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ be a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$. Fix an outgoing null cone $C_{u_{fin}}$ for some $u_{fin} > u_0$. We will now define a particular gauge function, normalised to the null cone $C_{u_{fin}}$, which will generate a pure gauge solution $\mathscr{G}$ through Lemma \[lem:exactsol\], which when subtracted from ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ will produce positivity of the flux $F_{u_{fin}} \left[\Gamma, {\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime={\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime-\mathscr{G}\right]$. Specifically, we define the gauge function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{choicef}
f \left(v, \theta,\phi \right) = \frac{r}{\Omega^2} \left(u_{fin}, v,\theta,\phi\right) \int_{v_0}^{v} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},\bar{v}, \theta, \phi\right) d\bar{v} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $f\left(v_0, \theta,\phi\right)=0$. We have
\[lem:newval\] Under the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:gaugechange\] with $\mathscr{S}={\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ and with $f$ defined as in (\[choicef\]) generating a pure gauge solution $\mathscr{G}$, we have on the null hypersurface $C_{u_{fin}}$ the following identities for the geometric quantities of ${\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime:={\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime - \mathscr{G}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fit}
2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = 2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right) = \left( 2{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}-\frac{r}{2\Omega^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
r^3 \left( \slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \right) \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = \ & r^3 \left( \slashed{div}\, {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \left(r\left(u_{fin},v\right) - r\left(u_{fin},v_0\right) \right) \Delta_{S^2} \left( 2{{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Suppressing the dependence on $\theta,\phi$ in the notation for the proof, we have from Lemma \[lem:exactsol\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right) = {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right)+ 2 \partial_v \left(\frac{f \Omega^2}{r}\right)\left(u_{fin},v\right) \, \end{aligned}$$ and the first claim of the Lemma follows. From the transport equation for ${{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right)$ along $u=u_{fin}$, (\[uray\]), we conclude that ${{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right)=0$ for any $v \geq v_0$. We also have $$\begin{aligned}
2{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} =2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} + \frac{r}{2\Omega^2} \left( {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} - {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\right) + \frac{f \Omega^2}{r} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore (using that ${{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right)=0$ for any $v \geq v_0$) , along $u=u_{fin}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\left(u_{fin},v\right) = 2 {{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) = \left(2{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}-\frac{r}{2\Omega^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ To verify the last claim of the Lemma note first that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) = \left(\slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} +{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) \, \end{aligned}$$ since $f\left(v_0,\theta,\phi\right)=0$. Moreover, along $u_{fin}$ we have the evolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yu}
\partial_v \left(r^3 \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v\right) \right) = \Omega^2\Delta_{S^2} \left(2{{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since the expression multiplying $\Omega^2$ on the right hand side is constant along $u=u_{fin}$ by the identity (\[fit\]), integration of (\[yu\]) yields the claim.
\[rem:hozlimit\] Note that since ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ is partially initial data normalised supported on $\ell \geq 2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \left(\slashed{div} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}+ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \, \end{aligned}$$ and from (\[fit\]) and Proposition \[prop:idc\] also $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = \lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \, \end{aligned}$$ and the angular commuted version $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \slashed{\Delta} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) = \lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \slashed{\Delta} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_0,\theta,\phi\right) = 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$
One can define the gauge function $f$ in (\[choicef\]) also on the horizon $u_{fin}=\infty$ by taking an appropriate limit. This would recover the horizon-normalised gauge of [@DHR]. In this paper, however, we are only going to use $f$ defined for $u_{fin} <\infty$ and take the limit as $v\rightarrow \infty$. See Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] below.
The main theorem {#sec:maintheo}
================
We are now ready to state the main theorem. We first define, for any $u>u_0$ the following initial data energy on $C_{u_0} \cup C_{v_0}$ associated with ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ a partially initial data normalised solution supported on $\ell \geq 2$ which extends to null infinity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dataedef}
\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u\right) := & F_{u_0} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(v_0,\infty\right) + F_{v_0} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u_0,u\right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{2} \lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \left(r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\left(u_0,v,\theta, \phi \right)\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ This energy is continuous in $u$, uniformly bounded for all $u>u_0$ (by the regularity of the solution near the horizon) and it can be computed explicitly from the data. We also define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dataedefl}
\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] :=\lim_{u \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that this limit is again well-defined by the regularity of the solution. Note also that at this point, we do not know whether $\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u\right)$ or $\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] $ is non-negative, however we will deduce the non-negativity of the total initial energy $\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right]$ *a posteriori* from the following theorem:
\[theo:mtheo\] Consider ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ a partially initial data normalised solution of the system of gravitational perturbations supported on $\ell \geq 2$ which is extendible to null infinity. Let the associated initial energy $\mathcal{E}_{data}\left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right]$ be as defined in (\[dataedef\]). Then for any fixed $\infty>u_{fin} > u_0$ the following estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \int_{v_0}^{\infty} dv \int_{S^2} r^2 \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \ |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\Omega|^2 \left(u_{fin},v,\theta,\phi\right) \nonumber \\
+&\limsup_{v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \int_{u_0}^{u_{fin}} d u \int_{S^2} r^2 \sin \theta d\theta d\phi |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \left(u,v_{fin},\theta,\phi\right)
\leq \mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u_{fin}\right)+ \mathcal{R}\left(u_{fin},v_0\right) , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the remainder term on the right hand side defined in terms of the initial data as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}\left(u_{fin},v_0\right) &= \frac{1}{M} \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \Bigg[ 4 |r^3 \left(\slashed{div}{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{} + {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}_{}\right)|^2
+ 16\Big| r \Delta_{S^2} \left( {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}-\frac{r}{4\Omega^2} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}\right)\Big|^2 \Bigg] \left(u_{fin},v_{0},\theta,\phi\right) \nonumber \\
&+\int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{}\left(u_{fin},v_{0},\theta,\phi\right)\end{aligned}$$ and satisfying $$\lim_{u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{R}\left(u_{fin},v_0\right) =0 \, .$$
As the proof will involve subtracting a pure gauge solution from the solution ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$, we will use subscripts ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ to denote the geometric quantities associated with the solution ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ for the duration of the proof, i.e. we write $\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}={\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}$, ${\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}={\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}$ etc.
Applying Proposition \[prop:conslaw\] in the initial data gauge yields for any $u_{fin}, v_{fin}$ fixed the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mit}
F_{u_{0}} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_0,v_{fin}\right)
+ F_{v_0}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(u_0,u_{fin}\right)
= F_{u_{fin}} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_0,v_{fin}\right)
+ F_{v_{fin}}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(u_0,u_{fin}\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The strategy now, roughly, is to establish positivity up to a boundary term of the terms on the right hand side and then to take that boundary term to the left. The resulting expression on the left will be converted to $\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u_{fin}\right)$ after taking the limit $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$.
The details are as follows. Define $${\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime = {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime - \mathscr{G} \, ,$$ where $\mathscr{G}$ is the pure gauge solution generated by the $f$ chosen in (\[choicef\]), cf. Lemma \[lem:exactsol\]. Using Proposition \[prop:gaugechange\] and Lemma \[lem:newval\], the flux $F_{u_{fin}}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_0,v_{fin}\right)$ transforms according to (recall $f\left(v_0,\theta,\phi\right)=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sc1}
F_{u_{fin}}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] &\left(v_0,v_{fin}\right) = F_{u_{fin}}\left[\Gamma, {\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(v_0,v_{fin}\right) + \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \Bigg[ \left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 \frac{6M}{r^2} \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right)
\nonumber \\
&- \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\right) \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 \left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \right) \left(u_{fin},v_{0}\right) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{f \Omega^2}{r} \left(2r^3 \left(+\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\right) \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right)- \frac{f\Omega^2}{r} 2r^3 \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}} + \slashed{div} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} \right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right) \Bigg] \, , \end{aligned}$$ while Proposition \[prop:nullit\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sc2}
F_{v_{fin}} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(u_0,u_{fin}\right) = & \int_{u_0}^{u_{fin}} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \Big|\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\Big|^2 \left(u,v_{fin}\right)
\nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int \sin \theta d\theta d\phi r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right)
\nonumber \\
&-\frac{1}{2}\int \sin \theta d\theta d\phi r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{0},v_{fin}\right) \nonumber \\
&+\textrm{terms vanishing in the limit $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:newval\] and noting $\left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}=\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}$ we simplify the sum of (\[sc1\]) and (\[sc2\]) to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemu}
F_{u_{fin}}\left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(v_0,v_{fin}\right) &+ F_{v_{fin}} \left[\Gamma, {\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime \right] \left(u_0,u_{fin}\right) = \nonumber \\
& \int_{v_0}^{v_{fin}} dv \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi r^2 \sin \theta \left[ \Big|\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \Omega\Big|^2 + 2\Omega^2 \Big|\left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\Big|^2 \right] \left(u_{fin},v\right) \nonumber \\
&+\int_{u_0}^{u_{fin}} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \Big|\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\Big|^2 \left(u,v_{fin}\right) + Q \, ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the extra term $Q$ is given by (use Lemma \[lem:newval\]) $$\begin{aligned}
Q= \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi \Bigg[ &\left(\Omega^2 f\right)^2 \frac{6M}{r^2} \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right)
\nonumber \\
+ & \frac{1}{2} \Omega^{-2} r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{fin},v_{0}\right)
- \frac{1}{2} r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{0},v_{fin}\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{f \Omega^2}{r} \left(u_{fin},v_{fin}\right) \cdot \left(2r^3 \left(+\slashed{div}{{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}}_{} + {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}_{}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} -4 r \Delta_{S^2} \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \right) \left(u_{fin},v_{0}\right) \Bigg]\nonumber \\
&+\textrm{terms vanishing in the limit $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that a cancellation (up to a term vanishing in the limit $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$) has appeared between the first term in the second line of (\[sc1\]) and the term in the second line of (\[sc2\]). Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the expression for $Q$ exploiting the positive first term we can estimate $$Q \geq -\mathcal{R} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) -\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi r^3 {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \left(u_{0},v_{fin}\right) +\textrm{terms vanishing as $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$} \, .$$ Inserting this back into (\[lemu\]) and combining (\[lemu\]) with (\[mit\]) we conclude after taking the limit $v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \left(u_{fin}\right) + \mathcal{R} \left(u_{fin},v_0\right) &\geq
\int_{v_0}^{\infty} dv d\theta d\phi r^2 \sin \theta \left[ \Big|\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \Omega\Big|^2 + 2\Omega^2 \Big|\left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime} \Big|^2 \right] \left(u_{fin},v\right) \nonumber \\
&\ \ \ +\limsup_{v_{fin} \rightarrow \infty} \int_{u_0}^{u_{fin}} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta \Big|\left({\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}\right)_{{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}\Big|^2 \left(u,v_{fin}\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the estimate claimed in the theorem. The conclusion about the limit of $\mathcal{R}\left(u_{fin},v_0\right)$ follows directly from the horizon gauge condition satisfied by ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ and Remark \[rem:hozlimit\] in conjunction with (\[fit\]).
The estimates derived in the proof of Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] give more control than explicitly stated. In particular, the gauge function $f$ is controlled (we dropped a good term in the expression for $Q$) and so is $\left({{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}}\right)_{{\accentset{\land}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime}$. This will be exploited in future work.
Taking the limit $u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$ in Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] we see that we must have $\mathcal{E}_{data}\left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right]\geq 0$. Note also that the formula for $\mathcal{E}_{data}\left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right]$ simplifies considerably for a fully initial data normalised solution.
Taking the limit $u_{fin} \rightarrow \infty$ and using that the pointwise limit of the quantity $r{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}$ actually exists on null infinity (in view of the solution ${\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime$ being extendible to null infinity), we conclude control on the energy fluxes through the event horizon and null infinity:
\[cor:mtheo\] With the assumptions of Theorem \[theo:mtheo\] we have that
- the total flux of the linearised shear on null infinity is bounded: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xz}
\int_{u_0}^{\infty} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \ r^2 \sin \theta |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\hat{\chi}}}}|^2 \left(u,\infty,\theta,\phi\right) \leq \mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \, ,\end{aligned}$$
- the total flux of the linearised shear on the horizon is bounded: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{v_0}^{\infty} dv \int_{S^2}d\theta d\phi r^2 \sin \theta \left[ |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\hat{\chi}}}}\Omega|^2 \right] \left(\infty,v,\theta,\phi\right) \leq \mathcal{E}_{data} \left[{\underaccent{\lor}{\mathscr{S}}}^\prime\right] \, .\end{aligned}$$
Note that the quantity appearing on the left hand side of (\[xz\]) is the total amount of gravitational radiation measured by far away observers.
A second conservation law {#sec:2con}
=========================
We end the paper by stating a second conservation law. Unlike the first, it will involve curvature components, which is why we denote the corresponding fluxes by $F\left[\Gamma,R,\mathscr{S} \right]$. More precisely, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vflux2}
F_v \left[\Gamma,R,\mathscr{S} \right] \left(u_1,u_2\right)= \int_{u_1}^{u_2} d u \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \sin \theta \Big[ 3Mr {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\omega}}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}-3M \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) {\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}\nonumber \\
+\frac{1}{2} \Omega^2 r^4 \left(|{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}|^2 + |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}|^2\right) -3Mr \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}|^2 + \frac{1}{2} r^4 \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\beta}}}|^2 \Big]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uflux2}
F_u \left[\Gamma,R, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(v_0,v\right)= \int_{v_0}^v d v \int_{S^2} d\theta d\phi \sin \theta \Big[ 3Mr {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\omega}}{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}+3M \left(1-\frac{4M}{r}\right) {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\nonumber \\
+\frac{1}{2} \Omega^2 r^4 \left(|{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}|^2 + |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\sigma}}}|^2\right) -3Mr \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\underline{\eta}}}|^2 + \frac{1}{2} r^4 \Omega^2 |{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\beta}}}|^2 \Big] \, .\end{aligned}$$ The following conservation law holds:
\[prop:conslaw2\] For any $u_0<u_1< u_2<\infty$ and $v_0 < v_1<v_2 < \infty$ we have the conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
F_v\left[\Gamma,R, \mathscr{S} \right] \left(u_0,u_1\right)+ F_u \left[\Gamma,R,\mathscr{S}\right] \left(v_0,v_1\right) = F_{v_0} \left[\Gamma,R,\mathscr{S}\right] \left(u_0,u_1\right) + F_{u_0}\left[\Gamma,R,\mathscr{S}\right] \left(v_0,v_1\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Straightforward computation.
We have the following analogue of Proposition \[prop:gaugechange\]:
\[prop:gaugechange2\] Let $f\left(v,\theta,\phi\right)$ be a smooth gauge function generating a pure gauge solution of the system of gravitational perturbations as in Lemma \[lem:exactsol\]. Then the flux on fixed constant-$u$ hypersurfaces satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
F_u \left[\Gamma_{}, R_{},\mathscr{S}\right] \left(v_0,v\right)= F_u \left[\Gamma,R,\tilde{\mathscr{S}}\right] \left(v_0,v\right) + \int_{S^2} \sin \theta d\theta d\phi\left( \mathcal{G} \left(v, u,\theta,\phi\right)-\mathcal{G} \left(v_0, u,\theta,\phi\right)\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G} = 3M r \left( \left({\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}\right)_{{\mathscr{S}}} \ {\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}_{{\mathscr{S}}} - \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \ {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \underline{\chi}\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right)
- 3M^2 \left( \frac{f}{r} {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\left(\Omega tr \chi\right)}}}_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right) \nonumber \\
+ 12M^2 \left(\frac{1}{r^2} f\Omega^2 \left({{\Omega^{-1}\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\Omega}}}\right)_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} \right)
-3M f \Omega^2 r \left(\slashed{div} \, {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{{\eta}}}} + {{\accentset{\scalebox{.6}{\mbox{\tiny (1)}}}{\rho}}} \right)_{{\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}} + \frac{3M}{2} \Big| \nabla_{S^2} \frac{f \Omega^2}{r} \Big|^2- \frac{6M^2}{r^3} \left(f\Omega^2\right)^2 \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the differences of the fluxes in the old and in the new gauge is a pure boundary term.
Straightforward computation.
Similar arguments to those presented in Sections \[sec:gaugechoice\] and \[sec:maintheo\] lead to control of additional fluxes. These will be exploited elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
================
I acknowledge support through an ERC grant. I am grateful to Martin Taylor and Thomas Johnson for checking many of the computations and to Mihalis Dafermos for several insightful comments and useful suggestions during the preparation of the manuscript.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: strictly speaking it is only a *residual gauge invariance* as certain partial gauge choices on the horizon always need to be made in order to estimate the flux
[^3]: See also [@Dold] for an explicit construction of exponentially growing modes in the context of the massive wave equation on $4$-dimensional Kerr-AdS spacetimes.
[^4]: It is an interesting question whether the conservation law satisfied by the canonical energy of [@HollandsWald] can be directly related to the two conservation laws presented in this paper.
[^5]: Strictly speaking $\sigma$ is a two-form on $S^2_{u,v}$ but can be identified by duality with a scalar as it has to be proportional to the volume form.
[^6]: In particular, for every $u \geq u_0$ fixed the limit of the quantity along the null cone $C_{u}$ as $v \rightarrow \infty$ is well-defined.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'One of the main contributions which Volker Weispfenning made to mathematics is related to Gröbner bases theory. In this paper we present an algorithm for computing all algebraic intermediate subfields in a separably generated unirational field extension (which in particular includes the zero characteristic case). One of the main tools is Gröbner bases theory. Our algorithm also requires computing primitive elements and factoring over algebraic extensions. Moreover, the method can be extended to finitely generated ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras.'
author:
- |
Jaime Gutierrez[^1]\
Dpto. de Matemáticas, Estadística y Computación, Univ. de Cantabria\
E–39071 Santander, Spain\
[email protected]
- |
David Sevilla\
Department of Computer Science, Concordia University\
Montreal H3G 1M8, QC, Canada\
[email protected]
title: Computation of unirational fields
---
Introduction
============
The goal of this paper is to study the problem of computing intermediate fields between a rational function field and a given subfield of it. Rational function fields arise in various contexts within mathematics and computer science. Two examples are the factorization of regular maps in algebraic geometry [@Sha77] and the reparametrization of parametric varieties in computer aided geometric design [@AGR99].
The question of the structure of the lattice of such intermediate fields is of theoretical interest by itself; we will focus on the computational aspects, like deciding if there are proper intermediate fields and computing them in the affirmative case.
In the univariate case, the problem can be stated as follows: given an arbitrary field ${\mathbb{K}}$ and $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in{\mathbb{K}}(t)$, find a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{F}}\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{K}}(t)$. By Lüroth’s Theorem, see [@Wae64], or [@Sch82] for a constructive proof by Netto, there exist functions $f,h\in{\mathbb{K}}(t)$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)={\mathbb{K}}(f)$ and ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(h)$. Therefore, our problem is equivalent to decomposing the rational function $f$, that is, to find $g,h\in{\mathbb{K}}(t)$ with $\deg\,g$, $\deg\,h>1$ such that $f=g(h)$. Algorithms for decomposition of univariate rational functions can be found in [@Zip91] and [@AGR95].
We denote by ${\mathbb{K}}$ an arbitrary field and by ${\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)={\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ the rational function field in the variables ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$. In the multivariate case, the problem can be stated as:
\[problem-1\] Given rational functions $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$, compute a proper unirational field ${\mathbb{F}}$ between ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$, if it exists.
A *unirational* field over ${\mathbb{K}}$ is an intermediate field ${\mathbb{F}}$ between ${\mathbb{K}}$ and ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$. We know that any unirational field is finitely generated over ${\mathbb{K}}$, see [@Nag93]. Thus, by computing an intermediate field we mean that such a finite set of generators is to be calculated.
Regarding algorithms for this problem, see [@MS99], where the authors generalize the method of [@AGR95] to several variables, by converting this problem into the calculation of a primary ideal decomposition. Primary ideal decomposition can be computed by Gröbner bases. The book [@BW93] is an excellent reference guide to this important theory and its applications. Once the primary ideal decomposition is computed in a polynomial ring with $2n$ variables, their algorithm requires to check a exponential number of generators of the possible intermediate proper subfields — although authors do not study its complexity in detail. On the other hand, the solution is trivial and uninteresting for most choices of $f_1,\ldots,f_m$, since it is easy to construct infinitely many intermediate fields when the transcendence degree of ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$ is smaller than $n$, as the next theorem shows.
If $n>{\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)/{\mathbb{K}})$, there exist infinitely many different fields between ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
At least one of $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is transcendental over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$, let us assume that $x_1$ is. Then the fields $${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^k)\ ,\quad k\in{\mathbb{N}}$$ form an infinite set of different intermediate fields. Indeed, if $i$ divides $j$, $${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^j)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^i).$$
It is clear that one field is contained in the other. To prove that they are not equal, assume that $x_1^i\in{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^j)$. Then there exists a rational function $h(t)$ such that $x_1^i=h(x_1^j)$ where $h\in{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,t)$ but $h\not\in{\mathbb{K}}(t)$. Then we have the polynomial relation $$x_1^i\cdot h_D(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^j)-h_N(f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_1^j)=0,$$ (where $h_N$, $h_D$ denote the numerator and denominator of $h$ resp.) which contradicts $x_1$ being transcendental over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$.
Due to this result, we will focus on the following version of the problem.
\[prob-alg\] Given functions $f_1,\ldots,f_m \in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$, find all the fields ${\mathbb{F}}$ between ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ that are algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$.
First, we will prove that there are finitely many algebraic intermediate fields if the original extension is separable. The notion of separable extension can be generalized to non-algebraic extensions. In transcendental extensions, separability means that any finitely generated subfield ${\mathbb{F}}$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$ has a separating basis, that is, a transcendence basis $B$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(B)\subset
{\mathbb{F}}$ is an algebraic separable extension. The following is a well known result, see for instance [@Lan67].
\[cor-sep\] The field extension ${\mathbb{K}}\subset {\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ is separable.
In general, if ${\mathbb{K}}'$ is a separable extension of ${\mathbb{K}}$, then every field between ${\mathbb{K}}$ and ${\mathbb{K}}'$ is separable over ${\mathbb{K}}$. Details on separability and a proof of these results can be found in [@Nag93] and [@Lan67].
As we said, any unirational field is finitely generated over ${\mathbb{K}}$. The following result provides a bound for the number of generators and it is known for zero characteristic field. Our algorithm always returns this bound as the number of generators.
\[cota-gens\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be a unirational field such that ${\mathbb{K}}\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{F}}\subset{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ and $d={\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{F}}/{\mathbb{K}})$. Then there exist $h_1,\ldots,h_s\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ such that ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(h_1,\ldots,h_s)$ and $s\leq d+1$.
By Proposition \[cor-sep\] we have ${\mathbb{K}}\subset {\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ is separable, that is, for each subfield ${\mathbb{F}}$ in ${\mathbb{K}}\subset {\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}}) $ there exists a transcendence basis $\{h_1,\dots,h_d\}$ of ${\mathbb{F}}$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(h_1,\dots,h_d)\subset {\mathbb{F}}$ is algebraic separable. Then, the result follows by the Primitive Element Theorem.
Because of the previous results we have the following theorem.
If the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is separable then there exist finitely many intermediate fields that are algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}_0$ be the minimum subfield of ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ that contains all algebraic intermediate fields. ${\mathbb{F}}_0$ is clearly algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$, and due to the previous theorem the extension ${\mathbb{F}}_0/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is separable. On the other hand, since ${\mathbb{F}}_0$ is a unirational field is finitely generated over ${\mathbb{K}}$, see Theorem \[cota-gens\]. Therefore, because of the Primitive Element Theorem the extension is simple and there are finitely many fields between ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_0$.
Problem \[prob-alg\] for transcendence degree of ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)/{\mathbb{K}}$ is 1 has been treated in [@GRS01]. In this case a generalization of the classical Lüroth’s Theorem applies:\
**Extended Lüroth’s Theorem** Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be a field such that ${\mathbb{K}}\subset{\mathbb{F}}\subset{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and ${\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{F}}/{\mathbb{K}})=1$. Then there exists $f\in{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ such that ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(f)$. Also, if the field contains a polynomial, then a polynomial generator exists.\
By the Extended Lüroth’s Theorem, the problem is equivalent to the following: given $f\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$, find $g\in{\mathbb{K}}(y)$ and $h\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ with $\deg\,g$, $\deg\,h>1$ such that $f=g(h)$. The paper [@GRS02] provides a very efficient constructive proof of the above result and it also contains different decomposition algorithms for multivariate rational functions. In some sense, Problem \[prob-alg\] can be seen as a generalization of the univariate rational function decomposition problem.
In this paper we will combine several techniques of computational algebra to create an algorithm that finds all the intermediate fields that are algebraic over the smaller field. Moreover, our method can be extended to finitely generated ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras, that is, the case where the ambient field is ${\mathbb{K}}(z_1,\ldots,z_n)={\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{z}})$ for some $z_1,\ldots,z_n$ transcendental over ${\mathbb{K}}$ (that need not be algebraically independent), and ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{z}})$ is the quotient field of a polynomial ring, so that we have $${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{z}})=QF\left({\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]/I\right)$$ (where $QF$ denotes the quotient field of a domain) for some prime ideal $I\subset{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]$ that will be given explicitly by means of a finite system of generators. Unsurprisingly, the algorithm will be much simpler when ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ is rational, that is, when $I=(0)$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce several algebraic tools in order to manipulate fields and the elements in them. Section 3 is devoted to the algebraic case, and in Section 4 the general case is reduced to it, also other approaches to this are given. Section 5 briefly describes the adaptation of the algorithm to ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras. Finally, in Section 6 we summarize the main conclusions of this research and consider some open problems.
Algebraic tools
===============
In this section we will introduce several techniques and tools of general interest for the manipulation of fields and functions.
*Notation.* Through this paper, we will denote the numerator and denominator of a rational function $f$ as $f_N$ and $f_D$ respectively.
Membership problem {#subsect-sweedler}
------------------
As we have to manipulate function fields and field extensions, we may need to compute generators and elements with certain properties, or to check whether certain functions belong to a given field. The next theorem provides a way to do this. See [@Swe93] and for more details, see also [@BW93].
We will use the following notation: Let $A$ be a commutative ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebra and $\{a_0,\ldots,a_n\}$ be a set of generators of $A$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$. Let ${\mathbb{K}}[x_0,\ldots,x_n]$ be a ring of polynomials and $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma: & {\mathbb{K}}[x_0,\ldots,x_n] & \longrightarrow & A \\
& f(x_0,\ldots,x_n) & \rightarrow & f(a_0,\ldots,a_n)
\end{array}$$ Let $H_\gamma$ be a finite subset of ${\mathbb{K}}[x_0,\ldots,x_n]$ which generates ${\mathrm{Ker}}\ \gamma$. Let $B$ be a subalgebra of $A$ and $\{b_1,\ldots,b_m\}$ a set of generators of $B$ given as polynomials $B_i\in{\mathbb{K}}[x_0,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $\gamma(B_i)=b_i$. Let $c$ be an element of $A$ given as a polynomial $C\in{\mathbb{K}}[x_0,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $\gamma(C)=c$.
\[th-sweedler-tag-Kalgebras\] $ $
(i)
: If $A$ is an integral domain, given the field extension $QF(A)/QF(B)$ it is possible to decide whether it is transcendental or algebraic and:
- if it is transcendental, its transcendence degree can be computed;
- if it is algebraic, its degree can be computed.
(ii)
: It is possible to decide whether $c$ is integral over $B$, and whether $c$ is algebraic over $QF(B)$ and:
- if it is algebraic, its minimum polynomial can be computed;
- in particular, we can determine whether $c\in QF(B)$ and in the affirmative case we can find an expression of $c$ in terms of $b_i$.
This theorem, which is stated for ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras, has a simpler form when our ambient field is rational.
\[th-sweedler-tag\] We can compute transcendence and algebraic degrees of unirational fields, decide whether an element is transcendental or algebraic over a field, compute its minimum polynomial in the latter case, and decide membership.
We illustrate this corollary with the following example:
\[exam-sweedler\] Consider the rational functions $f_1, f_2$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y)$, where $$f_1=-{y}^{2}x-{y}^{4}+2\,x+2\,{y}^{2}-1,\ f_2=4\,{y}^{4}-10\,{y}^{2}+5+3\,{y}^{2}x-6\,x.$$
We want to know if the field extension ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y)/{\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$ is algebraic or transcendental, and the corresponding degree in each case. We compute a Gröbner basis $G$ of the ideal $I=(t_1-f_1,t_2-f_2)\subset{\mathbb{Q}}[x,y,t_1,t_2]$ with respect to a tag monomial ordering $\{x,y\}>\{t_1,t_2\}$: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
G & = & \{-3\,t_1+{y}^{4}-4\,{y}^{2}+2-{\it t_2},\\
& & 3\,xt_1+x{t_2}+2\,x+4\,{y}^{2}{t_1}+{y}^{2}{t_2}+3\,{y}^{2}-2\,{t_1}-2,\\
& & {y}^{2}x-2\,x+2\,{y}^{2}+4\,{t_1}+{t_2}-1\}.
\end{array}$$ so the transcendence degree is 2, because there is no polynomial involving only $t_1,t_2$.
On the other hand, the extension is algebraic of degree $4=4\times
1$. The polynomial $-3\,t_1+{y}^{4}-4\,{y}^{2}+2-{\it t_2}$ in $G$ indicates that $y$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$ and its minimum polynomial $z^4+z^2-3f_1-f_2+2$ has degree $4$.
Alternatively, a different Gröbner basis computed with respect to lex ordering with $y>x>t_1>t_2$ is
$$\begin{array}{l}
\hspace{-5ex}\{12\,x{t_1}-16\,{t_1}^{2}-8\,{t_1}\,{t_2}-12\,{t_1}+3\,{x}^{2}{t_1}+{x}^{2}{t_2}+2\,{x}^{2}+8\,x+4\,x{t_2}-{t_2}^{2}-2\,{t_2}-1,\\
\hspace{-2ex} \ \ 3\,x{\it t_1}+x{\it t_2}+2\,x+4\,{y}^{2}{\it
t_1}+{y}^{2}{\it t_2}+3\,{y}^{2}-2\,{\it t_1}-2,\ -3\,{\it
t_1}+{y}^{4}-4\,{y}^{2}+2-{\it t_2}, \\
\hspace{-2ex} \ \ {y}^{2}x-2\,x+2\,{y}^{2}+4\,{ \it t_1}+{\it t_2}-1,\ -3\,{t_1}+{y}^{4}-4\,{y}^{2}+2-{t_2}\}\\
\end{array}$$
so $x$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$ and its minimum polynomial has degree 2.
The computations described in these theorems require Gröbner bases computation with respect tag orderings, thus the computing time is (double) exponential in the number of variables and polynomial in the degree of $f_1,\dots,f_m$.
Computation of separating bases {#subsect-steinwandt}
-------------------------------
The results that we describe now will allow us to compute a separable basis and the transcendence degree of a separable extension without computing Gröbner bases, greatly increasing the efficiency of our computations. See [@Wei46] and [@Ste00] for more details about these techniques.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(g_1,\ldots,g_m)$ be a unirational field, ${\mathbb{K}}\subset {\mathbb{F}}\subset
{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$. First introduce a classical definition that will be very useful for our purpose, see [@Wei46].
\[def-ideal-rel\] Given a field extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}$, we construct the ring homomorphism $ \phi_{\mathbb{F}}: {\mathbb{F}}[{\mathbf{y}}] \longrightarrow {\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ defined as $\phi_{\mathbb{F}}(y_i)= x_i$, where ${\mathbf{y}}=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$. Its kernel, which we will denote as $\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}$, is called the *ideal of relations* of the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}$.
The paper [@MS99] presents a method to find explicit generators of the ideal by means of Gröbner bases techniques. Because of this, the following theorem is fundamental, as it allows to express a related ideal (namely, the extension of our ideal in a certain ring) in a very simple way.
We denote by ${\mathbb{F}}[{\mathbf{y}}]_{\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}}$ the localization ring of ${\mathbb{F}}[{\mathbf{y}}]$ at the prime ideal $\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}$. Let $\mathcal{B}^e_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}$ be the extended ideal of $\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}$ in the local ring ${\mathbb{F}}[{\mathbf{y}}]_{\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}}$, [@AMc69].
With the above notation, we have $$\mathcal{B}^e_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}}=\langle g_1({\mathbf{y}})-g_1({\mathbf{x}}),\ldots,g_m({\mathbf{y}})-g_m({\mathbf{x}})\rangle .$$
This result can be combined with the next Theorem to provide a relatively fast way to compute transcendence degrees of separable extensions.
\[weil-t2\] Let $C=\{p_l=g_l({\mathbf{y}})-g_l({\mathbf{x}}), \quad l=1,\ldots, m \}$ and $t={\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}})$. Then $${\mathrm{rank}}\left(\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y_j}({\mathbf{x}})\right)_{p_i\in C,j=1,\ldots,n}\leq n-t$$ and they are equal if and only if ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}$ is separable.
\[weil-t3\] With the notations of the previous theorem, if $I\subset C$ and $J\subset\{1,\ldots,n\}$ are such that $\sharp I=\sharp J=n-t$ and $$\det\left(\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y_j}({\mathbf{x}})\right)_{p_i\in I,j\in J}\neq 0,$$ then the set $\{x_i:\ i\not\in J\}$ is a transcendence basis of ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{F}}$.
We illustrate this with the following example.
\[ej-steinwandt1\] Let $$h_1=\frac{x_1+x_2-2\,x_3}{1+x_3x_2},\ h_2=\frac{x_1x_2-x_3}{x_1}\in {\mathbb{Q}}(x_1,x_2,x_3).$$ We construct the field ${\mathbb{Q}}(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)$ where $$\begin{array}{lcl}
g_1 & = & \displaystyle\frac{x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2-3\,x_1x_2x_3-x_3x_1-x_3x_2+2\,x_3^2-x_1}{x_1^2+x_1x_2-2\,x_3x_1} = h_2-\displaystyle\frac{1}{h_1}, \\
g_2 & = & \displaystyle\frac{x_1^2x_2+x_1x_2^2-2\,x_1x_2x_3-x_3x_1-x_3x_2+2\,x_3^2}{x_1+x_1x_2x_3} = h_1h_2, \\
g_3 & = & \displaystyle\frac{x_1^2-x_1x_2-2\,x_3x_1+2\,x_3-2\,x_3x_2^2x_1+2\,x_3^2x_1}{x_1x_2-x_3+x_3x_2^2x_1-x_3^2x_2} =
\displaystyle\frac{h_1}{h_2}-2, \\
g_4 & = & \displaystyle\frac{-x_1x_2+x_3-x_3x_2^2x_1+x_3^2x_2}{-x_1^2+2\,x_3x_1-x_3+x_3x_2^2x_1-x_3^2x_2} = \displaystyle\frac{h_1}{h_1-h_2} \\
\end{array}$$
It is clear that it has transcendence degree 2 over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We have $$C= \{ p_l=g_l(y_1,y_2,y_3)-g_l(x_1,x_2,x_3): l=1,\ldots,4 \} .$$
We construct the matrix $A=(a_{i,j})$, for $i=1,\ldots,3$ and $j=1,\ldots,4$, where $$a_{i,j}= \frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y_j}(x_1,x_2,x_3).$$
If we put it in triangular form we obtain: $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & -\displaystyle\frac{\left(x_1x_2^2+x_1^2x_2-2\,x_3^2+
x_3x_1+2\,x_1-1\right)x_1}{x_3x_2x_1^2+x_1^2+x_3^2x_1-x_3-2\,x_3^3}\\
\medskip 0 & 1 & \displaystyle\frac{x_3x_2^2-x_1+2\,x_3}{x_3x_2x_1^2+x_1^2+x_3^2x_1
-x_3-2\,x_3^3}\\
\medskip 0 & 0 & 0\\
\medskip 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)$$
The rank of the matrix is 2 as we expected. On the other hand, $x_3$ (the generator of the total field corresponding to the last column) is a transcendence basis of ${\mathbb{Q}}(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)$.
### Jacobian matrix and uni-multivariate decomposition
As an application of the results in this subsection, we will recover the relation between the Jacobian matrix of a polynomial, see [@Sha77], and uni-multivariate decomposition, see [@GRS02].
Given a list of polynomials $\Phi=(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$, where $p_i\in{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]$, we denote by $J(\Phi)$ the Jacobian matrix they define, that is, $$\begin{array}{cccc}
J(\Phi) & = & \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\displaystyle\frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x_1} & \displaystyle\frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x_2} &\ldots &\displaystyle\frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x_n} \\
. & .& \ldots & . \\
. & .& \ldots & . \\
\displaystyle\frac{\partial p_n}{\partial x_1} & \displaystyle\frac{\partial p_n}{\partial x_2} &\ldots & \displaystyle\frac{\partial p_n}{\partial x_n} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
Let $r={\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n))$. Assume that not every $p_i$ is constant, then $0\leq r\leq n-1$.
We will prove the following result:
\[gamboa\] These statements are equivalent:
(i)
: There exist $f\in{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]$, $q_i\in{\mathbb{K}}[t]$ such that $p_i=q_i(f),\ i=1,\ldots,n$.
(ii)
: The rank of the matrix $J(\Phi)$ is $n-1$.
First, we will translate this into a question about fields.
The statement (i) in Theorem \[gamboa\] is equivalent to $r=1$.
If (i) is true, then ${\mathbb{K}}[p_1,\ldots,p_n]\subset{\mathbb{K}}[f]$ and $K(p_1,\ldots,p_n)\subset{\mathbb{K}}(f)$ so ${\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)/{\mathbb{K}})=1$.
Conversely, if $r=1$, by the Extended Lüroth’s Theorem we have that${\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)={\mathbb{K}}(f)$; as the field contains some non-constant polynomial, by the same theorem we can assume $f\in{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]$. If suffices to prove for each $i$ that $p_i=q_i(f)$, ${q_i}_D\in{\mathbb{K}}^*$.
If $\gcd({q_i}_N,{q_i}_D)=1$, then for some $\alpha_i(t),\beta_i(t)\in{\mathbb{K}}[t]$ we have $$1={q_i}_N(t)\alpha_i(t)+{q_i}_D(t)\beta_i(t)\ \Rightarrow\ 1={q_i}_N(f)\alpha_i(f)+{q_i}_D(f)\beta_i(f)\ \Rightarrow$$ $$\Rightarrow\ \gcd({q_i}_N(f),{q_i}_D(f))=1\ \Rightarrow\ {q_i}_D\in{\mathbb{K}}^*\ \Rightarrow\ q_i\in{\mathbb{K}}[t].$$
Now consider the ideal of relations of ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$, $$\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)}=\{h({\mathbf{y}})\in{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)[{\mathbf{y}}]:\ h({\mathbf{x}})=0\}$$ where ${\mathbf{y}}=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ and $y_i$ are algebraically independent from $x_i$. Then we have:
Let $\overline{p}_i=p_i({\mathbf{y}})-p_i$. Then $$\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)}=\langle \overline{p}_1,\ldots,\overline{p}_n \rangle.$$
“$\supset$” is trivial. Conversely, given $h \in \mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)}$ we can assume $h\in{\mathbb{K}}[p_1,\ldots,p_n][{\mathbf{y}}]$. We write $h=\sum_{\alpha}h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{x}}){\mathbf{y}}^{\alpha}$, where $h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{x}}) \in
{\mathbb{K}}[p_1({\mathbf{x}}),\ldots,p_n({\mathbf{x}})]$. Then $h({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})-\sum_{\alpha}(h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{x}})-h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{y}})){\mathbf{y}}^{\alpha}=h({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{y}})$. Since $h({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{x}})=0$ we also have $h({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{y}})=0$. We may write $h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{x}})=g_{\alpha}(p_1({\mathbf{x}}),\ldots,p_n({\mathbf{x}}))$ and do so for $h_{\alpha}({\mathbf{y}})$ to get $g_{\alpha}(p_1({\mathbf{y}}),\ldots,p_n({\mathbf{y}}))$. It is then clear that $g_{\alpha}(p_1({\mathbf{y}}),\ldots,p_n({\mathbf{y}}))-g_{\alpha}(p_1({\mathbf{x}}),\ldots,p_n({\mathbf{x}}))$ belongs the required ideal.
Because of Theorem \[weil-t2\], if the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ is separable then $${\mathrm{rank}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_1}{\partial y_1}({\mathbf{x}}) & \displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_1}{\partial y_2}({\mathbf{x}}) & \ldots & \displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_1}{\partial y_n}({\mathbf{x}}) \\
. & . & \ldots & . \\
. & . & \ldots & . \\
\displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_n}{\partial y_1}({\mathbf{x}}) & \displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_n}{\partial y_2}({\mathbf{x}}) & \ldots & \displaystyle\frac{\partial \overline{p}_n}{\partial y_n}({\mathbf{x}}) \\
\end{array}\right)=n-r.$$
It is clear that the previous matrix is $J(\Phi)$ so the theorem we intend to prove is true if the extension is separable. Besides, we cannot omit the hypothesis of separability, as the next example shows.
Let ${\mathbb{K}}={\mathbb{F}}_p$, $p=x,q=y^p\in{\mathbb{F}}_p[x,y]$. Then $$J(p,q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right)$$ but ${\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{F}}_p(x,y^p)/{\mathbb{F}}_p)=2$.
Lastly, we have that $p_i=q_i(f)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ if and only if $\gcd(\overline{p}_i,\overline{q}_i)\neq 1$ for each $i$. Also, in this case $\gcd(\overline{p}_i,\overline{q}_i)=\overline{f}$ where $\overline{f}=f(u_1,\ldots,u_n)-f({\mathbf{x}})$ and ${\mathbb{K}}[p_1,\ldots,p_n]={\mathbb{K}}[f]$.
The case of transcendence degree $n$ {#sect-gradon}
====================================
Now we will study the case in which the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is algebraic.
The problem of computing intermediate subfields in finite algebraic extensions over the rational number field has been studied by several authors, we can mention the paper [@LM85] and more recently [@KP97]. Our approach it is a modification and adaptation of [@LM85]’s techniques and it is based on some general ideas of Rubio’s Ph. D. Thesis, [@Rub01].
Corollary \[th-sweedler-tag\] and Primitive Element Theorem allow us to rewrite the involved fields in the following way:
- There exist rational functions $\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n)/{\mathbb{K}}$ is a purely transcendental extension, with $${\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\dots,\hat\alpha_n)\subset{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\dots,f_m)\subset{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\dots,x_n).$$
- There exist $\hat\alpha_{n+1},f$ algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n)$ such that $$\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\dots,f_m)= & {\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n,\hat\alpha_{n+1}), \\
{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\dots,x_n)= & {\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\dots,\hat\alpha_n,f).
\end{array}$$
Also, for any intermediate field in the extension there exists $h$ algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n)$ such that $${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n,h).$$
The structure of the lattice of intermediate fields in the extension${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\dots,f_m)$ suggests the following diagram: let $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\Phi: & {\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}={\mathbb{K}}(t_1,\dots,t_n) \\
& \hat\alpha_i & \longmapsto & t_i
\end{array}$$ where $t_1,\dots,t_n$ are new free variables. $\Phi$ is an isomorphism that can be extended to ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ by means of an isomorphism $\hat{\Phi}$: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\hat{\Phi}: & {\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}}) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}[\alpha] \\
& \hat\alpha_i & \longmapsto & t_i \\
& f & \longmapsto & \alpha
\end{array}$$
We have that $\hat{\Phi}({\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}}))$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{E}}$. By the Primitive Element Theorem, we can write $\hat{\Phi}({\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}}))={\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, where $\alpha$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{E}}$. $\hat{\Phi}$ is an isomorphism that extends $\Phi$.
On the other hand, $f$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n)$. Then there exists its minimum polynomial $p_f(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n,z)$ and it can be computed with Corollary \[th-sweedler-tag\]. As $\hat {\Phi}$ is an isomorphism, $p_f(t_1,\dots,t_n,z)$ is the minimum polynomial of $\alpha$ over ${\mathbb{E}}$ and ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]={\mathbb{E}}[z]/(p_f)$.
Once we have the isomorphism $\hat{\Phi}$, it can be restricted to ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ or any intermediate field ${\mathbb{F}}$ of ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\dots,f_m)$. Analogously we have $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\hat{\Phi}| {\mathbb{F}}: & {\mathbb{F}}& \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}[\gamma] \\
& \hat\alpha_i & \longmapsto & t_i \\
& h & \longmapsto & \gamma
\end{array}$$ where $\gamma$ is algebraic over ${\mathbb{E}}$ with minimum polynomial $p_h(t_1,\dots,t_n,z)$.
Conversely, given a field ${\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, the inverse of $\hat{\Phi}$ gives the intermediate field ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat\alpha_n)(\hat{\Phi}^{-1}(\gamma))$.
The resulting diagram is
\[diagram\] $ $ $$\begin{array}{cccc}
{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\dots,x_n) & \longleftrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]={\mathbb{E}}[z]/(p_f) \\
\uparrow & & \uparrow \\
{\mathbb{F}}& \longleftrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]={\mathbb{E}}[z]/(p_h) \\
\uparrow & & \uparrow \\
{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\dots,f_m) & \longleftrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}[\beta]={\mathbb{E}}[z]/(p_{\hat\alpha_{n+1}}) \\
\uparrow & & \uparrow \\
{\mathbb{K}}(\hat\alpha_1,\dots,\hat\alpha_n)& \longleftrightarrow & {\mathbb{E}}\end{array}$$
This diagram is interesting because we can decide computationally the inclusion of these fields.
Let ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]/{\mathbb{E}}$ be an algebraic extension and ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta],{\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ intermediate fields. Then we can decide if ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]$.
A subfield ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta]$ of ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ is determined by means of the minimum polynomial of $\beta$ over ${\mathbb{E}}$, $p_\beta$, and by a polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{E}}[x]$ such that $\beta=f(\alpha)$. If ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]$, then $\beta=p(\gamma)$ where $\deg\ p<\deg\ p_\gamma$, that is, $\beta=a_{l-1}\gamma^{l-1}+\cdots+a_0$. On the other hand, $\beta,\gamma\in{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, so deciding if ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\gamma]$ can be done by solving a system of linear equations with $\deg\ p_\alpha$ equations (as $\{1,\alpha,\ldots,\alpha^{\deg\ p_\alpha-1}\}$ is a basis of the ${\mathbb{E}}$-vector space ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$), and $\deg\ p_\gamma$ variables $a_{l-1},\dots,a_0$.
In [@LV93] there is another method to decide field inclusion using resolvents when ${\mathbb{E}}={\mathbb{Q}}$.
As a consequence we have that the problem is solved for fields with characteristic zero if we can find all intermediate fields of the algebraic extension ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]/{\mathbb{E}}$. Now we will study how to find those fields.
We will denote by ${\mathbb{L}}={\mathbb{E}}[\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m]$ the splitting field of ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, being $\alpha=\alpha_1$. Due to Galois Theory we know that there is a bijection between the lattice of intermediate fields of ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{L}}$ and the subgroups of the Galois group of ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{L}}$, which we will denote as $G$. If we define $G_\alpha=\{\sigma\in G:\ \sigma(\alpha)=\alpha\}$, there is also a bijection between the subgroups of $G_\alpha\subset G$ and certain roots of the minimum polynomial $p_\alpha$ of $\alpha$. These correspondences are the key to the method that we present to find intermediate fields of simple algebraic extensions. First, we present an adapted version of the classical fundamental theorem of Galois theory.
There exists a bijection between the set of intermediate fields of ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ and the set of subgroups of $G$ that contain $G_\alpha$.
So, we can work with the Galois group of the extension, for which we will use the so called decomposition blocks, that we introduce now, see [@Wie64].
Let $f\in{\mathbb{K}}[x]$ be an irreducible polynomial, $G$ the Galois group of $f$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$ and $\Omega=\{\alpha=\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m\}$ the set of roots of $f$.
A subset $\psi\subset\Omega$ is a *decomposition block* if for each $\sigma\in G$ we have either $\sigma(\psi)\cap\psi=\emptyset$ or $\sigma(\psi)=\psi$.
The blocks $\{\alpha_i\}$ and $\Omega$ are called *trivial blocks*.
The set of blocks that are conjugate to $\psi$, that is $\psi,\sigma_2(\psi),\ldots,\sigma_r(\psi)$, are a *block system*.
If $|\psi|=s$ we say that the block $\psi$ is a $r\times
s$-*decomposition block*, where $(m=rs)$.
The next theorem gives a bijection between the intermediate groups of $G_\alpha\subset G$ and the decomposition blocks that contain $\alpha$. The proof is an adaptation of the one in [@Wie64].
There exists a bijection between the set of intermediate groups of $G_\alpha\subset G$ and the set of decomposition blocks that contain $\alpha$. Besides, the correspondence respects inclusions.
We define the following bijection: $$\begin{array}{crc}
\{H:\ G_\alpha\subset H\subset G\} & \longrightarrow & \{\psi:\ \alpha\in\psi\} \\
H & \longmapsto & \psi_H=\{\sigma(\alpha):\ \sigma\in H\}
\end{array}$$
In order to see that it is well defined we must prove that $\psi_H$ is a decomposition block. Let $\sigma\in G$ and assume that $\beta\in\sigma(\psi_H)\cap\psi_H$. By definition there exist $\tau_1,\tau_2\in H$ such that $\beta=\tau_1(\alpha)=\sigma(\tau_2(\alpha))$, this implies that $\tau_1^{-1}\sigma\tau_2\in G_\alpha\subset H$. In this way we have that $\sigma\in H$ and thus $\sigma(\psi_H)=\psi_H$. Also, $\alpha\in\psi_H$.
Now let $H_1,H_2$ be subgroups of $G_\alpha\subset G$ such that $\psi_{H_1}=\psi_{H_2}$. If $\sigma\in H_1$, there exists $\tau\in
H_2$ with $\sigma(\alpha)=\tau(\alpha)$. Then $\tau^{-1}\sigma\in
G_\alpha\subset H_2$ and so $\sigma\in H_2$.
Let $\psi$ be a decomposition block with $\alpha\in\psi$. The inverse image of $\psi$ is the subgroup $H=\{\sigma\in G:\
\sigma(\psi)=\psi\}$. Indeed, $H$ is a subgroup and $G_\alpha\subset
H$. We will see that $\psi=\psi_H$:
Let $\beta\in\psi$. As $G$ is transitive there exists $\sigma\in G$ such that $\beta=\sigma(\alpha)$. On the other hand, $\alpha,\beta\in\psi$, so $\sigma\in H$ and $\beta\in\psi_H$. Conversely, if $\beta\in\psi_H$, there exists $\sigma\in H$ such that $\beta=\sigma(\alpha)$, and as $\sigma(\psi)=\psi$ we have $\beta\in\psi$.
It is trivial that this bijection respects inclusions.
The correspondences described so far allow us to construct the following diagram:
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}
{\mathbb{L}}& \longleftrightarrow & \{id\} & & \\
\uparrow & & \downarrow & & \\
{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha] & \longleftrightarrow & G_\alpha & \longleftrightarrow & \{\alpha\} \\
\uparrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow \\
{\mathbb{F}}& \longleftrightarrow & H & \longleftrightarrow & \{\alpha_{i_1},\ldots,\alpha_{i_j}\} \\
\uparrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow \\
{\mathbb{E}}& \longleftrightarrow & G & \longleftrightarrow &
\{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m\}
\end{array}$$
It is important to highlight that, given a decomposition block $\psi$, we can directly compute the corresponding field ${\mathbb{F}}_\psi$ without computing the corresponding group.
\[bloque-a-field\] Let $\psi=\{\alpha_{i_1},\ldots,\alpha_{i_k}\}$ be a decomposition block, then the corresponding field in the previous diagram is ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k]$ where each $\beta_j$ is the $j$-th elementary symmetric function in $\alpha_{i_1},\ldots,\alpha_{i_k}$.
Let $h(z)=\prod_{j=1}^k(z-\alpha_{i_j})=z^k+a_{k-1}z^{k-1}+\cdots+a_0$, then $${\mathbb{E}}[\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k]={\mathbb{E}}[a_{k-1},\ldots,a_0].$$
We will see that ${\mathbb{E}}[a_{k-1},\ldots,a_0]={\mathbb{E}}_\psi$:
Let $\sigma\in G_\psi$, then $\sigma(h)=h$ and $\sigma(a_i)=a_i$ for every $i$. That is, ${\mathbb{E}}[a_{k-1},\dots,a_0]\subset{\mathbb{E}}_\psi$.
Now let $\sigma\in G_{{\mathbb{E}}[a_{r-1},\ldots,a_0]}$, then $\sigma(a_i)=a_i$ for each $i$. Therefore $\sigma(h)=h$ and $\sigma(\psi)=\psi$, and ${\mathbb{E}}_\psi\subset{\mathbb{E}}[a_{k-1},\ldots,a_0]$.
Next, we will show the results that will support the algorithm that solves our problem.
Let $q(z,\alpha)$ be an irreducible factor of $p_\alpha$, the minimum polynomial of $\alpha$, and $\psi$ a decomposition block that contains $\alpha$. If a root of $q(z,\alpha)$ is in $\psi$, then all the roots of $q(z,\alpha)$ are in $\psi$.
Depending on the factorization of the minimum polynomial we have different methods to compute the decomposition blocks. We will assume that $$p_\alpha(z)=(z-\alpha)p_2(z,\alpha)\cdots p_l(z,\alpha).$$
Among the next results, the first one is interesting in itself, because we can easily compute the intermediate fields when the extension is normal.
If ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]/{\mathbb{E}}$ is normal, we can compute all the intermediate fields; and one of them on polynomial time if the algebraic degree of the extension is not prime.
Assume that $p_\alpha(z)=(z-\alpha)(z-p_2(\alpha))\cdots(z-p_l(\alpha))$. Then the Galois group of $p_\alpha$ over ${\mathbb{E}}$ is $G=\{\sigma_i:\alpha\mapsto p_i(\alpha),\ i=1,\dots,l\}$. Each subgroup $H$ of $G$ corresponds with a subfield ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{E}}[a_0,\dots,a_{l-1}]$ with $x^l+a_{l-1}x^{l-1}+\cdots+a_0=\prod\limits_{\sigma\in
H}(z-\sigma(\alpha))$.
Also, a group $G$ has non-trivial subgroups if and only if $|G|=l=[{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]:{\mathbb{E}}]$ is composite.
If the extension ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]/{\mathbb{E}}$ is not normal and $p_\alpha$ has more than one root in ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, there exists a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{F}}\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$.
If $$p_\alpha(z)=(z-\alpha)(z-p_2(\alpha))\cdots(z-p_{l'}(\alpha))\cdot p_{l'+1}(z,\alpha)\cdots p_l(z,\alpha)$$ is the complete factorization of $p_\alpha$, then $H=\{\sigma_i:\alpha\mapsto p_i(\alpha),\ i=1,\dots,l'\}$ is a subgroup of $G$. Indeed, let $\sigma_i,\sigma_j\in H$, then $$\begin{array}{rcl}
p_\alpha(z) & = & \sigma_j(p_\alpha(z)) \\
& = & \sigma_j((z-\alpha)(z-p_2(\alpha))\cdots(z-p_{l'}(\alpha))p_{l'+1}(z,\alpha)\cdots p_l(z,\alpha)) \\
& = & (z-p_j(\alpha))(z-p_2(p_j(\alpha)))\cdots(z-p_{l'}(p_j(\alpha)))\cdots \\
& & \cdots p_{l'+1}(z,p_j(\alpha))\cdots p_l(z,p_j(\alpha))
\end{array}$$ is another factorization of $p_\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$. Then there exists $k\in\{1,\dots,l'\}$ such that $\sigma_i\sigma_j(\alpha)=p_i(p_j(\alpha))=p_k(\alpha)=\sigma_k(\alpha)$. Therefore, $\langle H\cup G_\alpha \rangle$ is a subgroup of $G_\alpha\subset G$; and it is non-trivial since $G$ is transitive over the roots of $p_\alpha$ and $\langle H\cup G_\alpha \rangle$ is not.
Because of this, ${\mathbb{E}}[a_0,\dots,a_{l'-1}]$ is an intermediate field of ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$, being $$x^{l'}+a_{l'-1}x^{l'-1}+\cdots+a_0=\prod_{i=1}^{l'}(z-p_i(\alpha)).$$
The remaining case is that in which $p_\alpha$ has exactly one linear factor. In this case, one must combine the factors of $p_\alpha$ to check which of those divisors provide an intermediate field. In the worst case, we must check an exponential number of factors; but in other cases, we can find subfields even if we don’t have the complete factorization of $p_\alpha$.
As it is made clear before, we need to factorize polynomials whose coefficients are in some algebraic extension of the field we work in. Next, we will give the details of a method to compute such a factorization. We will show that the algorithm in [@Tra76] that factors polynomials is in random polynomial time if the base field is a rational function field over ${\mathbb{K}}$ and there is a polynomial time algorithm to factorize univariate polynomials over ${\mathbb{K}}$.
We will adapt the algorithm to fields ${\mathbb{E}}$, ${\mathbb{F}}$ where ${\mathbb{F}}/{\mathbb{E}}$ is a finite algebraic separable extension. We will also present some slightly shorter proofs of some results. The idea is similar to the one presented in [@Wae64], but more efficient from the computational point of view. It is based on the fact that the polynomial $f(x-c\alpha)\in{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ and its norm have essentially the same factorization unless the norm is not square free. Trager’s reduction is used in [@Lan85] to provide an algorithm in polynomial time to factorize polynomials in algebraic number fields, using the known univariate factorization algorithm over the rationals in [@LLL82].
The situation we are interested in is given by a field extension $${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{E}}(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m)={\mathbb{F}}$$ that is algebraic and separable. This satisfies the hypothesis of the Primitive Element Theorem; a constructive version for the case ${\mathbb{E}}={\mathbb{Q}}$ is in [@YNT89]. The proof for an arbitrary algebraic extension is similar. Other methods can be found in [@Loo83].
In the following we will use these notations:
$ $
- ${\mathbb{F}}/{\mathbb{E}}$ is a finite separable algebraic extension.
- Due to the Primitive Element Theorem we can write ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$.
- $p_\alpha$ is the minimum polynomial of $\alpha$ over ${\mathbb{E}}$.
- $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l$ are the roots of $p_\alpha$ in $\overline{{\mathbb{E}}}$, the algebraic closure of ${\mathbb{E}}$.
- $G$ is the Galois group of $p_\alpha$ over ${\mathbb{E}}$.
Let us remember the definition of the norm of a polynomial:
Let $f(\alpha,x)\in{\mathbb{F}}[x]$. We define the *norm* of $f$ as $${{\rm N}}(f)=\prod_{i=1}^l\ f(\alpha_i,x).$$
Using the known properties of the resultant, we have $${{\rm N}}(f)={{\rm Res}}_t(p_\alpha(t),f(t,x))\in{\mathbb{E}}[x].$$
The following is a classical result about the norm.
Let $f(\alpha,x)\in{\mathbb{F}}[x]$ be an irreducible polynomial. Then ${{\rm N}}(f)$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial over ${\mathbb{E}}$.
The key result in [@Tra76] is the following:
Let $f(\alpha,x)\in{\mathbb{F}}[x]$ be an irreducible polynomial such that ${{\rm N}}(f)$ is square free. If ${{\rm N}}(f)=h_1\cdots h_m$ is a complete factorization in ${\mathbb{E}}[x]$, then $$f=\gcd(h_1,f)\cdots\gcd(h_m,f)$$ is a complete factorization of $f$ in ${\mathbb{F}}[x]$.
With the results we have presented, we can factorize a polynomial over ${\mathbb{F}}$ if ${\mathbb{E}}$ has an algorithm for univariate factorization, except when the norm of the polynomial is not square free. To avoid this we can apply a map $x\mapsto x-c\alpha$. Such a map always exists because of a simple result due to Kronecker.
\[th-libre-cuad\] Let $f(\alpha,x)\in{\mathbb{F}}[x]$ be a square free polynomial with degree $m$. Assume that $l=[{\mathbb{F}}:{\mathbb{E}}]$ and ${\mathbb{E}}$ has more than $\displaystyle\frac{l(l-1)m(m-1)}{2}$ non-zero elements. Then there exists $c\in{\mathbb{E}}$ such that ${{\rm N}}(f(\alpha,x-c\alpha))$ is square free.
The combination of these results provides the following factorization algorithm.
\[alg-factor-ext\] $ $
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Input</span>: $f(\alpha,x)\in{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha][x]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Output</span>: a complete factorization $f_1(\alpha,x),\ldots,f_m(\alpha,x)$ of $f(\alpha,x)$ in ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha][x]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span>. Find $c\in{\mathbb{E}}$ such that ${{\rm N}}(f(\alpha,x-c\alpha))$ is square free.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span>. Factor ${{\rm N}}(f(\alpha,x-c\alpha))$ in ${\mathbb{E}}[x]$ to obtain a complete factorization $${{\rm N}}(f(\alpha,x-c\alpha))=h_1\cdots h_m.$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C</span>. Compute $f_i=\gcd(f,h_i(x+c\alpha))$. Return the $f_i$’s.
We will analyze the algorithm in our particular setting. We are interested in ${\mathbb{E}}$ being a rational function field ${\mathbb{E}}={\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$. Factorization over ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})[x]$ is equivalent to factorization in the ring of polynomials ${\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\dots,x_n,x]$. On the other hand it is known that every factorization algorithm in polynomial time in ${\mathbb{K}}[x]$ provides one in random polynomial time in ${\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\dots,x_n][x]$, using Hilbert’s Irreducibility Theorem, see [@GG99] and [@Zip93].
Also, if the number of variables is zero ($n=0$), the previous result by Kronecker requires that the field ${\mathbb{K}}$ has at least $l^2m^2$ elements, where $m$ is the degree of the polynomial and $l=[{\mathbb{F}}:{\mathbb{E}}]$. If $n>0$ there is always an adequate $\alpha\in{\mathbb{E}}[x]$, as ${\mathbb{E}}$ is infinite.
Finally, step <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C</span> requires the computation of several gcd’s in ${\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$. This is also in polynomial time due to Euclides’ Algorithm, for more details of this part see [@LM85] for ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
Summarizing the results we have presented in this section, we have the following algorithm to find intermediate unirational fields over a given field, if the extension is separable and algebraic.
With the above notation:
\[alg-algebraic\] $ $
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Input</span>: An irreducible $f(t) \in {\mathbb{E}}[t]$, such that $f(\alpha)=0$ and $p_\alpha(z) \in E[\alpha][z]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Output</span>: All $h(t) \in {\mathbb{E}}[t]$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[h(\alpha)] \subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span>. Factorize $p_\alpha(z)$ in $E[\alpha]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B.1</span>. If $p_\alpha(z)$ has more than one linear factor: $$p_\alpha(z)=(z-\alpha)(z-p_2(\alpha))\cdots(z-p_r(\alpha)) p_{r+1}(z,\alpha)\cdots
p_{r'}(z,\alpha).$$
— Compute a minimal subgroup $G_{\psi}$ of $\langle\{\sigma_2:\alpha\mapsto p_i(\alpha)\}\rangle$.
— Consider $h(z)=\prod_{\sigma\in G_{\psi}}(z-\sigma(\alpha))=a_ux^u+\cdots+a_0$.
— Take $a_i$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[a_i]$ is a proper subfield of ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B.2</span>. If $p_\alpha(z)=(z-\alpha)p_2(z,\alpha)\cdots p_{r'}(z,\alpha)$, with $p_i$ non-linear:
— Consider a factor $P_2(z)=h(z, \alpha)(z-\alpha)$ of $p_\alpha(z)$, $$P_2=(z-\alpha)h(z,\alpha)=a_ux^u+\cdots+a_0.$$
— If ${\mathbb{E}}[a_i]= {\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ for all $i$, then take another factor.
We illustrate this algorithm with the following example:
Consider the rational functions $f_1, f_2$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y)$ in Example \[exam-sweedler\] $$f_1=-{y}^{2}x-{y}^{4}+2\,x+2\,{y}^{2}-1,\ f_2=4\,{y}^{4}-10\,{y}^{2}+5+3\,{y}^{2}x-6\,x.$$
Our goal is computing all intermediate fields in the extension ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y)/{\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$.
By Example \[exam-sweedler\], we know it is an algebraic extension of degree $4$. Moreover, $y$ is a primitive element and its minimum polynomial is $$p_y(f_1,f_2,z)=z^4+z^2-3f_1-f_2+2.$$
Clearly, if $\alpha$ is a root of $p_y(t_1,t_2,z)$, then also $-\alpha$ is a root, so we have a factorization $$p_y(t_1,t_2,z)=(z-\alpha)(z+\alpha)(z^2+\alpha^2-4)$$ in $E[\alpha]=E[z]/(p_y)$.
Let $H=\{id,\alpha\to -\alpha\}$ and $h(z)=z^2-\alpha^2$, we obtain the proper field ${\mathbb{E}}\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha^2]\subset{\mathbb{E}}[\alpha]$ $${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2,y^2).$$
To determine all intermediate fields, we need to factorize $p_y(t_1,t_2,z)=(z-\alpha)(z+\alpha)(z^2+\alpha^2-4)$. In order to do this we will use Algorithm \[alg-factor-ext\]. As the polynomial $g(z,\alpha)=z^2+\alpha^2-4$ divides the polynomial $p_y(t_1,t_2,z)$, we apply a transformation (see Theorem \[th-libre-cuad\]), for example $z\to
z-3\alpha$. The next step is computing the norm of $g(z-3,\alpha)$.
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
N(g(z-3\alpha,\alpha)) & = & {{\rm Res}}_z(p_y(t_1,t_2,z),(z-3\alpha)^2+\alpha^2-4) \\
& = & 4-4\,{\it t_2}+6\,{\it t_1}\,{\it t_2}+{{\it t_2}}^{2}-12\,{\it t_1}-1568\, {\alpha}^{2}+10784\,{\alpha}^{4} \\
& & +9\,{{\it
t_1}}^{2}-1104\,{\it t1}\,{ \alpha}^{2}-816\,{t_1}\,{\alpha}^{4}-368\,{\it t_2}\,{\alpha}^{2} \\
& & -272\,{\it t_2}\,{\alpha}^{4}-13312\,{\alpha}^{6}+4096\,{\alpha}^{8}.\\
\end{array}$$
As $N(g(z-3\alpha,\alpha))$ is irreducible, also $z^2+\alpha^2-4$ is and we already have a complete factorization of the minimum polynomial. Therefore, the extension is not normal and in order to find more intermediate fields we only have to consider the divisor $(z-\alpha)(z^2+\alpha^2-4)$; but it cannot provide a decomposition block, as 3 does not divide the degree of the extension.
The lattice of fields is then $${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2,y^2)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{Q}}(x,y).$$
Finally, we note that the intermediate field we found is rational, in fact $${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2,y^2)= {\mathbb{Q}}(x-y,x+y^2)={\mathbb{Q}}(x,y^2).$$ However, as we said, our algorithm always returns a number of generators which is equal to the transcendence degree plus one (see Theorem \[cota-gens\]).
Normality and monodromy group
-----------------------------
The computation of intermediate fields is even more interesting and simpler when the algebraic extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is normal. In this case we have the known bijection between subgroups of the Galois group and intermediate fields. We will now concentrate on the case $n=1$ and assume that ${{\rm char}}\ {\mathbb{K}}=0$. Our problem can be stated in the following way:
Given an irreducible polynomial $f\in{\mathbb{K}}[x]$, determine if the extension ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)/{\mathbb{K}}$, where ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)={\mathbb{K}}[x]/(f)$, is normal.
We can use simple Galois techniques to decide this matter. Remember that we assume that the extension ${\mathbb{K}}(x)/{\mathbb{K}}(f)$ is algebraic.
Let $f\in{\mathbb{K}}(x)$. We call *monodromy group* of $f$ to the Galois group of the extension ${\mathbb{K}}(x)/{\mathbb{K}}(f)$. That is, if we denote by F the splitting field of the extension ${\mathbb{K}}(x)/{\mathbb{K}}(f)$, then the monodromy group of $f$ is the group of automorphisms of ${\mathbb{F}}$ that leave ${\mathbb{K}}(f)$ fixed.
The extension ${\mathbb{K}}(x)/{\mathbb{K}}(f)$ is normal if and only if $G(f)=\{u\in{{\rm Aut}}_{\mathbb{K}}\,{\mathbb{K}}(x): f\circ u=f\}$ is equal to the monodromy group of the extension.
the roots of the minimum polynomial are the images of one of them through the elements of the Galois group; if it is equal to $G(f)$, they are all in ${\mathbb{K}}(f)$.
The extension ${\mathbb{K}}(x)/{\mathbb{K}}(f)$ is normal if and only if $|G(f)|=\deg\
f$.
Also, the techniques for factorization in algebraic extensions that we discussed above provide another method: we factorize the polynomial $f$ in ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$, then the extension is normal if and only if $f$ splits in this field.
If the extension is normal, factorization in extensions is actually performed over the base field, which greatly improves the efficiency of the algorithm.
Finally, we can also try to decide normality simply by writing the corresponding equations. In particular, the extension is normal if and only if all the roots of $f$ are in ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$. There is a known bijection between the polynomials $p(x)\in{\mathbb{K}}[x]$ with $\deg\
p\leq\deg\ f$ and the elements of ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$, namely the morphism $x\rightarrow\alpha$ from ${\mathbb{K}}[x]$ to ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$; therefore, each $p$ represents a root of $f$ in ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$ if and only if $f(p)=0$ in ${\mathbb{K}}(\alpha)$, that is , $f(x)$ divides $f(p(x))$ in ${\mathbb{K}}[x]$. This is precisely the classic problem of ideal decomposition, see [@CFM96].
The previous relation can be expressed directly with equations: let $$\begin{array}{ccl}
f & = & x^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+a_1x+a_0, \\
p & = & b_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+b_1x+b_0, \\
q & = & x^m+c_{m-1}x^{m-1}+\cdots+c_1x+c_0, \quad m=n(n-2).
\end{array}$$
Then from the expression $f(p)=f\cdot q$ we obtain a linear system of equations in the variables $b_i$ and $c_j$. Note that we are only interested in the existence and computation of values for the variables $b_i$.
As indicated in the introduction, the particular case in which the given field has transcendence degree one over ${\mathbb{K}}$ was solved in [@GRS01].
The general case and its reduction to the algebraic case {#sect-casogeneral}
========================================================
Our strategy for the resolution of the general problem comes down to reducing it to the case where the given field has transcendence degree $n$ over ${\mathbb{K}}$, that is, the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is algebraic. To that end we will present two different methods, and also the outline of another one.
Relative algebraic closure {#subsect-clausura}
--------------------------
We will look for the minimum field that contains all the intermediate algebraic fields over the given one. To this end we adapt the method in [@BV93] and in the recent book [@Vas98] to compute the closure of a ring monomorphism.
Let $R_1\subset R_2$ be a ring extension. We call *integral closure of $R_1$ relative to $R_2$* to the subring of $R_2$ formed by the elements that are integral over $R_1$.
In our case, we need to compute the algebraic closure ${\mathbb{F}}_0$ of the field extension ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)\subset{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$. Our goal is to determine explicitly a finite set of generators of the field ${\mathbb{F}}_0$, in particular as many as the transcendence degree plus one. The Theorem \[cota-gens\] proves that such a set exists.
There are several methods to compute the integral closure of an integral domain in its field of fractions, see for example [@Sei75] and the more recent [@GT97]. The idea in [@BV93] is to compute the integral closure of a birational morphism:
Let ${\mathbb{D}}_1\subset{\mathbb{D}}_2$ be an extension of integral domains that are finitely generated over a computable field ${\mathbb{K}}$ with the same field of fractions (that is, a *birational morphism*). Let $\overline{\mathbb{D}}_1$ be the integral closure of ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ in its field of fractions. Assume that ${\mathbb{D}}_2$ is generated over ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ by fractions whose denominators are powers of some element $d$. Let $r$ be such that $\overline{\mathbb{D}}_1d^{r+1}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_1\subset(d)$. Then the integral closure of ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ in ${\mathbb{D}}_2$ is $$d^{-r}(d^r{\mathbb{D}}_2\cap d^r{\overline{\mathbb{D}}_1}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_1).$$
We are in the most general situation, that is, ${\mathbb{D}}_1\subset{\mathbb{D}}_2$ is an extension of integral domains that are finitely generated over a computable field ${\mathbb{K}}$. We will follow these steps,see [@Vas98]:
1\. We write ${\mathbb{D}}_2={\mathbb{D}}_1[b_1,\ldots,d_r].$
2\. Let $t$ be a new variable and ${\mathbb{D}}={\mathbb{D}}_1[t,b_1,\ldots,d_r]\subset{\mathbb{D}}_2[t]$. It is a birational monomorphism.
3\. We compute the integral closure $\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ of the extension ${\mathbb{D}}\subset{\mathbb{D}}_2[t]$ according to the previous theorem.
4\. Then the integral closure of the extension ${\mathbb{D}}_1\subset{\mathbb{D}}_2$ is $$\overline{\mathbb{D}}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_2.$$
First we reduce the problem to integral closures of the corresponding integral domains:
Let ${\mathbb{D}}_1\subset {\mathbb{D}}_2$ be two integral domains. Let ${\mathbb{D}}$ be the integral closure of ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ with respect to ${\mathbb{D}}_2$. Let ${\mathbb{K}}_1$ and ${\mathbb{K}}_2$ be the fields of fractions of ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ and ${\mathbb{D}}_2$ respectively and ${\mathbb{K}}$ the algebraic closure of ${\mathbb{K}}_1$ with respect to ${\mathbb{K}}_2$. Then ${\mathbb{K}}$ is the field of fractions of ${\mathbb{D}}$.
Let $S={\mathbb{D}}_1^*$ be the closed multiplicative system of non-zero elements in the integral domain ${\mathbb{D}}_1$. Then $S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}$ is, see [@AMc69], the integral closure of $$S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}_1\subset S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}_2.$$
As ${\mathbb{K}}_1=S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}_1\subset S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}$ is integral and $S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}_1$ is a field, then $S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}$ is a field. Indeed, let $\alpha$ be an integral element over ${\mathbb{K}}_1$; dividing the equation by a power of $\alpha$, we can write $\alpha^{-1}$ as an element of $S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}$. Finally, in the same way we prove that $S^{-1}{\mathbb{D}}_2$ is a field, so it is equal to the field of fractions ${\mathbb{K}}_2$ of the domain ${\mathbb{D}}_2$.
The next step is to rewrite our data according to [@Vas98]:
- Let $f$ be the minimum common denominator of the rational functions $f_i\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
- Let $\Phi:\ {\mathbb{K}}[y_1,\ldots,y_m]\to{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}},1/f]$, defined as $\Phi(y_i)=f_i$ for each $i=1,\dots,m$.
- Let ${\mathbb{D}}_1=\Phi({\mathbb{K}}[y_1,\ldots,y_m])={\mathbb{K}}[f_1,\ldots,f_m]$. We have that ${\mathbb{D}}_1={\mathbb{K}}[y_1,...,y_m]/{\mathrm{Ker}}(\Phi)$ is a finitely generated ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebra. Also, the field of fractions of ${\mathbb{D}}_1$ is ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,...,f_m)$.
- Let ${\mathbb{D}}_2={\mathbb{D}}_1[{\mathbf{x}}]={\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}},1/f]$. The field of fractions of ${\mathbb{D}}_2$ is ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
Algorithm for the general case
------------------------------
Summarizing the results we have presented, we have the following algorithm to find intermediate unirational fields over a given field, if the extension is separable.
\[alg-general\] $ $
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Input</span>: $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Output</span>: rational functions $h_1,\ldots,h_r$ such that $${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{K}}(h_1,\ldots,h_r)\varsubsetneq{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}}).$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span>. Compute the algebraic closure of ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ relative to ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ according to Subsection \[subsect-clausura\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span>. Find a separating basis of ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ according to Subsection \[subsect-steinwandt\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C</span>. Rewrite the fields according to Diagram \[diagram\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D</span>. Factor the minimum polynomial obtained in the algebraic extension.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E</span>. Compute the decomposition blocks that correspond to the factors found before.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F</span>. If such a block exists, due to Theorem \[bloque-a-field\], we compute an intermediate field.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G</span>. Recover the generators of the intermediate field in terms of the variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$.
The following simple example follows the previous algorithm, but also shows a new way in which intermediate fields can be computed more efficiently in some cases.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{Q}}(x^4,y^6)\subset{\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$. We want to find intermediate fields of transcendence degree 2.
First, we will prove that the algebraic closure of ${\mathbb{F}}$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y)$. Indeed, it is clear that this field is algebraic over ${\mathbb{F}}$; on the other hand, no element $f\in{\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$ with $\deg_z\,f>0$ can be algebraic over ${\mathbb{F}}$, as we would have a non-zero polynomial that involves $x,y,z$.
As the closure of ${\mathbb{F}}$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$ is a rational field, we can easily find intermediate fields: we decompose the generators and obtain $1,x^2,x^4,y^2,y^3,y^6$. Each of the fields ${\mathbb{Q}}(x^4,y^6,f)$ where $f$ is one of the previous functions, is an intermediate algebraic field. Not all of them can be expressed in this way, for example ${\mathbb{Q}}(x^4,y^6,x+y)$. But we can construct linear combinations of those to find primitive elements, in the same way as in Theorem. As there are finitely many fields, this method may be a way of computing them efficiently.
Dimension and transcendence degree
----------------------------------
Now we present another method that reduces the general case to the algebraic case. This time we will make use of the following theorem, see [@Nag93] and [@AGR99].
\[th-ojan\] Let $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ be algebraically independent over an infinite field ${\mathbb{K}}$. If ${\mathbb{F}}$ is a unirational field with ${\mathbb{K}}\subset{\mathbb{F}}\subset{\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, there exist $y_1,\ldots,y_d$ algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{K}}$ such that ${\mathbb{F}}\subset{\mathbb{K}}(y_1,\ldots,y_d)$, where $d={\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}/{\mathbb{F}})$.
The following algorithm is based on the proof given in the cited paper.
\[alg-ojan\] $ $
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Input</span>: $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Output</span>: an injective homomorphism $\Phi:\
{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)\ \rightarrow\ {\mathbb{K}}(x_{i_1},\ldots,x_{i_d})$ where $d={\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)/{\mathbb{K}})$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span>. Compute functions $\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_m$ such that:
— ${\mathbb{K}}(\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_m)={\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$.
— $\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d$ are algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{K}}$.
— $\overline{f}_{d+1},\ldots,\overline{f}_m$ are integral over ${\mathbb{K}}[\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d]$.
If $d=m$, return $\Phi=id$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span>. Reorder $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ so that:
— $x_{d+1},\ldots,x_n$ are algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{K}}(\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d)$.
— $x_1,\ldots,x_d$ are algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d,x_{d+1},\ldots,x_n)$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C</span>. For each $i\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$ let $$P_i(\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d,x_{d+1},\ldots,x_n)\in{\mathbb{K}}[\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d,x_{d+1},\ldots,x_n,z]$$ be non-constant and such that $P_i(\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d,x_{d+1},\ldots,x_n,x_i)=0$. Let $f$ be a common denominator for $\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d$ and write $P_i=\displaystyle\frac{\widetilde{P}_i}{f^{r_i}}$ for adequate $r_i$’s. Let $\nu=\max\{\deg\
\widetilde{P}_i,\ \deg\ f,\ n\}+1$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D</span>. Let $\varphi$ be the monomorphism $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\varphi: & {\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{K}}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}) \\
& f_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n) & \rightarrow &
f_i(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},x_1^\nu) \\
\end{array}$$ Let $\Phi=\varphi\circ id$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E</span>. If $m-1=d$ return $\Phi$ after undoing the reorder of the variables. Otherwise, repeat steps <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span> to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E</span> for $\Phi(\overline{f}_1),\ldots,\Phi(\overline{f}_m)$.
Computing the elements in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span> can be done due to a constructive proof of Noether’s Normalization Lemma. For step <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span> it suffices to use Corollary \[th-sweedler-tag\]. About the definition of $\varphi$, the conditions on $\nu$ being greater than $\deg\ f$, $m$ and each $\deg\ \widetilde{P}_i$ ensure that the application is well defined and is a monomorphism.
It is clear that the functions $f_1,\ldots,f_m$ and $\varphi(\overline{f}_1),\ldots,\varphi(\overline{f}_m)$ have the same properties as in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span>.
Regarding the complexity of the algorithm, it is dominated by the computation of Gröbner bases in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span>; if we work in a general ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebra instead of a rational field, the computation of the transcendence degree according to Subsection \[subsect-steinwandt\] also needs Gröbner bases.
We have proved that for a certain $\nu$, the homomorphism $$(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\to(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},x_1^\nu)$$ is a monomorphism when restricted to ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$. Let’s see that we can use this to find intermediate fields.
Assume ${{\rm char}}\ {\mathbb{K}}=0$. Let $f\in{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ be algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$. Then the application $\Phi$ that appears in Algorithm \[alg-ojan\] is also a monomorphism when we extend it to ${\mathbb{F}}$.
As the extension is separable, we can write ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m,f)$. Applying this algorithm to this representation of ${\mathbb{K}}$, in step <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A</span> we can take the same $\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d$ as for ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and, as there exists $g\in{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ such that $hg$ is integral over ${\mathbb{K}}[\overline{f}_1,\ldots,\overline{f}_d]$, we take $\overline{f}_{m+1}=hg$. It is clear then that in steps <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C</span> we can reorder the variables and take the same polynomials. From this we deduce that the value of $\nu$ that we had for ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ in step <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D</span> is also good for ${\mathbb{F}}$, and the same application is a monomorphism when extended to ${\mathbb{F}}$.
Due to this result, it is enough to apply the algorithm to the given field, then we will have an algebraic extension ${\mathbb{K}}(\Phi(f_1),\ldots,\Phi(f_m))\subset{\mathbb{K}}(x_{i_1},\ldots,x_{i_d})$. The problem lies in how to compute $\Phi^{-1}({\mathbb{E}})$ for an intermediate field in this extension, as showed in the next elementary example.
Let $\Phi:\ {\mathbb{K}}(x,y,z)\to{\mathbb{K}}(x,y)$ defined as $$\Phi(x)=x,\ \Phi(y)=y,\ \Phi(z)=x^5.$$
Let $f=y^2\in{\mathbb{K}}(x,y)$, then $$\left\{\frac{x^{5n}}{z^n}y^2+(z-x^5)\cdot g:\ n\in{\mathbb{Z}},g\in{\mathbb{K}}(x,y,z)\right\}\subset\Phi^{-1}(f).$$
As there can be infinitely many candidates to inverse image of an element, we cannot directly check them all. To complete this solution, we would have to find a way to choose an algebraic inverse image over ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$.
An idea based on a theorem by Schicho
-------------------------------------
Another possible method for reducing the problem to another one in an algebraic extension is based on rewriting the extension as a simple extension, $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)={\mathbb{K}}(\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_t)(f), \\
{\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{K}}(\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_t)(h), \\
{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbb{K}}(\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_t,\widehat{f}_{t+1},\ldots,\widehat{f}_n)(g), \\
\end{array}$$ where $\{\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_t\}$ is a transcendence basis of ${\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ and $\{\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_n\}$ is one of de ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$.
If we denote ${\mathbb{E}}={\mathbb{K}}(\widehat{f}_1,\ldots,\widehat{f}_t)$ and $\{\widehat{f}_{t+1},\ldots,\widehat{f}_n\}=\{z_1,\ldots,z_k\}$, we have the fields $${\mathbb{E}}(f)\subset{\mathbb{E}}(h)\subset{\mathbb{E}}(z_1,\ldots,z_k,g)$$ so we are in the transcendence degree one case, with the exception of working in a field where the variables are not independent. The transcendence degree has been studied previously, see [@GRS01].
In order to solve this with these techniques, we would need to adapt Theorem 3 in [@Schi95] to the field ${\mathbb{E}}(z_1,\ldots,z_k,g)$ in the following way:
Let $A={\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ and $B={\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{y}})$ two ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras. Let $f_1,h_1\in A$ and $f_2,h_2\in B$ be non-constant rational functions. Then these statements are equivalent:
(i)
: There exists a rational function $g\in{\mathbb{K}}(t)$ such that $f_1=g(h_1)$ and $f_2=g(h_2)$.
(ii)
: $h_1-h_2$ divides $f_1-f_2$ in $A\otimes_{\mathbb{K}}B$.
${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras
=======================
Lastly, in this section we will briefly comment how to manipulate the elements involved from a computational point of view when we work in a field of type $QF\left({\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]/I\right)$ for some prime ideal $I \subset {\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]$ that is given explicitly by means of a finite set of generators $I$.
The following known result asserts that any subfield in a finite extension is finitely generated. A proof for zero characteristic fields is due to E. Noether, [@No].
\[teo-generated\] Let ${\mathbb{K}}\subset {\mathbb{K}}(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ be a finite extension. If ${\mathbb{F}}$ is a field such that ${\mathbb{K}}\varsubsetneq {\mathbb{F}}\subset {\mathbb{K}}(z_1,\dots,z_n) $, then there exist $h_1,\dots,h_s\in
{\mathbb{K}}(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ such that ${\mathbb{F}}= {\mathbb{K}}(h_1,\dots,h_s)$.
As in previous sections, all the decision problems and computation of the transcendence degree can be done for ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebras, see Theorem \[th-sweedler-tag-Kalgebras\].
On the other hand, as the extension ${\mathbb{K}}\subset QF\left({\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbf{x}}]/I\right)$ is not transcendental in general, we need to ask that it is separable. We also can adapt Subsection \[subsect-steinwandt\] to this situation. Basically, we need to add the system of generators of the ideal $I$ to $C$ in Theorem \[weil-t2\] and Corollary \[weil-t3\]. We illustrate this with the following example.
\[ej-steinwandt2\] We will work in the following field, which has transcendence degree 2 over ${\mathbb{Q}}$: $${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)=QF({\mathbb{Q}}[X,Y,Z]/(X^2+Y^2)).$$
Let $f_1=(x+2y-z)^3$, $f_2=(x+2y-z)^2$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$. We will compute the transcendence degree of ${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
A set of generators of the extended ideal is: $$\begin{array}{l}
\{F_1=(X+2Y-Z)^3-(x+2y-z)^3, \\
F_2=(X+2Y-Z)^2-(x+2y-z)^2, \\
P=X^2+Y^2\}.
\end{array}$$
Deriving with respect to $X,Y,Z$ and evaluating in $x,y,z$ we obtain $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
3\,(x+2\,y-z)^2 & 6\,(x+2\,y-z)^2 & -3\,(x+2\,y-z)^2\\
2\,x+4\,y-2\,z & 4\,x+8\,y-4\,z & -2\,x-4\,y+2\,z\\
2\,x & 2\,y & 0
\end{array}\right)$$
After some operations (remember that we are working in a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra, so we must check that any element we want to divide by is not zero, that is, it is not in the ideal of relations) we reach an equivalent matrix: $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & -3(x+2\,y-z)^2\\
0 & 0 & -2(x+2\,y-z)^2\\
2\,x & 2\,y & 0
\end{array}\right)$$
It has rank 2, so ${\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)/{\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2))$ and ${\mathrm{tr.deg.}}({\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)/{\mathbb{Q}})$ are both 1. Also, the element $x$ and the element $y$ are transcendence bases of ${\mathbb{Q}}(x,y,z)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}(f_1,f_2)$.
Also in Subsection \[subsect-clausura\] we work in a setting that is general enough.
Once we reduce the problem to the algebraic case, we must consider the rest of the algorithm. If we want to use the techniques developed in Section \[sect-gradon\] we must first ask that the extension ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is separable.
It is enough that ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}$ is separable. Indeed, then for each intermediate field ${\mathbb{F}}$ there exists a separating basis $B$ such that ${\mathbb{K}}(B)\subset{\mathbb{F}}$ is algebraic separable; then we only have to find the fields in ${\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})$ and algebraic over ${\mathbb{K}}(B)$, and decide which ones contain ${\mathbb{F}}$. To this end we will use Theorem \[th-sweedler-tag-Kalgebras\] to decide if the primitive element for each field is in ${\mathbb{F}}$.
About factorization in algebraic extensions and decomposition blocks, we can work in a ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebra in the same way as a rational field. However, the complexity increases dramatically, because of two reasons: we must manipulate the representations of the elements; and all the checks of type $f=0$ are transformed into membership problems, $f\in\mathcal{B}_{{\mathbb{K}}({\mathbf{x}})/{\mathbb{K}}}$, that demand Gröbner bases computations.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented algorithms for resolving several issues related to rational function field. Our approach has combined useful computational algebra tools. Many interesting questions remain unsolved. Unfortunately, we do not know if the computed intermediate field is rational or not. The reason is that the algorithm produce an intermediate field generated always by the transcendence degree plus one elements. It should be interesting to investigate under which circumstances our algorithm can display an intermediate subfield generated by as many elements as the transcendence degree. From a more practical point of view, we would like to have either a good algorithm or a good implementation to compute a factorization of a polynomial over an algebraic extension. Concerning applications, we suggest the possible use of our techniques in the factorization of morphisms and regular maps between affine and projective algebraic sets.
C. Alonso, J. Gutiérrez, T. Recio, *A rational function decomposition algorithm by near-separated polynomials*. J. Symbolic. Comput. 19 (1995), no. 6, 527–544.
C. Alonso, J. Gutiérrez, R. Rubio, *On the dimension and the number of parameters of a unirational variety*. Proceedings of CCNT’99, Singapore, 3–9, Progr. Comput. Sci. Appl. Logic, 20, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.
M. F. Atiyah, I. G. MacDonald, *Introduction to commutative algebra*. Addison Wesley, 1969.
T. Becker, V. Weispfenning, *Groebner bases. A computational approach to commutative algebra* . In cooperation with Heinz Kredel. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 141. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
J. Brennan, W. Vasconcelos, *Effective computation of the integral closure of a morphism*. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 86 (1993), no. 2, 125–134.
D. Casperson, D. Ford, and J. McKay. *Ideal decompositions and subfields*. J. Symbolic Comput. 21 (1996), no. 2, 133–137.
J. von zur Gathen, J. Gerhard, *Modern Computer Algebra*. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999.
P. Gianni, B. Trager, *Integral closure of Noetherian rings*. Proceedings of ISSAC’97 (Kihei, HI), 212–216 (electronic), ACM Press, New York, 1997.
J. Gutiérrez, R. Rubio, D. Sevilla, *Unirational fields of transcendence degree one and functional decomposition*. ISSAC 2001, London, Canada, 167–174.
J. Gutiérrez, R. Rubio, D. Sevilla, *On multivariate rational function decomposition*. Computer algebra (London, ON, 2001). J. Symbolic Comput. 33 (2002), no. 5, 545–562.
G. Hommel, P. Kovács, *Simplification of symbolic inverse kinematic transformations through functional decomposition*. Proc. of the Conference Adv. in Robotics, Ferrara, 88–95 (1992).
J. Klüners, M. Pohst, *On computing Subfields*. J. of Symbolic Computation, 24 (1997), 385–397.
S. Landau, *Factoring polynomials over algebraic number fields*. SIAM J. Comput. 14 (1985), no. 1, 184–195.
S. Landau, G. L. Miller, *Solvability by radicals is in polynomial time*. J. Comput. System Sci. 30 (1985), no. 2, 179–208.
Lang, S. *Algebra.* Addison–Wesley, Reading, Mass (1967).
D. Lazard, A. Valibouze, *Computing subfields: reverse of the primitive element problem*. Computational algebraic geometry (Nice, 1992), 163–176, Progr. Math., 109, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1993.
A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra, L. Lovász, *Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients*. Math. Ann. 261 (1982), no. 4, 515–534.
Loos, R. *Computing in algebraic extensions*. Computer algebra, Springer, Vienna, 1983.
J. Müller-Quade, R. Steinwandt, *Basic algorithms for rational function fields*. J. Symbolic Comput. 27 (1999), no. 2, 143–170.
M. Nagata, *Theory of commutative fields*. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 125. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1993.
E. Noether, *Körper und Systeme rationaler Funktionen*. Math. Ann. [**76**]{}, 161–196 (1915).
R. Rubio, *Unirational fields. Theorems, algorithms and applications*. PhD. Thesis. Dep. of Mathematics, University of Cantabria, Spain, 2001
I.R. Shafarevich, *Basic Algebraic Geometry*. Springer Study Edition, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
J. Schicho, *A note on a theorem of Fried and MacRae*. Arch. Math. 65, 239-243, 1995.
A. Schinzel, *Selected topics on polynomials*. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1982.
A. Seidenberg, *Construction of the integral closure of a finite integral domain. II*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1975), 368–372.
R. Steinwandt, *On computing a separating transcendence basis*. SIGSAM Bulletin, 34(4): 3-6, 2000.
M. Sweedler, *Using Gröbner bases to determine the algebraic and transcendental nature of field extensions: return of the killer tag variables*. Applied algebra, algebraic algorithms and error-correcting codes (San Juan, PR, 1993), 66–75, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 673, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
B. Trager, *Algebraic factoring and rational function integration*. Proc. 1976 ACM Symp. Symbolic 6 Algebraic Comp., 219–228, 1976.
W. Vasconcelos, *Computational Methods in Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry*. Vol. 2 of Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
B. L. van der Waerden, *Modern Algebra*. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York, 1964.
A. Weil, *Foundations of Algebraic Geometry*. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 29. American Mathematical Society, New York, 1946.
H. Wielandt, *Finite permutation groups*. Academic Press, New York, London, 1964.
K. Yokoyama, M. Noro, T. Takeshima, *Computing primitive elements of extensions fields*. J. Symbolic Comput. 8 (1989), no. 6, 553–580.
R. Zippel, *Rational function decomposition*. Proc. ISSAC’91, ACM press, 1991.
R. Zippel, *Effective polynomial computation*. Kluwer Academic Press, 1993.
[^1]: Both authors are partially supported by Spain’s Ministerio de Educación Grant Project BFM2001-1294
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
As is well known, using piecewise linear polynomial collocation (PLC) and piecewise quadratic polynomial collocation (PQC), respectively, to approximate the weakly singular integral $$I(a,b,x) =\int^b_a \frac{u(y)}{|x-y|^\gamma}dy, \quad x \in (a,b) ,\quad 0< \gamma <1,$$ have the local truncation error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$. Moreover, for Fredholm weakly singular integral equations of the second kind, i.e., $\lambda u(x)- I(a,b,x) =f(x)$ with $ \lambda \neq 0$, also have global convergence rate $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$ in \[Atkinson and Han, Theoretical Numerical Analysis, Springer, 2009\].
Formally, following nonlocal models can be viewed as Fredholm weakly singular integral equations $$\int^b_a \frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^\gamma}dy =f(x), \quad x \in (a,b) ,\quad 0< \gamma <1.$$ However, there are still some significant differences for the models in these two fields. In the first part of this paper we prove that the weakly singular integral by PQC have an optimal local truncation error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\eta_i^{-\gamma}\right)$, where $\eta_i=\min\left\{x_i-a,b-x_i\right\}$ and $x_i$ coincides with an element junction point. Then a sharp global convergence estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h\right)$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ by PLC and PQC, respectively, are established for nonlocal problems. Finally, the numerical experiments including two-dimensional case are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the presented method.
author:
- 'Minghua Chen[^1]'
- 'Wenya Qi [^2]'
- 'Jiankang Shi [^3]'
- 'Jiming Wu [^4]'
title: 'A sharp error estimate of piecewise polynomial collocation for nonlocal problems with weakly singular kernels [^5]'
---
Nonlocal problems, weakly singular kernels, piecewise polynomial collocation, convergence analysis
45F15, 65L60, 65M12
Introduction
============
In this paper we study an error estimate of the piecewise linear polynomial collocation (PLC) and piecewise quadratic polynomial collocation (PQC) for the nonlocal problems with a weakly singular kernels, whose prototype equation is [@Andreu:10; @Bates:06; @Silling:00; @TWW:13] $$\label{n1.1}
\int^b_a \frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^\gamma}dy =f(x), \quad x \in (a,b) ,\quad 0< \gamma <1$$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions $u(a)=u_a$ and $u(b)=u_b$. Such as nonlocal problems have been used to model very different scientific phenomena occurring in various applied fields, for example in materials science, biology, particle systems, image processing, coagulation models, mathematical finance, etc. [@Andreu:10; @Bates:06].
Formally, the nonlocal models can be viewed as Fredholm weakly singular integral equations of the second kind [@Aikinson:67; @Aikinson:09; @ZhangGJ:16], i.e., $$\tag{$*$}
\lambda u(x)- \int^b_a \frac{u(y)}{|x-y|^\gamma}dy =f(x), \quad x \in (a,b) ,\quad 0< \gamma <1$$ with a nonzero complex number $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$. However, there are still some significant differences for the models in these two fields. For example, the inverse operators of Fredholm integral equations ($*$) are uniformly bounded, see Theorem 12.5.1 of [@Aikinson:09] or [@Aikinson:67]; but nonlocal model is unbounded. From perspective of error analysis, it is shown that the Fredholm integral equations ($*$) have $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ convergence [@Aikinson:09 p.522] by PLC and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$ convergence [@Aikinson:09 p.525] by PQC. Such a situation does not take place for model , even for the case $\gamma=0$. Later in the section 4, we prove an optimal global convergence estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h\right)$ by PLC and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ by PQC, respectively, for model . In fact, the convergence rate for model with PLC remains to be proved in [@TWW:13].
The first key step of error analysis for models is to study the following integral with the weakly singular kernels, being defined as $$\label{n1.2}
I(a,b,x) =\int^b_a \frac{u(y)}{|x-y|^\gamma}dy, \quad x \in (a,b) ,\quad 0< \gamma <1.$$ It should be noted that the integral can be decomposed into Abel-Liouville integrals (often also called Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals) [@Lubich:86] and Weyl fractional integral [@Miller:93] if they depart from the constant coefficient $1/\Gamma(1-\gamma)$.
Among various techniques for solving integral equations, collocation methods are among the simplest [@ZhangGJ:16], which is only needed one-fold of integration and is much simpler to implement on a computer. Piecewise polynomial collocation methods for the integral have been extensively examined by many authors. As is well known, for weakly singular ($0< \gamma< 1$) integral , an optimal error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ was proved by PLC and only $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ convergence was established by PQC in [@Aikinson:67]. Up to now, the quasi-optimal error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$ convergence was provided by PQC, see [@Hoog:73] or [@Aikinson:09 p.525]. A few years later, the error estimate of the Newton-Cotes rules (piecewise polynomial collocation) for hypersingular ($\gamma\geq 1$) integrals was first studied in [@Linz:85]. Later, the superconvergence estimate of the Hadamard finite-part (hypersingular) integral is discussed in [@WL:05; @WS:08] and a class of collocation-type methods are developed in [@LiSun:10]. Recently, fractional hypersingular integral equations and nonlocal diffusion equations with PLC is studied in [@ZhangGJ:16] and a general Newton-Cotes rules for fractional hypersingular integrals have been developed in [@GFTJZ:18]. It should be noted that there are still some differences for the hypersingular integral and weakly singular integral equations. For example, the stiffness matrix of hypersingular integral is a strictly diagonally dominant M-matrix [@ZhangGJ:16], however, it is not possessed for the weakly singular integral equations by PLC.
Numerical methods for the nonlocal problems have been proposed by various authors. There are already the second-order convergence results for model by linear FEM [@CES:19; @WT:12] and for peridynamic or nonlocal problems with the horizon parameter by PLC [@CD:17; @Tian:13; @ZhangGJ:16]. As with our previous reviews, it seems to be second-order convergence for nonlocal model as well as Fredholm weakly singular integral equations ($*$) by PLC. Unfortunately, the numerical result of with $\gamma=1$ shows that the convergence rate seems to be close to 1.5 by PLC [@TWW:13] although it remains to be proved. In this work, inspired by these observations, we will provide the rigorous convergence error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h\right)$ by PLC for the nonlocal model (\[n1.1\]), even for the case $\gamma=0$. How about PQC? We have known that there exists the quasi-optimal error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$ convergence for by PQC in [@Aikinson:09 p.525] or [@Hoog:73]. However, it is still not an optimal error estimate when the singular point coincides with an element junction point. Developed the techniques of hypersingular integral [@GFTJZ:18; @LiSun:10; @WL:05], we will provide an optimal error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\eta_i^{-\gamma}\right)$, $\eta_i=\min\left\{x_i-a,b-x_i\right\}$ for the integral with weakly singular kernels by PQC. Then the main purpose of the paper is the derivation of an optimal global convergence estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ for nonlocal problems by PQC.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we provide the discretization schemes for the integral and nonlocal model , respectively. In Section 3, we study the local truncation error for integral by PLC and PQC. The global convergence rate for nonlocal model by PLC and PQC, respectively, are detailed proved in Section 4. To show the effectiveness of the presented schemes, results of numerical experiments are reported in Section 5. In particularity, some simulations for two-dimensional nonlocal problems with nonsmooth kernels in nonconvex polygonal domain are performed. Finally, we conclude the paper with some remarks on the presented results.
Collocation method and numerical schemes {#sec:1}
========================================
To elucidate the superconvergence phenomenon, we use the piecewise linear and quadratic polynomial collocation method to approach the nonlocal model . Let us first consider the weakly singular integral .
Collocation method for integral {#subsection2.1}
--------------------------------
In [@Aikinson:67] the author already provided integral formulas to compute the weakly singular integral by the piecewise polynomial collocation. Here, for the sake of theorems, we should explicitly express the coefficients of the quadrature schemes by integral formulas.
[**Case I: PLC for integral .**]{} Let $a=x_{0}<x_{1}<x_2 \cdots <x_{N-1}<x_{N}=b$ be a partition with the uniform mesh step $h=(b-a)/N$. Let the piecewise linear basis function $\phi_{j}(x)$ be defined by [@Aikinson:09 p.484]. Then the piecewise linear interpolation $I_1(a,b,x)$ of ([\[n1.2\]]{}) is $$\begin{split}
&I_1(a,b,x_{i})
= \int^{b}_{a} \frac{ \sum^{N}_{j=0} u(x_j) \phi_{j}(y)}{|x_{i}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
= \sum^{N-1}_{j=0} \int^{x_{j+1}}_{x_{j}} \frac{ u(x_{j+1})\phi_{j+1}(y) +u(x_j)\phi_{j}(y) }{|x_{i}-y|^{\gamma}} dy \\
&= \sum^{N-1}_{j=1}\! u(x_j)\! \int^{x_{j+1}}_{x_{j-1}} \!\!\! \frac{ \phi_{j}(y)}{|x_{i}-y|^{\gamma}} dy + u(x_0)\! \int^{x_{1}}_{x_{0}}
\frac{ \phi_{0}(y)}{|x_{i}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
+ u(x_N) \int^{x_{N}}_{x_{N-1}} \frac{ \phi_{N}(y)}{|x_{i}-y|^{\gamma}} dy,
\end{split}$$ i.e., $$\label{n2.1}
\begin{split}
I_1(a,b,x_{i})=\sigma_{h,\gamma}\left[\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}g_{|i-j|}u(x_j) +\alpha_iu(x_0)+\alpha_{N-i}u(x_N) \right]
\end{split}$$ with $\sigma_{h,\gamma}=\frac{h^{1-\gamma}}{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}$. Using integral formulas of [@Aikinson:67], we can explicitly derive the internal values coefficients $g_0=2$, $g_{k}=(k+1)^{2-\gamma}-2k^{2-\gamma}+(k-1)^{2-\gamma}, k\geq 1;$ and the boundary values coefficients $\alpha_i=(i-1)^{2-\gamma}-i^{2-\gamma}+(2-\gamma)i^{1-\gamma}$, $i=1,2,\ldots N-1.$
[**Case II: PQC for integral .**]{} Let $a=x_{0}<x_{\frac{1}{2}}<x_{1}< \cdots <x_{\frac{2N-1}{2}}<x_{N}=b$ be a partition with the uniform mesh step $h=(b-a)/N$. Let the piecewise quadratic basis function $\varphi_{j}(y)$ or $\varphi_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(y)$ be given in [@Aikinson:09 p.499]. Let $u_Q(y)$ be the piecewise Lagrange quadratic interpolant of $u(y)$, i.e., $$\label{n2.2}
u_Q(y)=\sum^{N}_{j=0} u(x_j) \varphi_{j}(y)+\sum^{N-1}_{j=0} u(x_{j+\frac{1}{2}}) \varphi_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(y).$$ Then we have the following piecewise quadratic interpolation $I_2(a,b,x)$ of ([\[n1.2\]]{}) $$\label{n2.3}
\begin{split}
I_2\left(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
= & \int^{b}_{a} \frac{ u_Q(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy\\
= & \sum^{N-1}_{j=1}\! u(x_j)\! \int^{x_{j+1}}_{x_{j-1}} \!\!\! \frac{ \varphi_{j}(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy + u(x_0)\! \int^{x_{1}}_{x_{0}}
\frac{ \varphi_{0}(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy \\
&+ u(x_N) \int^{x_{N}}_{x_{N-1}} \frac{ \varphi_{N}(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
+ \sum^{N-1}_{j=0}u(x_{j+\frac{1}{2}}) \int^{x_{j+1}}_{x_{j}} \frac{\varphi_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(y) }{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
\end{split}$$ with $1\leq i\leq 2N-1$. We divide into two parts as follows $$\label{n2.4}
\begin{split}
I_2(a,b,x_i)
=&\eta_{h,\gamma}\left[\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}m_{|i-j|}u(x_j) + \sum^{N-1}_{j=0}q_{|i-j-\frac{1}{2}|-\frac{1}{2}}u(x_{j+\frac{1}{2}}) \right.\\
&\qquad\quad \left.+\beta_iu(x_0)+\beta_{N-i}u(x_N)\right],~i=1,2,\cdots,N-1;
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{n2.5}
\begin{split}
I_2(a,b,x_{i+\frac{1}{2}})
=&\eta_{h,\gamma}\left[\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}p_{|i+\frac{1}{2}-j|-\frac{1}{2}}u(x_j)+\sum^{N-1}_{j=0}n_{|i-j|}u(x_{j+\frac{1}{2}})\right.\\
& \qquad \quad\left. +\gamma_iu(x_0)+\gamma_{N-i-1}u(x_N) \right],~~i=0,1,\cdots,N-1
\end{split}$$ with $\eta_{h,\gamma}=\frac{h^{1-\gamma}}{(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}$.
Here, from integral formulas of [@Aikinson:67], we can explicitly compute $m_0=2(1+\gamma)$ and $$m_k=4\left[ (k+1)^{3-\gamma}\!-\!(k-1)^{3-\gamma} \right] \!- \!(3-\gamma)\left[ (k+1)^{2-\gamma}+6k^{2-\gamma}+(k-1)^{2-\gamma} \right],~ k\geq 1;$$ and $p_0=4\left[\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{3-\gamma}-\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{3-\gamma}\right]-(3-\gamma)\left[\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2-\gamma}
+3\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2-\gamma}\right]$, $p_{k}=m_{k+\frac{1}{2}} $, $k\geq 1$. Moreover, $q_{k}=-8\left((k+1)^{3-\gamma}-k^{3-\gamma}\right)+4(3-\gamma)\left((k+1)^{2-\gamma}+k^{2-\gamma}\right)$, $k \ge 0$; and $n_{0}= (2-\gamma) 2^{\gamma+1}$, $n_{k}=q_{k-\frac{1}{2}} $, $k\geq 1.$ The boundary values coefficients $$\beta_i
\!= 4\left[ i^{3-\gamma} \!- \!(i-1)^{3-\gamma} \right]-(3-\gamma) \left[ 3i^{2-\gamma} + \left(i-1\right)^{2-\gamma} \right]
+ (3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)i^{1-\gamma}, 1\!\leq i\leq\! N-1$$ and $\gamma_{0}={(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)} 2^{\gamma-1}$, $\gamma_{i}=\beta_{i+\frac{1}{2}} $, $i\geq 1.$
Collocation method for nonlocal model
--------------------------------------
Based on the discussion of the integral , we now provide the numerical schemes for nonlocal model .
[**Case I: PLC for nonlocal model .**]{} From , E.q. (\[n1.1\]) reduces to $$\label{n2.6}
\begin{split}
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ u(x_i)}{\left| x_{i} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy - I_1(a,b,x_{i}) = f(x_{i})+R_i, \quad i=1,2,\cdots,N-1,
\end{split}$$ where the local truncation error $R_i=\mathcal{O}(h^2)$ will be proved in Lemma \[nlemma3.1\]. Let $u_i$ be the approximated value of $u(x_i)$ and $f_i=f(x_i)$. Then the discretization scheme is $$\label{n2.7}
\begin{split}
&\sigma_{h,\gamma}\left[d_{i} u_{i}-\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}g_{|i-j|}u_j\right]=f_{i}+\sigma_h^1\left(\alpha_iu_0+\alpha_{N-i}u_N\right),\quad 1\leq i\leq N-1.
\end{split}$$ Here the coefficients $\sigma_{h,\gamma}$, $\alpha_i$, $g_{|i-j|}$ are given in , and $$d_{i}=(2-\gamma)\left[i^{1-\gamma}+(N-i)^{1-\gamma}\right].$$ For the convenience of implementation, we use the matrix form of the grid functions $$U=(u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{N-1})^{T},~~F=(f_{1},f_{2},\cdots,f_{N-1})^{T},$$ therefore, E.q. can be rewritten as $$\label{n2.8}
\sigma_{h,\gamma}(D-G)U=F+\sigma_{h,\gamma}H,$$ where $D={\rm diag}\left(d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_{N-1}\right)$, $G={\rm toeplitz}\left(g_0,g_1,\ldots, g_{N-2}\right)$ and $$H=(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\cdots,\alpha_{N-1})^{T}u_0+(\alpha_{N-1},\alpha_{N-2},\cdots,\alpha_{1})^{T}u_N.$$
[**Case II: PQC for nonlocal model .**]{} From , we can rewrite (\[n1.1\]) as $$\label{n2.9}
\begin{split}
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ u\left(x_\frac{i}{2}\right)}{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy - I_{2}\left(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
= f\left(x_\frac{i}{2}\right)+R_\frac{i}{2}, ~~ 1\leq i\leq 2N-1.
\end{split}$$ Here we will prove that the local truncation error is $R_\frac{i}{2}=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(\eta_\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}\right)$ in Theorem \[nlemma3.7\]. Let $u_\frac{i}{2}$ be the approximated value of $u(x_\frac{i}{2})$ and $f_\frac{i}{2}=f(x_\frac{i}{2})$. According to -, then the discretization scheme is the following systems $$\label{n2.10}
\begin{split}
&\eta_{h,\gamma}\left[d_{i} u_{i}-\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}m_{|i-j|}u_j-\sum^{N-1}_{j=0}q_{|i-j-\frac{1}{2}|-\frac{1}{2}}u_{j+\frac{1}{2}}\right]\\
&\quad=f_{i}+\eta_{h,\gamma}\left(\beta_iu_0+\beta_{N-i}u_N\right)\qquad\qquad{\rm for}~~1\leq i\leq N-1, \\\\
&\eta_{h,\gamma}\left[d_{i+\frac{1}{2}} u_{i+\frac{1}{2}}-\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}p_{|i+\frac{1}{2}-j|-\frac{1}{2}}u_j-\sum^{N-1}_{j=0}n_{|i-j|}u_{j+\frac{1}{2}}\right]\\
&\quad=f_{i+\frac{1}{2}}+\eta_{h,\gamma}\left(\gamma_iu_0+\gamma_{N-i-1}u_N\right)\qquad\,\,{\rm for}~~0\leq i\leq N-1,
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
d_{\frac{i}{2}} = (3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)\left( \left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma} + \left(N-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma} \right), \quad i=1,2,\cdots,2N-1,
\end{split}$$ and the coefficients $\eta_{h,\gamma}$, $\beta_i$, $\gamma_i$, $m_{|i-j|}$, $n_{|i-j|}$, $p_{|i+\frac{1}{2}-j|-\frac{1}{2}}$, $q_{|i-j-\frac{1}{2}|-\frac{1}{2}}$ are given in and . For the convenience of implementation, we use the matrix form of the grid functions $U=\left(u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{N-1},u_{\frac{1}{2}},u_{\frac{3}{2}},\cdots,u_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{T}$ and similarly for $F$. Therefore, we can be rewrite as the following systems $$\label{n2.11}
\begin{split}
\eta_{h,\gamma}\mathcal{A}U=F+\eta_{h,\gamma}K
\end{split}$$ with $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}=\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{D}_{1} & 0\\
0 &\mathcal{D}_{2}
\end{matrix}
\right ]
-
\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{M} & \mathcal{Q } \\
\mathcal{ P } & \mathcal{N}
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\end{split}.$$ Here $\mathcal{D}_1={\rm diag}\left(d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_{N-1}\right)$, $\mathcal{D}_2={\rm diag}\left(d_\frac{1}{2},d_\frac{3}{2},\ldots, d_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)$, $$\mathcal{M}={\rm toeplitz}\left(m_0,m_1,\ldots, m_{N-2}\right),~~\mathcal{N}={\rm toeplitz}\left(n_0,n_1,\ldots, n_{N-1}\right),$$ and $$\begin{split}
K&=(\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\cdots,\beta_{N-1},\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_{N-1})^{T}u_0\\
&\quad+(\beta_{N-1},\beta_{N-2},\cdots,\beta_{1},\gamma_{N-1},\gamma_{N-2},\cdots,\gamma_0)^{T}u_N.
\end{split}$$ The [*rectangular matrices*]{} $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{Q}$ are defined by
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}=\left [ \begin{matrix}
p_{0} & p_{1} & p_{2} & \cdots & p_{N-3} & p_{N-2} \\
p_{0} & p_{0} & p_{1} & \cdots & p_{N-4} & p_{N-3} \\
p_{1} & p_{0} & p_{0} & \cdots & p_{N-5} & p_{N-3} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
p_{N-4} & p_{N-5} & p_{N-6} & \cdots & p_{0} & p_{1} \\
p_{N-3} & p_{N-4} & p_{N-5} & \cdots & p_{0} & p_{0} \\
p_{N-2} & p_{N-3} & p_{N-4} & \cdots & p_{1} & p_{0}
\end{matrix}
\right ]_{N \times (N-1)}
\end{split}$$
and $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}=\left [ \begin{matrix}
q_{0} & q_{0} & q_{1} & \cdots & q_{N-4} & q_{N-3} & q_{N-2} \\
q_{1} & q_{0} & q_{0} & \cdots & q_{N-5} & q_{N-4} & q_{N-3} \\
q_{2} & q_{1} & q_{0} & \cdots & q_{N-6} & q_{N-5} & q_{N-4} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
q_{N-3} & q_{N-4} & q_{N-5} & \cdots & q_{0} & q_{0} & q_{1} \\
q_{N-2} & q_{N-3} & q_{N-4} & \cdots & q_{1} & q_{0} & q_{0}
\end{matrix}
\right ]_{(N-1) \times N}
\end{split}.$$
Local truncation error for integral
====================================
As is well known, an optimal error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ was proved by PLC and only $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ convergence was established by PQC in [@Aikinson:67]. To the best of our knowledge, the quasi-optimal error estimate with $\mathcal{O}\left(h^{4-\gamma}\right)$ convergence was provided by PQC, see [@Hoog:73] or [@Aikinson:09 p.525]. However, it is still not an optimal error estimate when the singular point coincides with an element junction point. Based on the idea of [@GFTJZ:18; @LiSun:10; @WL:05], we next provide an optimal error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\eta_i^{-\gamma}\right)$, $\eta_i=\min\left\{x_{i}-a,b-x_{i}\right\}$ for the integral by PQC.
Using Lagrange interpolation and the property of weakly singular of integral , we obtain the following local truncation error for integral by PLC.
[@Aikinson:67]\[nlemma3.1\] Let $I(a,b,x_{i})$ and $I_{1}(a,b,x_{i})$ be defined by (\[n1.2\]) and (\[n2.1\]), respectively. If $ u(x) \in C^{2}[a,b] $, then $$\left|I(a,b,x_{i}) - I_{1}(a,b,x_{i}) \right| =\mathcal{O}(h^2).$$
A few technical Lemmas
----------------------
Let us first introduce some lemmas, which will be used to estimate the local truncation error for integral by PQC.
\[nlemma3.2\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$Q_{\frac{i}{2}}:=\int_{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}}^{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}
{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy
=\mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma}),$$ where $i$ is a positive integer number, $\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor$ and $\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil$ denotes the greatest integer that is less than or equal to $\frac{i}{2}$ and the least integer that is greater than or equal to $\frac{i}{2}$, respectively.
If $i$ is even, we have $$\begin{split}
\int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}}\frac{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)
\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}\right)}{\left( y-x_{\frac{i}{2}} \right)^\gamma}dy
= & h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{t^{\gamma}} dt, \\
\int^{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}_{x_{\frac{i}{2}-1}}\frac{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right)
\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)} {\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy
= & -h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{t^{\gamma}} dt.
\end{split}$$ From Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi_{\frac{i}{2}}\in [x_{\frac{i}{2}},x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}]$ and $\xi_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\in [x_{\frac{i}{2}-1},x_{\frac{i}{2}}]$ such that $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) }{3!}\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}\right)
~~\forall~y\in \left[x_{\frac{i}{2}},x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}\right] ;$$ and $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\right) }{3!}\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
~~\forall~y\in \left[x_{\frac{i}{2}-1},x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right].$$ Then $$\begin{split}
Q_{\frac{i}{2}}
&=\int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}-1}}^{x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy
=\int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}-1}}^{x_{\frac{i}{2}}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^\gamma}dy
+ \int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i}{2}+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^\gamma}dy \\
& = \left(\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) }{3!}-\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\right) }{3!}\right) h^{4-\gamma}
\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t(t-\frac{1}{2})(t-1)}{t^{\gamma}} dt \\
& = \frac{\gamma\left(u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)-u^{(3)}\left(\xi_{\frac{i}{2}-1}\right)\right)}{12(4-\gamma)(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)}h^{4-\gamma}
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^{5-\gamma}\right).
\end{split}$$ If $i$ is odd, it yields $$\begin{split}
\int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}}\frac{\left(y-x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
\left(y-x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)}{\left( y-x_{\frac{i}{2}} \right)^\gamma}dy
& = h^{4-\gamma}\int^{\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\frac{\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)}{t^{\gamma}}dt, \\
\int^{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}_{x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}}\frac{\left(y-x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
\left(y-x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)} {\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy
& =- h^{4-\gamma}\int^{\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\frac{\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)}{t^{\gamma}}dt.
\end{split}$$ Using Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi\in \left[x_{\frac{i-1}{2}},x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right]$ $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi\right) }{3!}\left(y-x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)
~~\forall~y\in \left[x_{\frac{i-1}{2}},x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right].$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{split}
Q_{\frac{i}{2}}
&=\int_{x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy
=\int_{x_{\frac{i-1}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i}{2}}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^\gamma}dy
+ \int_{x_{\frac{i}{2}}}^{x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^\gamma}dy \\
& =\frac{u^{(3)}\left(\xi\right) }{3!}h^{4-\gamma}
\left(\int^{\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\frac{\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)}{t^{\gamma}}dt
-\int^{\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\frac{\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)}{t^{\gamma}}dt\right)=0.
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma3.3\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$\begin{split}
& Q_l:=\int^{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}}_{x_{0}}\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy\\
&=-h^{4-\gamma}\cdot u^{(3)}\big(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\big) \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt
+\mathcal{O}(h^4)\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}+\mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma}),
\end{split}$$ where $i$ is a positive integer number and $\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil$ denotes the least integer that is greater than or equal to $\frac{i}{2}$.
Since $x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}=x_0$ with $i=1,2$, it yields $Q_l=0$. Then we just need to estimate $Q_l$ with $i\geq 3$. For any $y\in[x_{m-1},x_m]$, using Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi_{m}\in [x_{m-1},x_m]$ such that $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}(y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m}).$$ For the sake of simplicity, we take $w(\xi_{m})=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}$ and $$\begin{split}
w(\xi_{m})
&=\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]+w(x_{m})\\
&=\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]+ w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) +w'(\eta_{m})\left(x_{m}-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right), \eta_{m}\in[x_m,x_{\frac{i}{2}}].
\end{split}$$ Then $$Q_l
= \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}w(\xi_{m})
\int^{x_{m}}_{x_{m-1}}\frac{ (y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m})}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy:=J_1+J_2+J_3$$ with $$\begin{split}
J_1 =& \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]
\int^{x_{m}}_{x_{m-1}}\frac{ (y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m})}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy;\\
J_2 =& w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\int^{x_{m}}_{x_{m-1}}
\frac{ (y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m})}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy;\\
J_3 =& \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1} w'(\eta_{m})\left(x_{m}-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\int^{x_{m}}_{x_{m-1}}
\frac{ (y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m})}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy.
\end{split}$$ Using integration by parts and $\int^{1}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\tau-1\right)d\tau=0$, it yields $$\label{n3.1}
\begin{split}
& \int^{x_{m}}_{x_{m-1}}\!\!\!\frac{ (y-x_{m-1})\left(y-x_{m-\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m})} {\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy
= h^{4-\gamma}\!\!\int^{1}_{0}\!\!\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+1-t\right)^{\gamma}} dt\\
&= -h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt
= -\gamma h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{\int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, we have $$\label{n3.2}
\begin{split}
& \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}
\int^{1}_{0}\left|\frac{\int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}}\right| dt
\le \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt \\
&\le \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{1+\gamma}} = 2^{1+\gamma}\sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1} \frac{1}{\left(i-2m\right)^{1+\gamma}}\\
&\leq 2^{1+\gamma}\sum^{i-1}_{m=2} \frac{1}{\left(i-m\right)^{1+\gamma}} =2^{1+\gamma}\sum^{i-2}_{m=1} \frac{1}{m^{1+\gamma}}
\leq 2^{1+\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}\right).
\end{split}$$ Here, for the last inequality, we use $$\begin{split}
\sum^{i-2}_{m=1}\frac{1}{m^{1+\gamma}}
= & 1+\sum^{i-2}_{m=2}\frac{1}{m^{1+\gamma}}
= 1+\sum^{i-2}_{m=2} \int^{m}_{m-1}\frac{1}{m^{1+\gamma}}dx
\leq 1+\sum^{i-2}_{m=2} \int^{m}_{m-1}\frac{1}{x^{1+\gamma}}dx\\
= & 1+ \int^{i-2}_{1}\frac{1}{x^{1+\gamma}}dx
= 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{\gamma\left(i-2\right)^{\gamma}}
\leq 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ From and , it leads to $$\begin{split}
&\left|J_1\right|\leq h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \gamma 2^{1+\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}\right) = \mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma});\\
&J_2 = -h^{4-\gamma}\cdot w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1} \int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt.
\end{split}$$ Next we estimate the error term $J_3$. Using and , we have $$\begin{split}
|J_3|
&\leq \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt\\
&\le \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{-\gamma}}.
\end{split}$$ We can check $$\begin{split}
&\sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{-\gamma}}=\sum^{\frac{i}{2}-1}_{m=1}\frac{1}{m^\gamma}=\sum^{\frac{i}{2}-1}_{m=1}\int_{m-1}^m\frac{1}{m^\gamma}dx
\leq \sum^{\frac{i}{2}-1}_{m=1}\int_{m-1}^m\frac{1}{x^\gamma}dx\\
&= \int _0^{\frac{i}{2}-1}\frac{1}{x^\gamma}dx
\leq \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( \frac{i}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma}= \frac{h^{\gamma-1}}{1-\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma},~~i {\rm {~is ~even}}.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, if $i$ is an odd, we have $$\begin{split}
&\sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{-\gamma}}=\sum^{\frac{i-1}{2}}_{m=1}\frac{1}{\left(m-\frac{1}{2}\right)^\gamma}
=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}+\sum^{\frac{i-1}{2}}_{m=2}\int_{m-\frac{3}{2}}^{m-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{\left(m-\frac{1}{2}\right)^\gamma}dx\\
&\leq \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{i}{2}-1}\frac{1}{x^\gamma}dx
\leq 2\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma}+\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left( \frac{i}{2} \right)^{1-\gamma}\leq \frac{3-2\gamma}{1-\gamma}\left( \frac{i}{2} \right)^{1-\gamma}\\
&= \frac{h^{\gamma-1}\left(3-2\gamma\right)}{1-\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ It implies that $$\label{n3.3}
|J_3|\leq \!\gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \frac{h^{\gamma-1}\left(3-2\gamma\right)}{1-\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}
\!\!= \!\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\right)\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}.$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma3.4\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$\begin{split}
Q_r:&=\int^{x_{i}}_{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy \\
&=h^{4-\gamma}\cdot w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1} \int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt
+\mathcal{O}(h^4)\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}\!\!+\mathcal{O}\left(h^{5-\gamma}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $i$ is a positive integer number and $\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor$ denotes the greatest integer that is less than or equal to $\frac{i}{2}$.
Since $x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}=x_i$ with $i=1,2$, it yields $Q_r=0$. Then we just need to estimate $Q_r$ with $i\geq 3$. For any $y\in[x_{m},x_{m+1}]$, using Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi_{m}\in [x_{m},x_{m+1}]$ such that $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}(y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1}).$$ For the sake of simplicity, we take $w(\xi_{m})=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}$ and $$\begin{split}
w(\xi_{m})
&=\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]+w(x_{m})\\
&=\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]+ w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) +w'(\eta_{m})\left(x_{m}-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right), \eta_{m}\in[x_m,x_{\frac{i}{2}}].
\end{split}$$ Then $$Q_r
= \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}w(\xi_{m})
\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1})}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy:=\widetilde{J}_1+\widetilde{J}_2+\widetilde{J}_3$$ with $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{J}_1 =& \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}\left[w(\xi_{m})-w(x_{m})\right]
\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1})}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy;\\
\widetilde{J}_2 =& w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}
\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1})}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy;\\
\widetilde{J}_3 =& \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1} w'(\eta_{m})\left(x_{m}-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)
\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1})}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy.
\end{split}$$ Using integration by parts and $\int^{1}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\tau-1\right)d\tau=0$, it yields $$\begin{split}
& \int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1})}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy\\
&= h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt
=\gamma h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{\int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, from (\[n3.2\]), we have $$\begin{split}
& \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}
\int^{1}_{0}\left|\frac{\int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{1+\gamma}}\right|dt
\le \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt \\
&= \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt
\leq 2^{1+\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}\right).
\end{split}$$ According to the above equations, there exists $$\begin{split}
\left|\widetilde{J}_1\right|&\leq h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \gamma 2^{1+\gamma}\left( 1+ \frac{1}{\gamma}\right) = \mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma});\\
\widetilde{J}_2&= h^{4-\gamma}w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)\sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}
\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt\\
&= h^{4-\gamma}\cdot w\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right) \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1} \int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{\gamma}} dt.
\end{split}$$ Next we estimate the error term $\widetilde{J}_3$. From and , we have $$\begin{split}
|\widetilde{J}_3|
&\leq \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \sum_{m=\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}^{i-1}\left(m-\frac{i}{2}\right)\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(m-\frac{i}{2}+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt\\
&= \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m+t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt\\
&\le \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \sum^{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}_{m=1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{-\gamma}}.
\end{split}$$ The similar arguments can be performed as , we get $$|\widetilde{J}_3|\leq \gamma h^{5-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} |w'(\eta)| \frac{h^{\gamma-1}\left(3-2\gamma\right)}{1-\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma} = \mathcal{O}(h^4)\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{1-\gamma}.$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma3.5\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$\begin{split}
Q_{c}:&=\int_{x_{i}}^{x_{N}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma}\right),~~1\leq i \leq N-1.
\end{split}$$
For any $y\in[x_{m},x_{m+1}]$, using Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi_{m}\in [x_{m},x_{m+1}]$ such that $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}(y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1}).$$ For the sake of simplicity, we taking $w(\xi_{m})=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}$. Using integration by parts and $\int^{1}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\tau-1\right)d\tau=0$, we have $$\begin{split}
& \left|\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{(y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{m+1}\right)}
{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy\right|
= h^{4-\gamma}\left|\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(t+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{\gamma}} dt\right| \\
&= \gamma h^{4-\gamma}\left|\int^{1}_{0}\frac{ \int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}
{\left(t+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt\right|
\leq \gamma h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{ 1}{\left(t+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{split}
&\sum^{N-1}_{m=i}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(t+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt
=\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum^{N-1}_{m=i}\left[ \left(m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}-\left(1+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma} \right]\\
&=\frac{1}{\gamma} \left[\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}-\left(N-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma} \right]\leq \frac{1}{\gamma} \left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}
=\frac{1}{\gamma}h^{\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ According to the above equations, we have $$\begin{split}
\left| Q_c \right|
=& \left|\sum^{N-1}_{m=i}w(\xi_m)\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{m+1}\right)}{\left(y-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{\gamma}}dy\right|\\
\leq&\gamma h^{4-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]}\left|w(\xi)\right|\sum^{N-1}_{m=i}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(t+m-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt\\
\leq& h^{4-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} \left|w(\xi)\right| h^{\gamma}\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma}
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma}\right).
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma3.6\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{Q}_{c}:&=\int_{x_{0}}^{x_{i-N}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(x_{b-\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}\right),~~N+1\leq i \leq 2N-1.
\end{split}$$
For any $y\in[x_{m},x_{m+1}]$, using Taylor expansion, there exist $\xi_{m}\in [x_{m},x_{m+1}]$ such that $$u(y)-u_Q(y)=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}(y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)(y-x_{m+1}).$$ For the sake of simplicity, we taking $w(\xi_{m})=\frac{u^{(3)}(\xi_{m}) }{3!}$. Using integration by parts and $\int^{1}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\tau-1\right)d\tau=0$, we have $$\begin{split}
& \left|\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{(y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{m+1}\right)}
{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy\right|
= h^{4-\gamma}\left|\int^{1}_{0}\frac{t\left(t-\frac{1}{2}\right)(t-1)}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m-t\right)^{\gamma}} dt\right| \\
&= \gamma h^{4-\gamma}\left|\int^{1}_{0}\frac{ \int^{t}_{0}\tau\left(\tau-\frac{1}{2}\right)(\tau-1)d\tau}
{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m-t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt\right|
\leq \gamma h^{4-\gamma}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{ 1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m-t\right)^{1+\gamma}} dt.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{split}
&\sum^{i-N-1}_{m=0}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m-t\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt
=\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum^{i-N-1}_{m=0}\left[ \left(\frac{i}{2}-m-1\right)^{-\gamma}-\left(\frac{i}{2}-m\right)^{-\gamma} \right]\\
&=\frac{1}{\gamma} \left[\left(N-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}-\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma} \right]\leq \frac{1}{\gamma} \left(N-\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}
=\frac{1}{\gamma}h^{\gamma}\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ According to the above equations, we have $$\begin{split}
\left| \widetilde{Q}_c \right|
=& \left|\sum^{i-N-1}_{m=0}w(\xi_m)\int^{x_{m+1}}_{x_{m}}\frac{ (y-x_{m})\left(y-x_{m+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(y-x_{m+1}\right)}{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right)^{\gamma}}dy\right|\\
\leq&\gamma h^{4-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]}\left|w(\xi)\right|\sum^{i-N-1}_{m=0}\int^{1}_{0}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{i}{2}-m-t\right)^{1+\gamma}}dt\\
\leq& h^{4-\gamma}\max_{\eta\in[a,b]} \left|w(\xi)\right| h^{\gamma}\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}\right).
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
Local truncation error for integral with PQC
--------------------------------------------
According to the above results, we obtain the following.
\[nlemma3.7\] Let $I(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}})$ and $I_{2}(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}})$ be defined by (\[n1.2\]) and (\[n2.4\]), respectively. Let $0<\gamma<1$, $ u(y) \in C^{4}[a,b] $ and $u_Q(y)$ be defined by . Then $$\left|I(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}}) - I_{2}(a,b,x_{\frac{i}{2}}) \right|=\int^{b}_{a} {\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma} }dy
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(\eta_\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}\right)+\mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma})$$ with $\eta_\frac{i}{2}=\min\left\{x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a,b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right\}, ~i=1,2,\cdots,2N-1$.
If $x_{\frac{i}{2}}\leq \frac{b-a}{2}$, then $$\begin{split}
\int^b_a \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^\gamma}dy=Q_l+Q_{\frac{i}{2}}+Q_r+Q_c
\end{split}$$ with $$\begin{split}
Q_l:=&\int^{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}}_{x_{0}}\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,~~~~~~\qquad\,\,
Q_{\frac{i}{2}}:=\int_{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}}^{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)} {\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,\\
Q_r:=&\int^{x_{i}}_{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,~~~~~~\qquad \quad
Q_c:=\int_{x_{i}}^{x_{N}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy.
\end{split}$$ According to Lemmas \[nlemma3.2\]-\[nlemma3.5\], we obtain $$\left| R_{i} \right|=\int^{b}_{a} {\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma} }dy
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma}\right)+\mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma}).$$ If $x_{\frac{i}{2}}\geq \frac{b-a}{2}$, then $$\begin{split}
\int^b_a \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^\gamma}dy=\widetilde{Q}_c+\widetilde{Q}_l+\widetilde{Q}_{\frac{i}{2}}+\widetilde{Q}_r
\end{split}$$ with $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{Q}_c:=&\int^{x_{i-N}}_{x_{0}}\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,~~~~~~\qquad \,\,
\widetilde{Q}_l:= \int_{x_{i-N}}^{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,~~~~~~\\
\widetilde{Q}_{\frac{i}{2}}:=&\int_{x_{\lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil-1}}^{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)} {\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy,~\quad~~~~\quad
\widetilde{Q}_r:=\int_{x_{\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor+1}}^{x_{N}} \frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma}dy.
\end{split}$$ According to the Lemma \[nlemma3.6\] and the similar arguments can be performed as Lemmas \[nlemma3.2\]-\[nlemma3.4\], we have $$\left| R_{i} \right|=\int^{b}_{a} {\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y\right|^\gamma} }dy
=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}\right)+\mathcal{O}(h^{5-\gamma}).$$ The proof is completed.
\[nremark3.1\] If $s$ is not an element junction point, e.g., $s\in \left(x_{\frac{i}{2}},x_{\frac{i+1}{2}}\right)$, the similar arguments can be performed as Theorem \[nlemma3.7\] by PQC, we have $$\left|I(a,b,s) - I_{2}(a,b,s) \right|=\int^{b}_{a} {\frac{u(y)-u_Q(y)}{\left|s-y\right|^\gamma} }dy
=\mathcal{O}(h^{4-\gamma}),$$ which coincides with [@Hoog:73] or [@Aikinson:09 p.525].
Global convergence rate for nonlocal problems
==============================================
In [@TWW:13] remains to be proved the convergence error estimate by PLC. Inspired by this observations, we derive an optimal global convergence estimate for such nonlocal problems with $\mathcal{O}\left(h\right)$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$ by PLC and PQC, respectively.
Global convergence rate for model with PLC
------------------------------------------
A symmetric positive definite matrix with positive entries on the diagonal and nonpositive off-diagonal entries is called an $M$-matrix. Then we have the following.
\[nlemma4.1\] Let matrix $A=D-G $ be defined by . Then $A$ is an $M$-matrix.
Let $A=\left\{ a_{i,j} \right\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1}$ with $N\geq 2$. From and and Taylor expansion, we have $$a_{i,j}=\left\{\begin{split}
& d_{i}-g_0 >0, & i = j, \\
& -g_{|i-j|} <0, & i \neq j.
\end{split}
\right.$$
We next prove the matrix $A$ is strictly diagonally dominant by rows. Using $1\equiv\sum_{j=0}^{N}\phi_j(x),$ it yields $$\label{4.01}
\begin{split}
&\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ 1}{\left| x_{i} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy -
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ \sum^{N-1}_{j=1} \phi_{j}(y)}{\left| x_{i} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy
= \int^{b}_{a} \frac{\phi_{0}(x) }{\left| x_{i} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy +
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\phi_{N}(x) }{\left| x_i - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy\\
&=\sigma_{h,\gamma}\rho_i \geq \frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2}\sigma_{h,\gamma}\left[\frac{1}{i^{\gamma}} +\frac{1}{\left(N-i\right)^{\gamma}}\right]
=\frac{h^{1-\gamma}}{2}\left[\frac{1}{i^{\gamma}} +\frac{1}{\left(N-i\right)^{\gamma}}\right]
\end{split}$$ with $$\begin{split}
\rho_i=& \left[ (i-1)^{2-\gamma} - i^{2-\gamma} + (2-\gamma)i^{1-\gamma} \right. \\
&\qquad + \left.(N-i-1)^{2-\gamma} - (N-i)^{2-\gamma} + (2-\gamma)(N-i)^{1-\gamma}\right].
\end{split}$$ From $$\begin{split}
&(i-1)^{2-\gamma} - i^{2-\gamma} + (2-\gamma)i^{1-\gamma}
= i^{2-\gamma}\left[\left(1-\frac{1}{i}\right)^{2-\gamma}-1+(2-\gamma)\frac{1}{i}\right]\\
& = i^{2-\gamma}\left[\frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2!}\frac{1}{i^{2}}+(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)\sum_{n=1}^\infty\prod_{k=1}^n\frac{k+\gamma-1}{(n+2)!}\frac{1}{i^{n+2}}\right]\\
&\ge i^{2-\gamma}\left[\frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2!}\frac{1}{i^{2}}\right]= \frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2i^{\gamma}}>0;
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
(N-i-1)^{2-\gamma} - (N-i)^{2-\gamma} + (2-\gamma)(N-i)^{1-\gamma} \ge \frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2\left(N-i\right)^{\gamma}}>0,
\end{split}$$ thus we have $$\begin{split}
\sum^{N-1}_{j=1}a_{i,j} =\rho_i >0,~~i=1,2\ldots N-1.
\end{split}$$ From the Gerschgorin circle theorem [@Horn:13 p.388], the eigenvalues of $A$ are in the disks centered at $a_{i,i}$ with radius $r_i$, i.e., the eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the matrix $A$ satisfy $$|\lambda -a_{i,i} | \leq r_i=\sum^{N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i}|a_{i,j}|,$$ which yields $$\label{n4.1}
\begin{split}
& \lambda_{\min}(A) \geq \min\{a_{i,i}-r_i\}=\min\rho_i\\
& = \min\left\{\frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2i^{\gamma}} + \frac{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)}{2\left(N-i\right)^{\gamma}}\right\},~~i=1,2\ldots N-1.
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
\[ntheorem4.2\] Let $u_{i}$ be the approximate solution of $u(x_{i})$ computed by the discretization scheme (\[n2.8\]). Let $\varepsilon_{i}=u(x_{i})-u_{i}$. Then $$||u(x_{i})-u_{i}||_\infty = \mathcal{O}(h).$$
Let $\varepsilon_{i}=u(x_{i})-u_{i}$ with $\varepsilon_{0}=\varepsilon_{N}=0$. Subtracting (\[n2.8\]) from (\[n2.6\]), we get $$\frac{h^{1-\gamma}}{(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)} \cdot A\varepsilon=R$$ where $\varepsilon=[\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\cdots,\varepsilon_{N-1}]^T$ and similarly for $R$ with $R_{i}=\mathcal{O}(h^2)$ in Lemma \[nlemma3.1\].
Let $\left|\varepsilon_{i_0}\right|:=||\varepsilon||_{\infty}=\max_{1\leq i\leq N-1}|\varepsilon_i|$ and $A=\left\{ a_{i,j} \right\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1}$. From Lemma \[nlemma4.1\], it yields $a_{i,i}>0$ and $a_{i,j}<0$, $i\neq j$ and $$\begin{split}
\left|R_{i_0}\right|
=& \sigma_{h,\gamma} \left|a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\varepsilon_{i_0}+\sum^{N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}a_{i_{0},j}\varepsilon_{j}\right|
\ge \sigma_{h,\gamma}\left[ a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\left|\varepsilon_{i_{0}}\right|-\sum^{N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|
\left|\varepsilon_{j}\right| \right]\\
\ge& \sigma_{h,\gamma}\left[ a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\left|\varepsilon_{i_{0}}\right|-\sum^{N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|
\left|\varepsilon_{i_{0}}\right|\right]
= \sigma_{h,\gamma} \left[a_{i_{0},i_{0}}-\!\!\!\sum^{N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|\right]\left|\varepsilon_{i_{0}}\right|\\
= & \left[\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\phi_{0}(x) }{\left| x_{i_0} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy +
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\phi_{N}(x) }{\left| x_{i_0} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy\right]\left|\varepsilon_{i_0}\right|
=S_{i_0}\left|\varepsilon_{i_0}\right|.
\end{split}$$ From and Lemma \[nlemma3.1\], we have $$S_{i_0}\geq \frac{h^{1-\gamma}}{2}\left[\frac{1}{i_0^{\gamma}} +\frac{1}{\left(N-i_0\right)^{\gamma}}\right]\geq h^{1-\gamma}N^{-\gamma}=\frac{h}{\left(b-a\right)^\gamma}
~~{\rm and}~~R_{i_0}=\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right).$$ Then $$\begin{split}
||\varepsilon||_{\infty}
=\left|\varepsilon_{i_0}\right| \le \frac{\left|R_{i_0}\right|}{S_{i_0}}= \mathcal{O}\left(h\right).
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
\[nremark4.1\] Fredholm integral equations of the second kind model ($*$) holds $ ||u(x_{i})-u_{i}||_{\infty}= \mathcal{O}(h^2)$ by PLC, see [@Aikinson:67] and [@Aikinson:09 p.522]. If $\lambda=1$ and $\gamma=0$, the model ($*$) is equivalent to the nonlocal model with $\gamma=0$, i.e., $
\int^b_a u(x)-u(y)dy =f(x).
$ From Theorem \[ntheorem4.2\], it leads to the interesting results $ ||u(x_{i})-u_{i}||_{\infty}= \mathcal{O}(h).$
Global convergence rate for model with PQC
------------------------------------------
We next consider the properties of the stiffness matrix $\mathcal{A}$ in .
\[nlemma4.3\] Let the matrices $\mathcal{M}$, $\mathcal{N}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{Q}$ be defined by . Then $ \mathcal{M}$, $ \mathcal{N}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{Q}$ are positive matrices.
Using Taylor expansion, we have $$\label{n4.2}
\begin{split}
(1+z)^\alpha
& = 1+\alpha z + \frac{\alpha(\alpha-1)}{2!}z^{2}+\frac{\alpha(\alpha-1)(\alpha-2)}{3!}z^{3}+\cdots\\
& = 1+ \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \prod^{n}_{ k=1} \frac{\alpha+1-k}{n!} z^{n},~~| z|\leq 1,~~\alpha>0.
\end{split}$$ We first estimate the elements of $\mathcal{M}$. From and $\eqref{n4.2}$, it yields $m_0>0$ and $$\begin{split}
m_{i}
= & 4 i^{3-\gamma}\left[\left(1+\frac{1}{i}\right)^{3-\gamma}-\left(1-\frac{1}{i}\right)^{3-\gamma}\right]\\
&\quad -(3-\gamma)i^{2-\gamma}\left[\left(1+\frac{1}{i}\right)^{2-\gamma}+6+\left(1-\frac{1}{i}\right)^{2-\gamma}\right]\\
= & 2 \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \prod^{2n+1}_{k=1} (4-k-\gamma)\frac{3-2n}{(2n+1)!} i^{2-2n-\gamma}\\
= & 2(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)i^{-\gamma}\left[ \frac{1}{6}
- \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \prod^{2n}_{k=1} (1-k-\gamma)\frac{2n-1}{(2n+3)!} i^{-2n} \right]\\
\ge& 2(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)i^{-\gamma} \left(\frac{1}{6} -\frac{7}{60} \right)> 0,\quad i\geq1,
\end{split}$$ since $$\begin{split}
& \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \prod^{2n}_{k=1} (1-k-\gamma)\frac{2n-1}{(2n+3)!} i^{-2n}\\
& \quad\le \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \frac{ \left(2n\right)! (2n-1)}{(2n+3)!} = \frac{1}{60} +\sum^{\infty}_{n=2} \frac{ (2n-1)}{(2n+3)(2n+2)(2n+1)}\\
& \quad\le \frac{1}{60} + \sum^{\infty}_{n=2} \frac{ 1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)} \le \frac{1}{60}+\frac{1}{10}=\frac{7}{60}.
\end{split}$$ Now we estimate the elements of $\mathcal{P}$. From and $\eqref{n4.2}$ and the above estimate of $m_i$, we have $$\begin{split}
p_{i}
= & 4z^{3-\gamma}\left[ \left( 1+\frac{1}{z} \right)^{3-\gamma} - \left( 1-\frac{1}{z} \right)^{3-\gamma} \right]\\
&\quad -(3-\gamma)z^{2-\gamma}\left[ \left( 1+\frac{1}{z} \right)^{2-\gamma}+6+\left( 1-\frac{1}{z} \right)^{2-\gamma} \right] \\
\ge & \frac{1}{10}(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)z^{-\gamma} > 0~~\quad~~{\rm with}~~\quad~~z=i+\frac{1}{2},~~i\geq 1.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, using and $\eqref{n4.2}$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
p_0
\geq &4\left[\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{3-\gamma}-\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{3-\gamma}\right]\\
&\quad-(3-\gamma)\left[\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2-\gamma}
+3\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2-\gamma}\right]-(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma} \\
= & (3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)z^{-\gamma}\left[\frac{1}{6}
+ \sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\prod^{n}_{k=1}(k-1+\gamma)\right]\frac{n^2+2n+1}{(n+3)!} z^{-n} \\
\ge & \frac{1}{6}(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)z^{-\gamma} > 0~~\quad~~{\rm with}~~\quad~~z=\frac{3}{2}.
\end{split}$$ We next estimate the elements of $\mathcal{Q}$. From and $\eqref{n4.2}$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
q_{i}
= & -8(i+1)^{3-\gamma}\left[1-\left(1-\frac{1}{i+1}\right)^{3-\gamma}\right]\\
& +4(3-\gamma)(i+1)^{2-\gamma}\left[1+\left(1-\frac{1}{i+1}\right)^{2-\gamma}\right] \\
= & 4(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)(i+1)^{-\gamma}
\left[\frac{1}{6}+ \sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\prod^{n}_{k=1}(k-1+\gamma) \frac{n+1}{(n+3)!} (i+1)^{-n}\right] \\
> & \frac{2}{3}(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)(i+1)^{-\gamma} > 0, \quad i\geq 0.
\end{split}$$ We last estimate the elements of $\mathcal{N}$. From and $\eqref{n4.2}$, it yields $n_0>0$ and $$\begin{split}
n_{i}
= & -8\left(z+1\right)^{3-\gamma}\left[1-\left(1-\frac{1}{z+1}\right)^{3-\gamma}\right]\\
& +4(3-\gamma)\left(z+1\right)^{2-\gamma}\left[1+\left(1-\frac{1}{z+1}\right)^{2-\gamma}\right]\\
\ge & \frac{2}{3}(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)\left(z+1\right)^{-\gamma} > 0 ~~\quad~~{\rm with}~~\quad~~z=i-\frac{1}{2},~~i\geq 1.
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma4.4\] Let $0<\gamma<1$ and $1\le i \le 2N-1$. Then $$\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy\geq\frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}} -a\right)^{-\gamma};$$ and $$\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{N}(x) }{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy\geq\frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}} \right)^{-\gamma}.$$
If $i=1$, then $$\begin{split}
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
&= \int^{x_{\frac{1}{2}}}_{x_{0}} \frac{\frac{x_{1}-y}{h}\frac{x_{1}-2y}{h} }{(x_{\frac{1}{2}}-y)^{\gamma}} dy
+ \int^{x_{1}}_{x_{\frac{1}{2}}} \frac{\frac{x_{1}-y}{h}\frac{x_{1}-2y}{h} }{(y-x_{\frac{1}{2}})^{\gamma}} dy= h^{1-\gamma} \frac{4}{3-\gamma} \frac{1}{2^{3-\gamma}}\\
&=\frac{1}{2\left(3-\gamma\right)}h\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}} -a\right)^{-\gamma}\geq \frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}} -a\right)^{-\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ Let $\eta_{h,\gamma}$ be given in and $i\geq 2$. Using Taylor expansion , it yields $$\begin{split}
& \int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{|x_{\frac{i}{2}}-y|^{\gamma}} dy
= \eta_{h,\gamma}\left[ 4\left( \left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{3-\gamma} - \left(\frac{i}{2}-1\right)^{3-\gamma} \right) \right. \\
& \qquad\left. -(3-\gamma) \left( 3\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{2-\gamma} + \left(\frac{i}{2}-1\right)^{2-\gamma} \right) + (3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{1-\gamma}\right]\\
&= \eta_{h,\gamma}(3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}\!\left[ \frac{1}{6}-\gamma\sum^{\infty}_{n=5}\frac{\prod^{n-3}_{k=2}(k-1+\gamma)(n-4)}{n!}\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{3-n}\right]\\
&\ge \frac{1}{6}\eta_{h,\gamma} (3-\gamma)(2-\gamma)(1-\gamma)^2\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}=\frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}} -a\right)^{-\gamma}.
\end{split}$$ Here, for the last inequality, we use $$\begin{split}
&\sum^{\infty}_{n=5}\frac{\prod^{n-3}_{k=2}(k-1+\gamma)(n-4)}{n!}\left(\frac{i}{2}\right)^{3-n}
< \sum^{\infty}_{n=5}\frac{(n-3)!(n-4)}{n!}\\
&\quad=\sum^{\infty}_{n=5}\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}-2\sum^{\infty}_{n=5}\left(\frac{1}{n} -\frac{2}{n-1} +\frac{1}{n-2} \right)
= \frac{1}{6}.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, there exists $$\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{N}(x) }{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy=\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{\left| x_{N-\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy
\ge \frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}} \right)^{-\gamma}.$$ The proof is completed.
\[nlemma4.5\] Let $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}=\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{D}_{1} & 0\\
0 &\mathcal{D}_{2}
\end{matrix}
\right ]
-
\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{M} & \mathcal{Q } \\
\mathcal{ P } & \mathcal{N}
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\end{split}.$$ Then $\mathcal{A}$ is strictly diagonally dominant by rows.
From Lemma \[nlemma4.4\], we know that $ \mathcal{M}$, $ \mathcal{N}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{Q}$ are positive matrices. From Lemma \[nlemma4.4\] and the property of the interpolation operator, i.e., $$1\equiv\sum_{j=0}^{N}\varphi_j(x)+\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\varphi_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(x),$$ it yields $$\begin{split}
S_\frac{i}{2}:=&\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ 1}{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy -
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{ \sum^{N-1}_{j=1} \varphi_{j}(y)+\sum^{N-1}_{j=0} \varphi_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(y)}{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy\\
= & \int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy +
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{N}(x) }{\left| x_{\frac{i}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy>0,~~i=1,2,\cdots, 2N-1.
\end{split}$$ Using , with $u(x)\equiv 1$, we can rewrite the above equation as the following $$\label{n4.3}
\begin{split}
\eta_{h,\gamma}\left\{\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{D}_{1} & 0\\
0 &\mathcal{D}_{2}
\end{matrix}
\right ]
-
\left [ \begin{matrix}
\mathcal{M} & \mathcal{Q } \\
\mathcal{ P } & \mathcal{N}
\end{matrix}
\right ]\right\}U=\eta_{h,\gamma}K
=S,
\end{split}$$ where $U=\left(1,1,\cdots,1\right)^{T}$ and $
S=\left(S_{1},S_{2},\cdots,S_{N-1},S_{\frac{1}{2}},S_{\frac{3}{2}},\cdots,S_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{T}.
$ The proof is completed.
\[nremark4.2\] From Lemma \[nlemma4.5\], we know that the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is nonsingular [@Varga:00 p.23] and the linear system has a unique solution.
\[ntheorem4.6\] Let $u_{i}$ be the approximate solution of $u(x_{i})$ computed by the discretization scheme . Then $$||u(x_{i})-u_{i}||_{\infty}= \mathcal{O}(h^{3}).$$
Let $\epsilon_{i}=u(x_{i})\!-\!u_{i}$ with $\epsilon_{0}=\epsilon_{N}=0$. Subtracting (\[n2.10\]) from (\[n2.9\]), we get $$\eta_{h,\gamma} \cdot \mathcal{A}\epsilon=R$$ with $\epsilon=\left(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2},\cdots,\epsilon_{N-1},\epsilon_{\frac{1}{2}},\epsilon_{\frac{3}{2}},\cdots,\epsilon_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{T}$ and similarly for $R$.
Upon relabeling and reorienting the vectors $\epsilon$ and $R$ as $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{\epsilon}&=\left(\epsilon_{\frac{1}{2}},\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{\frac{3}{2}},\epsilon_{2},\cdots,\epsilon_{N-1},\epsilon_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{T},\\
\widetilde{R}&=\left(R_{\frac{1}{2}},R_{1},R_{\frac{3}{2}},R_{2},\cdots,R_{N-1},R_{N-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{T},
\end{split}$$ then the above equation can be recast as $$\eta_{h,\gamma} \cdot \mathcal{\widetilde{A}}\widetilde{\epsilon}=\widetilde{R}.$$
Let $\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|:=||\epsilon||_{\infty}=\max_{1\leq i\leq 2N-1}|\epsilon_\frac{i}{2}|$ and $\mathcal{\widetilde{A}}=\left\{ a_{i,j} \right\}_{i,j=1}^{2N-1}$. From Lemma \[nlemma4.4\] and , it yields $a_{i,i}>0$ and $a_{i,j}<0$, $i\neq j$ and $$\begin{split}
\left|R_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|
=& \eta_{h,\gamma} \left|a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}+\sum^{2N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}a_{i_{0},j}\epsilon_{\frac{j}{2}}\right|
\ge \eta_{h,\gamma}\left[ a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|-\sum^{2N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|
\left|\epsilon_{\frac{j}{2}}\right| \right]\\
\ge& \eta_{h,\gamma}\left[ a_{i_{0},i_{0}}\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|-\!\!\!\sum^{2N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|
\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|\right]
= \eta_{h,\gamma} \left[a_{i_{0},i_{0}}-\!\!\!\sum^{2N-1}_{j=1,j\neq i_{0}}\left|a_{i_{0},j}\right|\right]\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|\\
= & \left[\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{0}(x) }{\left| x_{\frac{i_0}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy +
\int^{b}_{a} \frac{\varphi_{N}(x) }{\left| x_{\frac{i_0}{2}} - y \right|^{\gamma}} dy\right]\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|
=S_{\frac{i_0}{2}}\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|.
\end{split}$$ According to Lemma \[nlemma4.4\] and Theorem \[nlemma3.7\], we have $$S_{\frac{i_0}{2}}\geq \frac{1}{6} (1-\gamma)h\left[\left(x_{\frac{i_0}{2}} -a\right)^{-\gamma}+\left(b-x_{\frac{i_0}{2}} \right)^{-\gamma} \right],$$ and $$R_{\frac{i}{2}}=\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(\eta_\frac{i}{2}\right)^{-\gamma}\right)=\max\left\{\left(x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a\right)^{-\gamma},\left(b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right)^{-\gamma}\right\}\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\right).$$ Then $$\begin{split}
||\epsilon||_{\infty}
=\left|\epsilon_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right| \le \frac{\left|R_{\frac{i_{0}}{2}}\right|}{S_{\frac{i_0}{2}}}= \mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right).
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
Numerical results
=================
In this section, we numerical verify the above theoretical results including convergence rates. In particularly, some simulations for two-dimensional nonlocal problems with nonsmooth kernels in nonconvex polygonal domain are performed.
Numerical example for 1D
------------------------
In this subsection, the $l_\infty$ norm is used to measure the numerical errors.
\[ex:01\] To numerically confirm the result of Lemma \[nlemma3.1\] and Theorem \[nlemma3.7\], we consider the integral with $a=0,b=1$. Here the test function is $u(x)=e^x$ and define $f(x)$ accordingly.
----- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- --
error order error order error order
0.3 1/64 4.7106e-05 5.9669e-05 6.0480e-05
0.3 1/128 1.1667e-05 2.0135 1.4706e-05 2.0206 1.5163e-05 1.9959
0.3 1/256 2.8996e-06 2.0085 3.6442e-06 2.0127 3.7975e-06 1.9974
0.3 1/512 7.2218e-07 2.0054 9.0607e-07 2.0079 9.5039e-07 1.9985
0.7 1/64 9.3738e-05 3.2028e-04 1.5912e-04
0.7 1/128 2.3178e-05 2.0159 7.2583e-05 2.1416 4.0977e-05 1.9572
0.7 1/256 5.7477e-06 2.0117 1.6660e-05 2.1232 1.0487e-05 1.9662
0.7 1/512 1.4280e-06 2.0090 3.8597e-06 2.1098 2.6712e-06 1.9730
----- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- --
: Example \[ex:01\]: The errors of numerical scheme (\[n2.1\]) with PLC.[]{data-label="TT01"}
----- ------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- --
error order error order error order
0.3 1/64 2.0549e-10 2.4848e-09 1.2613e-11
0.3 1/128 1.6878e-11 3.6059 1.8583e-10 3.7410 7.4474e-13 4.0820
0.3 1/256 1.3696e-12 3.6233 1.4627e-11 3.6672 4.6185e-14 4.0112
0.3 1/512 1.1147e-13 3.6190 1.1098e-12 3.7202 2.6645e-15 4.1154
0.7 1/64 1.5922e-09 1.6352e-07 3.3388e-10
0.7 1/128 1.5680e-10 3.3440 1.6506e-08 3.3084 2.0851e-11 4.0011
0.7 1/256 1.5652e-11 3.3245 1.6815e-09 3.2951 1.3038e-12 3.9993
0.7 1/512 1.5730e-12 3.3148 1.7039e-10 3.3028 8.3489e-14 3.9649
----- ------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- --
: Example \[ex:01\]: The errors of numerical scheme (\[n2.3\]) with PQC.[]{data-label="TT02"}
Table \[TT01\] shows that the convergence with the local truncation error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ for scheme by PLC, which is in agreement Lemma \[nlemma3.1\]. Table \[TT02\] shows that the convergence with the local truncation error $\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\left(\eta_i\right)^{-\gamma}\right)$, $\eta_i=\min\left\{x_{\frac{i}{2}}-a,b-x_{\frac{i}{2}}\right\}$ of scheme by PQC. It should be noted that if $x$ is not an element junction point (e.g., $x=\frac{1}{3}$), the errors reduce $\mathcal{O}(h^{4-\gamma})$, see Remark \[nremark3.1\].
\[ex:02\] Consider the nonlocal problems with a finite domain $a=0$, $b=1$. The exact solution is $u(x)=e^x$ and the nonhomogeneous boundaries $u(0)=1$, $u(1)=e$. Then define $f(x)$ accordingly.
------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- -- --
error order error order error order
1/16 8.9488e-03 1.0678e-02 1.4643e-02
1/32 4.4746e-03 0.9999 5.3149e-03 1.0065 7.2511e-03 1.0139
1/64 2.2373e-03 1.0000 2.6473e-03 1.0055 3.5832e-03 1.0170
1/128 1.1187e-03 0.9999 1.3201e-03 1.0039 1.7732e-03 1.0149
------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- -- --
: Example \[ex:02\]: The errors of numerical scheme (\[n2.8\]) with PLC.[]{data-label="TT03"}
------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- -- --
error order error order error order
1/16 4.3693e-07 2.5395e-07 4.6304e-07
1/32 5.4621e-08 2.9999 2.9901e-08 3.0863 5.3886e-08 3.1032
1/64 6.8279e-09 2.9999 3.5744e-09 3.0644 6.2303e-09 3.1125
1/128 8.5191e-10 3.0027 4.3270e-10 3.0463 7.2423e-10 3.1048
------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- ------------ -------- -- -- --
: Example \[ex:02\]: The errors of numerical scheme (\[n2.11\]) with PQC.[]{data-label="TT04"}
Tables \[TT03\] and \[TT04\] show that the linear and quadric polynomial collocation method (\[n2.8\]) and (\[n2.11\]), respectively, have first-order and third-order convergent, which are in agreement Theorems \[ntheorem4.2\] and \[ntheorem4.6\].
Numerical example for 2D
------------------------
In this subsection, the $l_\infty$ norm and the discrete $L^2$-norm, respectively, are used to measure the numerical errors.
\[ex:06\] Let us consider the following two-dimensional nonlocal problems $$\int_{\Omega} \frac{u(x,y)-u(\bar{x},\bar{y})}{\left|\sqrt{(x-\bar{x})^2+(y-\bar{y}^2})\right|^{\gamma}} d\bar{x}d\bar{y}=f(x,y),$$ where the nonconvex polygonal domain is a five-point star domain $\Omega$ in $(0, 2)\times(0, 2),$ and the exact solution is $u(x, y)=e^{x^2}\cos(\pi y)$. Then the nonhomogeneous boundaries condition and source function $f(x,y)$ are defined accordingly.
In Fig. \[fig03\], the triangulations when $h=1/4$ and $h=1/8$ are depicted.
------ ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- --
$||\cdot||_{L^2}$ order $||\cdot||_{l_{\infty}}$ order $||\cdot||_{L^2}$ order $||\cdot||_{l_{\infty}}$ order
1/4 8.145e-04 7.920e-03 2.334e-03 2.429e-02
1/8 3.617e-04 1.17 2.720e-03 1.54 1.035e-03 1.17 8.728e-03 1.47
1/16 1.649e-04 1.13 1.024e-03 1.40 4.589e-04 1.17 3.158e-03 1.46
1/32 7.915e-05 1.05 4.217e-04 1.27 2.159e-04 1.08 1.244e-03 1.34
------ ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- --
: Example \[ex:06\]: The errors of numerical simulations by PLC.[]{data-label="TT13"}
------ ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- --
$||\cdot||_{L^2}$ order $||\cdot||_{l_{\infty}}$ order $||\cdot||_{L^2}$ order $||\cdot||_{l_{\infty}}$ order
1/4 1.243e-05 9.466e-05 3.205e-05 3.441e-04
1/8 1.029e-06 3.59 7.083e-06 3.74 3.585e-06 3.16 3.184e-05 3.43
1/16 1.084e-07 3.24 6.368e-07 3.47 4.274e-07 3.06 3.031e-06 3.39
1/32 1.281e-08 3.08 6.601e-08 3.27 5.237e-08 3.02 3.084e-07 3.29
------ ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------------------------- ------- --
: Example \[ex:06\]: The errors of numerical simulations by PQC.[]{data-label="TT14"}
Table \[TT13\] and Table \[TT14\] show that the orders of accuracy are $O(h)$ and $O(h^3)$ by PLC and PQC, respectively, in a a nonconvex polygonal domain. Here $||\cdot||_{l_{\infty}}$ denotes the $l_\infty$ norm and $||\cdot||_{L^2}$ denotes the discrete $L^2$-norm.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we first derive an optimal error estimate for weakly singular integral by PQC when the singular point coincides with an element junction point. Then the sharp error estimate of piecewise linear and quadratic polynomial collocation for nonlocal problems are provided. Hopefully, an optimal error estimate of the $k$th-order Newton-Cotes rule $O(h^k)$ for odd $k$ and $O(h^{k+1})$ for even $k$ can be obtained of nonlocal model by following the idea given in this paper. Moreover, it is also provided a few technical analysis for two-dimensional nonlocal problems with singular kernels or other nonsmooth kernels.
[10]{} , [*Nonlocal Diffusion Problems*]{}, Math. Surveys Monogr. 165, AMS, Providence, RI, 2010.
, [*The numerical solution of Fredholm integral equations of the second kind*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., **4** (1967), pp. 337–348.
, [*Theoretical Numerical Analysis: A Functional Analysis Framework*]{}, Springer, 2009.
, [*On some nonlocal evolution equations arising in materials science*]{}, In: [H. Brunner, X. Zhao and X. Zou]{} (eds.) [*Nonlinear Dynamics and Evolution Equations*]{}, in Fields Inst. Commun., AMS, Providence, RI, (2006), pp. 13–52.
, [*A Multigrid method for nonlocal problems: non-diagonally dominant or Toeplitz-plus-tridiagonal systems*]{}, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., (major revised) arXiv:1808.09595v1.
, [*Convergence analysis of a multigrid method for a nonlocal model*]{}, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., **38** (2017), pp. 869–890.
, [*Asymptotic expansions for product integration*]{}, Math. Comput., **27** (1973), pp. 295–306.
, [*Nodal-type Newton-Cotes rules for fractional hypersingular integrals*]{}, E. Asian J. Appl. Math., **8** (2018), pp. 697–714.
, [*Matrix Analysis*]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York, (2013).
, [*Newton-Cotes rules for Hadamard finite-part integrals on an interval*]{}, IMA J. Numer. Anal., **30** (2010), pp. 1235–1255.
, [*On tha approximate computation of certain strongly singular integrals*]{}, Computing, **35** (1985), pp. 345–353.
, [*Discretized fractional calculus*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **17** (1986), pp. 704–719.
, [*An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and Fractional Differential Equations*]{}, Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, 1993.
, [*Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces*]{}, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, **48** (2000), pp. 175–209.
, [*Analysis and comparison of different approximations to nonlocal diffusion and linear peridynamic equations*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., **51** (2013), pp. 3458–3482.
, [*An efficient collocation method for a non-local diffusion model*]{}, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model., **4** (2013), pp. 815–825.
, [*Matrix Iterative Analysis*]{}, Springer, 2000.
, [*A fast Galerkin method with efficient matrix assembly and storage for a peridynamic model*]{}, J. Comput. Phys., **231** (2012), pp. 7730–7738.
, [*A superconvergence result for the second-order Newton-Cotes formula for certain finite-part integrals*]{}, IMA J. Numer. Anal., **25** (2005), pp. 253–263.
, [*The superconvergence of Newton-Cotes rules for the Hadamard finite-part integral on an interval*]{}, Numer. Math., **109** (2008), pp. 143–165.
, [*Nodal-type collocation methods for hypersingular integral equations and nonlocal diffusion problems*]{}, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., **299** (2016), pp. 401–420.
[^1]: Corresponding author. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Complex Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R. China (Email: [email protected])
[^2]: School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Complex Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R. China (Email: [email protected])
[^3]: School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Complex Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R. China (Email: [email protected])
[^4]: Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, P.O. Box 8009, Beijing 100088, P.R. China (Email: [email protected])
[^5]: This work was supported by NSFC 11601206 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. lzujbky-2019-80.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I analyse our present understanding of the Fröhlich polaron with emphasis on the response properties, in particular optical absorption.'
address: '[Universiteit Antwerpen]{}, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium and Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, P. O. Box 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands'
author:
- J T Devreese
title: 'Fröhlich Polarons from 0D to 3D: Concepts and Recent Developments[^1]'
---
The Fröhlich polaron concept
=============================
As is generally known, the polaron concept was introduced by Landau in 1933 [@Landau]. Initial theoretical [@LP48; @Pekar; @Bogolyubov; @BT49; @Fr54; @LLP53; @Feynman] and experimental [@B63] works laid [the]{} fundamental background of polaron physics. Among the comprehensive review papers and books covering the subject, I refer to the reviews [@KW63; @Greenbook; @A68; @Devreese96; @AM96; @Calvani].
Significant extensions and recent developments of the polaron concept have been realised (see, for example, [[@AM1994; @Varenna1997; @Alexandrov2003; @Devreese2005; @Varenna2005]]{} and references therein). They have been invoked, e. g., to study the properties of conjugated polymers, colossal magnetoresistance perovskites, high-$T_{\mathrm{c}}$ superconductors, layered MgB$_{\mathrm{2}}$ superconductors, fullerenes, quasi-1D conductors, semiconductor nanostructures. Polaronic phenomena have been clearly revealed in optical properties of semiconductor quantum wells, superlattices and quantum dots.
A distinction was made between polarons in the continuum approximation where long-range electron-lattice interaction prevails ([*Fröhlich*]{}, or [*large*]{}, polarons)[@Pekar; @Fr54] and polarons for which the short-range interaction is essential ([*Holstein, Holstein-Hubbard*]{} models). An electron or a hole, trapped by its self-induced atomic (ionic) displacement field in a region of linear dimension, which is of the order of the lattice constant, is called a [*small polaron*]{} [@Frohlich1957; @Holstein1959]. An excellent survey of the small-polaron physics relevant to the conduction phenomena in non-crystalline materials and to the metal-insulator transitions has been given by Mott [@Mott1987; @Mott1990].
Scaling relations for [Fröhlich]{} polarons in 2D and in 3D {#scaling}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several scaling relations connect the [Fröhlich]{} polaron self-energy, the effective mass, the impedance $Z$ and the polaron mobility $\mu $ in 2D to their counterpart in 3D. Those relations were obtained by Peeters and Devreese [@prb36-4442] at the level of the Feynman model, keeping the surface phonons for the 2D system, and are listed here: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\mathrm{2D}}(\alpha ) &=&\frac{2}{3}E_{\mathrm{3D}}\left( \frac{3\pi }{4}\alpha \right), \label{E} \\
\frac{m_{\mathrm{2D}}^\ast(\alpha)}{m_{\mathrm{2D}}} &=& \frac{m_{\mathrm{3D}}^\ast(\frac{3}{4}\alpha)}{m_{\mathrm{3D}}}\ , \label{eq:P24-3} \\
Z_{\mathrm{2D}}(\alpha ,\Omega ) &=&Z_{\mathrm{3D}}\left( \frac{3\pi }{4}\alpha
,\Omega \right),\end{aligned}$$where $\Omega $ is the frequency of the external electromagnetic field, and $$\mu _{\mathrm{2D}}(\alpha )=\mu _{\mathrm{3D}}\left( \frac{3\pi }{4}\alpha
\right). \label{MU}$$
In Eq. (\[eq:P24-3\]), [$m_{\mathrm{2D}}^\ast$ ($m_{\mathrm{3D}}^\ast$) and $m_{\mathrm{2D}}$ ($m_{\mathrm{3D}}$) are, respectively, the polaron- and the electron-band masses in 2D (3D)]{}. Expressions (\[E\]) to (\[MU\]) provide a straightforward link between polaron characteristics in 3D with those in 2D.
The fulfilment of the PD-scaling relation [@prb36-4442] is checked here for the path integral Monte Carlo results [@TPC] for the polaron free energy.
The path integral Monte Carlo results of Ref.[@TPC] for the polaron free energy in 3D and in 2D are given for a few values of temperature and for some selected values of $\alpha.$ For a check of the scaling relation, the values of the polaron free energy at $\beta\equiv\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}/k_{B}T=10$ are taken from Ref. [@TPC] in 3D (Table I, for 4 values of $\alpha$) and in 2D (Table II, for 2 values of $\alpha$) and plotted in Fig. \[ScComp\], upper panel, with squares and open circles, correspondingly. (Here $\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}$ is the frequency of the long-wavelength longitudinal optical phonons, $T$ is the temperature).
![*Upper panel:* The values of the polaron free energy in 3D (squares) and 2D (open circles) obtained by TPC’2001 [@TPC] for $\beta
=10$. The data for $F_{3D}\left( \alpha\right) $ are interpolated using a polynomial fit to the available four points (dotted line). *Lower panel:* Demonstration of the PD-scaling cf. PD’1987: the values of the polaron free energy in 2D obtained by TPC’2001 [@TPC] for $\beta=10$ (squares) are very close to the **PD-scaled** [@prb36-4442] values of the polaron free energy in 3D from TPC’2001 for $\beta=10$ (open triangles). The data for $\frac{2}{3}F_{3D}\left( \frac{3\pi\alpha}{4}\right) $ are interpolated using a polynomial fit to the available four points (solid line). ([Reprinted with permission from [@Devreese2005_V]. ©2006, Società Italiana di Fisica.]{})[]{data-label="ScComp"}](Scaling4.eps){height="0.6\textheight"}
In Fig. \[ScComp\], lower panel, the available data for the free energy from Ref [@TPC] are plotted in the following form *inspired by the l.h.s. and the r.h.s parts of Eq. (\[E\])*: $F_{2D}\left( \alpha\right) $ (squares) and $\frac{2}{3}F_{3D}\left( \frac{3\pi\alpha}{4}\right) $(open triangles). As follows from the figure, t*he path integral Monte Carlo results for the polaron free energy in 2D and 3D very closely follow the PD-scaling relation of the form given by Eq. (\[E\]):*$$F_{2D}\left( \alpha\right) \equiv\frac{2}{3}F_{3D}\left( \frac{3\pi\alpha
}{4}\right) . \label{F}$$
Bipolarons
==========
When two electrons (or two holes) interact with each other simultaneously through the Coulomb force and via the electron-phonon-electron interaction, either two independent polarons can occur or a bound state of two polarons — the [*bipolaron*]{} — can arise [@Vinetskii1961; @HT1985; @Adamowski1989; @Bassani1991; @Verbist1990; @Verbist1991]. Whether bipolarons originate or not, depends on the competition between the repulsive forces (direct Coulomb interaction $U({\bf r}) = \frac{e^2}{\varepsilon_\infty |{\bf r}|} \equiv\frac{U}{|{\bf r}|}$,) and the attractive forces (mediated through the electron-phonon interaction). In the discussion of bipolarons often the ratio $$\eta = \frac{\varepsilon_\infty}{\varepsilon_0}$$ of [the]{} electronic and static dielectric constant is used ($0\le\eta\le 1$). It [turns]{} out that bipolaron formation is favoured by smaller $\eta$.
The Fröhlich bipolaron was analyzed [@Verbist1990; @Verbist1991] using the Feynman path integral formalism. Quite analogously to the above discussed relations (\[E\]) to (\[MU\]), a scaling relation was derived between the free energies $F$ in two dimensions $F_{2D}(\alpha, U, \beta)$ and in three dimensions $F_{3D}(\alpha, U, \beta)$: $$F_{2D}(\alpha, U, \beta) =
\frac{2}{3} F_{3D}(\frac{3\pi}{4}\alpha, \frac{3\pi}{4}U, \beta).$$ Physically [this]{} scaling relation implies that bipolaron formation will be facilitated in 2D as compared to 3D.
![The phase diagram for bipolaron formation in two (dashed curve) and three dimensions (solid curve) is presented. Bipolarons are formed below the [dashed/solid]{} curves. The nonphysical part $U \le \sqrt{2}\alpha$ of the $(\alpha,U)$ space is shaded. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@Verbist1991]. ©1991 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="Bipolaron"}](VPD1991-Fig7.eps){width="50.00000%"}
A “phase-diagram” for the polaron—bipolaron system was introduced in Refs.[@Verbist1990; @Verbist1991]. It is based on [a]{} generalized trial action. This phase diagram is shown in Fig.\[Bipolaron\]. For the 3D-case, a Fröhlich coupling constant as high as 6.8 is needed to allow for bipolaron formation. No definite experimental evidence has been provided for the existence of materials with such high Fröhlich coupling constant. Materials with sufficiently large $\alpha$ for Fröhlich bipolaron formation in 3D might exist, but careful analysis (involving e. g. the study of cyclotron resonance), is needed in order to confirm this. [Undoubtedly,]{} some modifications to the Fröhlich Hamiltonian are also necessary to describe such high coupling because of the more localized character of the carriers in this case which makes the continuum approximation less valid. The confinement of the bipolaron in 2D facilitates bipolaron formation at smaller $\alpha$. From Fig.\[Bipolaron\] it is seen that bipolarons in 2D can be stable for $\alpha\ge 2.9$, a domain of coupling constants which is definitely realized in several solids.
At present no consensus exists concerning the microscopic mechanism governing the creation of Cooper pairs in high-T$_c$ superconductors. Nevertheless, there is definitely evidence for the existence of polarons and bipolarons at least in the normal phase of high-T$_c$ superconductors as manifested, e. g., in their optical absorption spectra (see [@Devreese2005] and references therein).
Polaron response in 3D
======================
Optical absorption of a polaron at strong coupling
--------------------------------------------------
The problem of the structure of the large polaron excitation spectrum constituted a central question in the early stages of the development of polaron theory. The exactly solvable polaron model of Ref. [@DThesis] was used to demonstrate the existence of the so-called relaxed excited statesof large polarons [@DE64]. In Ref. [@R65], and after earlier intuitive analysis, this problem was studied using the classical equations of motion and Poisson-brackets. The insight gained as a result of those investigations concerning the structure of the excited polaron states, was subsequently used to develop a theory of the optical absorption spectra of polarons. The first work was limited to the strong coupling limit [@KED69]. Ref. [@KED69] is the first work that reveals the impact of the internal degrees of freedom of polarons on their optical properties.
The optical absorption of light by free Fröhlich polarons was treated in Ref. [@KED69] using the polaron states obtained within the adiabatic strong-coupling approximation. It was argued in Ref. [@KED69], that for sufficiently large $\alpha$ ($\alpha>3$), the (first) relaxed excited state (RES) of a polaron is a relatively stable state, which can participate in optical absorption transitions. This idea was necessary to understand the polaron optical absorption spectrum in the strong-coupling regime. The following scenario of a transition, which leads to a *zero-phonon peak* in the absorption by a strong-coupling polaron, then [was]{} suggested. If the frequency of the incoming photon is equal to $\Omega_{\mathrm{RES}}=0.065\alpha^{2}\omega_{\mathrm{LO}},$ the electron jumps from the ground state (which, at [sufficiently]{} large coupling, is well-characterized by “$s$”-symmetry for the electron) to an excited state (“$2p$”), while the lattice polarization in the final state is adapted to the “$2p$” electronic state of the polaron. In Ref. [@KED69], considering the decay of the RES with emission of one real phonon, it is argued, that the zero-phonon peak can be described using the Wigner-Weisskopf formula valid when the linewidth of that peak is much smaller than $\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}.$
For photon energies larger than $\Omega_{\mathrm{RES}}+\omega_{\mathrm{LO}},$ a transition of the polaron towards the first scattering state, belonging to the RES, becomes possible. The final state of the optical absorption process then consists of a polaron in its lowest RES plus a free phonon. A one-phonon sideband then appears in the polaron absorption spectrum. This process is called *one-phonon sideband absorption*. The one-, two-, ... $K$-, ... phonon sidebands of the zero-phonon peak give rise to a broad structure in the absorption spectrum. It turns out that the *first moment* of the phonon sidebands corresponds to the Franck-Condon (FC) frequency $\Omega_{\mathrm{FC}}=0.141\alpha^{2}\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}.$ To summarize, the polaron optical absorption spectrum at [sufficiently]{} strong coupling is characterized by the following features (at $T=0$):
1. An absorption peak (zero-phonon line) appears, which corresponds to a transition from the ground state to the first RES at $\Omega_{\mathrm{RES}}$.
2. For $\Omega>\Omega_{\mathrm{RES}}+\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}$, a phonon sideband structure arises. This sideband structure peaks around $\Omega _{\mathrm{FC}}$.
[Note that, at $T=0$, the polaron optical absorption exhibits a zero-frequency [feature]{} $\propto \delta(\Omega).$]{}
Optical absorption of a polaron at arbitrary coupling
-----------------------------------------------------
Although the optical conductivity (OC) of the Fröhlich polaron model attracted attention for years [@Devreese96], there exists no [exact]{} analytic [expression for it at]{} all coupling. The most successful approach is that based on the Feynman path integral technique [as applied in]{} [@DSG72] (DSG) [and [@Devreese72]]{}, where the OC is calculated starting from the Feynman variational model (FVM) [@Feynman] for the polaron and using [Feynman’s]{} path integral response formalism [@FHIP]. Subsequently the path integral approach was rewritten in terms of the memory function formalism (MFF) [@PD1983]. These approaches are completely successful at small electron-phonon coupling and are able to identify [key-]{}excitations at intermediate and strong electron-phonon coupling. A comparison of the DSG results with the OC spectra [derived with]{} recently developed approximation-free numerical Diagrammatic Quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) [@Mishchenko2003] and approximate analytical approaches has been recently performed in Ref. [@PRL2006].
The polaron absorption coefficient $\Gamma(\Omega)$ of light with frequency $\Omega$ at arbitrary coupling was first derived in Ref.[@DSG72] (see also [@PD1983]). It was represented in the form $$\Gamma(\Omega)=-\frac{1}{\bar{n}\epsilon_{0}c}\frac{e^{2}}{m_{b}}\frac {\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\Omega)}{\left[ \Omega-\mathrm{Re}\Sigma(\Omega)\right] ^{2}+\left[
\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\Omega)\right] ^{2}}\ , \label{eq:P24-2}$$ [where $\epsilon_{0}$ is the dielectric permittivity of the vacuum and ${\bar n}$ is the refractive index of the medium.]{} This expression was the starting point for a derivation of the theoretical optical absorption spectrum of a single Fröhlich polaron at *all electron-phonon coupling strengths* in Ref.[@DSG72]. $\Sigma(\Omega)$ is the so-called memory function, which contains the dynamics of the polaron and depends on $\Omega$, $\alpha$ and temperature. The key contribution of the work in [@DSG72] was to introduce $\Gamma(\Omega)$ in the form ([eq:P24-2]{}) and to calculate $\mathrm{Re}\Sigma(\Omega)$, which is essentially a (technically not trivial) Kramers–Kronig transform of the function $\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\Omega)$. The function $\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\Omega)$ had been formally derived for the Feynman polaron [in Ref.]{} [@FHIP] [where]{} the polaron mobility $\mu$ [was found]{} from the impedance function, i. e. the static limit $$\mu^{-1}=\lim\limits_{\Omega \to 0} \left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\Omega)}{\Omega}\right).$$
The nature of the polaron excitations was [analysed]{} through this polaron optical absorption obtained in [@DSG72; @PD1983]. It was [confirmed]{} in [@DSG72] that the Franck-Condon states for Fröhlich polarons [at $3 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim 7$]{} are nothing else but a superposition of phonon sidebands [(of the RES)]{}. It was [found]{} in [@DSG72] that a relatively large value of the electron-phonon coupling strength ($\alpha > 3$) is needed to stabilise the relaxed excited state of the polaron. At weaker coupling [($0 < \alpha \lesssim 3$)]{} only scattering statesof the polaron, [in its ground state,]{} play a role in the optical absorption [@DSG72; @DDG71].
In the weak coupling limit, the [optical absorption]{} spectrum (\[eq:P24-2\]) of the polaron is determined by the absorption of radiation energy, which is reemitted in the form of LO phonons. For $\alpha\gtrsim {3}$, the polaron can [undergo]{} transitions toward a relatively stable RES (see Fig. [fig\_3]{}). The RES peak in the optical absorption spectrum also has a phonon sideband-structure, whose average transition frequency can be related to a FC-type transition. Furthermore, at zero temperature, the optical absorption spectrum of a polaron exhibits also a zero-frequency central peak \[$\propto\delta(\Omega)$\]. For non-zero temperature, this central peak smears out and gives rise to an anomalousDrude-type low-frequency component of the optical absorption spectrum.
![Optical absorption spectrum of a Fröhlich polaron for $\protect\alpha=5$ and $\protect\alpha = 6$. The RES peak is [relatively]{} intense compared with the FC peak [at these coupling strengths]{}. The frequency $\Omega/\protect\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}=v$ is indicated by the dashed lines. The $\protect\delta$-like central peaks (at $\Omega=0$) are schematically shown by vertical lines. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@DSG72]. ©1972 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig_3"}](SpectraDSG-2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig\_3\] (from Ref. [@DSG72]), the main peak of the polaron optical absorption for $\alpha =$ 5 at $\Omega =3.51\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}$ is interpreted as due to transitions to a RES. The shoulder at the low-frequency side of the main peak is attributed to [mainly]{} one-phonon transitions to polaron-scattering states. The broad structure centered at about $\Omega =6.3\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}$ is interpreted as a FC band. As seen from Fig. \[fig\_3\], when increasing the electron-phonon coupling constant to $\alpha $=6, the RES peak at $\Omega
=4.3\omega _{\mathrm{LO}}$ stabilizes. It is in Ref. [@DSG72] that an all-coupling optical absorption spectrum of a Fröhlich polaron, together with the role of RES-states, FC-states and scattering states, was first presented. [At larger $\alpha$ (say, for $\alpha > 6$), the linewidths of the absorption peaks obtained in [@DSG72] are much too narrow. This shortcoming was noted in [@DSG72].]{}
Recent numerical calculations of the optical conductivity for the Fröhlich polaron, performed within a Diagrammatic Quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) method [@Mishchenko2003], confirm the essential analytical results derived in Ref. [@DSG72] for $\alpha\lesssim 3.$ In the intermediate coupling regime $3<\alpha<6,$ the low-energy behaviour and the position of the RES-peak in the optical conductivity spectrum of Ref. [@Mishchenko2003] follow closely the prediction of Ref. [@DSG72]. There are some minor differences between the two [treatments]{} in the intermediate coupling regime [$3 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim 6$]{}: in Ref. [@Mishchenko2003], the dominant (RES) peak is less intense in the Monte-Carlo numerical simulations and the second (FC) peak develops less prominently. [More significant]{} differences between the two [treatments appear]{} in the strong coupling regime: in Ref. [@Mishchenko2003], the dominant peak broadens and the second peak does not develop, giving instead rise to a flat shoulder in the optical conductivity spectrum at $\alpha=6{.5}.$ These qualitative differences from the optical absorption spectrum of Ref. [@DSG72] can be attributed to optical processes with participation of two [@Goovaerts73] or more phonons. The above differences can arise also due to the fact that, starting from the Feynman polaron model, one-phonon processes are assigned [relatively]{} more oscillator strength and the RES of [@DSG72] therefore tends to be more stable as compared to the Monte-Carlo result.
![One-polaron optical conductivity $\mathrm{Re}\sigma\left(
\Omega\right) $ for $\alpha=1$ calculated within the DQMC approach [@Mishchenko2003] (open circles) and derived using the expansion in powers of $\alpha$ up to $\alpha^{2}$ [@Huybrechts1973] (solid curve).[]{data-label="fig_4a"}](PolaronOC-2ph.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig\_4a\], [DQMC]{} optical conductivity spectrum of one polaron for $\alpha=1$ [is compared]{} with that obtained in Ref. [@Huybrechts1973] [where a]{} canonical-transformation formalism [is used]{} taking into account correlations in processes involving two LO phonons.
![[Comparison of the optical conductivity calculated with the DQMC method (circles), [the]{} extended MFF (solid line) and DSG [@DSG72; @Devreese72] (dotted line), for four different values of $\protect\alpha $. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@PRL2006]. ©2006 by the American Physical Society]{}.)]{}[]{data-label="figa_graph"}](fig1C.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![[a), b) and c) Comparison of the optical conductivity calculated with the DQMC method (circles), the extended MFF (solid line) and SCE (dashed line) for three different values of $\protect\alpha $. d) The energy of the lower- and higher-frequency features obtained by DQMC (circles and triangles, respectively) compared (i) with the FC transition energy calculated from the SCE (dashed line) and (ii) with the energy of the peak obtained from the extended MFF (solid line). In the inset the weights of Franck-Condon and adiabatically connected transitions are shown as a function of $\protect\alpha $. We have used for $\protect\eta $ the value $1.3$. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@PRL2006]. ©2006 by the American Physical Society]{}.)]{}[]{data-label="figb_graph"}](fig2D.eps){width="100.00000%"}
The optical conductivity spectra obtained with the DQMC method [[@Mishchenko2003; @PRL2006; @MishchenkoL]]{}, extended memory-function formalism (MFF) [[@PRL2006; @CataudellaL]]{}, strong-coupling expansion (SCE) [[@PRL2006; @CataudellaL; @DK2006]]{} and DSG [[@DSG72; @Devreese72]]{} for different values of $\alpha $ is shown in Figs. \[figa\_graph\], \[figb\_graph\]. The [key]{} results of the comparison between them are the following. First, as expected, in the weak coupling regime, both the extended MFF with phonon broadening [[@PRL2006; @CataudellaL]]{} and DSG [[@DSG72; @Devreese72]]{} are in [excellent]{} agreement with the DQMC data [@Mishchenko2003], showing significant improvement with respect to the weak coupling perturbation approach [@GLF62] which provides a good description of the OC spectra only for [$\alpha \ll 1$]{}. For $4\le \alpha \le 8$, where DSG underestimates the peak width, the damping, introduced in the extended MFF approach, [is significant]{}. Comparing the peak and shoulder energies, obtained by DQMC, with the peak energies, given by [the extended]{} MFF, and the FC transition energies from the SCE, it is concluded [@PRL2006] that as $\alpha$ increases from $6$ to $10$ the spectral weights rapidly switch from the dynamic regime, where the lattice follows the electron motion, to the adiabatic regime dominated by FC transitions. In the coupling [range]{} $6 <\alpha <10 $, adiabatic FC and nonadiabatic dynamical excitations coexist. [As $\alpha > 10$ the polaron OC spectrum consists of a broad FC peak, composed of LO phonon sidebands, as proposed in [@KED69], where only 1 LO phonon sideband was calculated.]{}
![Main-peak positions in the DQMC optical conductivity spectra of continuum polarons [@PRL2006] compared to the analytical DSG approach [@DSG72]. (From Ref.[@DK2006].)[]{data-label="fig_positions"}](PeakPositionsA.eps){width="50.00000%"}
An instructive comparison between the [frequency]{} of the main peak in the optical absorption spectrum of continuum polarons obtained within the DSG and DQMC approaches [for various $\alpha$]{} has been [made]{} in Ref. [@DK2006]. In Fig. \[fig\_positions\] the energy of the main peak in the OC spectra calculated within the DSG approach [[@DSG72; @Devreese72]]{} is plotted together with that given by DQMC [[@Mishchenko2003; @PRL2006]]{}. As seen from the figure, the main-peak positions, obtained within DSG, are in good agreement with the results of DQMC for all considered values of $\alpha$, [up to $\alpha = 15$]{}. The difference between the DSG and DQMC results is [slightly]{} larger at $\alpha$ = 8 and for $\alpha$ = 9.5, but even for those values of the coupling constant the agreement is [close]{}.
In summary, the [rigorous]{} numerical results, obtained using DQMC [[@Mishchenko2003; @MishchenkoL]]{}, – modulo the linewidths for $\alpha > 6$ – and the recent analytical approximations ([the extended]{} MFF, SCE) [[@PRL2006; @CataudellaL; @DK2006]]{} confirm the essence of the mechanism for the optical absorption of Fröhlich polarons, which we proposed in [1969 -]{} 1971 [[@KED69; @DSG72; @Devreese72]]{}.
Polaron cyclotron resonance
---------------------------
The RES-like resonances in $\Gamma (\Omega )$, Eq. (\[eq:P24-2\]), due to the zero’s of $\Omega -\mathrm{Re}\Sigma (\Omega )$, can [*effectively*]{} be displaced to smaller polaron coupling by applying an external magnetic field $B$, in which case the [condition]{} for a resonance becomes $\Omega
-\omega_{c}-\mathrm{Re}\Sigma (\Omega )=0$ ($\omega_{c}=eB/m_{b}c$ is the cyclotron frequency). Resonances in the magnetoabsorption governed by this [condition]{} have been [clearly]{} observed and analysed.
The results [for]{} the polaron optical absorption [@DSG72; @Devreese72] paved the way for an all-coupling path-integral based theory of [the]{} magneto-optical absorption [of]{} polarons (see Ref. [@PD86]). This work was motivated [i. a.]{} by the insight that magnetic fields can stabilise relaxed excited polaron states, so that information on the nature of relaxed excited states might be gained from the cyclotron resonance of polarons.
Some of the subsequent developments in the field of polaron cyclotron resonance are discussed below. Evidence for the polaron character of charge carriers in AgBr and AgCl was obtained through high-precision cyclotron resonance experiments in magnetic fields up to 16 T (see [@Hodby1987]). The quantitative interpretation of the cyclotron resonance experiment in AgBr and AgCl [@Hodby1987] by the theory of Ref. [@PD86] provided one of the most convincing and clearest demonstrations of [Fröhlich]{} polaron features in solids.
The analysis in Ref.[@Hodby1987] leads to the following polaron coupling constants: $\alpha=1.53$ for AgBr and $\alpha=1.84$ for AgCl. The corresponding polaron masses are: $m^*=0.2818m_e$ for AgBr and $m^*=0.3988m_e$ for AgCl [($m_e$ is the mass of the free electron)]{}. For most materials with relatively large Fröhlich coupling constant [the band mass]{} $m_b$ is not known. The study in Ref.[@Hodby1987] is an example of the detailed analysis of the cyclotron resonance data that is necessary to obtain accurate polaron data like $\alpha$ and $m_b$ for a given material.
Early infrared-transmission studies of hydrogen-like shallow-donor-impurity states in $n$-CdTe were reported in Ref.[@Cohn1972]. By studying the Zeeman splitting of the ($1s\rightarrow 2p,m=\pm 1$) transition in the Faraday configuration at magnetic fields up to $\sim $ [16 T]{}, a quantitative determination of polaron shifts of the energy levels of a bound electron was performed. The experimental data were shown to be in fair agreement with the weak-coupling theory of the polaron Zeeman effect. In this comparison, however, the value $\alpha =0.4$ had to be used instead of $\alpha =0.286$, which would follow from the definition of the Fröhlich coupling constant. Similarly, the value $\alpha \sim 0.4$ was suggested (see Ref. [@Larsen72]) for the explanation of the measured variation of the cyclotron mass with magnetic field in CdTe. This discrepancy gave rise to some discussion in the literature (see, e. g., Refs.[Pfeffer88,Miura97]{} and references therein).
In Ref.[@Grynberg1996], far-infrared photoconductivity techniques were applied to study the energy spectrum of shallow In donors in CdTe layers and experimental data were obtained on the magnetopolaron effect. An overall good agreement [was]{} found between experiment and a theoretical approach, where the electron-phonon interaction is treated within a second-order improved Wigner-Brillouin perturbation theory and a variational calculation is performed for the lowest-lying donor states ($1s,
2p^{\pm}, 2s, 2p_z, 3d^{-2}, 4f^{-3 }$). This agreement [was]{} obtained with the coupling constant $\alpha=0.286$.
The energy spectra of polaronic systems [such]{} as shallow donors (bound polarons), e. g., the D$_0$ and D$^-$ centres, constitute the most complete and detailed polaron spectroscopy realised in the literature, see for example Fig. \[magnetoabs\].
![The $1s \to 2p^{\pm},2p_z$ transition energies as a function of magnetic field for a donor in GaAs. [The]{} theoretical results [are compared to the experimental data (solid dots) [@Cheng]]{} for the following cases: (a) without the effect of polaron and band nonparabolicity (thin dashed curves); (b) with polaron correction (dotted curves); (c) including the effects of polaron and band nonparabolicity (solid curves). ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@SPD93]. ©1993 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="magnetoabs"}](SPD1993.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Many-polaron systems in 3D and in 2D
====================================
Optical absorption of many-polaron systems
------------------------------------------
![The infrared optical absorption of Nd$_{2}$CuO$_{4-\protect\delta}$ ($\protect\delta<0.004$) as a function of frequency. The experimental results of Ref. [@Lupi1999] are presented by the thin full curve. The experimental ‘d-band’ is clearly identified, rising in intensity at about 600 cm$^{-1}$, peaking around 1000 cm$^{-1}$, and then decreasing in intensity above that frequency. The dotted curve shows the single polaron result calculated according to Ref. [@DSG72]. The bold full curve presents the theoretical results [of Ref. [@TDPRB01]]{} for the interacting many-polaron gas with $n_0=1.5\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, $\protect\alpha=2.1$ and $m=0.5m_{\mathrm{e}}$. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@TDPRB01]. ©2001 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:P24-10"}](figP24-10A.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
In Ref. [@TDPRB01], starting from the many-polaron canonical transformations and the variational many-polaron wave function introduced in Ref. [@LDB1977], the optical absorption coefficient of a many-polaron gas has been derived. The real part of the optical conductivity of the many-polaron system [was]{} obtained in an intuitively appealing form $$\mathrm{Re}[\sigma(\Omega)]=\frac{n_0}{\hbar\Omega^{3}}\frac{e^{2}}{m_{b}^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}k_{x}^{2}|V_{\mathbf{k}}|^{2}S(\mathbf{k},\Omega -\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}),
\label{opticabs}$$ where $n_0$ is the density of charge carriers, $V_{\mathbf{k}}$ is the electron-phonon interaction amplitude and $k_{x}$ is the $x$-component of the wave vector. [Equation (\[opticabs\]) is rigorous to order $\alpha$.]{} This approach to the many-polaron optical absorption allows one to include the many-body effects in terms of the dynamical structure factor $S(\mathbf{k},\Omega -\omega_{\mathrm{LO}})$ of the electron (or hole) system [(e. g. in the RPA-approximation)]{}. The experimental peaks in the mid-infrared optical absorption spectra of cuprates (Fig.\[fig:P24-10\]) and manganites (Fig.[fig:P24-11]{}) [can be]{} adequately interpreted within this theory. [As seen from Fig.\[fig:P24-11\], [for the case of La$_{2/3}$Sr$_{1/3}$MnO$_{3}$]{} the many-polaron approach describes the experimental optical conductivity better than the methods of [@GLF62; @Emin1993]. In Ref. [Eagles1995]{}, [the interesting possibility of]{} coexistence of small and large polarons in the same solid [was suggested]{}.]{}
![Comparison of the measured mid-infrared optical conductivity in La$_{2/3}$Sr$_{1/3}$MnO$_{3}$ at $T=6$ K to that given by several model calculations for $m=3m_{\mathrm{e}}$, $\protect\alpha$ of the order of 1 and $n_0=6\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$. The one-polaron [limit]{} \[the weak-coupling approach by V. L. Gurevich, I. G. Lang, and Yu. A. Firsov [[@GLF62]]{} (GLF model) and the phenomenological approach by D. Emin [[@Emin1993]]{} (E model)\] lead to narrower polaron peaks than a peak with maximum at $\protect\Omega \sim 900$ cm$^{-1}$ given by the many-polaron treatment by J. Tempere and J. T. Devreese (TD model) of Ref.[@TDPRB01]. ([Reprinted with permission after Ref. [@Hartinger2004]. ©2004 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:P24-11"}](figP24-11.eps){width=".6\textwidth"}
Ripplopolarons in multi-electron bubbles in liquid helium
---------------------------------------------------------
An interesting 2D system consists of electrons on [films of]{} liquid He [SM73,9]{}. In this system the electrons couple to the ripplons of the liquid He, forming “ripplopolarons”. The effective coupling can be relatively [large and]{} self-trapping can result. The acoustic nature of the ripplon dispersion at long wavelengths induces the self-trapping.
Spherical shells of charged particles appear in a variety of physical systems, such as fullerenes, metallic nanoshells, charged droplets and neutron stars. A particularly interesting physical realization of the spherical electron gas is found in multielectron bubbles (MEBs) in liquid helium-4. These MEBs are 0.1 $\mu$m – 100 $\mu$m sized cavities inside liquid helium, that contain helium vapour at vapour pressure and a nanometer-thick electron layer, anchored to the surface of the bubble [@VolodinJETP26; @Albrecht1987]. They exist as a result of equilibrium between the surface tension of liquid helium and the Coulomb repulsion of the electrons [@ShikinJETP27; @Salomaa1981]. Recently proposed experimental schemes to stabilize MEBs [@SilveraBAPS46] have stimulated theoretical investigation of their properties (see e. g. [@TemperePRL87]).
The dynamical modes of an MEB were described by considering the motion of the helium surface (ripplons) and the vibrational modes of the electrons together. In particular, the case when the ripplopolarons form a Wigner lattice was analyzed in Ref. [@TempereEPJ2003]. The interaction energy between the ripplons and the electrons in the multielectron bubble is derived from the following considerations: (i) the distance between the layer electrons and the helium surface is fixed (the electrons find themselves confined to an effectively 2D surface anchored to the helium surface) and (ii) the electrons are subjected to a force field, arising from the electric field of the other electrons. To study the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice at [nonzero]{} temperature and for any value of the electron-ripplon coupling, the variational path-integral approach [@Feynman] is used.
In their treatment of the electron Wigner lattice embedded in a polarizable Medium, such as a semiconductor or an ionic solid, Fratini and Quémerais [@FratiniEPJB14] described the effect of the electrons on a particular electron through a mean-field lattice potential. The (classical) lattice potential $V_{lat}$ is obtained by approximating all the electrons acting on one particular electron by a homogenous charge density in which a hole is punched out; this hole is centered in the lattice point of the particular electron under investigation and has a radius given by the lattice distance $d$.
The Lindemann melting criterion [@LindemanZPhys11; @Care1975] states in general that a crystal lattice of objects (be it atoms, molecules, electrons, or ripplopolarons) will melt when the average [displacement]{} of the objects [from]{} their lattice site is larger than a critical fraction $\delta_{0}$ of the lattice parameter $d$. It would be a strenuous task to calculate, from first principles, the exact value of the critical fraction $\delta_{0}$, but for the particular case of electrons on a helium surface, we can make use of an experimental determination. Grimes and Adams [@GrimesPRL42] found that the Wigner lattice melts when $\Gamma=137\pm15$, where $\Gamma$ is the ratio of potential energy to the kinetic energy per electron. At temperature $T$ the average kinetic energy [of an electron]{} in a lattice potential $V_{lat}$, characterized by the frequency parameter $\omega_{lat}$, is $$E_{kin}={\displaystyle{\frac{\hbar\omega_{lat}}{2}}}\coth\left(
{\displaystyle{\frac{\hbar\omega_{lat}}{2k_{B}T}}}\right) ,$$ and the average distance that an electron moves out of the lattice site is determined by $$\left\langle \mathbf{r}^{2}\right\rangle ={\displaystyle{\frac{\hbar}{m_{e}\omega_{lat}}}}\coth\left( {\displaystyle{\frac{\hbar\omega_{lat}}{2k_{B}T}}}\right) ={\displaystyle{\frac{2E_{kin}}{m_{e}\omega_{lat}^{2}}}}.$$ From this one finds that for the melting transition in Grimes and Adams’ experiment [@GrimesPRL42], the critical fraction equals $\delta_{0}\approx0.13$. This estimate is in agreement with previous (empirical) estimates yielding $\delta_{0}\approx0.1$ [@BedanovPRB49].
Within the approach of Fratini and Quémerais [@FratiniEPJB14], the Wigner lattice of (ripplo)polarons melts when at least one of the two following Lindemann criteria are met: $$\delta_{r}={\displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{\left\langle \mathbf{R}_{cms}^{2}\right\rangle }}{d}}}>\delta_{0}, \label{Lind1}$$$$\delta_{\rho}={\displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{\left\langle \mathbf{\rho}^{2}\right\rangle }}{d}}}>\delta_{0}. \label{Lind2}$$ where $\mathbf{\rho}$ and $\mathbf{R}_{cms}$ are, respectively, the relative coordinate and the center of mass coordinate of the model system: if $\mathbf{r}$ is the electron coordinate and $\mathbf{R}$ is the position coordinate of the fictitious ripplon mass $M$, they are $$\mathbf{R}_{cms}={\displaystyle{\frac{m_{e}\mathbf{r}+M\mathbf{R}}{m_{e}+M}}};\mathbf{\rho}=\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R.}$$ The appearance of two Lindemann criteria takes into account the composite nature of (ripplo)polarons. As follows from the physical [meaning]{} of the coordinates $\mathbf{\rho}$ and $\mathbf{R}_{cms}$, the first criterion (\[Lind1\]) is related to the melting of the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice towards a ripplopolaron liquid, where the ripplopolarons move as a whole, the electron together with its dimple. The second criterion (\[Lind2\]) is related to the dissociation of ripplopolarons: the electrons shed their dimple.
The path-integral variational formalism allows us to calculate the expectation values $\left\langle \mathbf{R}_{cms}^{2}\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle
\mathbf{\rho}^{2}\right\rangle $ with respect to the ground state of the variationally optimal model system.
Numerical calculation shows that for ripplopolarons in an MEB, the inequality $$\left\langle \mathbf{R}_{cms}^{2}\right\rangle \ll\left\langle \mathbf{\rho
}^{2}\right\rangle$$ is realized. [As a consequence]{}, the destruction of the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice in a MEB occurs through the dissociation of ripplopolarons, since the second criterion (\[Lind2\]) will be fulfilled before the first (\[Lind1\]). The results for the melting of the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice are summarized in the phase diagram shown in Fig. \[PhaseD1\].
![The phase diagram for the spherical 2D layer of electrons in a MEB. Above a critical pressure, a ripplopolaron solid (a Wigner lattice of electrons with dimples in the helium surface underneath them) is formed. Below the critical pressure, the ripplopolaron solid melts into an electron liquid through dissociation of ripplopolarons. [(Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@TempereEPJ2003]. ©2003, EDP Sciences, Società Italiana di Fisica, Springer.)]{}[]{data-label="PhaseD1"}](RipplopolPhaseD1A.eps){width="50.00000%"}
For [any]{} value of $N$, pressure $p$ and temperature $T$ in an experimentally accessible range, [Fig. \[PhaseD1\]]{} shows whether the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice is present (points above the surface) or [the electron liquid]{} (points below the surface). Below a critical pressure (on the order of 10$^{4}$ Pa) the ripplopolaron solid will melt into an electron liquid. This critical pressure is nearly independent of the number of electrons (except for the smallest bubbles) and is weakly temperature dependent, up to the helium critical temperature 5.2 K. This can be understood since the typical lattice potential well in which the ripplopolaron resides has frequencies of the order of THz or larger, which correspond to $\sim10$ K.
The new phase that was predicted [in]{} [@TempereEPJ2003], the ripplopolaron Wigner lattice, will not be present for electrons on a flat helium surface. At the values of the pressing field necessary to obtain a strong enough electron-ripplon coupling, the flat helium surface is no longer stable against long-wavelength deformations [@GorkovJETP18]. Multielectron bubbles, with their different ripplon dispersion and the presence of stabilizing factors such as the energy barrier against fissioning [@TemperePRB67], allow for much larger electric fields pressing the electrons against the helium surface. The regime of $N$, $p$, $T$ parameters suitable for the creation of a ripplopolaron Wigner lattice lies within the regime that would be achievable in recently proposed experiments, aimed at stabilizing multielectron bubbles [@SilveraBAPS46]. The ripplopolaron Wigner lattice and its melting transition might be detected by spectroscopic techniques [@GrimesPRL42; @FisherPRL42] probing for example the transverse phonon modes of the lattice [@DevillePRL53].
Polarons in 2D and in quasi-2D structures
=========================================
Polarons and cyclotron resonance in quantum wells {#quantum wells}
-------------------------------------------------
The resonant magnetopolaron coupling [@JL66] in bulk manifests itself near the LO-phonon frequency for low electron densities (see, e. g., Refs.[@Nicholas1992; @h1; @brum87]) and also for higher electron densities [@Swierkowski95].
![The cyclotron resonance position plotted as a function of magnetic field for InSe. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@Nicholas1992]. ©1992 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig_InSe"}](nic1_pol.eps){height=".3\textheight"}
For example, Nicholas *et al.* [@Nicholas1992] demonstrated polaron coupling effects using cyclotron resonance measurements in a 2DEG, which naturally occurs in the polar semiconductor InSe. One clearly sees, over a wide range of magnetic fields ($B=$ 18 to 34 T), two distinct magnetopolaron branches separated by as much as 11 meV ($\sim 0.4\omega_{\mathrm{LO}}$) at resonance (Fig.\[fig\_InSe\]). The theoretical curves show the results of calculations for coupling to the LO phonons in bulk (3D), sheet (2D) and after correction for the quasi-2D character of the system [using]{} $\alpha =0.29$. The agreement between theory and experiment is reasonable for the 3D case, but better for the quasi-2D system, if the finite spatial extent of the 2D electron gas in the symmetric planar layer is taken into account.
Cyclotron-resonance measurements performed on semiconductor quantum wells with high electron density [@h3; @Poulter2001] reveal anticrossing near the TO-phonon frequency rather than near the LO-phonon frequency. In Ref.[@Poulter2001], this effect is interpreted by invoking mixing between magnetoplasmons and phonons and in terms of a resonant coupling of the electrons with the mixed magneto-plasmon-phonon modes.
Cyclotron resonance in a quasi-2D many-polaron system and the role of screening
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Refs. [@SPRB-2; @Comment], the CR spectra for a polaron gas in a GaAs/AlAs quantum well are theoretically investigated, taking into account (i) the electron-electron interaction and the screening of the electron-phonon interaction, (ii) the magnetoplasmon-phonon mixing, (iii) the electron-phonon interaction with all the phonon modes specific for the quantum well under investigation. As a result of this mixing, different magnetoplasmon-phonon modes appear in the quantum well, which give contributions to the CR spectra.
![Density map of the magnetoabsorption spectra for a 10-nm GaAs/AlAs quantum well as calculated in Ref. [@SPRB-2]. Symbols indicate peak positions of the experimental spectra (which are taken from Fig. 3 of Ref. [@Poulter2001]). Dashed lines show LO- and TO-phonon energies in GaAs. ([Reprinted with permission after Ref. [@SPRB-2]. ©2003 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig_DensMap"}](DensityMapA.eps){width=".7\textwidth"}
It is clearly seen from Fig.\[fig\_DensMap\], that for a high-density polaron gas, anticrossing of the CR spectra occurs near the GaAs TO-phonon frequency $\omega_{T1}$ rather than near the GaAs LO-phonon frequency $\omega_{L1}$ for both the experimental and the calculated spectra. This effect is in contrast with the cyclotron resonance of a low-density polaron gas in a quantum well, where anticrossing occurs near the LO-phonon frequency. The appearance of the anticrossing frequency close to $\omega_{T1}$ instead of $\omega_{L1}$ is due to the screening of the electron-phonon interaction by the plasma vibrations. A similar effect appears also for magnetophonon resonance: as shown in Ref. [Afonin2000]{}, the magnetoplasmon-phonon mixing leads to a shift of the resonant frequency of the magnetophonon resonance in quantum wells from $\Omega \approx \omega_{L1}$ to $\Omega \approx \omega_{T1}.$
Polarons in quasi-0D structures
===============================
Many-polaron systems in quantum dots {#quantum dots}
------------------------------------
The ground-state energy and the optical conductivity spectra for a system with a finite number of interacting arbitrary-coupling large polarons in a spherical quantum dot [were]{} calculated using the path-integral formalism for identical particles [@PRE96; @PRE97; @NoteKleinert]. A parabolic confinement potential characterized by the confinement energy $\hbar \Omega _{0}$ and with a background charge is considered. Using a generalization of the Jensen-Feynman variational principle [@PRE96; @NoteKleinert], the ground-state energy of a confined $N$-polaron system is analyzed as a function of $N$ and of the electron-phonon coupling strength $\alpha$ [@dev1; @SPRB].
The total spin $S$ is analyzed as a function of the number of electrons in the quantum dot for different values of the confinement energy, of the coupling constant and of the ratio $\eta $ of the high-frequency and the static dielectric constants.
Confined few-electron systems, without electron-phonon interaction, can exist in one of [*two*]{} phases: a spin-polarized state and a state obeying Hund’s rule, depending on the confinement frequency (see, e. g., Ref.[@koskinen]). For interacting few-polaron systems with $\alpha \geq 3$, besides the above two phases, a [*third*]{} phase [may occur]{}: the state with minimal spin.
In Ref. [@SPRB] the memory-function approach has been extended to a system of arbitrary-coupling interacting polarons, confined to a parabolic confinement potential. The applicability of the parabolic approximation is confirmed by the fact that the self-induced polaronic potential, created by the polarization cloud around an electron, is rather well described by a parabolic potential whose parameters are determined by a variational method. For weak coupling, our variational method is at least of the same accuracy as the perturbation theory, which results from our approach at a special choice of the variational parameters. For strong coupling, the interplay of the electron-phonon interaction and the Coulomb correlations within a confinement potential can lead to the [clustering]{} of polarons in multi-polaron systems. [Our]{} choice of the model variational system is [justified]{} because of this trend, [which occurs]{} in a many-polaron system with arbitrary $N$, for a finite confinement strength.
![Optical conductivity spectra of $N=20$ interacting polarons in CdSe quantum dots with $\alpha=0.46$, $\eta=0.656$ for different confinement energies close to the transition from a spin-polarized ground state to a ground state obeying Hund’s rule. *Inset*: the first frequency moment $\left\langle \Omega\right\rangle $ of the optical conductivity as a function of the confinement energy. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@SPRB]. ©2004 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="Spectra"}](TransitionA.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The shell filling schemes [of]{} an $N$-polaron system in a quantum dot can manifest themselves in the optical conductivity. In Fig.\[Spectra\], optical conductivity spectra for $N=20$ polarons are presented for a quantum dot with the parameters of CdSe: $\alpha=0.46,$ $\eta=0.656$ [@Kartheuser1972] and with different values of the confinement energy $\hbar\Omega_{0}$. In this case, the spin-polarized ground state changes to the ground state satisfying Hund’s rule with increasing $\hbar\Omega_{0}$ in the interval $0.0421H^{\ast}<\hbar\Omega
_{0}<0.0422H^{\ast}$.
In the inset to Fig.\[Spectra\], the first frequency moment of the optical conductivity $$\left\langle \Omega\right\rangle \equiv\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}\Omega
\mathrm{Re}\sigma\left( \Omega\right) d\Omega}{\int_{0}^{\infty
}\mathrm{Re}\sigma\left( \Omega\right) d\Omega}, \label{Moment}$$ as a function of $\hbar\Omega_{0}$ shows a *discontinuity*, at the value of the confinement energy corresponding to the change of the shell filling schemes from the spin-polarized ground state to the ground state obeying Hund’s rule. This discontinuity [could]{} be observable in optical measurements.
The shell structure for a system of interacting polarons in a quantum dot is clearly revealed when analyzing the addition energy and the first frequency moment of the optical conductivity in parallel. In Fig \[Moments\], we show both the function $$\Theta\left( N\right) \equiv\left. \left\langle \Omega\right\rangle
\right\vert _{N+1}-2\left. \left\langle \Omega\right\rangle \right\vert
_{N}+\left. \left\langle \Omega\right\rangle \right\vert _{N-1},
\label{Theta}$$ and the addition energy$$\Delta\left( N\right) =E^{0}\left( N+1\right) -2E^{0}\left( N\right)
+E^{0}\left( N-1\right) . \label{Add}$$ for interacting polarons in a 3D CdSe quantum dot.
\[ptbh\]
![The function $\Theta\left( N\right) $ and the addition energy $\Delta\left( N\right) $ for systems of interacting polarons in CdSe quantum dots with $\alpha=0.46$, $\eta=0.656$ for $\hbar\Omega_{0}=0.1H^{\ast}$. ([Reprinted with permission from Ref. [@SPRB]. ©2004 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="Moments"}](CdSe01.EPS){width="50.00000%"}
As seen from Fig \[Moments\], distinct peaks appear in $\Theta\left(
N\right) $ and $\Delta\left( N\right) $ at the magic numbers corresponding to closed-shell configurations at $N=8,20$ and to half-filled-shell configurations at $N=5,14$. We see that each of the peaks of $\Theta\left( N\right) $ corresponds to a peak of the addition energy. [The peak positions for the addition energy of interacting polarons in a 2D parabolic quantum dot [@SPRB] agree well with the experimental results for the addition energies of cylindrical GaAs quantum dots [@Tarucha].]{}
Non-adiabaticity of polaronic excitons in semiconductor quantum dots. Photoluminescence and Raman scattering of polarons in quantum dots {#optical response in quantum dots}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest in the optical properties of quantum dots has been continuously growing [i. a.]{} because of the prospects of these structures for optoelectronic applications. Recent measurements [@2; @3; @4; @5] of photoluminescence of self-assembled InAs/GaAs quantum dots, reveal [unexpectedly]{} high probabilities of the phonon-assisted transitions. Attempts to interpret some of these experiments on the basis of the adiabatic theory meet with difficulties. For spherical CdSe quantum dots, e. g., the Huang-Rhys factor $S$ calculated within the adiabatic approximation takes values which are significantly (by one or two orders of magnitude) smaller than the so-called “experimental Huang-Rhys factor”. [This “experimental Huang-Rhys factor” is]{} determined from the ratio of the measured intensities of the phonon satellites. In the framework of the adiabatic approach, various mechanisms, which cause the separation of the electron and hole charges in space [@3; @6; @7], are commonly considered as a possible origin for the unexpectedly large Huang-Rhys factor.
It has been shown [in Ref.]{} [@PRB57-2415], that non-adiabaticity of exciton-phonon systems in some quantum dots drastically enhances the efficiency of the exciton-phonon interaction, especially when the exciton levels are separated with energies close to the phonon energies. Also “intrinsic” excitonic degeneracy can lead to enhanced efficiency of the exciton-phonon interaction. The effects of non-adiabaticity are important to interpret the surprisingly high intensities of the phonon ‘sidebands’ observed in the optical absorption, the photoluminescence and the Raman spectra of [some]{} quantum dots. [Major]{} deviations of the [observed]{} oscillator strengths of [some]{} phonon-peak sidebands from the Franck-Condon progression, which is prescribed by the commonly used adiabatic approximation, find a natural explanation within [our]{} non-adiabatic approach, [introduced in [@PRB57-2415], see]{} [nanot,raman2002,PSS03,Fonoberov2004]{}.
In Ref. [@PRB57-2415], a method was proposed to calculate the optical absorption spectrum for a spherical quantum dot taking into account the non-adiabaticity of the exciton-phonon system. This approach has been further refined in Ref.[@STACK]: for the matrix elements of the evolution operator a closed set of equations has been obtained using a diagrammatic technique. This set describes the effect of non-adiabaticity both on the intensities and on the positions of the absorption peaks.
While the adiabatic approximation [predicts]{} negligibly low intensities of one- and two-phonon sidebands, [our]{} non-adiabatic theory allows for a quantitative interpretation of the observed high intensity of the phonon sidebands in the photoluminescence (Fig. \[fig:P24-12\]) and Raman (Fig. \[fig:P24-13\]) spectra of some quantum dots, in agreement with experiment.
![Photoluminescence spectra of colloidal spherical CdSe quantum dots with wurtzite structure. The dashed curve represents the experimental data from Ref. [@Nirmal]. The dash-dotted curve displays a result of the adiabatic approximation – a Franck-Condon progression with Huang-Rhys factor $S=0.06$ as calculated by S. Nomura and S. Kobayashi [@6]. The solid curve results from the non-adiabatic theory. ([Reprinted with permission after Ref. [@PRB57-2415]. ©1998 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:P24-12"}](figP24-12.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![Resonant Raman scattering spectra of an ensemble of CdSe quantum dots with average radius 2 nm at $T=77$ K (panel $a$) and of PbS quantum dots with average radius 1.5 nm at $T=4.2$ K (panel $b$). The dash-dot-dot curves show the luminescence background. The dash-dot curves in panel $b$ indicate contributions of phonon modes (classified in analogy with electron states in a hydrogen atom) into the Raman spectrum. The dashed curves represent experimental Raman spectra. ([Reprinted with permission after Ref. [@raman2002]. ©2002 by the American Physical Society]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:P24-13"}](figP24-13A.eps){width="100.00000%"}
From the comparison of the spectra obtained in the adiabatic approximation with those resulting from the non-adiabatic approach, the following effects of non-adiabaticity are revealed. First, the *polaron shift* of the zero-phonon lines with respect to the bare-exciton levels is larger in the non-adiabatic approach than in the adiabatic approximation. Second, there is a strong *increase of the intensities of the phonon satellites* as compared to those [derived]{} [within]{} the adiabatic approximation. Third, in the optical absorption spectra found within the non-adiabatic approach, phonon satellites [appear, that are]{} related to *non-active bare exciton states*. Fourth, the optical-absorption spectra demonstrate the crucial role of *non-adiabatic mixing* of different exciton and phonon states in quantum dots. This results in a rich structure of the absorption spectrum of the exciton-phonon system [@GBFD2001; @nanot; @PSS03]. Similar conclusions about the pronounced influence of the exciton-phonon interaction on the optical spectra of quantum dots have been [subsequently]{} formulated in Ref. [@VFB2002] in terms of a strong coupling regime for excitons and LO phonons. Such a strong coupling regime is a particular case of the non-adiabatic mixing, [studied by us [@PRB57-2415; @GBFD2001],]{} related to a (quasi-) resonance which arises when the spacing between exciton levels is close to the LO phonon energy. The large enhancement of the two-phonon sidebands in the luminescence spectra as compared to those predicted by the Huang-Rhys formula, which was explained in Ref. [PRB57-2415,GBFD2001]{} by non-adiabaticity of the exciton-phonon system in certain quantum dots, has been reformulated in Ref. [@VFB2002] in terms of the Fröhlich coupling between product states with different electron and/or hole states
Due to non-adiabaticity, multiple absorption peaks appear in spectral ranges characteristic for phonon satellites. From the states, which correspond to these peaks, the system can rapidly relax to the lowest emitting state. Therefore, in the photoluminescence excitation (PLE) spectra of [specific]{} quantum dots, pronounced peaks can be expected in spectral ranges characteristic for phonon satellites. New experimental evidence of the enhanced phonon-assisted absorption due to effects of non-adiabaticity has been provided by PLE measurements on single self-assembled InAs/GaAs [quantum dots]{} [@lem01] and InGaAs/GaAs quantum dots [@zre01].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I like to thank V. M. Fomin for discussions during the preparation of this manuscript. I acknowledge also discussions with S. N. Klimin, V. N. Gladilin, A. S. Mishchenko, V. Cataudella, G. De Filippis, R. Evrard, F. Brosens, [L. Lemmens]{} and J. Tempere. This work has been supported by the GOA BOF UA 2000, IUAP, FWO-V projects G.0306.00, G.0274.01N, G.0435.03, the WOG WO.035.04N (Belgium) and the European Commission SANDiE Network of Excellence, contract No. NMP4-CT-2004-500101.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Mott N. F. in *Cooperative Phenomena*, edited by Haken H. and Wagner M., (Springer-Verlag, Berlin) 1973, pp. 2-14.
Mott N. F. *Metal-Insulator Transitions*, (Taylor and Francis, London) 1990.
Devreese J., Bull. Soc. Belge de Phys., Ser. III, no. 4, 259 (1963).
*Polarons in Advanced Materials*, edited by Alexandrov A. S., (Canopus, Bath) 2007 (in press).
Stoneham A. M., Gavartin J., Shluger A. L., Kimmel A. V., Muñoz Ramo D., R[ø]{}nnow H. M., Aeppli G., and Renner C., [J. Phys.: Condens. Matter]{} [**19**]{} 255208 (22 pp.) (2007).
, [Phys. Z. Sowjetunion]{} [**3**]{} [664]{} (1933).
, [Zh. Eksp. i Teor. Fiz.]{} [**18**]{} [419]{} (1948).
, *Issledovanija po Ekektronnoj Teorii Kristallov* (Gostekhizdat, Moskva) 1951 \[German translation: *Untersuchungen über die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle* (Akademie Verlag, Berlin) 1951\].
, [Ukr. Matem. Zh.]{} [**2**]{} [3]{} (1950).
, [Zh. Eksp. i Teor. Fiz.]{} [**19**]{} [256]{} (1949).
, [Adv. Phys.]{} [**3**]{} [325]{} (1954).
, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**90**]{} [297]{} (1953).
Feynman R. P., [Phys. Rev.]{} **97** 660 (1955).
, in Ref. [@KW63], pp. 323 - 355 (1963).
*Polarons and Excitons*, edited by [Kuper G. C. and Whitfield G. D.]{}, (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh) 1963.
*Polarons in Ionic Crystals and Polar Semiconductors*, edited by [Devreese J. T.]{}, (North-Holland, Amsterdam) 1972.
in *Solid State Physics*, edited by [Seitz J., Turnbull J. and Ehrenreich J.]{}, (Academic Press, New York) 1968, vol. 21, pp. 193-391.
in *Encyclopedia of Applied Physics*, edited by [Trigg G. L.]{} (VCH, Weinheim) 1996, vol 14, pp. 383-413.
, *Polarons and Bipolarons* (World Scientific, Singapore) 1996.
, *Optical Properties of Polarons* (Editrice Compositori, Bologna) 2001.
Alexandrov A. S. and Mott N. F., * High Temperature Superconductors and Other Superfluids* (Taylor and Francis, London) 1994.
*Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Course CXXXVI, Varenna, 1997, Models and Phenomenology for Conventional and High-temperature Superconductivity* ed by Iadonisi G., Schrieffer J. R., and Chiofalo M. L. (IOS Press, Amsterdam) 1998.
Alexandrov A. S., *Theory of Superconductivity. From Weak to Strong Coupling* (IOP Publishing, Bristol) 2003.
Devreese J. T. in [*Encyclopedia of Physics*]{} 2 vols. set, edited by Lerner R.G. and Trigg G.L., (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim) 2005, vol. 2, pp. 2004 - 2027.
*Proceedings of the “Enrico Fermi’ Summer School, Course CLXI – Polarons in Bulk Materials and Systems with Reduced Dimensionality, Varenna, June 21 - July 1, 2005* ed by Iadonisi G., Ranninger J., and De Filippis G. (IOS Press, Amsterdam) 2006.
Fröhlich H., [Arch. Sci. Genève]{}, [**10**]{}, 5 (1957).
Holstein T., [Ann. Phys. (USA)]{}, [**8**]{}, 343 (1959).
Mott N. F., *Conduction in Non-Crystalline Materials*, (Clarendon, Oxford) 1987.
Devreese J. T., *Bijdrage tot de polarontheorie.* Proefschrift tot het verkrijgen van de graad van Doctor in de Wetenschappen, KU Leuven (1964).
**11**, [278]{} (1964).
**14**, [295]{} (1965).
Kartheuser E., Evrard R., and Devreese J., Phys. Rev. Lett.**22**, 94 (1969).
, [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**5**]{}, [2367]{} (1972). Devreese J. T., in *Polarons in Ionic Crystals and Polar Semiconductors* (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1972) pp. 83-159.
, [1004]{} (1962).
, [6051]{} (1983).
, [236401]{} (2003).
, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**96**]{}, 136405 (2006).
**9**, [1383]{} (1971).
Goovaerts M. J., De Sitter J., and Devreese J. T., *Phys. Rev. B* **7**, 2639 (1973).
Huybrechts W. and Devreese J. T., Phys. Rev. B **8**, 5754 (1973).
Mishchenko A. S. and Nagaosa N., in Ref. [@ALBOOK].
Cataudella V., De Filippis G., and Perroni C. A. in Ref. [@ALBOOK].
, [in preparation]{} (2007).
Peeters F. M. and Devreese J. T., Phys. Rev. B **36**, 4442 (1987).
Titantah J. T., Pierleoni C., and Ciuchi S., Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 206406 (2001).
Devreese J. T. in *Proceedings of the “Enrico Fermi’ Summer School, Course CLXI - “Polarons in Bulk Materials and Systems with Reduced Dimensionality”, Varenna, June 21 - July 1, 2005*, edited by Iadonisi G., Ranninger J. and De Filippis G. (IOS Press, Amsterdam) 2006, pp. 27-52.
Vinetskii V. L., [Zh. Eksp. i. Teor. Fiz.]{} [**40**]{}, 1459 (1961) \[English translation: [Sov. Phys.—JETP]{} [**13**]{}, 1023 (1961)\].
Hiramoto H. and Toyozawa Y., [J. Phys. Soc. Japan]{} [**54**]{}, 245 (1985).
Adamowski J., [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**39**]{}, 3649 (1989).
Bassani F., Geddo M., Iadonisi G., and Ninno D., [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**43**]{}, 5296 (1991).
Verbist G., Peeters F. M., and Devreese J. T., [Sol. State. Commun.]{} [**76**]{}, 1005 (1990).
Verbist G., Peeters F. M., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**43**]{}, 2712 (1991).
Gurevich V. L., Lang I. G., and Firsov Yu. A., [Fiz. Tverd. Tela]{} **4**, 1252 (1962) \[English translation: [Sov. Phys. — Solid St.]{} **4**, 918 (1962)\].
Peeters F. M. and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **34**, 7246 (1986).
**58**, [1471]{} (1987).
Cohn D. R., Larsen D. M., and Lax B., Phys. Rev. B **6**, 1367 (1972).
Larsen D. M. in *Polarons in Ionic Crystals and Polar Semiconductors*, edited by Devreese J. T. (North-Holland, Amsterdam) 1972, pp. 237-287.
Pfeffer P. and Zawadzki W., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **37**, 2695 (1988).
Miura N., Nojiri H., Pfeffer P. et al., Phys. Rev. B **55**, 13598 (1997).
**54**, [1467]{} (1996).
**48**, [5202]{} (1993).
**48**, [7910]{} (1993).
Tempere J. and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **64**, 104504 (2001).
Lemmens L. F., Devreese J. T., and Brosens F., Phys. Status Solidi (b) **82**, 439 (1977).
Lupi S., Maselli P., Capizzi M. et al., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **83**, 4852 (1999).
Emin D., Phys. Rev. B **48**, 13691 (1993).
**52**, [6440]{} (1995).
Hartinger Ch., Mayr F., Deisenhofer J. et al., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **69**, 100403(R) (2004).
Shikin V. B. and Monarkha Yu. P., [Zh. Exp. Theor. Phys.]{} **65**, 751 (1973) \[English translation: [Sov. Phys. — JETP]{} **38**, 373 (1973)\].
Jackson S. A. and Platzman P. M., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **24**, 499 (1981).
Volodin A. P., Khaikin M. S., and V.S. Edelman V. S., JETP Lett. **26**, 543 (1977).
Albrecht U. and Leiderer P., Europhys. Lett. **3**, 705 (1987).
Shikin V. B., JETP Lett. **27**, 39 (1978).
Salomaa M. M. and Williams G. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. **47**, 1730 (1981).
Silvera I. F., Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. **46**, 1016 (2001).
Tempere J., Silvera I. F., and Devreese J. T., Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 275301 (2001).
Tempere J., Klimin S. N., Silvera I. F., and Devreese J. T., Eur. Phys. J. **32**, 329 (2003).
Fratini S. and Quémerais P., Eur. Phys. J. B **14**, 99 (2000).
Lindemann F., Z. Phys. **11**, 609 (1910).
Care C. M. and March N. H., Adv. Phys. **24**, 101 (1975).
Grimes C. C. and Adams G., Phys. Rev. Lett. **42**, 795 (1979).
Bedanov V. M. and Peeters F. M., Phys. Rev. B **49**, 2667 (1994).
Gor’kov L. P. and Chernikova D. M., Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **18**, 119 (1973) \[JETP Lett. **18**, 68 (1973)\].
Tempere J., Silvera I. F., and Devreese J. T., Phys. Rev. B **67**, 035402 (2003).
Fisher D. S., Halperin B. I., and Platzman P. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. **42**, 798 (1979).
Deville G. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **53**, 588 (1984).
Johnson E.J. and Larsen E. J., *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **16**, 655 (1966).
Nicholas R. J., Watts M., Howell D. F., Peeters F. M., Wu X.-G., Devreese J. T., van Bockstal L., Herlach F., Langerak C. J. G. M., Singleton J., and Chery A., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **45**, 12144 (1992).
McCombe B. D. and Kaplan, R., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **21**, 756 (1968).
Brummel M. A., Nicholas R. J., Hopkins M. A., Harris J. J., and Foxon C. T., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **58**, 77 (1987).
Świerkowski L., Szymański J., Simmonds P. E., Fisher T. A., Skolnick, M. S., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **51**, 9830-9835 (1995).
Ziesmann M., Heitmann D., and Chang L. L., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **35** 4541 (1987).
Poulter A. J. L., Zeman J., Maude D. K., Potemski M., Martinez G., Riedel A., Hey R., and Friedland K. J., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **86**, 336 (2001).
Klimin, S. N. and Devreese, J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **68**, 245303 (2003).
Klimin S. N. and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**94**]{}, 239701 (2005).
Afonin V. V., Gurevich V. L., and Laiho R., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **62**, 15913 (2000).
Lemmens L. F., Brosens F., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. E]{} **53**, 4467 (1996).
Brosens F., Devreese J. T., and Lemmens L. F., [Phys. Rev. E]{} **55**, 227 (1997); **55**, 6795 (1997); **58**, 1634 (1998).
Devreese J. T. in *Fluctuating Paths and Fields* (World Scientific, Singapore) 2001, pp. 289 - 304.
Devreese J. T., Klimin S. N., Fomin V. M., and Brosens F., [Solid State Commun.]{} **114**, 305 (2000).
Klimin S. N., Fomin V. M., Brosens F., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **69**, 235324, 1-16 (2004).
Reimann S. M., Koskinen M., and Manninen M., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **62**, 8108-8113 (2000).
Kartheuser E. in: *Polarons in Ionic Crystals and Polar Semiconductors*, edited by Devreese J. T. (North-Holland, Amsterdam) 1972, pp. 717-733.
Fomin V. M., Gladilin V. N., Devreese J. T., Pokatilov E. P., Balaban S. N., and Klimin S. N., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **57**, 2415 (1998).
[ Tarucha S., Austing D. G., Honda T., van der Hage R. J., and Kouwenhoven L. P., Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3613 (1996). ]{}
García-Cristóbal A., Minnaert A. W. E., Fomin V. M., Devreese J. T., Silov A. Yu., Haverkort J. E. M., and Wolter J. H., [Phys. Stat. Sol. (b)]{} **215**, 331 (1999).
Heitz R., Mukhametzhanov I., Stier O., Madhukar A., and Bimberg D., [Phys. Rev. Letters]{} **83**, 4654 (1999).
Bissiri M., Baldassarri Höger von Högersthal G., Bhatti A. S., Capizzi M., Frova M., Frigeri P., and Franchi S., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **62**, 4642 (2000).
Bissiri M., Capizzi M., Fomin V. M., Gladilin V. N., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Stat. Sol (b)]{} **224**, 639 (2001).
Nomura S. and Kobayashi S., [Phys. Rev. B **45**]{}, 1305 (1992).
Fry P. W., Itskevich I. E., Mowbray D. J. et al., [Phys. Rev. Letters]{} **84**, 733 (2000).
Devreese J. T., Fomin V. M., Gladilin V. N., Pokatilov E. P., and Klimin S. N., [Nanotechnology]{} **13**, 163 (2002).
Pokatilov E. P., Klimin S. N., Fomin V. M., Devreese J. T., and Wise F. W., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **65**, 075316 (2002).
Devreese J. T., Fomin V. M., Pokatilov E. P., Gladilin V. N., and Klimin S. N., [Phys. Stat. Sol. (c)]{} **0**, 1189 (2003).
Fonoberov V. A., Pokatilov E. P., Fomin V. M., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **92**, 127402 (2004).
Gladilin V. N., Klimin S. N., Fomin V. M., and Devreese J. T., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **69**, 155325 (2004).
Nirmal M., Murray C. B., Norris D. J., and Bawendi M. G., Z. Phys. D **26**, 361 (1993).
Gladilin V. N., Balaban S. N., Fomin V. M., and Devreese J. T. in *Proc. 25th Int. Conf. on the Physics of Semiconductors, Osaka, Japan, 2000* (Springer, Berlin) 2001, Part II, pp. 1243-1244.
Verzelen O., Ferreira R., and Bastard G., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **88**, 146803 (2002).
Lemaître A., Ashmore A. D., Finley J. J., Mowbray D. J., Skolnick M. S., Hopkinson M., and Krauss T. F., [Phys. Rev. B]{} **63**, 161309(R) (2001).
Zrenner A., Findeis F., Baier M., Bichler M., and Abstreiter G., [Physica B]{} **298**, 239 (2001).
[^1]: The workshop “Mott’s Physics in Nanowires and Quantum Dots” provides me with an opportunity to recall stimulating discussions, correspondence and encounters [which]{} I had with Sir Nevill, i. a. in Cambridge, in Antwerpen, in Leuven, in Roma... He presented a fine series of lectures : [*“Solved and unsolved problems for non-crystalline materials”*]{} in Antwerpen in July 1975. I enjoyed discussions on small polarons and hopping, on the stability of bipolarons, on electronic transport in general. Nevill often approached a problem deeper and deeper by a kind of [*Plato-type*]{} approach with ever more penetrating questions [@Mott1973; @Mott1990; @Devreese1963]. [Some aspects of the present paper are treated in more generality in the chapter by the present author in the book [@ALBOOK]. I also refer to the contributions by A. S. Alexandrov; S. Aubry; H. Böttger, V. V. Bryksin and T. Damker; A. M. Bratkovsky; V. Cataudella, G. De Filippis and C. A. Perroni; H. Fehske and S. A. Trugman; Yu. A. Firsov; M. Hohenadler and W. von der Linden; V. V. Kabanov; P. Kornilovitch; D. Mihailovic; A. S. Mishchenko and N. Nagaosa; Guo-meng Zhao; M. Zoli to Ref. [@ALBOOK]. See further the article by A. M. Stoneham et al. [@Stoneham].]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we construct the Brownian motion of Liouville Quantum Gravity with central charge $c=1$ (more precisely we restrict to the corresponding free field theory). Liouville quantum gravity with $c=1$ corresponds to two-dimensional string theory and is the conjectural scaling limit of large planar maps weighted with a $O(n=2)$ loop model or a $Q=4$-state Potts model embedded in a two dimensional surface in a conformal manner.
Following [@GRV1], we start by constructing the critical LBM from one fixed point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ (or $x\in\S^2$), which amounts to changing the speed of a standard planar Brownian motion depending on the local behaviour of the critical Liouville measure $M'(dx)=-X(x)e^{2X(x)}\,dx$ (where $X$ is a Gaussian Free Field, say on $\S^2$). Extending this construction simultaneously to all points in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ requires a fine analysis of the potential properties of the measure $M'$. This allows us to construct a strong Markov process with continuous sample paths living on the support of $M'$, namely a dense set of Hausdorff dimension $0$. We finally construct the associated Liouville semigroup, resolvent, Green function, heat kernel and Dirichlet form.
In passing, we extend to quite a general setting the construction of the critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos that was initiated in [@Rnew7; @Rnew12] and also establish new capacity estimates for the critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos.
author:
- 'Rémi Rhodes [^1]'
- 'Vincent Vargas [^2]'
title: Liouville Brownian motion at criticality
---
[**Key words or phrases:**]{} Gaussian multiplicative chaos, critical Liouville quantum gravity, Brownian motion, heat kernel, potential theory.
[**MSC 2000 subject classifications: 60J65, 81T40, 60J55, 60J60, 60J80, 60J70, 60K40**]{}
Introduction
============
Physics motivations
-------------------
Liouville Quantum Field Theory is a two dimensional conformal field theory which plays an important part in two dimensional models of Euclidean quantum gravity. Euclidean quantum gravity is an attempt to quantize general relativity based on Feynman’s functional integral and on the Einstein-Hilbert action principle. More precisely, one couples a Conformal Field Theory (CFT) with central charge $c$ to gravity. A famous example is the coupling of $c$ free scalar matter fields to gravity, leading to an interpretation of such a specific theory of $2d$-Liouville Quantum Gravity as a bosonic string theory in $c$ dimensions [@Pol].
It is shown in [@Pol; @cf:KPZ; @cf:Da]) that the coupling of the CFT with gravity can be factorized as a tensor product: the random metric governing the geometry of the space that the CFT lives on is independent of the CFT and roughly takes on the form [@Pol; @cf:KPZ; @cf:Da] (we consider an Euclidean background metric for simplicity): $$\label{tensor}
g(x)=e^{\gamma X(x)}dx^2,$$ where the fluctuations of the field $X$ are governed by the Liouville action and the parameter $\gamma$ is related to the central charge of the CFT via the famous result in [@cf:KPZ] (for $c{\;\leqslant\;}1$) $$\label{KPZgammac}
\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\sqrt{25-c}-\sqrt{1-c}).$$ Therefore $\gamma\in[0,2]$. The reader is referred to [@DKRV] for further details and a rigorous construction of the Liouville field and to [@david-hd; @cf:Da; @cf:DuSh; @DFGZ; @DistKa; @bourbaki; @GM; @glimm; @Kle; @cf:KPZ; @Nak; @Pol] for further insights on $2d$-Liouville quantum gravity. For these reasons and though it may be an interesting field in its own right, Liouville quantum field theory (governing the metric in $2d$-Liouville quantum gravity) is an important object in theoretical physics.
Here we will restrict to the case when the the cosmological constant in the Liouville action is set to $0$, turning the field $X$ in into a Free Field, with appropriate boundary conditions. In the subcritical case $\gamma<2,c<1$, the geometry of the metric tensor (with $X$ a free field) is mathematically investigated in [@cf:DuSh; @GRV1; @GRV2; @review; @spectral] and the famous KPZ scaling relations [@cf:KPZ] are rigorously proved in [@Rnew4; @cf:DuSh; @Rnew10] in a geometrical framework (see also [@David-KPZ] for a non rigorous heat kernel derivation). This paper focuses on the coupling of a CFT with a $c=1$ central charge to gravity or equivalently $2d$ string theory: in this case, one has $\gamma=2$ by relation . For an excellent review on $2d$ string theory, we refer to Klebanov’s lecture notes [@Kle]. As expressed by Klebanov in [@Kle]: “Two-dimensional string theory is the kind of toy model which possesses a remarkably simple structure but at the same time incorporates some of the physics of string theories embedded in higher dimensions”. Among the $\gamma{\;\leqslant\;}2$ theories, the case $\gamma=2$ probably possesses the richest structure, inherited from its specific status of phase transition. For instance, the construction of the volume form, denoted by $M'$, associated to the metric tensor is investigated in [@Rnew7; @Rnew12] where it is proved that it takes on the unusual form: $$M'(dx)=-X(x)e^{2X(x)}dx,$$ which also coincides with a proper renormalization of $e^{2X(x)}dx$. The reader may also consult [@complex] for a construction of non trivial conformally invariant gravitationally dressed vertex operators, the so-called [**tachyonic fields**]{}, and [@Kle] for more physics insights. In this paper, we will complete this picture by constructing the Brownian motion (called critical Liouville Brownian motion, critical LBM for short), semi-group, resolvent, Dirichlet form, Green function and heat kernel of the metric tensor with $\gamma=2$.
We further point out that Liouville quantum gravity is conjecturally related to randomly triangulated random surfaces (see [@DKRV] for precise conjectures) weighted by discrete critical statistical physics models. For $c=1$, these models include one-dimensional matrix models (also called “matrix quantum mechanics” (MQM)) [@BKZ; @GM; @GZ; @GrossKleban; @GubserKleban; @KKK; @Kleb2; @Parisi; @Polch; @sugino], the so-called $O(n)$ loop model on a random planar lattice for $n=2$ [@kostov91; @kostov92; @Kostov:houches; @KS], and the $Q$-state Potts model on a random lattice for $Q=4$ [@BBM; @Daul; @Ey]. The critical LBM is therefore conjectured to be the scaling limit of random walks on large planar maps weighted with a $O(n=2)$ loop model or a $Q=4$-state Potts model, which are embedded in a two dimensional surface in a conformal manner as explained in [@DKRV]. For an introduction to the above mentioned $2d$-statistical models, see, e.g., [@Nienhuis]. We further mention [@curien; @eynard] for recent advances on this topic in the context of pure gravity, i.e. with no coupling with a CFT.
To complete this overview, we point out that the notions of diffusions or heat kernel are at the core of physics literature about Liouville quantum gravity (see [@amb; @amb2; @calg1; @calg2; @david-hd; @David-KPZ; @wata] for instance): for more on this, see the subsection on the associated distance.
Strategy and results
--------------------
Basically, our approach of the metric tensor $e^{2X(x)}\,dx^2$ (where $X$ is a Free Field) relies on the construction of the associated Brownian motion $\LB$, called the critical LBM. Standard results of $2d$-Riemannian geometry tell us that the law of this Brownian motion is a time change of a standard planar Brownian motion $B$ (starting from $0$): $$\LB_t^x=x+B_{\langle \LB^x\rangle_t}$$ where the quadratic variations $\langle \LB^x\rangle$ are formally given by: $$\label{naive}
\langle \LB^x\rangle_t=F'(x,t)^{-1},\quad F'(x,t)=\int_0^te^{2X(x+B_r)}\,dr.$$ Put in other words, we should integrate the weight $e^{2X(x)}$ along the paths of the Brownian motion $x+B$ to construct a mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$. The inverse of this mapping corresponds to the quadratic variations of $\LB^x$. Of course, because of the irregularity of the field $X$, giving sense to is not straightforward and one has to apply a renormalization procedure: one has to apply a cutoff to the field $X$ (a procedure that smoothes up the field $X$) and pass to the limit as the cutoff is removed. The procedure is rather standard in this context. Roughly speaking, one introduces an approximating field $X_\epsilon$ where the parameter $\epsilon$ stands for the extent to which one has regularized the field $X$ (we have $X_\epsilon \rightarrow X$ as $\epsilon$ goes to $0$). One then defines $$\label{renormF}
F^\epsilon(x,t)=\int_0^te^{2X_\epsilon(x+B_r)}\,dr$$ and one looks for a suitable deterministic renormalization $a(\epsilon)$ such that the family $a(\epsilon)F^\epsilon(x,t)$ converges towards a non trivial object as $\epsilon\to 0$. In the subcritical case $\gamma<2$, the situation is rather well understood as the family $a(\epsilon)$ roughly corresponds to $$a(\epsilon)\simeq\exp(-\frac{\gamma^2}{2}{\mathds{E}}[X_\epsilon(x)^2])$$ (the dependence of the point $x$ is usually fictive and may easily get rid of) in such a way that $$\label{renorm}
a(\epsilon)\int_0^te^{\gamma X_\epsilon(x+B_r)}\,dr$$ converges towards a non trivial limit. We will call this renormalization procedure standard: it has been successfully applied to construct random measures of the form $e^{\gamma X(x)}dx$ [@cf:Kah; @cf:RoVa; @cf:RoVa1] (the reader may consult [@review] for an overview on Gaussian multiplicative chaos theory). Though the choice of the cutoff does not affect the nature of the limiting object, a proper choice of the cutoff turns the expression into a martingale. This is convenient to handle the convergence of this object.
At criticality ($\gamma=2$), the situation is conceptually more involved. It is known [@Rnew7] that the standard renormalization procedure of the volume form yields a trivial object. Logarithmic corrections in the choice of the family $a(\epsilon)$ are necessary (see [@Rnew7; @Rnew12]) and the limiting measure that we get is the same as that corresponding to a metric tensor of the form $-X(x)e^{2X(x)}$. Observe that it is not straightforward to see at first sight that such metric tensors coincide, or even are positive. This subtlety is at the origin of some misunderstandings in the physics literature where the two forms of the tachyon field $e^{2X(x)}$ and $-X(x)e^{2X(x)}$ appear without making perfectly clear that they coincide.
The case of the LBM at criticality obeys this rule too. We will prove that non standard logarithmic corrections are necessary to make the change of time $F^\epsilon$ converge and they produce the same limiting change of times as that corresponding to a metric tensor of the form $-X(x)e^{2X(x)}$. This summarizes the almost sure convergence of $F^\epsilon$ for one given fixed point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Yet, if one wishes to define a proper Markov process, one has to go one step further and establish that, almost surely, $F^\epsilon(x,\cdot)$ converges simultaneously for all possible starting points $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$: the place of the “almost sure” is important and gives rise to difficulties that are conceptually far different from the construction from one given fixed point. In [@GRV1], it is noticed that this simultaneous convergence is possible as soon as the volume form $M_\gamma(dx)$ associated to the metric tensor is regular enough so as to make the mapping $$x\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\ln_+\frac{1}{|x-y|}M_\gamma(dx)$$ continuous. When $\gamma<2$, multifractal analysis shows that the measure $M_\gamma$ possesses a power law decay of the size of balls and this is enough to ensure the continuity of this mapping. In the critical case $\gamma=2$, the situation is more complicated because the measure $M'$ is rather wild: for instance the Hausdorff dimension of its support is zero [@KNW]. Furthermore, the decay of the size of balls investigated in [@KNW] shows that continuity and even finiteness of the mapping $$\label{intro:lnF}
x\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\ln_+\frac{1}{|x-y|}M'(dx)$$ is unlikely to hold on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Yet we will show that we can have a rather satisfactory control of the size of balls for all $x$ belonging to a set of full $M'$-measure, call it $S$: $$\forall x\in S,\quad \sup_{r\in]0,1]}M'(B(x,r))(-\ln r)^p<+\infty$$ for some $p$ large enough. In particular this estimate shows that the expression is finite for every point $x\in S$. Also, this estimate answers a question raised in [@KNW] (a similar estimate was proved by the same authors [@BKNSW] in the related case of the discrete multiplicative cascades). We will thus construct the change of time $F'(x,\cdot)$ simultaneously for all $x\in S$. What happens on the complement of $S$ does not matter that much since it is a set with null $M'$ measure. Yet we will extend the change of time $F'(x,\cdot)$ to the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Once $F'$ is constructed, potential theory [@fuku] tells us that the LBM at criticality is a strong Markov process, which preserves the critical measure $M'$. We will then define the semigroup, resolvent, Green function and heat kernel associated to the LBM at criticality.
We stress that, once all the pieces of the puzzle are glued together, this LBM at criticality appears as a rather weird mathematical object. It is a Markov process with continuous sample paths living on a very thin set, which is dense in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and has Hausdorff dimension $0$. And in spite of this rather wild structure, the LBM at criticality is regular enough to possess a (weak form of) heat kernel. Beyond the possible applications in physics, we feel that the study of such an object is a fundamental and challenging mathematical problem, which is far from being settled in this paper.
Discussion about the associated distance
----------------------------------------
An important question related to this work is the existence of a distance associated to the metric tensor for $\gamma\in [0,2]$. The physics literature contains several suggestions to handle this problem, part of which are discussed along the forthcoming speculative lines. Also since we will base part of our discussion on the results established in [@spectral], we will focus on the non critical case $\gamma<2$ though a similar discussion should hold in the critical case. In this context, we denote $F(x,t)=\int_0^te^{ \gamma X(x+B_r)}\,dr$ the associated additive functional along the Brownian paths. We know that for all $t>0$ there exists a Liouville heat kernel $\p^X_t(x,y)$. Many papers in the physics literature have argued that the Liouville heat kernel should have the following representation which is classical in the context of Riemannian geometry $$\label{representationheat}
\p^X_t(x,y) \sim \frac{e^{-d(x,y)^2/t}}{t}$$ where $d(x,y)$ is the associated distance, i.e. the “Riemannian distance” defined by . From the representation , physicists [@amb; @amb2; @wata] have derived many fractal and geometrical properties of Liouville quantum gravity. In particular, the paper [@wata] established an intriguing formula for the dimension $d_H$ of Liouville quantum gravity which can be defined by the heuristic $$M_\gamma(\lbrace y; \: d(x,y) {\;\leqslant\;}r \rbrace) \sim r^{d_H}$$ where $M_\gamma$ is the associated volume form. Note that the meaning of the above definition is not obvious since $M_\gamma$ is a multifractal random measure.
Along the same lines, a recent physics paper [@David-KPZ] establishes an interesting heat kernel derivation of the KPZ formula. The idea behind the paper is that, if relation holds, then one can extract the metric from the heat kernel by using the Mellin-Barnes transform given by $$\int_0^{\infty} t^{s-1}\p^X_t(x,y) dt.$$ Indeed, a standard computation gives the following equivalent for $s \in ]0,1[$ $$\label{heuristicDavid}
\int_0^\infty t^{s-1} \frac{e^{-d(x,y)^2/t}}{t} \: dt \underset{d(x,y) \to 0}{\sim} \frac{C_s}{d(x,y)^{2(1-s)}}$$ where $C_s$ is some positive constant. Though it is not clear at all that such a relation holds rigorously, it gives at least a way of defining a notion of capacity dimension for which a KPZ relation has been heuristically derived in [@David-KPZ]. Thanks to the relation , the authors claim that this yields a geometrical version of the KPZ equation which does not rely on the Euclidean metric. Recall that the rigorous geometrical derivations of KPZ in [@cf:DuSh; @Rnew10] rely on the measure $M_\gamma$ and imply working with Euclidean balls[^3].
In fact, after the present work and based on results in the field of fractal diffusions, it is argued in [@MRVZ] that one should replace the heuristic by the following heuristic $$\p^X_t(x,y) \sim \frac{e^{-\left ( \frac{d(x,y)^{d_H}}{t} \right )^{\frac{1}{d_H-1}}} }{t}$$ where $d_H$ is the dimension of Liouville quantum gravity. Hence, we should also rather get the relation $$\int_0^{\infty} t^{s-1}\p^X_t(x,y) dt \underset{d(x,y) \to 0}{\sim} \frac{C_s}{d(x,y)^{d_H (1-s)}}.$$
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
The authors wish to thank Antti Kupiainen, Miika Nikula and Christian Webb for many very interesting discussions which have helped a lot in understanding the specificity of the critical case and François David who always takes the time to answer their questions with patience and kindness.
Setup {#sec.setup}
=====
In this section, we draw up the framework to construct the Liouville Brownian motion at criticality on the whole plane ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Other geometries are possible and discussed at the end of the paper.
Notations {#index}
---------
In what follows, we will consider Brownian motions $B$ or $\bar{B}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ (or other geometries) independent of the underlying Free Field. We will denote by ${\mathds{E}}^Y$ or ${\mathds{P}}^Y$ expectations and probability with respect to a field $Y$. For instance, ${\mathds{E}}^X$ or ${\mathds{P}}^X$ (resp. ${\mathds{E}}^B$ or ${\mathds{P}}^B$) stand for expectation and probability with respect to the log-correlated field $X$ (resp. the Brownian motion $B$). For $d{\;\geqslant\;}1$, we consider the space $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ of continuous functions from ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ into ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ equipped with the topology of uniform convergence over compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}_+$.
Representation of a log-correlated field
----------------------------------------
In this section we introduce the log-correlated Gaussian fields $X$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ that we will work with throughout this paper. One may consider other geometries as well, like the sphere $\S^2$ or the torus $\T^2$ (in which case an adaptation of the setup and proofs is straightforward). We will represent them via a white noise decomposition.
We consider a family of centered Gaussian processes $((X_{\epsilon}(x))_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2})_{\epsilon> 0}$ with covariance structure given, for $1{\;\geqslant\;}\epsilon>\epsilon'> 0$, by: $$\label{corrX}
K_\epsilon(x,y)={\mathds{E}}[X_{\epsilon}(x)X_{\epsilon'}(y)]= \int_1^{\frac{1}{\epsilon }}\frac{k(u,x,y)}{u}\,du$$ for some family $(k(u,\cdot,\cdot))_{u{\;\geqslant\;}1}$ of covariance kernels satisfying:
A.1
: $k$ is nonnegative, continuous.
A.2
: $k$ is locally Lipschitz on the diagonal, i.e. $\forall R>0$, $\exists C_R>0$, $\forall |x|{\;\leqslant\;}R$, $\forall u{\;\geqslant\;}1$, $\forall y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ $$|k(u,x,x)-k(u,x,y)|{\;\leqslant\;}C_Ru|x-y|$$
A.3
: $k$ satisfies the integrability condition: for each compact set $S$, $$\sup_{x\in S,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{\frac{1}{|x-y|}}^{\infty}\frac{k(u,x,y)}{u}\,du<+\infty.$$
A.4
: the mapping $H_\epsilon(x)=\int_1^{ \frac{1}{\epsilon}} \frac{k(u,x,x)}{u}\,du-\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ converges pointwise as $\epsilon\to 0$ and for all compact set $K$, $$\sup_{x,y\in K}\sup_{\epsilon\in ]0,1]}\frac{|H_\epsilon(x)-H_\epsilon(y)|}{|x-y|}<+\infty.$$
A.5
: for each compact set $K$, there exists a constant $C_K>0$ such that $$k(u,x,y){\;\geqslant\;}k(u,x,x)(1-C_Ku^{1/2}|x-y|^{1/2})_+$$ for all $x\in K$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. for all $u{\;\geqslant\;}1$, $x\in K$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Such a construction of Gaussian processes is carried out in [@Rnew1; @sohier] in the translation invariant case. Furthermore, \[A.2\] implies the following relation that we will use throughout the paper: for each compact set $S$, there exists a constant $c_S>0$ (only depending on $k$) such that for all $y\in S$, $\epsilon\in (0,1]$ and $w\in B(y,\epsilon)$, we have $$\label{property:k}
\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}-c_S{\;\leqslant\;}K_\epsilon(y,w){\;\leqslant\;}\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+c_S.$$
We denote by $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$ the sigma algebra generated by $\{X_u(x);\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}u,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$.
Examples
--------
We explain first a Fourier white noise decomposition of log-correlated translation invariant fields as this description appears rather naturally in physics. Consider a nonnegative even function $\varphi$ defined on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\lim_{|u|\to \infty}|u|^2\varphi(u)=1$. We consider the kernel $$\label{Fourierrepresentation}
K(x,y)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{i\langle u,x-y\rangle}\varphi(u)\,du.$$ We consider the following cut-off approximations $$\label{FWN}
K_\epsilon(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{B(0,\epsilon^{-1})}e^{i\langle u,x-y\rangle}\varphi(u)\,du.$$ The kernel $K$ can be seen as the prototype of kernels of log-type in dimension $2$. It has obvious counterparts in any dimension. The cut-off approximation is quite natural, rather usual in physics (sometimes called the ultraviolet cut-off) and has well known analogues on compact manifolds (in terms of series expansion along eigenvalues of the Laplacian for instance). If $X$ has covariance given by , then $X$ has the following representation $$X(x)= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{i \langle u . x \rangle } \sqrt{\varphi(u)} (W_1(du)+iW_2(du))$$ where $W_1(du)$ and $W_2(du)$ are independent Gaussian distributions. The distributions $W_1(du)$ and $W_2(du)$ are functions of the field $X$ (since they are the real and imaginary parts of the Fourier transform of $X$). The law of $W_1(du)$ is $W(d u)+ W(-d u)$ where $W$ is a standard white noise and the law of $W_2(du)$ is ${\widetilde}{W}(d u)- {\widetilde}{W}(-d u)$ where ${\widetilde}{W}$ is also standard white noise. One can then consider the following family with covariance and which fits into our framework as it corresponds to adding independent fields $$X_\epsilon(x)= \int_{B(0,\epsilon^{-1}) } e^{i \langle u . x \rangle} \sqrt{\varphi(u)} (W_1(du)+iW_2(du))$$ Notice also that the approximations $X_\epsilon$ are functions of the original field $X$ since $W_1(du)$ and $W_2(du)$ are functions of the field $X$.
Notice that $K_\epsilon$ can be rewritten as ($S$ stands for the unit sphere and $ds$ for the uniform probability measure on $S$) $$K_\epsilon(x,y)=\int_0^{\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\frac{k(r,x,y)}{r}\,dr,\quad \text{ with }k(r,x,y)=r^2\int_S\varphi (r s)\cos(r\langle x-y,s\rangle)\,ds.$$ Let us simplify a bit the discussion by assuming that $\varphi$ is isotropic. In that case, it is plain to check that assumptions \[A.1-5\] are satisfied (in the slightly extended context of integration over $[0, \frac{1}{\epsilon}]$ instead of $[1, \frac{1}{\epsilon}]$ but this is harmless as $K_{1}(x,y)$ is here a very regular Gaussian kernel).
[**Massive Free Field (MFF).**]{} \[ex:MFF\] The whole plane MFF is a centered Gaussian distribution with covariance kernel given by the Green function of the operator $2\pi (m^2-\triangle)^{-1}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, i.e. by: $$\label{MFFkernel}
\forall x,y \in {\mathbb{R}}^2,\quad G_m(x,y)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\frac{m^2}{2}u-\frac{|x-y|^2}{2u}}\frac{du}{2 u}.$$ The real $m>0$ is called the mass. This kernel is of $\sigma$-positive type in the sense of Kahane [@cf:Kah] since we integrate a continuous function of positive type with respect to a positive measure. It is furthermore a star-scale invariant kernel (see [@Rnew1; @sohier]): it can be rewritten as $$\label{MFF3}
G_m(x,y)=\int_{1}^{+\infty}\frac{k_m(u(x-y))}{u}\,du.$$ for some continuous covariance kernel $k_m(z)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{m^2}{2v}|z|^2-\frac{v}{2}}\,dv$ and therefore satisfies the assumptions \[A.1-5\].
One may also choose the Fourier white noise decomposition with $\varphi(u)=\frac{1}{|u|^2+m^2}$ or the semigroup covariance structure $${\mathds{E}}[X_{\epsilon}(x)X_{\epsilon'}(y)]= \pi \int^{\infty}_{\max(\epsilon ,\epsilon')^2} p(u,x,y)e^{-\frac{m^2}{2}u}\,du,$$ which also satisfies assumptions \[A.1-5\] (modulo a change of variable $u=1/v^2$ in the above expression: see [@Rnew12 section D]).
[**Gaussian Free Field (GFF).**]{} \[ex:GFF\] Consider a bounded open domain $D$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Formally, a GFF on $D$ is a Gaussian distribution with covariance kernel given by the Green function of the Laplacian on $D$ with prescribed boundary conditions. We describe here the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions. The Green function is then given by the formula: $$\label{bounGreen}
G_D (x,y)= \pi \int_{0}^{\infty}p_D(t,x,y)dt$$ where $p_D$ is the (sub-Markovian) semi-group of a Brownian motion $B$ killed upon touching the boundary of $D$, namely for a Borel set $A\subset D$ $$\int_A p_D(t,x,y)\,dy=P^x(B_{t} \in A, \; T_D > t)$$ with $T_D=\text{inf} \{t {\;\geqslant\;}0, \; B_t\not \in D \}$. The most direct way to construct a cut-off family of the GFF on $D$ is then to consider a white noise $W$ distributed on $D\times {\mathbb{R}}_+$ and to define: $$X(x)=\sqrt{\pi}\int_{D\times {\mathbb{R}}_+}p_D(\frac{s}{2},x,y)W(dy,ds).$$ One can check that ${\mathds{E}}[X(x)X(x')]=\pi\int_0^{\infty} p_D(s,x,x')\,ds=G_D(x,x') $. The corresponding cut-off approximations are given by: $$X_\epsilon(x)=\sqrt{\pi}\int_{D\times [\epsilon^2,\infty[}p_D(\frac{s}{2},x,y)W(dy,ds).$$ They have the following covariance structure $$\label{eq:GFFcutoff}
{\mathds{E}}[X_{\epsilon}(x)X_{\epsilon'}(y)]= \pi \int^{\infty}_{\max(\epsilon ,\epsilon')^2} p_D(u,x,y) \,du,$$ which also satisfies assumptions \[A.1-5\] (on every subdomain of $D$ and modulo a change of variable $u=1/v^2$ in the above expression: see also [@Rnew12 section D]).
For some technical reasons, we will sometimes also consider either of the following assumptions:
A.6
: $k(v,x,y)=0$ for $|x-y|{\;\geqslant\;}Dv^{-1}(1+2\ln v)^\alpha$ for some constants $D,\alpha>0$,
A.6’
: $(k(v,x,y))_v$ is the family of kernels presented in examples \[ex:MFF\] or \[ex:GFF\].
Regularized Riemannian geometry
-------------------------------
We would like to consider a Riemannian metric tensor on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ (using conventional notations in Riemannian geometry) of the type $ e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x)}dx^2$, where $dx^2$ stands for the standard Euclidean metric on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Yet, as we will see, such an object has no suitable limit as $\epsilon$ goes to $0$. So, for future renormalization purposes, we rather consider: $$g_\epsilon(x)dx^2=\sqrt{-\ln \epsilon}\,\epsilon^2 \, e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x)}dx^2.$$
### Volume form
The Riemannian volume on the manifold $({\mathbb{R}}^2,g_\epsilon)$ is given by: $$\label{defchaos}
M_{ \epsilon}(dx)=\sqrt{-\ln \epsilon}\,\epsilon^2 \, e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x)}\,dx,$$ where $dx$ stands for the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, and will be called $\epsilon$-regularized critical measure. The study of the limit of the random measures $(M_{ \epsilon}(dx))_\epsilon$ is carried out in [@Rnew7; @Rnew12] in a less general context. It is based on the study of the limit of the family $M_{\epsilon}'(dx)$ defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\epsilon}'(dx)& := (2\,\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(x))e^{2X_{\epsilon}(x)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}dx .\end{aligned}$$
We will extend the results in [@Rnew7] and prove
\[mainderiv\] Almost surely, the (locally signed) random measures $(M'_\epsilon(dx))_{\epsilon> 0}$ converge as $\epsilon\to 0$ towards a positive random measure $M'(dx)$ in the sense of weak convergence of measures. This limiting measure has full support and is atomless.
Concerning the Seneta-Heyde norming, we have
\[mainderiv2\] Assume \[A.1-5\] and either \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. We have the convergence in probability in the sense of weak convergence of measures: $$M_{\epsilon}(dx)\to\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}M'(dx),\quad \text{ as }\epsilon\to 0.$$
The proof of Theorem \[mainderiv2\] is carried out in [@Rnew12 section D] (in fact, it is assumed in [@Rnew12] that the family of kernels $(k(v,x,y))_v$ is translation invariant but adapting the proof is straightforward and thus left to the reader).
Beyond its conceptual importance, the Seneta-Heyde norming is crucial to establish, via Kahane’s convexity inequalities [@cf:Kah], the study of moments carried out in [@Rnew7; @Rnew12] and obtain
Assume \[A.1-5\] and either \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. For each bounded Borel set $A$ and $q\in]-\infty,1[$, the random variable $M'(A)$ possesses moments of order $q$. Furthermore, if $A$ has non trivial Lebesgue measure and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$: $${\mathds{E}}[M'(\lambda A+x)^q]\simeq C(q,x) \lambda^{\xi_{M'}(q)}$$ where $\xi_{M'}$ is the power law spectrum of $M'$: $$\forall q<1,\quad \xi_{M'}(q)=4q-2q^2.$$
Another important result about the modulus of continuity of the measure $M'$ is established in [@KNW]. We stress here that we pursue the discussion at a heuristic level since the result in [@KNW] is not general enough to apply in our context (to be precise, it is valid for a well chosen family of kernels $(k(v,x,y))_v$ in dimension $1$ in order to get nice scaling relations for the associated measure $M'$). Anyway, we expect this result to be true in greater generality and we will not use it in this paper: we are more interested in its conceptual significance. So, by analogy with [@KNW], the measure $M'$ is expected to possess the following modulus of continuity of “square root of log” type: for all $\gamma<1/2$, there exists a random variable $C$ almost surely finite such that $$\label{modulus}
\forall \text{ ball }B\subset B(0,1),\quad M'(B){\;\leqslant\;}C(\ln(1+|B|^{-1}))^{-\gamma}.$$ Furthermore, the Hausdorff dimension of the carrier of $M'$ is $0$. By analogy with the results that one gets in the context of multiplicative cascades [@BKNSW], one also expects that the above theorem \[modulus\] cannot be improved. In particular, the measure $M'$ does not possess a modulus of continuity better than a log unlike the subcritical situation explored in [@GRV1], where this property turned out to be crucial for the construction of the LBM as a whole Markov process. This remark is at the origin of the further complications arising in our paper (the critical case) in comparison with [@GRV1; @GRV2] (the subcritical case).
### Regularized Liouville Brownian motion
The main concern of this paper will be the Brownian motion associated with the metric tensor $g_\epsilon$: following standard formulas of Riemannian geometry, one can associate to the Riemannian manifold $({\mathbb{R}}^2,g_\epsilon)$ a Brownian motion $\mathcal{B}^\epsilon$:
\[d.elbm\] For any fixed $\epsilon>0$, we define the following diffusion on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. For any $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $$\label{def.LBM1}
\LB^{\epsilon,x}_t= x+\,\int_0^t (-\ln \epsilon)^{-1/4} \, \epsilon^{-1} e^{- X_\epsilon(\LB^{\epsilon,x}_u)} \,d\bar B_u\,.$$where $\bar B_t$ is a standard two-dimensional Brownian motion.
We stress that the fact that there is no drift term in the definition of the Brownian motion is typical from a scalar metric tensor in dimension $2$. By using the Dambis-Schwarz Theorem, one can define the law of the ${\rm LBM}_\epsilon$ as
\[d.elbm2\] For any $\epsilon>0$ fixed and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $$\label{}
\LB^{\epsilon,x}_t=x + B_{\<{\LB^{\epsilon,x}}_t}\,,$$ where $(B_r)_{r{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ is a two-dimensional Brownian motion independent of the field $X$ and the [**quadratic variation**]{} $\<{\LB^{\epsilon,x}}$ of $\LB^{\epsilon,x}$ is defined as $$\label{eq.qvdambis}
\<{\LB^{\epsilon,x}}_t := \inf \{s{\;\geqslant\;}0\, :\, (-\ln\epsilon)^{1/2}\,\epsilon^{2}\int_{0}^s e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x+B_u)} \,du {\;\geqslant\;}t\} \,.$$
It will thus be useful to define the following quantity on ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}_+$: $$\label{def.fn}
F^\epsilon(x,s) =\epsilon^{2} \int_0^s e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x+B_u)} \,du,$$ in such a way that the process $\langle \mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x}\rangle$ is entirely characterized by: $$\label{car.fn}
(-\ln\epsilon)^{1/2}F^\epsilon(x,\langle\mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x}\rangle_t)=t.$$
Several standard facts can be deduced from the smoothness of $X_\epsilon$. For each fixed $\epsilon>0 $, the ${\rm LBM}_\epsilon$ a.s. induces a Feller diffusion on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, and thus a semi-group $(P_t^{\epsilon})_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$, which is symmetric w.r.t the volume form $M_\epsilon$.
We will be mostly interested in establishing the convergence in law of the ${\rm LBM}_\epsilon$ as $\epsilon\to 0$. Basically, studying the convergence of the ${\rm LBM}_\epsilon$ thus boils down to establishing the convergence of its quadratic variations $\langle\mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x}\rangle$.
Critical LBM starting from one fixed point {#sec.starLBM}
==========================================
The first section is devoted to the convergence of the $\epsilon$-regularized LBM when starting from one fixed point, say $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. As in the case of the convergence of measures [@Rnew7; @Rnew12], the critical situation here is technically more complicated than in the subcritical case [@GRV1], though conceptually similar. The first crucial step of the construction consists in establishing the convergence towards $0$ of the family of functions $(F^\epsilon(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ and then in computing the first order expansion of the maximum of the field $X_\epsilon$ along the Brownian path up to time $t$, and more precisely to prove that $$\max_{s\in [0,t]}X_\epsilon(x+B_s)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}\to-\infty,\quad \text{as }\epsilon\to 0.$$ This is mainly the content of subsection \[ss.convfield\], after some preliminary lemmas in subsection \[prelim\]. Then our strategy will mainly be to adapt the ideas related to convergence of critical measures [@Rnew7; @Rnew12].
We further stress that, in the case of measures (see [@Rnew7]), the content of subsection \[ss.convfield\] is established thanks to comparison with multiplicative cascades measures and Kahane’s convexity inequalities. In our context, no equivalent result has been established in the context of multiplicative cascades in such a way that we have to carry out a direct proof.
Preliminary results about properties of Brownian paths {#prelim}
------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider a standard Brownian motion $B$ on the plane ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ starting at some given point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Let us consider the occupation measure $\mu_t$ of the Brownian motion up to time $t>0$ and let us define the function $$\label{def:h}
\forall \epsilon \in]0,1],\quad h(\epsilon)= \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}\ln\ln\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}.$$ The following result is proved in [@legall2]
\[th:legall\] There exists a deterministic constant $c>0$ such that ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely, the set $$E=\{z\in {\mathbb{R}}^2;\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{\mu_t(B(z,\epsilon))}{\epsilon^2h(\epsilon)}=c \}$$ has full $\mu_t$-measure.
We will need an extra elementary result about the structure of Brownian paths:
\[browniancap\] For every $p>2$, we have almost surely: $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2\times{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1}{|x-y|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{|x-y|}+2\big)^p} \mu_t(dx)\mu_t(dy)<+\infty.$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[browniancap\].*]{} We have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^B\Big[\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2\times{\mathbb{R}}^2} \frac{1}{|x-y|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{|x-y|}+2\big)^p} &\mu_t(dx)\mu_t(dy)\Big]
= {\mathds{E}}^B\Big[\int_{[0,t]^2}\frac{1}{|B_r-B_s|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{|B_r-B_s|}+2\big)^p} \,drds \Big]\\
=&\int_{[0,t]^2}{\mathds{E}}^B\Big[\frac{1}{|r-s||B_1|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{|r-s|^{1/2}|B_1|}+2\big)^p} \Big]\,drds.\end{aligned}$$ Let us compute for $a{\;\leqslant\;}t$ the quantity ${\mathds{E}}^B\Big[\frac{1}{a |B_1|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{a^{1/2}|B_1|}+2\big)^p} \Big]$. By using the density of the Gaussian law, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^B\Big[& \frac{1}{a|B_1|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{a^{1/2}|B_1|}+2\big)^p} \Big]=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1}{a|u|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{a^{1/2}|u|}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{|u|^2}{2}}\,du
{\;\leqslant\;}\int_{0}^\infty\frac{1}{ar\ln\big(\frac{1}{a^{1/2}r}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{r^2}{2}}\,dr\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^\infty\frac{1}{u\ln\big(\frac{1}{u}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{u^2}{2a}}\,du\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^{a^{1/4}}\frac{1}{u\ln\big(\frac{1}{u}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{u^2}{2a}}\,du+\frac{1}{a}\int_{a^{1/4}}^t\frac{1}{u\ln\big(\frac{1}{u}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{u^2}{2a}}\,du+\frac{1}{a}\int_{t}^\infty\frac{1}{u\ln\big(\frac{1}{u}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{u^2}{2a}}\,du\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^{a^{1/4}}\frac{1}{u\ln^p\big(\frac{1}{u}\big)} \,du+\frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^t\frac{1}{u\ln\big(\frac{1}{u}+2\big)^p} e^{-\frac{1}{2a^{1/2}}}\,du+\frac{2}{ t^2\ln^p2} e^{-\frac{t^2}{2a}}\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \frac{4^p}{a(p-1)\ln^{p-1}\frac{1}{a}}+\frac{C}{a} e^{-\frac{1}{2a^{1/2}}} +\frac{2}{ t^2\ln^p2} e^{-\frac{t^2}{2a}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^B\Big[\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1}{|x-y|^2\ln\big(\frac{1}{|x-y|}+2\big)^p} \mu_t(dx)\mu_t(dy)\Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& C\int_{0}^t \int_{0}^t \Big( \frac{1}{|r-s| \ln^{p-1}\frac{1}{|r-s|}}+\frac{1}{|r-s|} e^{-\frac{1}{2|r-s|^{1/2}}} + e^{-\frac{t^2}{2|r-s|}} \Big)\,drds. \end{aligned}$$ As this latter quantity is obviously finite, the proof is complete.
First order expansion of the maximum of the field along Brownian paths {#ss.convfield}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin with, we claim:
\[cv0\] For all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, almost surely in $X$, the family of random mapping $t\mapsto F^\epsilon(x,t)$ converges to $0$ in the space $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ as $\epsilon\to 0$.
[*Proof.*]{} Fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Observe first that $$F^\epsilon(x,t)=\epsilon^{2}\int_0^te^{2X_\epsilon(x+B_r)}\,dr=\int_0^t e^{g_\epsilon(x+B_r)}e^{2X_\epsilon(x+B_r)-2{\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(x+B_r)^2]}\,dr$$ where $$g_\epsilon(u)=2{\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(u)^2]-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}=\int_1^{1/\epsilon}\frac{k(u,x,x)-1}{u}\,du.$$ By assumption \[A.4\], the function $g_\epsilon$ converges uniformly over the compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Furthermore, for each $t>0$, the set $\{x+B_s;s\in[0,t]\}$ is a compact set and $g_\epsilon$ converges uniformly over this compact set. So, even if it means considering $\int_0^t e^{2X_\epsilon(x+B_r)-2{\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(x+B_r)^2]}\,dr$ instead of $F^\epsilon(x,t)$, we may assume that ${\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(x+B_r)^2]=\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, in which case $F^\epsilon(x,t)$ is a martingale with respect to the filtration $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon=\sigma\{X_r(x);\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}r,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$. As this martingale is nonnegative, it converges almost surely. We just have to prove that the limit is $0$. To this purpose, we use a lemma in [@Dur]. Translated into our context, it reads:
\[durrettlem\] The almost sure convergence of the family $(F^\epsilon(x,t))_\epsilon$ towards $0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ is equivalent to the fact that $\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty$ under the probability measure defined by: $$Q_{|\mathcal{F}_\epsilon}=t^{-1} F^\epsilon(x,t)\,{\mathds{P}}^X.$$
The main idea of what follows is to prove that, under $Q$, $F^\epsilon(x,t)$ is stochastically bounded from below by the exponential of a Brownian motion so that $\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty$ and we apply Lemma \[durrettlem\] to conclude .
To carry out this argument, let us define a new probability measure $\Theta_\epsilon$ on $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\otimes\mathcal{F}_\epsilon $ by $$\Theta_{\epsilon |\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\otimes\mathcal{F}_\epsilon}=t^{-1} e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\,{\mathds{P}}^X(d\omega)\mu_t(dy),$$ where $\mu_t$ stands for the occupation measure of the Brownian motion $B^x$ starting from $x$. We denote by $ {\mathds{E}}_{\Theta_\epsilon}$ the corresponding expectation. In fact, since the above definition defines a pre-measure on the ring $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\otimes\bigcup_\epsilon \mathcal{F}_\epsilon$, one can define a measure $\Theta$ on $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\otimes\mathcal{F}$ by using Caratheodory’s extension theorem. We recover the relation $\Theta_{| \mathcal{B}(A)\otimes\mathcal{F}_\epsilon }=\Theta_\epsilon $. Similarly, we construct the probability measure $Q $ on $\mathcal{F}=\sigma\big(\bigcup_{\epsilon}\mathcal{F}_\epsilon\big)$ by setting: $$Q_{ | \mathcal{F}_\epsilon}=t^{-1}F^\epsilon(x,t)\,d{\mathds{P}}^X,$$ which is nothing but the marginal law of $(\omega,y )\mapsto \omega$ with respect to $\Theta_\epsilon$. We state a few elementary properties below. The conditional law of $y$ given $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$ is given by: $$\Theta_\epsilon(dy |\mathcal{F}_\epsilon)=\frac{e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}}{F^\epsilon(x,t)}\,\mu_t(dy).$$ If $Y$ is a $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\otimes\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$-measurable random variable then it has the following conditional expectation given $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$: $${\mathds{E}}_{\Theta_\epsilon}[Y | \mathcal{F}_\epsilon]=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} Y(y,\omega)\frac{e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}}{F^\epsilon(x,t)}\,\mu_t(dy).$$
Now we turn to the proof of Proposition \[cv0\] while keeping in mind this preliminary background. Let us observe that it is enough to prove that the set $$\{\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty\}$$ has probability $1$ conditionally to $y$ under $ \Theta$ to deduce that it satisfies $$Q\big(\{\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty\}\big)=1.$$ So we have to compute the law of $F^\epsilon(x,t)$ under $\Theta(\cdot |y)$. Recall the definition of $h$ in . We have: $$\begin{aligned}
F^\epsilon(x,t)&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{2X_\epsilon(u)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\mu_t(du) {\;\geqslant\;}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{2X_\epsilon(u)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}{\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du).\end{aligned}$$ Let us now write $$X_\epsilon(u)=\lambda_\epsilon(u,y)X_\epsilon(y)+Z_\epsilon(u,y)$$ where $\lambda_\epsilon(u,y)=\frac{K_\epsilon(u,y)}{\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}}$ and $Z_\epsilon(u,y)=X_\epsilon(u)-\lambda_\epsilon(u,y)X_\epsilon(y)$. Observe that the process $(Z_\epsilon(u,y))_{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ is independent of $X_\epsilon(y)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
F^\epsilon(x,t)&{\;\geqslant\;}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{2X_\epsilon(u)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}{\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du)\\
&=e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{2 Z_\epsilon(u,y) +2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) }{\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du)\\
&=e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\ln h(\epsilon)}\times\inf_{u\in B(y,\epsilon)}e^{2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) }\times \frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}h(\epsilon)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{2 Z_\epsilon(u,y)}{\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du).\end{aligned}$$ Let us define $$a_\epsilon(y)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}{\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du).$$ With the help of the Jensen inequality, we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
F^\epsilon(x,t) {\;\geqslant\;}&e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\ln h(\epsilon)} \,\inf_{u\in B(y,\epsilon)}e^{2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) } \frac{a_\epsilon(y)}{\epsilon^{2}h(\epsilon)} \exp\Big( \frac{1}{a_\epsilon(y)} \int_{B(y,\epsilon)}2 Z_\epsilon(u,y)\mu_t(du)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Let us set $$Y_\epsilon=a_\epsilon(y)^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}2 Z_\epsilon(u,y){\mathds{1}}_{B(y,\epsilon)}\mu_t(du).$$ Finally, for all $R>0$, we use the independence of $Y_\epsilon$ and $X_\epsilon(y)$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\Big(&\{\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty\}|y\Big) \\
{\;\geqslant\;}&\Theta\Big(\{\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\ln h(\epsilon)}\times\inf_{u\in B(y,\epsilon)}e^{2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) }\times \frac{a_\epsilon(y)}{\epsilon^{2}h(\epsilon)} \times\exp(-R)=+\infty\}|y\Big)\nonumber\\
&\times\Theta(Y_\epsilon{\;\geqslant\;}-R|y).\label{mult1}\end{aligned}$$ Now we analyze the behaviour of each term in the above expression.
First, notice that $\Theta(Y_\epsilon{\;\geqslant\;}-R|y)= {\mathds{P}}^X(Y_\epsilon{\;\geqslant\;}-R)$ and that $Y_\epsilon$ is a centered Gaussian random variable under ${\mathds{P}}^X$ with variance $$\begin{aligned}
a_\epsilon(y)^{-2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)\times B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X\big[& (X_\epsilon(u)-\lambda_\epsilon(u,y)X_\epsilon(y)) (X_\epsilon(u')-\lambda_\epsilon(u',y)X_\epsilon(y))\big]\mu_t(du)\mu_t(du').\end{aligned}$$ This quantity may be easily evaluated with assumption \[A.2\] and proved to be less than some constant $C$, which does not depend on $\epsilon$ and $y\in \{x+B_s;s\in [0,t]\}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(Y_\epsilon{\;\geqslant\;}-R|y){\;\geqslant\;}1-\rho(R)\label{mult2}\end{aligned}$$ for some nonnegative function $\rho$ that goes to $0$ as $R\to \infty$.
Second, from Theorem \[th:legall\], there exists a constant $c$ such that ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely, the set $$E=\{z\in {\mathbb{R}}^2;\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{a_\epsilon(z)}{\epsilon^2h(\epsilon)}=c \}$$ has full $\mu_t$-measure. Since $E$ has full $\mu_t$ measure, even if it means extracting a random subsequence (only depending on $B$), we may assume that $$\label{mult3}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{a_\epsilon(y)}{\epsilon^2h(\epsilon)}=c.$$
Third, under $\Theta(\cdot|y)$, the process $X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ is a Brownian motion, call it $\bar{B}$, in logarithmic time, i.e. $$\bar{B}_{\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}}= X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}.$$ We further stress that $\bar{B}$ is independent from $B$, and thus from the random sequence $(a_\epsilon(y))_\epsilon$. From the law of the iterated logarithm, we deduce that $\Theta(\cdot|y)$-almost surely $$\label{mult4}
\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\ln h(\epsilon)}=+\infty.$$
Fourth, using assumption \[A.2\], it is readily seen that there exists some constant $C$ such that for all $\epsilon\in (0,1)$, $y\in\{x+B_s,s\in [0,t]\}$ and all $u\in B(y,\epsilon)$ $$2|\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1|{\;\leqslant\;}C(-\ln \epsilon)^{-1}.$$ Since the process $X_\epsilon(y)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ is a Brownian motion in logarithmic time under $ \Theta(\cdot|y)$, we deduce $$\label{mult5}
\liminf_{\epsilon\to 0} \inf_{u\in B(y,\epsilon)}e^{2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) }{\;\geqslant\;}1.$$ By gathering ++, we deduce that, under $\Theta(\cdot|y)$: $$\label{mult6}
\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0} e^{2X_\epsilon(y)-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\ln h(\epsilon)}\times\inf_{u\in B(y,\epsilon)}e^{2(\lambda_\epsilon(u,y) -1) X_\epsilon(y) }\times \frac{a_\epsilon(y)}{\epsilon^{2}h(\epsilon)} \times\exp(-R)=+\infty.$$ By plugging + into , we get for all $R>0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\Big(&\{\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}F^\epsilon(x,t)=+\infty\}|y\Big)
{\;\geqslant\;}1-\rho(R).\end{aligned}$$ By choosing $R$ arbitrarily large, we complete the proof of Proposition \[cv0\] with the help of Lemma \[durrettlem\].
\[coro:max\] Almost surely in $X$, for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, ${\mathds{P}}^{B^x}$ almost surely, for all $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$ we have: $$\label{supadur}
\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sup_{s\in[0,t]}X_\epsilon( B^x_s)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+a\ln\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}<+\infty$$ for all $a\in ]0,\frac{1}{4}[$.
[*Proof.*]{} Assume that the kernel $k(u,x,y)$ in is given by $k(u(x-y))$ for some continuous covariance kernel $k$ with $k(0)=1$. It is then proved in [@Rnew7] that, for each fixed $a\in ]0,\frac{1}{4}[$, there exists a sequence $(C_n)_n$ of ${\mathds{P}}^X$-almost surely finite random variables such that, $$\label{aux:sup}
\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sup_{x\in B(0,n)}X_\epsilon(x )-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+a\ln\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}<C_n.$$ Now for each fixed $x$, the Brownian motion $B^x$ has ${\mathds{P}}^x$-almost surely continuous sample paths. Therefore, ${\mathds{P}}^x$-almost surely, for any $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$, we can find $n$ such that $\forall s\in [0,t]$, $B^x_s\in B(0,n)$. Thus the claim follows from in this specific case.
One must make some extra effort to extend this result to the more general situation of assumption \[A\]. It will be convenient to set $t=\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ for $\epsilon\in]0,1]$. For each $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, we consider the mapping $$t\mapsto \varphi_x(t)={\mathds{E}}[X_{e^{-t}}(x)^2]=\int_1^{e^t}\frac{k(u,x,x)}{u}\,du.$$ It is continuous and strictly increasing and we denote by $\varphi_x^{-1}(t)$ the inverse mapping. Let us then consider the mapping $t\mapsto T_x(t)$ defined by $\varphi_x(T_x(t))=t$. We consider the Gaussian process $Y_t(x)=X_{e^{-T_x(t)}}(x)$, which has constant variance $t$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[Y_t(x)Y_t(y)]&=\int_1^{e^{T_x(t)\wedge T_y(t)}}\frac{k(u,x,y)}{u}\,du{\;\geqslant\;}\int_1^{e^{T_x(t) }}\frac{k(u,x,y)}{u}\,du=\int_1^{e^t}\frac{k(e^{\varphi_x^{-1}(\ln v)},x,y)}{k(e^{\varphi_x^{-1}(\ln v)},x,x)}\,\frac{dv}{v}.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption \[A.5\], for each compact set $K$, we can find a constant $C_K$ such that $$\frac{k(u,x,y)}{k(u,x,x)}{\;\geqslant\;}(1-C_Ku^{1/2}|x-y|^{1/2})_+$$ for all $x\in K$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. We deduce, for all $x\in K$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[Y_t(x)Y_t(y)]& {\;\geqslant\;}\int_1^{e^t} \frac{(1-C_Ke^{\varphi_x^{-1}(\ln v)/2}|x-y|^{1/2})_+}{v}\,dv.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption \[A.4\], one can check that the mapping $x\mapsto \frac{e^{\varphi_x^{-1}(\ln v)}}{v}$ converges uniformly on $K$ towards a bounded strictly positive function. So even if it means changing the constant $C_K$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comparsup}
{\mathds{E}}[Y_t(x)Y_t(y)]& {\;\geqslant\;}\int_1^{e^t} \frac{(1-C_K|x-y|^{1/2})_+}{v}\,dv.\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in K$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. From [@Rnew7], this latter covariance kernel satisfies the estimate . From [@cf:Kah], the above comparison between covariance kernels with equal variance entails that the result also holds for the process $Y_t$. It is then plain to conclude by noticing that the function $x\mapsto \frac{T_x(t)}{t}$ converges uniformly as $t\to \infty$ over the compact sets towards a strictly positive limit (this results from \[A.4\]).
Limit of the derivative PCAF {#ss.deriv}
----------------------------
Inspired by the construction of measures at criticality [@Rnew7; @Rnew12], it seems reasonable to think that the change of times $F^\epsilon$, when suitable renormalized, should converge towards a random change of times that coincides with the limit of the following process $$\begin{aligned}
F^{',\epsilon}(x,t)& :=\int_0^t \big(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(x+B_u)\big) e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(x+B_u)- 2 \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} \,du .\end{aligned}$$ Establishing the convergence of the above martingale is the main purpose of this section. Observe that, ${\mathds{P}}^B$ almost surely, the family $(F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_\epsilon$ is almost martingale for each $t>0$ (it is when you replace $\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}$ by ${\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(x)^2]$). Nevertheless, it is not nonnegative and not uniformly integrable. It is therefore not obvious that such a family almost surely converges towards a (non trivial) positive limiting random variable. The following theorem is the main result of this section:
\[mainFderiv\] Assume \[A.1-5\] and fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. For each $t>0$, the family $(F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_\epsilon$ converges almost surely in $X$ and in $B$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ towards a positive random variable denoted by $F'(x,t)$, such that $F'(x,t)>0$ almost surely. Furthermore, almost surely in $X$ and in $B$, the (non necessarily positive) random mapping $t\mapsto F^{',\epsilon}(x,t)$ converges as $\epsilon\to 0$ in the space $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards a strictly increasing continuous random mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$.
Throughout this section, we will assume that assumptions \[A.1-5\] are in force. The observation made in the beginning of the proof of Proposition \[cv0\] remains valid here and, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}={\mathds{E}}^X[X_\epsilon(x)^2]$. In this way, the family $(F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_\epsilon$ is a martingale. Actually, Proposition \[coro:max\] tells us that it is a positive martingale for $t$ large enough. Therefore it converges almost surely towards a limit $F'(x,t)$. But it is not uniformly integrable so that there are several complications involved in establishing non-triviality of the limit. We have to introduce some further tools to study the convergence. We will introduce a family of auxiliary “truncated” martingales, called below $F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)$, which are reasonably close to $F^{',\epsilon}(x,t)$ while being square integrable. This will be enough to get the non triviality of $F'(x,t)$.
Given $t>0$, $z,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\beta>0$, we introduce the random variables $$\begin{aligned}
f^\beta_\epsilon(z)=&\big(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(z)+\beta\big){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_z< \epsilon\}} e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(z)- 2 \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} \label{fbeta}\\
F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)=&\int_0^t \big(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(B^x_u)+\beta\big){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_u}< \epsilon\}} e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(B^x_u)- 2 \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} \,du=\int_0^t f^\beta_\epsilon(B^x_u) \,du \nonumber\\
\widetilde{F}^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)=&\int_0^t \big(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(B^x_u)\big){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_u}< \epsilon\}} e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(B^x_u)- 2 \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} \,du,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where, for each $u\in [0,t]$, $\tau^\beta_u$ is the $(\mathcal{F}_\epsilon)_\epsilon$-stopping time defined by $$\tau^\beta_z=\sup\{r{\;\leqslant\;}1,X_r(z)-2\ln\frac{1}{r}>\beta \}.$$
In what follows, we will first investigate the convergence of $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon\in ]0,1]}$ to deduce first the convergence of $(\widetilde{F}^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon\in ]0,1]}$ and then the convergence of $(F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_{\epsilon\in ]0,1]}$. We claim:
We fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $t>0$. Almost surely in $B$, the process $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon \in ]0,1]}$ is a continuous positive $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$-martingale and thus converges almost surely in $X$ and $B$ towards a nonnegative random variable denoted by $F'_\beta(x,t)$.
This proposition is a direct consequence of the stopping time theorem and the martingale convergence theorem. Details are thus left to the reader. What is more involved is the study of the uniform integrability of this martingale:
\[prop:log\] We fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $t>0$. Almost surely in $B$, the martingale $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon >0}$ is uniformly integrable.
[*Proof.*]{} Let us first state the following lemma, which will serve in the forthcoming computations.
\[occupation\] Let us denote $\mu_t$ the occupation measure of the Brownian motion $B^x_t$. ${\mathds{P}}^{B^x}$-almost surely, for all $\delta>0$, there are a compact set $K$ and some constant $L$ such that $\mu_t(K^c){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $y\in K$ $$\sup_{r{\;\leqslant\;}1}\frac{\mu_t(B(y,r))}{r^2g(r)}{\;\leqslant\;}L\quad \text{with }g(r)=\ln\big(\frac{1}{r}+2\big)^3.$$
[*Proof.*]{} It is a direct consequence of Lemma \[browniancap\].
According to this lemma, for each fixed $\delta>0$, we are given a compact $K=K_\delta$ satisfying the above conditions. We denote by $\mu_t^K$ the measure $\mu_t^K(dy)={\mathds{1}}_K(y)\,\mu_t(dy)$ and $$F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t)=\int_0^t \big(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(y)+\beta\big){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{y}< \epsilon\}} e^{ 2 X_\epsilon(y)- 2 \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} {\mathds{1}}_K(y)\,\mu_t(dy).$$ To prove Proposition \[prop:log\], it suffices to prove that the family $(F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t))_\epsilon$ is uniformly integrable. Indeed, if true, we have for each $R>0$ ($K^c$ is the complement of $K$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$) $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{P}}^X(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t){\mathds{1}}_{\{F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t){\;\geqslant\;}R\}}){\;\leqslant\;}&{\mathds{P}}^X(2F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t){\mathds{1}}_{\{2 F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t){\;\geqslant\;}R\}})+ {\mathds{P}}^X(2F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K^c}(x,t){\mathds{1}}_{\{2 F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K^c}(x,t){\;\geqslant\;}R\}})\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&{\mathds{P}}^X(2F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t){\mathds{1}}_{\{2 F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t){\;\geqslant\;}R\}})+2{\mathds{E}}^X[F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K^c}(x,t)].
$$ We deduce $$\limsup_{R\to\infty }{\mathds{P}}^X(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t){\mathds{1}}_{\{F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t){\;\geqslant\;}R\}}){\;\leqslant\;}2{\mathds{E}}^X[F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K^c}(x,t)]=2\beta\delta.$$ By choosing $\delta$ arbitrarily small, we prove the uniform integrability of $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon >0}$.
So, we just have to focus on the uniform integrability of the family $(F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t))_{\epsilon >0}$. We introduce the annulus $C(y,\epsilon,1)=B(y,1)\setminus B(y,\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon\in (0,1)$. We get: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^X[F^{',\epsilon}_{\beta,K}(x,t)^2]=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}{\mathds{E}}^X[f^\beta_\epsilon(y)f^\beta_\epsilon(w)]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw)\nonumber\\
=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X[f^\beta_{ \epsilon }(y)f^\beta_{ \epsilon}(w)]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw)\nonumber\\
&+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{C(y,\epsilon,1)}{\mathds{E}}^X[f^\beta_{\epsilon }(y)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)]\,\mu_t^K(dyx)\mu_t^K(dw)\nonumber\\
&+ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,1)^c}{\mathds{E}}^X[f^\beta_{\epsilon }(y)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw)\nonumber\\
\stackrel{def}{=}&\Pi^1_\epsilon+\Pi^2_\epsilon+\Pi^3_\epsilon.\label{nc1}\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to see that $ \Pi^3_\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}Ct^2$ for some constant $C$ independent of $\epsilon$. The main terms are $\Pi^1_\epsilon$ and $\Pi^2_\epsilon$. We begin with $\Pi^1_\epsilon$.
Before going further into details, let us just heuristically explain how to complete the proof. On the ball $B(y,\epsilon)$, the process $X_\epsilon(w)$ is very close to $X_\epsilon(y)$. Therefore, with a good approximation, we can replace $X_\epsilon(w)$ by $X_\epsilon(y)$ and get: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon &{\;\leqslant\;}C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[(1+(X_\epsilon(y))^2)e^{2 X_\epsilon(y)+2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}}(\beta-X_\epsilon(y)){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{s\in [\epsilon,1]}X_s(y){\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}})\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw) .\end{aligned}$$ Let us define a new probability measure on $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$ by $${\mathds{P}}^\beta(A)={\mathds{E}}^X[{\mathds{1}}_A(\beta-X_\epsilon(y)){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{s\in [\epsilon,1]}X_s(y){\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}})]$$ and recall that, under ${\mathds{P}}^\beta$, the process $(\beta-X_s)_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ has the law of $(\beta_{\ln\frac{1}{s}})_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ where $(\beta_{u})_{u}$ is a $3$-dimensional Bessel process starting from $\beta$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon
&{\;\leqslant\;}C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^\beta\Big[(1+(\beta_{\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}})^2)e^{-2 \beta_{\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}+2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}} \Big]\,\mu_t^K(B(y,\epsilon))\mu_t^K(dy)\\
&\simeq C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(1+\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon})e^{-\sqrt{ \ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}}+2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon}}\mu_t^K(B(y,\epsilon))\mu_t^K(dy)\end{aligned}$$ and this latter quantity goes to $0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ since $\mu_t^K(B(y,\epsilon)){\;\leqslant\;}L \epsilon^2g(\epsilon)$. Similar ideas will allow us to treat $\Pi^2_\epsilon$. Nevertheless, details are a bit more tedious.
Let us now try to make rigorous the above remark. Observe that necessarily $K_s(y,w){\;\leqslant\;}\ln\frac{1}{s}$. Let us define the functions $h_1$, $h_2$ and $\bar{h} $ by: $$\label{IBM1}
h_1(s)=\ln\frac{1}{s}-K_s(y,w)=h_2(s),\quad \bar{h}(s)=K_s(y,w).$$ By considering $3$ independent Brownian motions $ B^1,B^2,\bar{B}$, we further define $$\label{IBM2}
P^{y,w}_s=B^1_{h_1(s)},\quad P^{w,y}_s=B^2_{h_2(s)},\quad Z_s=\bar{B}_{\bar{h}(s)}.$$ Observe that the process $(X_s(y),X_s(w))_{0{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ has the same law as the process $(P^{y,w}_s+Z_s,P^{w,y}_s+Z_s)_{0{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$. Now we compute $\Pi^1_\epsilon $ and then use a Girsanov transform: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon
=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X[(\beta-P^{w,y}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{w,y}_r+Z_r-2\ln\frac{1}{r}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}(\beta-P^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon})\times\dots\\
&\dots{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_r+Z_r-2\ln\frac{1}{r}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2P^{y,w}_\epsilon+4Z_\epsilon+2P^{w,y}_\epsilon-4\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw)\\
=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X[(\beta-P^{w,y}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{w,y}_r+Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}(\beta-P^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon)\times\dots\\
&\dots{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_r+Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2Z_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}+4K_\epsilon(y-w)}]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Let us set: $$\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon=\beta-\min_{s\in[\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_s.$$ Because of assumption \[A.2\], we have $$\sup_{\epsilon\in (0,1]}\sup_{w\in B(y,\epsilon)}\sup_{s\in ]\epsilon,1]}h_1(s)+h_2(s){\;\leqslant\;}c$$ for some constant $c>0$ only depending on $k$. Therefore we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\Big(1+(Z_\epsilon)^2\Big)e^{2Z_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon} } (\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon) {\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [\epsilon,1]} Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon\}}\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Let us define a new (random) probability measure on $\mathcal{F}_\epsilon$ by $${\mathds{P}}^{\beta,y,w}(A)=\frac{1}{\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon}{\mathds{E}}^{Z}[{\mathds{1}}_A(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon(y)){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{s\in [\epsilon,1]}Z_s(y){\;\leqslant\;}\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon\}})|\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon]$$ with associated expectation denoted by ${\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w} $. Recall that, under ${\mathds{P}}^{\beta,y,w}$, the process $(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_s)_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ has the law of $(\beta_{K_s(y,w)})_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ where $(\beta_{u})_{u}$ is a $3$-dimensional Bessel process starting from $\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon$. Hence: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon{\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[\Big(1+(\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)}+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon} } \Big]\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Let us compute the quantity $${\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[\Big(1+(\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)} } \Big].$$ To this purpose, we use the fact that the law of a $3d$-Bessel process starting from $\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon$ is given by $\sqrt{(B^1_t-\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2+(B^2_t)^2+(B^3_t)^2}$ where $B^1,B^2,B^3$ are three independent Brownian motions. Therefore, by using when necessary, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[&\Big(1+(\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)} } \Big]\\=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}(1+(u-\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2+v^2+w^2)e^{-2\sqrt{(u-\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2+v^2+w^2}}e^{-\frac{u^2+v^2+w^2}{2K_\epsilon(y,w)}}\,\frac{dudvdw}{(2\pi K_\epsilon(y,w))^{3/2}}\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C(1+(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2)e^{2\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}(1+u^2+v^2+w^2)e^{-2\sqrt{u^2+v^2+w^2}}e^{-\frac{u^2+v^2+w^2}{2K_\epsilon(y,w)}}\,\frac{dudvdw}{(2\pi K_\epsilon(y,w))^{3/2}}\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& C(1+(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2)e^{2\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon}\int_{0}^\infty(1+r^2)e^{-2r}e^{-\frac{r^2}{2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}}\,\frac{r^2 dr}{( \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon})^{3/2}},\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C>0$, which may have changed along lines. Let us set $$\forall a{\;\geqslant\;}0,\quad H(a)=\int_{0}^\infty(1+r^2)e^{-2r}e^{-\frac{r^2}{2a}}\,\frac{r^2dr}{ a^{3/2}}.$$ It is plain to check that $$H(a){\;\leqslant\;}C(\max(1,a))^{-3/2}$$ for some positive constant $C$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[&\Big(1+(\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_\epsilon(y,w)} } \Big]
{\;\leqslant\;}C(1+(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2)e^{2\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon}H( \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ We deduce: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C( \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon})^{-3/2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,\epsilon)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon \big(1+(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2\big)e^{2\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon}\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw)\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&CH( \ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}) \epsilon^{-2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \mu_t^K(B(y,\epsilon))\,\mu_t^K(dy).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact ${\mathds{E}}^X\Big[ C\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon(1+(\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon)^2)e^{2\beta^{y,w}_\epsilon} \Big]$ is finite and does not depend on $y,w$ because $h_1(s)$ is bounded on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ independently of $s,y,w$. Because of Lemma \[occupation\], this latter quantity goes to $0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ ${\mathds{P}}^{B^x}$-almost surely, and so does $\Pi^1_\epsilon$.
Now we treat $\Pi^2_\epsilon$. We will follow similar arguments as for $\Pi^1_\epsilon$, though different behaviors are involved. Indeed, in this case, we have to face the possible long range correlations of the kernel $k$. So we adapt the decomposition of the couple $(X_s(y),X_s(w))_{s\in]0,1]}$ into Wiener integrals as follows. Let us consider a smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support in the ball $B(0,1)$, such that $0{\;\leqslant\;}\varphi{\;\leqslant\;}1$ and $\varphi=1$ over a neighborhood of $0$. Let us define the functions $h_1$, $h_2$, $\bar{h} $ and $\widehat{h}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
h_1(s)=&\ln\frac{1}{s}-K_s(y,w)=h_2(s), &\bar{h}(s)=&\int_1^{\frac{1}{s}} \frac{k(u,y,w)\varphi(u(y-w))}{u}\,du,\\
\widehat{h}(s)=&\int_1^{\frac{1}{s}} \frac{k(u,y,w)\big(1-\varphi(u(y-w))\big)}{u}\,du.\end{aligned}$$ By considering $4$ independent Brownian motions $ B^1,B^2,\bar{B},\widehat{B}$, we further define $$P^{y,w}_s=B^1_{h_1(s)},\quad P^{w,y}_s=B^2_{h_2(s)},\quad Z_s=\bar{B}_{\bar{h}(s)},\quad \widehat{Z}_s=\widehat{B}_{\widehat{h}(s)}.$$ An elementary computation of covariance shows that the process $(X_s(y),X_s(w))_{0{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ has the same law as the process $(P^{y,w}_s+Z_s+\widehat{Z}_s,P^{w,y}_s+Z_s+\widehat{Z}_s)_{0{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$. The process $Z_s$ encodes the short-scale correlations of the two Brownian motions $(X_s(y))_s$ and $(X_s(w))_{s}$, and is the process that will rule the behaviour of the expectation ${\mathds{E}}^X[f^\beta_\epsilon(y)f^\beta_\epsilon(w)]$. The remaining terms are just negligible perturbations that we will have to get rid of in the forthcoming computations.
We make first a few elementary remarks. Observe that $\bar{h}(s)=\bar{h}(|y-w|)$ for all $s{\;\geqslant\;}|y-w|$ in such a way that $Z_\epsilon=Z_{|y-w|}$ for $\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}|y-w|$. We also set $$D:=\sup\{\widehat{h}(s);s\in]0,1]; y,w\in {\mathbb{R}}^2\}<+\infty.$$ We will often use the elementary relation: $$\label{elem}
\forall a {\;\geqslant\;}0,\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}},\quad (\beta-a-x){\mathds{1}}_{\{x{\;\leqslant\;}\beta-a\}}{\;\leqslant\;}(\beta-x){\mathds{1}}_{\{x{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}.$$
Now we begin the computations related to $\Pi^2_\epsilon$. So we consider $w\in C(y,\epsilon,1)$ and we have by the Girsanov transform and : $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^X&[f^\beta_\epsilon(w)f^\beta_\epsilon(y)]\\=&{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[(\beta-P^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-\widehat{Z}_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_u+Z_u+\widehat{Z}_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2P^{y,w}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon+2\widehat{Z}_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\dots\\
&\dots\times(\beta-P^{w,y}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-\widehat{Z}_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{w,y}_u+Z_u+\widehat{Z}_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2P^{w,y}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon+2\widehat{Z}_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&e^{8D}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[(\beta-P^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-\widehat{Z}_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_u+Z_u+\widehat{Z}_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2P^{y,w}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon -2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\dots\\
&\dots\times(\beta-P^{w,y}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon-\widehat{Z}_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{w,y}_u+Z_u+\widehat{Z}_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2P^{w,y}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&e^{8D}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[(\beta-\min_{s\in]0,1]}\widehat{Z}_s-P^{y,w}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon +2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{y,w}_u+Z_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta-\min_{s\in]0,1]}\widehat{Z}_s\}}e^{2P^{y,w}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon -2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\dots\\
&\dots\times(\beta-\min_{s\in]0,1]}\widehat{Z}_s-P^{w,y}_\epsilon-Z_\epsilon+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [\epsilon,1]}P^{w,y}_u+Z_u-2\ln\frac{1}{u}{\;\leqslant\;}\beta-\min_{s\in]0,1]}\widehat{Z}_s\}}e^{2P^{w,y}_\epsilon+2Z_\epsilon-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The point is now to see that the above expectation reduces to the same expectation with $\epsilon$ replaced by $|y-w|$. First observe that $Z_\epsilon=Z_{|y-w|}$ for $\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}|y-w|$. Second, from assumption \[A.3\], we have $$\sup_{y\in K,w\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{\frac{1}{|y-w|}}^{\infty}\frac{k(u,y,w)}{u}\,du=C_K<+\infty.$$ Therefore we can deduce $$\forall u{\;\leqslant\;}|y-w|,\quad \big|\ln \frac{|y-w|}{u}- (h_1(u)-h_1(|y-w|))\big|{\;\leqslant\;}c$$ for some constant $c$ independent of everything that matters. This means that the quadratic variations of the martingale $(P^{w,y}_u-P^{w,y}_{|y-w|})_{u{\;\leqslant\;}|y-w|}$ can be identified with $\ln\frac{|y-w|}{\epsilon}$ up to some constant $c$ independent of $y,w,\epsilon$. We further stress that both martingales $P^{y,w}$ and $P^{w,y}$ are independent. Therefore, by conditioning with respect to $\mathcal{F}_{|y-w|} $, the integrand in the above expectation essentially reduces to the product of two independent martingales (recall that, if $X_t=\int_0^tf(r)\,dB_r$ is a Wiener integral, then $(\beta+2{\mathds{E}}[X_t^2]-X_t){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{s\in [0,t]}X_s-2{\mathds{E}}[X_t^2]{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2X_t-2{\mathds{E}}[X_t^2]}$ is a martingale). By applying the stopping time theorem and by setting $ \widehat{\beta}=\beta-\min_{s\in]0,1]}\widehat{Z}_s+c$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^2_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{C(y,\epsilon,1)}{\mathds{E}}^X[( \widehat{\beta}-P^{w,y}_{|y-w|}-Z_{|y-w|}-2\ln\frac{1}{{|y-w|}}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [{|y-w|},1]}P^{w,y}_r+Z_r-2\ln\frac{1}{r}{\;\leqslant\;}\widehat{\beta}\}}\\
&\dots( \widehat{\beta}-P^{y,w}_{|y-w|}-Z_{|y-w|}-2\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [|y-w|,1]}P^{y,w}_r+Z_r-2\ln\frac{1}{r}{\;\leqslant\;}\widehat{\beta}\}}\\
&\dots e^{2P^{y,w}_{|y-w|}+4Z_{|y-w|}+2P^{w,y}_{|y-w|}-4\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}}]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\sup_{y,w\in K,s\in ]|y-w|,1]}{\mathds{E}}[(P^{y,w}_{s})^2+(P^{w,y}_{s})^2]{\;\leqslant\;}c'$ and some constant $c'>0$ only depending on $k$ by assumption \[A.2\]. Indeed, for $s\in[|y-w|,1]$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
h_1(s)=&\ln\frac{1}{s}-\int_1^{\frac{1}{s}}\frac{k(u (y-w))}{u}\,du= \int_1^{\frac{1}{s}}\frac{1-k(u (y-w))}{u}\,du\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \int_1^{\frac{1}{s}}\frac{C_Ku |y-w|}{u}\,du{\;\leqslant\;}C_K,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_K$ is the Lipschitz constant given by assumption \[A.2\]. So, if we use the Girsanov transform and even if it means changing the value of $\widehat{\beta}$ by adding $C_K$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^2_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{C(y,\epsilon,1)}{\mathds{E}}^X[(\widehat{\beta}-P^{w,y}_{|y-w|}-Z_{|y-w|}){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [|y-w|,1]}P^{w,y}_r+Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\widehat{\beta}\}}(\widehat{\beta}-P^{y,w}_{|y-w|}-Z_{|y-w|})\\
&\dots{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [|y-w|,1]}P^{y,w}_r+Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\widehat{\beta}\}}e^{2Z_{|y-w|}-2\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}+4K_{|y-w|}(y-w)}]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Let us then define $$\beta^{y,w}=\widehat{\beta}-\min_{s\in[|y-w|,1]}P^{y,w}_{|y-w|}.$$ We deduce: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^2_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{C(y,\epsilon,1)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\Big(1+(Z_{|y-w|})^2\Big)e^{2Z_{|y-w|}+2\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|} } (\beta^{y,w} -Z_{|y-w|})\times \dots\\
&\dots\times {\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{r\in [|y-w|,1]} Z_r{\;\leqslant\;}\beta^{y,w} \}}\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Let us define a new (random) probability measure on $\mathcal{F}_{|y-w|}$ by $${\mathds{P}}^{\beta,y,w}(A)=\frac{1}{\beta^{y,w}}{\mathds{E}}^{Z}[{\mathds{1}}_A(\beta^{y,w} -Z_{|y-w|}(y)){\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{s\in [|y-w|,1]}Z_s(y){\;\leqslant\;}\beta^{y,w}\}})|\beta^{y,w} ]$$ and recall that, under ${\mathds{P}}^{\beta,y,w}$, the process $(\beta^{y,w} -Z_s)_{|y-w|{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ has the law of $(\beta_{K_s(y-w)})_{|y-w|{\;\leqslant\;}s{\;\leqslant\;}1}$ where $(\beta_{u})_{u}$ is a $3$-dimensional Bessel process starting from $\beta^{y,w}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^2_\epsilon
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{C(y,\epsilon,1)}{\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\beta^{y,w} {\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[\Big(1+(\beta_{K_{|y-w|}(y-w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_{|y-w|}(y-w)}+2\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|} } \Big]\Big]\,\mu_t^K(dy)\mu_t^K(dw).\end{aligned}$$ From , we have $$\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}-C_K{\;\leqslant\;}K_{|y-w|}(y-w){\;\leqslant\;}\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}+C_K.$$ If we proceed along the same lines as we did previously, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{\beta,y,w}\Big[&\Big(1+(\beta_{K_{|y-w|}(y-w)})^2\Big)e^{-2\beta_{K_{|y-w|}(y-w)} } \Big]\nonumber\\{\;\leqslant\;}& C(1+(\beta^{y,w})^2)e^{\beta^{y,w}}\int_{0}^\infty(1+r^2)e^{-r}e^{-\frac{r^2}{2\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}}}\,\frac{r^2dr}{( \ln\frac{1}{|y-w|})^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C(1+(\beta^{y,w})^2)e^{\beta^{y,w}}H ( \ln\frac{1}{|y-w|}) .\label{nc2}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, thanks to Lemma \[occupation\] (or Lemma \[browniancap\]), $$\sup_{\epsilon\in]0,1]}\Pi^2_\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{B(y,1)}\frac{H(\ln\frac{1}{|y-w|})}{|y-w|^2}\mu_t^K(dw)\mu_t^K (dy)<+\infty.$$ The proof of Proposition \[prop:log\] is complete.
Before proceeding with the proof of Theorem \[mainFderiv\], let us first state a few corollaries of the previous computations. For $\beta>0$ and $\epsilon\in]0,1]$, define the random measure $$M_\epsilon^\beta(dx)=f_\epsilon^\beta(x)\,dx.$$ Following [@Rnew7], the family $(M^\beta_\epsilon)_{\epsilon\in]0,1]}$ almost surely converges as $\epsilon\to 0$ in the sense of weak convergence of measure towards a limiting non trivial measure $M^\beta(dx)$ and $M^\beta(dx)=M'(dx)$ on compact sets for $\beta$ (random) large enough. The following corollary proves Theorem \[mainderiv\] and therefore considerably generalizes the results in [@Rnew7].
Assume \[A.1-5\]. Consider the random measure $$M_\epsilon^\beta(dx)=f_\epsilon^\beta(x)\,dx.$$ Then for $p<1/2$: $${\mathds{E}}^X\Big[\int_{B(0,1)}\int_{B(0,1)} \ln^p \frac{1}{|y-w|} M^\beta(dy)M^\beta(dw)\Big]<+\infty.$$ Therefore, the measure $M^\beta$ (and consequently $M'$) is diffuse.
[*Proof.*]{} If we just replace the occupation measure of the Brownian motion by the Lebesgue measure along the lines of the proof of Proposition \[prop:log\], we get: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^X&\Big[\int_{B(0,1)}\int_{B(0,1)} \ln^p \frac{1}{|y-w|} M^\beta(dy)M^\beta(dw)\Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C \int_{B(0,1)}\int_{B(0,1)} \frac{1}{|y-w|^2} \ln^p \frac{1}{|y-w|}H ( \ln\frac{1}{|y-w|})dy dw .$$ This latter quantity is finite for $p<1/2$. The finiteness of such an integral implies that, almost surely, the measure $M^{\beta}$ cannot give mass to singletons.
This result is closely related, though weaker, than . Yet, the setup of our proof is quite general whereas has been proved in [@KNW] for a specific one-dimensional measure that exhibits nice scaling relations. Nonetheless, is expected to hold in greater generality but we do not know to which extent the proofs in [@KNW] extend to more general situations. In the same spirit, we claim:
\[coro:cont\] Fix $t>0$ and $p<1/2$. For each $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K$ such that $\mu_t(K^c){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and $${\mathds{E}}^{X}\Big[\int_0^t\int_0^t \ln^p_+\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}{\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_r){\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)F'_\beta(x,ds)\Big]<+\infty.$$ In particular, almost surely in $X$ and in $B^x$, the random mapping $r\mapsto F'_\beta(x,r)$ does not possess discontinuity point on $[0,t]$.
[*Proof.*]{} For each $\delta>0$, we use once again Lemma \[occupation\] to find a compact set $K$ and some constant $L$ such that $\mu_t(K^c){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $y\in K$ $$\label{cap:cont}
\sup_{r{\;\leqslant\;}1}\frac{\mu_t(B(y,r))}{r^2g(r)}{\;\leqslant\;}L,\quad \text{with }g(r)=\ln\big(2+\frac{1}{r}\big)^3.$$ We denote by $\mu_t^K$ the measure $$\mu_t^K(dy)={\mathds{1}}_K(y)\,\mu_t(dy).$$ Once again, the computations made in proposition \[prop:log\] show that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{X}&\Big[ \int_0^t\int_0^t \ln^p_+\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}{\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_r){\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)F'_\beta(x,ds)\Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C \int_0^t\int_0^t \frac{{\mathds{1}}_{\{|B^x_r-B^x_s|{\;\leqslant\;}1\}}}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|^2}\ln^p\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}H\Big(\ln\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}\Big){\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_r){\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_s)dr ds \\
&+ C \int_0^t\int_0^t {\mathds{1}}_{\{|B^x_r-B^x_s|{\;\geqslant\;}1\}}\ln^p_+\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}{\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_r){\mathds{1}}_{K}(B^x_s)dr ds \\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C \int_0^t\int_0^t \frac{{\mathds{1}}_{\{|u-v|{\;\leqslant\;}1\}}}{|u-v|^2}\ln^p\frac{1}{|u-v|}H\Big(\ln\frac{1}{|u-v|}\Big)\mu_t^K(du)\mu_t^K(dv).$$ Because of , the above integrals are finite for $p<1/2$.
It is plain to deduce the continuity property of the mapping $s\mapsto F'_\beta(x,[0,s])$ since the Brownian motion has continuous sample paths. Indeed, the discontinuity points of this mapping corresponds to the set $\mathcal{A}$ of atoms of the measure $F'_\beta(x,ds)$, which are countable. For each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$, let us denote by $\mathcal{A}_n$ the set of atoms in $[0,t]$ of this measure that are of size strictly greater than $\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}^c}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)$. For $s\in \mathcal{A}_n$, we necessarily have ${\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}^c}(B^x_s)=0$. Also, we necessarily have ${\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}}(B^x_s)=0$ otherwise the integral $ \int_0^t\int_0^t \ln^p\frac{1}{|B^x_r-B^x_s|}{\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}}(B^x_r){\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)F'_\beta(x,ds)$ would be infinite. We deduce that $\mathcal{A}_n$ is empty for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$, meaning that there is no atom of size greater than $\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}^c}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)$ for all $n$. Since $${\mathds{E}}^x\Big[\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}^c}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)\Big]=\mu_t(K_{1/n}^c){\;\leqslant\;}1/n\to 0 \quad \text{as }n\to \infty,$$ we deduce that the quantity $\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{1/n}^c}(B^x_s)F'_\beta(x,dr)$ converges to $0$ in probability as $n\to\infty$. We complete the proof.
We are now in position to handle the proof of Theorem \[mainFderiv\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[mainFderiv\].*]{} We first observe that the martingale $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon >0}$ possesses almost surely the same limit as the process $(\widetilde{F}^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t))_{\epsilon >0}$ because $$\label{diffz}
|F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)-\widetilde{F}^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)|=\beta\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_u}< \epsilon\}} e^{2X_{\epsilon}(B^x_u)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}} du{\;\leqslant\;}\beta F^{\epsilon}(x,t)$$ and the last quantity converges almost surely towards $0$ (see Proposition \[cv0\]). Using Corollary \[coro:max\], we have almost surely in $X$ and in $B$: $$\sup_{\epsilon>0}\max_{s\in [0,t]}X_\epsilon(B^x_s)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}<+\infty,$$ which obviously implies $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \epsilon>0 ,\quad F^{',\epsilon}(t,x)=\widetilde{F}^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ for $\beta$ (random) large enough. We deduce that, almost surely in $X$ and in $B$, the family $(F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_{\epsilon> 0}$ converges towards a positive random variable.
It is plain to deduce the random measures $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,dt))_\epsilon$ converges in the sense of weak convergence of measures towards a random measure $F^\beta(x,dt)$. To prove convergence in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$, we just have to prove that the mapping $t\mapsto F^\beta(t,x)$ is continuous. This property is proved in Corollary \[coro:cont\]. From and Proposition \[cv0\] again, we deduce that the family of random mappings $(t\mapsto F^{',\epsilon}(x,t))_\epsilon$ almost surely converges as $\epsilon\to 0$ in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards a nonnegative nondecreasing mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$.
Let us prove that, almost surely in $X$ and in $B$, the mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$ is strictly increasing. We first write the relation, for $\epsilon'<\epsilon$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{passlim}
F^{',\epsilon'}_\beta(x,dr)=&(2\ln \frac{1}{\epsilon} -X_{\epsilon}(B^x_r)+\beta){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_r}<{\epsilon'}\}} e^{2X_{\epsilon'}(B^x_r)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon'}}\,dr\\&+(2\ln\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon'}-X_{\epsilon'}(B^x_r)+X_{\epsilon}(B^x_r)+\beta){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_r}<\epsilon'\}} e^{2X_{\epsilon'}(B^x_r)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon'}}\,dr.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By using the same arguments as throughout this section, we pass to the limit in this relation as $\epsilon'\to 0$ and then $\beta\to \infty$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiv}
F' (x,dr)= & e^{2X_{\epsilon}(B^x_r)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\,F'_\epsilon(x,dr)\end{aligned}$$ where $F'_\epsilon(x,dr)$ is almost surely defined as $$F'_\epsilon(x,dr)=\lim_{\beta \to \infty}\lim_{\epsilon' \to 0}F^{',\epsilon'}_{\beta,\epsilon} (x,dr)$$ and $F^{',\epsilon'}_{\beta,\epsilon} (x,dr)$ is given by $$(2\ln\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon'}-X_{\epsilon'}(B^x_r)+X_{\epsilon}(B^x_r)+\beta){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{\epsilon,B^x_r}< \epsilon'\}} e^{2(X_{\epsilon'}-X_\epsilon)(B^x_r)-2\ln\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon'}}\,dr$$ where $$\tau^\beta_{\epsilon,z}=\sup\{u{\;\leqslant\;}1;X_{u\epsilon}(z)-X_{\epsilon}(z)-2\ln\frac{1}{u}>\beta-X_\epsilon(z)+2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}\}.$$ Let us stress that we have used the fact that the measure $$(2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}-X_{\epsilon}(B^x_r)+\beta){\mathds{1}}_{\{\tau^\beta_{B^x_r}<\epsilon'\}} e^{2X_{\epsilon'}( B^x_r)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon'}}\,dr$$ goes to $0$ (it is absolutely continuous w.r.t. to $F^{\epsilon'}(x,dr)$) when passing to the limit in as $\epsilon'\to 0$. From , it is plain to deduce that, almost surely in $B$, the event $\{F'(x,[s,t])=0\}$ (with $s<t$) belongs to the asymptotic sigma-algebra generated by the field $\{(X_\epsilon(x))_x;\epsilon>0\}$. Therefore it has probability $0$ or $1$ by the $0-1$ law of Kolmogorov. Since we have already proved that it is not $0$, this proves that almost surely in $B$, ${\mathds{P}}^X(F'(x,[s,t])=0)=0$ for any $s<t$. By considering a countable family of intervals $[s_n,t_n]$ generating the Borel sigma field on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$, we deduce that, almost surely in $X$ and in $B$, the mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$ is strictly increasing.
Renormalization of the change of times {#ss.renorm}
--------------------------------------
Here we explain the Seneta-Heyde norming for the change of times $F^\epsilon$. Some technical constraints prevents us from claiming that it holds under the only assumptions \[A.1-5\]. So it is important to stress here that the Seneta-Heyde renormalization is not necessary to construct the critical LBM. It just illustrates that the derivative construction of the change of times $F'(x,t)$ also corresponds to a proper renormalization of $F^\epsilon$.
\[th:seneta\] Assume \[A.1-5\] and either \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. Then the conclusions of Theorem \[mainderiv2\] hold and almost surely in $B$, we have the following convergence in ${\mathds{P}}^X$-probability as $\epsilon\to 0$ $$\sqrt{\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}F^\epsilon(x,t)\to \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}F'(x,t).$$
[*Proof.*]{} The proof is a rather elementary adaptation of the proof in [@Rnew12 section D]. Just reproduce the proof in [@Rnew12 section D] while replacing the Lebesgue measure by the occupation measure of the Brownian motion and use Lemma \[occupation\] when necessary. Details are left to the reader.
In the case of example , it is necessary to consider the occupation measure of the Brownian motion killed upon touching the boundary of the domain $D$.
The LBM does not get stuck {#ss.stuck}
--------------------------
In this subsection, we make sure that the LBM does not get stuck in some area of the state space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Typically, this situation may happen over areas where the field $X$ takes large values, therefore having as consequence to slow down the LBM. Mathematically, this can be formulated as follows: check that the mapping $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$ tends to $\infty$ as $t\to\infty$.
\[cvF\] Assume \[A.1-5\] and fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Almost surely in $X$ and in $B$, $$\lim_{t\to\infty}F'(x,t)=+\infty.$$
It suffices to reproduce the techniques of [@GRV1 subsection 2.5].
Of course, this statement does not hold in the case of a bounded planar domain when one considers a Brownian motion killed upon touching the boundary of $D$. In this case, the Liouville Brownian motion (see below) will run until touching the boundary of $D$.
Defining the critical LBM when starting from a given fixed point {#ss.convquad}
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are now in position to define the critical LBM when starting from one fixed point. Indeed, once the change of times $F'$ has been constructed, the strategy is the same as in [@GRV1 subsection 2.10].
\[def:cvq\] Assume \[A.1-5\]. The [**critical Liouville Brownian motion**]{} is defined by: $$\label{def:lbm}
\forall t{\;\geqslant\;}0,\quad \mathcal{B}^x_t=B^x_{\langle \LB^{x}\rangle_t},\quad \text{ and }
\quad \forall t{\;\geqslant\;}0,\quad \sqrt{2/\pi}\,F'(x,\langle \mathcal{B}^x\rangle_t)=t.$$ As such, the mapping $t\mapsto \langle \mathcal{B}^x\rangle_t$ is defined on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$, continuous and strictly increasing.
\[th:cvq\] Assume \[A.1-5\] and either \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. Fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Almost surely in $B$ and in ${\mathds{P}}^X$-probability, the family $( B,\langle\mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x}\rangle, \mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x})_\epsilon$ converges in the space $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)\times C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ equipped with the supremum norm on compact sets towards the triple $(B,\langle\mathcal{B}^x\rangle,\mathcal{B}^x)$.
One may wonder whether the process introduced in Definition \[def.LBM1\] also converges in probability. Actually, the argument carried out in [@GRV1 section 2.12] remains true here: almost surely in $X$, the couple of processes $(\bar{B},\LB^\epsilon)_\epsilon$ in Definition \[def.LBM1\] converges in law towards a couple $(\bar{B},\LB)$ where $\bar{B}$ and $\LB$ are independent. Since $\LB^\epsilon$ is measurable w.r.t. $\bar{B}$, this shows that the process $\LB^\epsilon$ does not converge in probability. This justifies our approach of studying the convergence via the Dambis-Schwarz representation theorem: it leads to studying a process (definition \[d.elbm2\]) that converges in probability.
Critical LBM as a Markov process {#sec.markov}
================================
In this whole section, we assume that assumptions \[A.1-5\] are in force. Sometimes, we make a statement to relate our results to the metric tensor $g_\epsilon$. For such a connection to be made, the Seneta-Heyde norming is needed and thus assumption \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\] are required. To avoid confusion, this will be explicitly mentioned.
In this section, we will investigate the critical LBM as a Markov process, meaning that we aim at constructing almost surely in $X$ the critical LBM starting from every point. In the previous section, the guiding line was similar to [@GRV1] besides technical difficulties. From now on, the difference will be conceptual too: in the subcritical situation, the issue of constructing the LBM starting from every point is possible because the mapping $$x\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\ln_+\frac{1}{|x-y|}M_\gamma(dy)$$ is a continuous function of $x$, where $M_\gamma$ stands for the subcritical measure with parameter $\gamma<2$. This idea is somewhat underlying the theory of traces of Dirichlet forms developed in [@fuku] for instance. At criticality, the main obstacle is pointed out in : the best modulus of continuity that one may hope for $M'$ is of the type $$M'(B(x,r)){\;\leqslant\;}C\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln(1+r^{-1})}}$$ and cannot be improved as proved in [@BKNSW] in the context of multiplicative cascades. The mapping $$\label{mappingmp}
x\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\ln_+\frac{1}{|x-y|}M'(dy)$$ is thus certainly not continuous and may even take infinite values. The ideas of [@GRV1] need be renewed to face the issues of criticality.
On the other hand, the theory of Dirichlet forms [@fuku; @revuzyor] (or potential theory) tells us that one can construct a Positive Continuous Additive Functional (PCAF for short) associated to $M'$ provided that the mapping does not take too many infinite values. More precisely, $M'$ is required not to give mass to polar sets of the Brownian motion. The problem of the theory of Dirichlet forms is that one can guarantee the existence of the PCAF but it cannot be identified and all the information that we get by explicitly constructing the PCAF $F'$ is lost in this approach. Also, while being extremely powerful in the description of the Dirichlet form of the LBM, the theory of Dirichlet forms gives much weaker results than the coupling approach developed in [@GRV1; @GRV2] concerning the qualitative/quantitative properties of $F'$. We thus definitely need to gather both of these approaches.
Our strategy will be to identify a large set of points of finiteness of the mapping in order to construct a perfectly identified PCAF on the whole space via coupling arguments. Then we will prove that $M'$ does not charge polar sets in order to identify our PCAF with that of the theory of Dirichlet forms in the sense of the Revuz correspondence. Once this gap is bridged, we can apply the full machinery of [@fuku] to get a lot of further information about $F'$: mainly, a full description of the Dirichlet form associated to the critical LBM.
Background on positive continuous additive functionals and Revuz measures
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the reading of our results, we summarize here some basic notions of potential theory applied to the standard Brownian $(\Omega,(B_t)_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0},({\mathds{P}}^x)_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2})$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ seen as a Markov process, which is of course reversible for the canonical volume form $dx$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. These notions can be found with further details in [@fuku; @revuzyor]. One may then consider the classical notion of capacity associated to the Brownian motion. In this context, we have the following definition:
The capacity of an open set $O\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is defined by $${\rm Cap}(O)=\inf\{\int_D|f(x)|^2\,dx+\int_D|\nabla f(x)|^2\,dx;f\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^2,dx),\,\,f {\;\geqslant\;}1\text{ over }O \}.$$ The capacity of a Borel measurable set $K$ is then defined as: $${\rm Cap}(K)= \underset{O \text{open}, K \subset O}{\inf}{\rm Cap}(O).$$ The set $K$ is said polar when ${\rm Cap}(K)=0$.
A Revuz measure $\mu$ is a Radon measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ which does not charge the polar sets.
Then we introduce the notion of PCAF that we will use in the following (see [@fuku; @revuzyor]):
\[defPCAF\] A Positive Continuous Additive Functional $(A(x,t,B))_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2/N}$ of the Brownian motion (with $B_0=0$) on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is defined by:\
-a polar set $N$ (for the standard Brownian motion),\
- for each $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2/N$ and $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$, $A(x,t,B)$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted and continuous, with values in $[0,\infty]$ and $A(x,0)=0$,\
- almost surely, $$A(x,t+s,B)-A(x,t,B)= A (x+B_t,s,B_{t+\cdot}-B_t), \quad s,t {\;\geqslant\;}0.$$
In particular, a PCAF is defined for all starting points $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ except possibly on a polar set for the standard Brownian motion. One can also work with a PCAF starting from **all** points, that is when the set $N$ in the above definition can be chosen to be empty. In that case, the PCAF is said [*in the strict sense*]{}.
Finally, we conclude with the following definition on the support of a PCAF:
Let $(A(x,t,B))_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2/N}$ be a PCAF with associated polar set $N$. The support of $(A(x,t,B))_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2/N}$ is defined by: $${\widetilde}{Y}= \Big\{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \setminus N: \: {\mathds{P}}(R(x)=0)=1\Big\},$$ where $R(x)=\inf \lbrace t>0: \: A(x,t,B)>0 \rbrace$.
From section 5 in [@fuku], there is a one to one correspondence between Revuz measures $\mu$ and PCAFs $(A(x,t,B))_{t {\;\geqslant\;}0,x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2/N}$ under the Revuz correspondence: for any $t>0$ and any nonnegative Borel functions $f,h$: $$\label{revuzcorr}
{\mathds{E}}_{h.dx}\Big[\int_0^tf(B_r)\,dA_r\Big]=\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(x)P_rh(x)\,\mu(dx)\,dr,$$ where $(P_r)_{r{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ stands for the semigroup associated to the planar Brownian motion on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Capacity properties of the critical measure
-------------------------------------------
The purpose of this section is to establish some preliminary results in order to apply the theory of Dirichlet forms. In particular, we will establish that the critical measure does not charge polar sets. To this purpose, we will need some fine pathwise properties of Bessel processes. So we first recall a result from [@Motoo]:
\[th:motoo\] Let $X$ be a $3d$-Bessel process on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ starting from $x{\;\geqslant\;}0$ with respect to the law ${\mathds{P}}_x$.
1. Suppose that $\phi \uparrow \infty$ such that $\int_1^{\infty}\frac{\phi(t)^3}{t}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\phi(t)^2}\,dt<+\infty$. Then $${\mathds{P}}_x\Big(X_t>\sqrt{t}\phi(t)\,\text{ i.o. as } t\uparrow+\infty\Big)=0 .$$
2. Suppose that $\psi \downarrow 0$ such that $\int_1^{\infty}\frac{\psi(t)}{t} \,dt<+\infty$. Then $${\mathds{P}}_x\Big(X_t<\sqrt{t}\psi(t)\,\text{ i.o. as } t\uparrow+\infty\Big)=0 .$$
Recall that we denote by $M_\beta$ the measure $M_\beta(dx)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}f^\beta_\epsilon(x)\,dx$. The main purpose of this subsection is to prove the following result:
\[th:cap\] $\bullet$ Let us consider two functions $\phi,\psi$ as in the above theorem and define $$Y_\epsilon(x)= 2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}- X_\epsilon(x).$$ We introduce the set $$E=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2; \limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{Y_\epsilon(x)}{\sqrt{\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\phi(\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon})}{\;\leqslant\;}1\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\liminf_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{Y_\epsilon(x)}{\sqrt{\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\psi(\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon})}{\;\geqslant\;}1\}.$$ Then $M^\beta$ gives full mass to $E$, i.e. $M^\beta (E^c)=0$.\
$\bullet$ Furthermore, for each ball $B$, for each $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K\subset B$ such that $M_\beta(B\cap K^c){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $p>0$ $$\int_K\int_B\Big( \ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}\Big)^pM_\beta(dx)M_\beta(dy)<+\infty.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let us consider a non empty ball $B$. We introduce the Peyrière probability measure $Q^\beta$ on $\Omega\times B$: $$\int f(x,\omega)\,dQ^\beta =\frac{1}{\beta|B|}{\mathds{E}}^X[\int_Bf(x,\omega)M^\beta(dx)].$$ Let us consider the random process $t\mapsto \bar{X}_t =X_{e^{-t}} $. The main idea is that under $Q^\beta$, the process $(\beta-\bar{X}_t+2t)_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ has the law very close to a $3d$-Bessel process $(\beta_{t})_t$ starting from $\beta$. The first claim then follows from Theorem \[th:motoo\]. We just have to precise the notion of “very close”: some negligible terms appear because of the difference between $t$ and ${\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2]$ and we have to quantify them.
We consider the measure (convergence is established the same way as for $M_\beta$) $$\bar{M}_\beta(dx)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}(2{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2]-X_t(x)+\beta) {\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in [0,t]} \bar{X}_u-2{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_u(x)^2]{\;\leqslant\;}\beta\}}e^{2\bar{X}_t-2{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2]}\,dx$$ and we set $D=\sup_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}\sup_{x\in B}|{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2]-t|<+\infty$. We set $H(x)=\lim_{t\to \infty}{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2]-t$ (see assumption \[A.4\]). Observe that $$M_\beta(dx){\;\leqslant\;}e^{H(x)}\bar{M}_{\beta+2D}(dx).$$ Let us set $\hat{\beta}=\beta+2D$. Therefore, we consider the probability measure $\bar{Q}^{\hat{\beta}}$ on $\Omega\times B$: $$\int f(x,\omega)\,d\bar{Q}^{\hat{\beta}} =\frac{1}{\hat{\beta}|B|}{\mathds{E}}^X[\int_Bf(x,\omega)\bar{M}^{\hat{\beta}}(dx)]$$ and $Q^\beta$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\bar{Q}^{\hat{\beta}}$. Under $\bar{Q}^{\hat{\beta}}$ (following arguments already seen), the process $(\hat{\beta}-\bar{X}_t+2{\mathds{E}}^X[\bar{X}_t(x)^2])_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ has the law of $({\rm Bess}_{T_t(x)})_t$ where $({\rm Bess}_{t})_t$ a $3d$-Bessel process starting from $\hat{\beta}$ and $T_t(x)=K_{e^{-t}}(x,x)$. The first claim then follows from Theorem \[th:motoo\], the fact that $\sup_{x\in B,t{\;\geqslant\;}0}|K_{e^{-t}}(x,x)-t|<+\infty$ and the absolute continuity of $Q^\beta$ w.r.t. $\bar{Q}^{\hat{\beta}}$.
Now we prove the second statement, which is more technical. To simplify things a bit, we assume that ${\mathds{E}}[X_t(x)^2]=t$. If this not the case, we can apply the same strategy as above, namely considering $\bar{M}_{\beta+2D}$ instead of $M_\beta$. We consider now a couple of functions $\phi(t)=(1+t)^\chi$ and $\psi(t)=(1+t)^{-\chi}$ for some small positive parameter $\chi$ close to $0$. They satisfy the assumptions of Theorem \[th:motoo\]. Then we consider the random compact sets for $R>0$ and $t\in [0,+\infty]$, $$\begin{aligned}
K^1_{R,t}=&\big\{ x\in B;\sup_{u \in [0,t]}\frac{\beta-\bar{X}_u(x)+2u}{(1+u)^{1/2+\chi}}{\;\leqslant\;}R\big\}\quad &K^2_{R,t}= \big\{ x\in B;\inf_{u \in [0,t]}\frac{\beta-\bar{X}_u(x)+2u}{(1+u)^{1/2-\chi}}{\;\geqslant\;}\frac{1}{R}\big\}\\
K_{R,t}=&K^1_{R,t}\cap K_{R,t}^2.\end{aligned}$$ We will write $K_R$ for $K_{R,\infty}$. From Theorem \[th:motoo\], we have $\lim_{R\to\infty}Q^\beta(K_R)=1$. Therefore, we have $\lim_{R\to \infty}M^\beta(K_R^c\cap B)=0$ ${\mathds{P}}^X$ almost surely. Let us denote ${\mathds{E}}^Q$ expectation with respect to the probability measure $Q^\beta$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\beta|B|=1$: this avoids to repeatedly write the renormalization constant appearing in the definition of $Q^\beta$. To prove the result, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^Q[ {\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x) M^\beta(B(x,e^{-t}))]=&\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}{\mathds{E}}[ \int_B{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)M_\beta(B(x,e^{-t}))M_\beta(dx)]\\
=&\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}{\mathds{E}}[\int_B\int_{B(x,e^{-t})}{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)\,dw M_\beta(dx)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\int_B\int_{B(x,e^{-t})}{\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(x)]\,dwdx.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can argue as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:log\] (treatment of $\Pi_\epsilon^2$) to see that for $\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}|x-w|$ $${\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(x)]{\;\leqslant\;}C{\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|x-w|}(w)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]$$ for some irrelevant constant $C$ and $\hat{\beta}=\beta-\min_{u{\;\geqslant\;}\ln \frac{1}{|x-w|}} \hat{Z}_u$ where the process $\hat{Z}$ is independent of the sigma algebra $\mathcal{F}_{|x-w|}$ and $\hat{Z}_s=B_{\hat{h}(s)}-B_{\hat{h}(-\ln|x-w|)}$ for some Brownian motion $B$ and $\hat{h}(s)=\int_{0}^{e^s}\frac{k(u,x,w)(1-\varphi(u(x-w)))}{u}\,du$.
The above technical part is due to the presence of possible long range correlations. Though they do not affect qualitatively our final estimates, getting rid of them may appear technical. The reader who wishes to skip this technical part may instead consider the compact case: $k(u,x,v)=0$ if $u|x-w|{\;\geqslant\;}1$. In that case, we just have $${\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)f^\beta_{\epsilon}(x)]={\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^{ \beta}_{|x-w|}(w)f^{ \beta}_{|w-x|}(x)]$$ because of the stopping time theorem and the fact that both martingales $(f^\beta_{\epsilon}(w)-f^\beta_{|x-w|}(w))_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}|x-w|}$ and $(f^\beta_{\epsilon}(x)-f^\beta_{|x-w|}(x))_{\epsilon{\;\leqslant\;}|x-w|}$ are independent.
We are thus left with computing ${\mathds{E}}[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln|x-w|}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|x-w|}(w)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]$. To this purpose, we need the following lemma, the proof of which is straightforward as a simple computation of covariance. Thus, details are left to the reader.
We consider $w\not = x$ such that $|x-w|{\;\leqslant\;}1$. The law of the couple $(\bar{X}_t(w),\bar{X}_t(x))_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ can be decomposed as: $$(\bar{X}_t(w),\bar{X}_t(x))_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}=(Z^{x,w}_t+P^{x,w}_t,P^{x,w}_t+D^{x,w}_t)_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$$ where the process $Z^{x,w},P^{x,w},D^{x,w}$ are independent centered Gaussian and, for some independent Brownian motions $B^1,B^2$ independent of $ \bar{X}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P^{x,w}_t=&\int_0^tg'_{x,w}(u)\,d\bar{X}_u(x),& Z^{x,w}_t= \int_0^t(1-g'_{x,w}(u)^2)^{1/2}\,dB^1_u, & &
D^{x,w}_t= \int_0^t(1-g'_{x,w}(u)^2)^{1/2}\,dB^2_u.& &
\end{aligned}$$ with $g_{x,w}(u)=\int_1^{e^u}\frac{k(y(x-w))}{y}\,dy$. Moreover $$\label{supvar}
\sup_{t{\;\leqslant\;}\ln\frac{1}{|x-w|} }{\mathds{E}}[(Z^{x,w}_t)^2+(D^{x,w}_t)^2]{\;\leqslant\;}C,$$ for some constant $C$ independent of $x,w$ such that $|x-w|{\;\leqslant\;}1$.
Setting $s_0=\ln\frac{1}{|x-w|}$, we use this lemma to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[ {\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,-\ln |x-w|}}&(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(w) f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)({\hat{\beta}}-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-Z^{x,w}_{s_0}-2s_0)_+e^{2(P^{x,w}_{s_0}+Z^{x,w}_{s_0})-2s_0}({\hat{\beta}}-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0}-2s_0)_+\times\dots \\
& \quad {\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u}+D^{x,w}_{u}-2u{\;\leqslant\;}{\hat{\beta}}\}}e^{2(P^{x,w}_{s_0}+D^{x,w}_{s_0})-2s_0} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ We get rid of the process $Z^{x,w}$ by using first the Girsanov transform with the corresponding exponential term, and then by estimating the remaining terms containing $Z^{x,w}$ with the help of . We get for some constant $C$ that may vary along lines but does not depend on $x,w$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[&{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(w) f^\beta_{|w-x|}(x)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)(1+{\hat{\beta}})(1+|P^{x,w}_{s_0}-2{\mathds{E}}[(P^{x,w}_{s_0})^2]|)e^{2P^{x,w}_{s_0}-2{\mathds{E}}[(P^{x,w}_{s_0})^2]}(\beta-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0}-2s_0)_+\times\dots \\
&\dots\times{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u}+D^{x,w}_{u}-2u{\;\leqslant\;}{\hat{\beta}}\}}e^{2(P^{x,w}_{s_0}+D^{x,w}_{s_0})-2s_0} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ We use the Girsanov transform again to make the term $e^{2(P^{x,w}_{s_0}+D^{x,w}_{s_0})-2\ln\frac{1}{|x-w|}}$ disappear: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[&{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(w) f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)(1+{\hat{\beta}})(1+|P^{x,w}_{s_0}|)e^{2P^{x,w}_{s_0}+2{\mathds{E}}[(P^{x,w}_{s_0})^2]}({\hat{\beta}}-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0})_+{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u}+D^{x,w}_{u}{\;\leqslant\;}{\hat{\beta}}\}} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Now we write $P^{x,w}_{s_0}=P^{x,w}_{s_0}+D^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0}$ and use to see that we can replace ${\mathds{E}}[(P^{x,w}_{s_0})^2] $ by $s_0$ even if it means modifying the constant $C$ (which still does not depend on $x,w$): $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[&{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(w) f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)(1+{\hat{\beta}})(1+|P^{x,w}_{s_0}+D^{x,w}_{s_0}|+|D^{x,w}_{s_0}|)e^{2(P^{x,w}_{s_0}+ D^{x,w}_{s_0})+2s_0}e^{-2D^{x,w}_{s_0}}\times\dots \\
&\quad ({\hat{\beta}}-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0})_+{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u}+D^{x,w}_{u}{\;\leqslant\;}{\hat{\beta}}\}} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Now we use the fact that for $x\in K_{R,s_0}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{u{\;\leqslant\;}-\ln|x-w|} \frac{\beta-P^{x,w}_{u}-D^{x,w}_{u}}{(1+u)^{1/2+\chi}}{\;\leqslant\;}R & &\text{and} & &
\inf_{u{\;\leqslant\;}-\ln|x-w|} \frac{\beta-P^{x,w}_{u}-D^{x,w}_{u}}{(1+u)^{1/2-\chi}}{\;\geqslant\;}\frac{1}{R} ,\end{aligned}$$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[&{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(w) f^{\hat{\beta}}_{|w-x|}(x)]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_{R,s_0}}(x)(1+{\hat{\beta}})\big(1+ R(1+s_0)^{1/2+\chi}+|D^{x,w}_{s_0}|\big)e^{-2R^{-1} (1+s_0)^{1/2-\chi} +2s_0}e^{-2D^{x,w}_{s_0}}\times\dots\\
&\quad ({\hat{\beta}}-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-D^{x,w}_{s_0})_+{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u}+D^{x,w}_{u}{\;\leqslant\;}{\hat{\beta}}\}} \Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \frac{C}{|x-w|^2}e^{-2R^{-1} s_0^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ Rs_0^{1/2+\chi})\times\dots
\\&\dots\times {\mathds{E}}\Big[(1+{\hat{\beta}})(1+ |D^{x,w}_{s_0}|)e^{-2D^{x,w}_{s_0}} (\beta-P^{x,w}_{s_0}-\min_{u\in[0,s_0]}D^{x,w}_{u})_+{\mathds{1}}_{\{\sup_{u\in[0,s_0]}P^{x,w}_{u} {\;\leqslant\;}\beta-\min_{u\in[0,s_0]}D^{x,w}_{u}\}} \Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& \frac{C}{|x-w|^2}e^{-2R^{-1} s_0^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ Rs_0^{1/2+\chi}) {\mathds{E}}\Big[(1+\hat{\beta})(1+ |D^{x,w}_{s_0}|)e^{-2D^{x,w}_{s_0}} ({\hat{\beta}}-\min_{u\in[0,s_0]}D^{x,w}_{u}) \Big].\end{aligned}$$ Because of , the last expectation is finite and bounded independently of $x,w$. Indeed, $\hat{\beta}$, $(D^{x,w}_{u})_{u{\;\leqslant\;}s_0}$ are independent Wiener integrals with bounded variance (independently of $x,w$). Therefore we can find $\alpha>0$ such that $\sup_{|x-w|{\;\leqslant\;}1}{\mathds{E}}[e^{\alpha (\min_{u{\;\leqslant\;}s_0} D^{x,w}_{u})^2}+e^{\alpha \hat{\beta}^2}]<+\infty$. With these estimates, it is plain to see that the above expectation is finite. To sum up, we have proved $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^Q[&{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x) M^\beta(B(x,e^{-t}))]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\int_{B(x,e^{-t})}\frac{C}{|x-w|^2}e^{-2R^{-1}(\ln\frac{1}{|x-w|})^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ R(\ln\frac{1}{|x-w|})^{1/2+\chi}) \,dw\\
=&C\int_0^{e^{-t}}\rho^{-1}e^{-2R^{-1}(\ln\frac{1}{\rho})^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ R(\ln\frac{1}{\rho})^{1/2+\chi} )\,d\rho\\
=&C\int_t^{\infty} e^{-2R^{-1}y^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ Ry^{1/2+\chi}) \,dy.\end{aligned}$$ Finally we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\Big[ \int_{K_R}\int_{B}&\Big( \ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}\Big)^pM_\beta(dx)M_\beta(dy)\Big]\\
=&{\mathds{E}}^Q\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)\int_{B} \Big( \ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}\Big)^pM_\beta(dy) \Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\mathds{E}}^Q\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)\int_{B\cap \{2^{-n-1}<|x-y|{\;\leqslant\;}2^{-n}\}} \Big( \ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}\Big)^pM_\beta(dy) \Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\sum_{n=1}^\infty (n+1)^p\ln^p2\, {\mathds{E}}^Q\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{K_R}(x)M_\beta(B(x,2^{-n})) \Big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&C\sum_{n=1}^\infty (n+1)^p \, \int_{n\ln 2}^{\infty} e^{-2R^{-1}y^{1/2-\chi}}(1+ Ry^{1/2+\chi}) \,dy.
\end{aligned}$$ This last series is easily seen to be finite. The proof of Theorem \[th:cap\] is complete.
It is then a routine trick to deduce
\[th:capsupbeta\] For each ball $B$, for all $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K_\delta\subset B$ such that $$M_\beta(B\cap K^c_\delta){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$$ and for all $p>0$, for all $x\in K_\delta$ $$\sup_{\substack{x\in \mathcal{O}\text{ open }\subset B,\\ {\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}){\;\leqslant\;}1}}M_\beta( \mathcal{O})\big(-\ln{\rm diam}(\mathcal{O})\big)^{p}<+\infty.$$
\[th:capsup\]
1. For each ball $B$, for each $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K\subset B$ such that $M'(B\cap K^c){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $p>0$ $$\int_K\int_B\Big( \ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}\Big)^pM'(dx)M'(dy)<+\infty.$$
2. For each ball $B$, for all $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K_\delta\subset B$ such that $M'(B\cap K^c_\delta){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $p>0$, for all $x\in K_\delta$ $$\sup_{\substack{x\in \mathcal{O}\text{ open }\subset B,\\ {\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}){\;\leqslant\;}1}}M'( \mathcal{O})\big(-\ln{\rm diam}(\mathcal{O})\big)^{p}<+\infty.$$
3. Almost surely in $X$, the Liouville measure $M'$ does not charge the polar sets of the (standard) Brownian motion.
[*Proof.*]{} Both statements results from the fact that $M_\beta$ coincides with $M'$ over bounded sets for $\beta$ (random) large enough.
Though we will not need such a strong statement in the following , we state the optimal modulus of continuity bound that we can get with our methods
\[th:optimal\] For each ball $B$, for all $\chi\in]0,1/2[$ and for all $\delta>0$, there is a compact set $K_\delta\subset B$ such that $M'(B\cap K^c_\delta){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and for all $x\in K_\delta$ $$\sup_{\substack{x\in \mathcal{O}\text{ open }\subset B,\\ {\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}){\;\leqslant\;}1}}M'( \mathcal{O})\exp\big((-\ln{\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}))^{\frac{1}{2}-\chi}\big)<+\infty.$$
Observe that the question of the capacity properties of the measure $M'$, i.e. Corollary \[th:capsup\], was initially raised in [@KNW] (see at the end of the first section).
Defining $F'$ on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ {#whole}
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we have two main objectives: to construct the PCAF $F^{'}(x,\cdot) $ on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and prove the convergence of $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ towards $F'(x,\cdot)$. The main difficulty here is the following: in section \[ss.deriv\] we have proved the almost sure (in $X$ and $B$) convergence of $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ towards $F$’ when the starting point $x$ is fixed. Of course, we can deduce that almost surely in $X$, for a countable collection of given starting points, this convergence holds. The main difficulty is to prove that this convergence holds for [**all**]{} possible starting points and this definitely requires some further arguments.
For $\mathbf{q}=(q_1,q_2)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, we denote by $C_\mathbf{q}$ the cube $[q_1,q_1+1]\times[q_2,q_2+1]$. We fix $p>1$ and for each $\mathbf{q}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and $\delta>0$, we denote by $K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta,L}$ the compact set $$K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta,L}=K_\delta\cap\big\{x\in C_\mathbf{q}; \sup_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{O}\text{ open },\\ {\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}){\;\leqslant\;}1}}M_\beta( \mathcal{O})\big(-\ln{\rm diam}(\mathcal{O})\big)^{p}{\;\leqslant\;}L\big\},$$ where $K_\delta$ is the compact set given by Corollary \[th:capsupbeta\] applied with $B=C_\mathbf{q}$. Then we set $$K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta}=\bigcup_{L>0}K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta,L},\quad K_{\delta,L}=\bigcup_{\mathbf{q}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2}K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta,L}\quad \text{ and }\quad S=\bigcup_{\delta>0,\mathbf{q}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2,L>0}K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta,L}.$$ From Corollary \[th:capsupbeta\], we have $M_\beta((K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta})^c\cap C_\mathbf{q}){\;\leqslant\;}\delta$. Therefore, $M_\beta((\bigcup_{\delta>0}K^\mathbf{q}_{\delta})^c\cap C_\mathbf{q})=0$ for each $\mathbf{q}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and thus $$M_\beta(S^c)=0.$$
We consider a Brownian motion $B$ starting from $0$ and define a Brownian motion starting from $x$ by $B^x=x+B$ for each point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Following Section \[sec.starLBM\], we may assume that $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ converges almost surely in $X$ and $B$ in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+;{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards $F'_\beta(x,\cdot)$ for each rational points $x\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$.
For each $\delta,L>0$ and $x\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, we define the adapted continuous random mapping $$F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,t)=\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}}(B^x_r)F'_\beta(x,dr).$$
\[propadapted\] Almost surely in $X$, for each $\delta,L>0$ and $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, there exists a $B^x$-adapted continuous random mapping, still denoted by $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,\cdot)$ such that for all sequence of rational points $(x_n)_n$ converging towards $x$, the sequence $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_{n},\cdot))_n$ converges in ${\mathds{P}}^B$-probability in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,\cdot)$.
[*Proof.*]{} Let us fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. We consider a sequence $(x_n)_n$ of rational points converging towards $x$. We first establish the convergence in law under ${\mathds{P}}^B$ of the sequence $(B^{x_n},F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$ in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$. To this purpose, the main idea is an adaptation of [@GRV1 section 2.9] with minor modifications. Yet, we outline the proof because we will play with this argument throughout this section. For all $0<s<t$, we write $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,]s,t])$ for $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x, t)-F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,s)$. The proof relies on two arguments: a coupling argument and the estimate: $$\label{logzero}
\sup_{y\in B(0,R)\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^2}{\mathds{E}}^B[F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,t)]\to 0,\quad \text{ as }t\to 0.$$ We begin with explaining . For all $y\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^B[F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,t)]=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(y,z)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}}(z)M_\beta(dz).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore we have for each $p>1$ $$\label{decay}
\sup_{r\in ]0,1/2]}\sup_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}(-\ln r)^{p}M_\beta(B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L}){\;\leqslant\;}2^pL.$$ Indeed, observe first that $\sup_{r\in ]0,1/2]}\sup_{x\in K_{\delta,L}}(-\ln r)^{p}M_\beta(B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L}){\;\leqslant\;}L$ by definition. To extend this formula to $x\not \in K_{\delta,L}$, take $r{\;\leqslant\;}1/2$ and observe that we have two options: either $B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L}$ is empty in which case $M_\beta(B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L})=0$ or we can find $y\in B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L}$ and then $M_\beta(B(x,r)\cap K_{\delta,L}){\;\leqslant\;}M_\beta(B(y,2r)\cap K_{\delta,L}){\;\leqslant\;}L(-\ln 2r)^{-p}{\;\leqslant\;}2^pL(-\ln r)^{-p}$.
We deduce that for all $R>0$, $$\label{logzerobis}
\sup_{y\in B(0,R)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(y,z)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}}(z)M_\beta(dz)\to 0,\quad \text{ as }t\to 0.$$ Indeed, the decay of the size of balls induced by , used with $p>2$, is enough to overcome the $\ln$-singularity produced by the heat kernel integral: $\int_0^tp_r(y,z)\,dr$ (to be exhaustive, one should adapt the argument in [@GRV1 section 2.7] but this is harmless). Hence .
Let us now prove that the family $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$ is tight in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+;{\mathbb{R}}_+)$. This consists in checking that for all $T,\eta>0$: $$\label{tight1}
\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to \infty}{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big(\sup_{\substack{0{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}}|F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])|>\eta\big)=0.$$ The control of this supremum uses two arguments: a control of the involved quantities when $s,t$ are closed to $0$ via and a control of this supremum via a coupling argument when $s,t$ are far enough from $0$. To quantify the proximity to $0$, we introduce a parameter $\theta>0$. We have for $\delta<\theta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tard1}
{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big(&\sup_{\substack{0{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}}|F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])|>\eta\big)\nonumber\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big( F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,2\theta)>\eta/4\big)+{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big( \sup_{\substack{\theta{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}}|F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])|>\eta/2\big).\end{aligned}$$ To establish , it is thus enough to prove that the $\limsup_{\theta\to 0}\limsup_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to \infty}$ of each term in the right-hand side of the above expression vanishes. The first term is easily treated with the help of the Markov inequality and so that we now focus on the second term. To this purpose, we recall the following coupling lemma:
\[lem:coupling\] Fix $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and let us start a Brownian motion $B^{x}$ from $x$. Let us consider another independent Brownian motion $B'$ starting from $0$ and denote by $B^y$, for a rational $y\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, the Brownian motion $B^y=y+B'$. Let us denote by $\tau^{x,y}_1$ the first time at which the first components of $B^{x}$ and $B^y$ coincide: $$\tau_1^{x,y}=\inf\{u>0;B^{1,x}_u=B^{1,y}_u\}$$ and by $\tau_2^{x,y}$ the first time at which the second components coincide after $\tau_1^{x,y}$: $$\tau_2^{x,y}=\inf\{u>\tau_1^{x,y};B^{2,x}_u=B^{2,y}_u\}$$ The random process $\overline{B}^{x,y}$ defined by $$\overline{B}^{x,y}_t=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
(B^{1,x}_t,B^{2,x}_t) & \text{if} & t{\;\leqslant\;}\tau_1^{x,y} \\
(B^{1,y}_{t}, B^{2,x}_t) & \text{if} & \tau_1^{x,y}<t{\;\leqslant\;}\tau_2^{x,y}\\
(B^{1,y}_{t}, B^{2,y}_t) & \text{if} & \tau_2^{x,y}<t .
\end{array}
\right.$$ is a new Brownian motion on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ starting from $x$, and coincides with $B^y$ for all times $t>\tau_2^y$. Furthermore, if $y-x\to 0$, we have for all $\eta>0$: $${\mathds{P}}(\tau_2^{x,y}>\eta)\to 0 .$$
We choose $y\in {\mathbb{Q}}^2$. We can consider the couple $(F^{',\delta,L,x_n}_{\beta}(y,\cdot),F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))$ where $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot)$ is the same as that considered throughout this section and $F^{',\delta,L,x_n}_{\beta}(y,\cdot)$ is constructed as $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,\cdot)$ but we have used the Brownian motion $\bar{B}^{y,x_n}$ of Lemma \[lem:coupling\] instead of the Brownian motion $B^y$. The important point to understand is that this couple does not have the same law as the couple $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,\cdot),F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))$ but it has the same $1$-marginal. Furthermore we have $F^{',\delta,L,x_n}_{\beta}(y,]s,t])=F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])$ for $\tau_2^{y,x_n}{\;\leqslant\;}s<t$. We deduce: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big( \sup_{\substack{\theta{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}} &|F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])|>\eta/2\big)\\
{\;\leqslant\;}& {\mathds{P}}^{B}\big( \sup_{\substack{\theta{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}}|F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,]s,t])|>\eta/2\big)+{\mathds{P}}( \tau_2^{y,x_n}>\theta).\end{aligned}$$ It is then obvious to get: $$\label{tard2}
\limsup_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to \infty}{\mathds{P}}^{B}\big( \sup_{\substack{\theta{\;\leqslant\;}s,t{\;\leqslant\;}T\\|t-s|{\;\leqslant\;}\delta}} |F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,]s,t])|>\eta/2\big){\;\leqslant\;}{\mathds{P}}( \tau_2^{y,x}>\theta).$$ Since the choice of $y$ was arbitrary, we can now choose $y$ arbitrarily close to $x$ to make this latter term as close to $0$ as we please for a fixed $\theta$. Hence and the family $ (F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$ is tight in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$.
We can also use the coupling argument to prove that there is only one possible limit in law for all subsequences $(x_n)_n$ such that $x_n\to x$ as $n\to\infty$, thus showing the convergence in law in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ of the family $ (F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$. Here we have only dealt with the convergence of the family $ (F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$ but it is straightforward to adapt the argument to the family $ (B^{x_n},F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$.
Now, we come to the convergence in ${\mathds{P}}^B$-probability of $ (F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,\cdot))_n$. We fix $t>0$, we consider the mapping $$(x,y)\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2\times{\mathbb{Q}}^2\mapsto {\mathds{E}}^{B}\big[ (F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,t)-F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(y,t))^2\big].$$ We can expand the square and, following the ideas in [@GRV1 section 2.7], use to control the $\ln$-singularities to see that the above mapping extends to a continuous function on ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{R}}^2$, which vanishes on the diagonal $\{(x,x);x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$. Therefore, if $(x_n)_n$ is a sequence in ${\mathbb{Q}}^2$ converging towards $x$, the sequence $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_n,t))_n$ converges in $L^2$ under ${\mathds{P}}^B$. We can thus extract a subsequence $(x_{\phi(n)})_n$ such that for all $t\in{\mathbb{Q}}\cap{\mathbb{R}}_+$, the sequence $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_{\phi(n)},t))_n$ converges ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely. Also, we have seen that this subsequence converges in law in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards a continuous random mapping. The Dini theorem implies that $(F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x_{\phi(n)},\cdot))_n$ converges ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ towards a limit denoted by $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,\cdot)$.
We are now in position to construct $F'_\beta$ on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
\[fprimebeta\] Almost surely in $X$, for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the random measure $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,dt)$ converges ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely as $\delta\to 0$ and $L\to\infty$ in the sense of weak convergence of measures towards a random measure denoted by $F'_\beta(x,dt)$. Furthermore:
1. for $x\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, $F'_\beta(x,\cdot)$ coincides with the limit of the family $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ as $\epsilon\to 0$ defined in subsection \[ss.deriv\].
2. for $x\in S\cup{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, convergence of the mapping $t\mapsto F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,t)$ towards $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(x,t)$ holds ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ as $\delta\to 0$, $L\to\infty$.
3. for $x\not \in S$, for all $s>0$, convergence of the mapping $t\mapsto F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,]s,t])$ towards $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(x,]s,t])$ holds ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely in $C([s,+\infty[,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$.
[*Proof.*]{} Observe that $K_{\delta,L}\subset K_{\delta',L'}$ if $\delta'{\;\leqslant\;}\delta$ and $L'{\;\geqslant\;}L$. Therefore, for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for all $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$, $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,t){\;\leqslant\;}F^{',\delta',L'}_{\beta}(x,t)$ if $\delta'{\;\leqslant\;}\delta$. We can thus define the almost sure limit: $$F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,t)=\lim_{\delta\to 0,L\to\infty}F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,t).$$ Actually, this also implies the weak convergence as $\delta\to 0$ and $L\to\infty$ of the measure $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,dt)$ towards a random measure, still denoted by $F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,dt)$.
For $x\in {\mathbb{Q}}^2$, let us identify $F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,\cdot)$ with the limit $F^{'}_\beta(x,\cdot)$ of the family $(F^{',\epsilon}_\beta(x,\cdot))_\epsilon$ as $\epsilon\to 0$. By construction we have: $$F^{',\delta,L}_\beta(x,t)=\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}}(B^x_r)F^{'}_\beta(x,dr){\;\leqslant\;}F^{'}_\beta(x,t),$$ in such a way that $F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,t){\;\leqslant\;}F^{'}_\beta(x,t)$. Second, by the dominated convergence theorem we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{B}\big[|F^{'}_\beta(x,t)-F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,t)|\big]=&\lim_{\delta\to0,L\to\infty}{\mathds{E}}^{B }\big[\int_0^t{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}^c}(B^x_r)F^{'}_\beta(x,dr)\big]\\
=&\lim_{\delta\to0,L\to\infty}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(x,y)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{K_{\delta,L}^c}(y)M_\beta(dy) \\
=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(x,y)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{S^c}(y)M_\beta(dy) \\
=&0 \end{aligned}$$ because $M_\beta(S^c)=0$. Now that we have identified $F^{'}_\beta(x,\cdot)$ with $F^{',\infty}_\beta(x,\cdot)$ on $x\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$, we skip the distinction made with the superscript $\infty$ and write $F^{'}_\beta$ for the limit of $F^{',\delta,L}_\beta$.
For $x\in {\mathbb{Q}}^2$, the continuity of the mapping $t\mapsto F^{'}_\beta(x,t)$ together with the Dini theorem implies the ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost sure convergence of $F^{',\delta,L}_{\beta}(x,\cdot)$ towards $ F^{'}_{\beta}(x,\cdot)$ in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$. Let us now complete the proof of items 2 and 3. We fix $s>0$. The coupling argument established in the proof of Proposition \[propadapted\] shows that the mapping $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(x,]s,t]) $ is continuous on $[s,+\infty[$ (it coincides in law with $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(y,]s,t])$ with $y\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$ as soon as $B^x$ and $B^y$ are coupled before time $s$, which happens with probability arbitrarily close to $1$ provided that $y$ is close enough to $x$). The Dini theorem again implies item 3. Let us stress that it is not clear that we can take $s=0$ because we need to control the decay of balls at $x\in S^c$ and this decay may happen to be very bad on $S^c$.
To prove item 2, we also use the Dini theorem but we further need to prove that the mapping $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(x,t) $ is continuous at $t=0$ with $F^{'}_{\beta}(x,0) =0$. This can be done by computing $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{B}\big[F^{'}_\beta(x,t)\big]=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(x,y)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{S}(y)M_\beta(dy).\end{aligned}$$ Following [@GRV1], we observe that the mapping $y\mapsto \int_0^tp_r(x,y)\,dr$ possesses a logarithmic singularity at $y=x$. Furthermore, for $x\in S$, we have $$\sup_{\substack{x\in \mathcal{O}\text{ open }\subset B,\\ {\rm diam}(\mathcal{O}){\;\leqslant\;}1}}M'( \mathcal{O})\big(-\ln{\rm diam}(\mathcal{O})\big)^{p}<+\infty.$$ Therefore $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^1p_r(x,y)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{S}(y)M_\beta(dy)<+\infty$$ in such a way that the dominated convergence theorem implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}^{B}\big[F^{'}_\beta(x,t)\big]=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_0^tp_r(x,y)\,dr{\mathds{1}}_{S}(y)M_\beta(dy)\to 0,\quad \text{ as }t\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ To sum up, we have proved that the mapping $t\mapsto F^{'}_{\beta}(x,t) $ is continuous at $t=0$ with $F^{'}_{\beta}(x,0) =0$ for $x\in S$. We complete the proof of item 2 with the help of the Dini theorem.
\[wrongPCAF\] It is important here to stress that the above Proposition shows that for all $x$, we have defined a mapping $F^{'}_\beta(x,\cdot)$, which is ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely continuous with continuous sample paths and satisfies a variant of the additivity property of a PCAF, i.e. for all $s,t{\;\geqslant\;}0$ we have almost surely $$F^{'}_\beta(x,t+s)= F^{'}_\beta(x,t)+\bar{F}^{'}_\beta(x,s),$$ where, conditionally to $\mathcal{F}_t$, the variable $\bar{F}^{'}_\beta(x,s)$ is distributed as $F^{'}_\beta(x+B_t,s)$ under ${\mathds{P}}^{x+B_t}$ (measure of a Brownian motion starting from $x+B_t$). Also, we have not so far proved that $F^{'}_\beta$ is a PCAF because it is defined for all $x$ ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely whereas we need to define it ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely for all $x$. Yet, we will see that this problem for the construction of a proper PCAF is not too serious.
We claim:
\[PCAF\] Almost surely in $X$, we define $$F'(x,t)=\lim_{\beta\to\infty}F'_\beta(x,]0,t])$$ where convergence holds ${\mathds{P}}^B$-almost surely in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$. $F'$ is some form of PCAF in the strict sense in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$: it is defined for all starting points and satisfies the following variant of the additivity property $$\label{weakadditivity}
F^{'}_\beta(x,t+s)= F^{'}_\beta(x,t)+\bar{F}^{'}_\beta(x,s), \quad s,t {\;\geqslant\;}0$$ where, conditionally to $\mathcal{F}_t$, the variable $\bar{F}^{'}_\beta(x,s)$ is distributed as $F^{'}_\beta(x+B_t,s)$ under ${\mathds{P}}^{x+B_t}$ (measure of a Brownian motion starting from $x+B_t$).
Furthermore,
1. for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $F'$ is continuous, strictly increasing and goes to $\infty$ as $t\to\infty$.
2. $F'$ coincides outside a set of zero capacity with a PCAF of Revuz measure $M'$.
[*Proof.*]{} For each $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, for each $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$, the mapping $\beta\mapsto F'_\beta(x,]0,t])$ is increasing. We can thus define $F'(x,t)=\lim_{\beta\to\infty}F'_\beta(x,]0,t])$. Furthermore, for each ball $B$ containing $x$, $F'(x,t)$ coincides with $F'_\beta(x,]0,t])$ for $t<\tau_B(x)=\inf\{u>0; B^x_u\not\in B\}$ and $\beta$ (random) large enough (more precisely for $\beta$ large enough to make $\sup_{x\in B}\sup_{\epsilon\in]0,1]} X_\epsilon(x)-2\ln\frac{1}{\epsilon}<\beta$, see Proposition \[coro:max\]). It is obvious to check that $F'$ satisfies the additivity .
Now we prove item 1. This results from the coupling argument detailed in Proposition \[propadapted\] as $F'(x,\cdot)$ is strictly increasing and goes to $\infty$ as $t\to \infty$ for $x\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2$ (see also [@GRV1 Proposition 2.24]).
Finally, we prove item 2, more precisely we establish the relation for $M'$ and $F'$. The construction of $F'$ entails that, for any $0<s<t$ $${\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\Big[\int_s^tf(B^x_r)\,F'(x,dr)\Big]=\int_s^t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)p_r(x,y)\,M'(dy)\,dr.$$ Therefore, for any nonnegative Borel functions $f,h$ ($P_r$ stands for the semigroup associated to the planar Brownian motion): $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}h(x){\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\Big[\int_s^tf(B^x_r)\,F'(x,dr)\Big]\,dx=&\int_s^t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)p_r(x,y)\,M'(dy)h(x)\,dx\,dr\\
=&\int_s^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)P_rh(y)\,M'(dy)\,dr.\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to let $s\to 0$ to conclude.
Now, we use [@fuku Theorem 5.1.3] to prove that there exists a PCAF $A$ associated to $M'$ because $M'$ is a smooth measure in the sense of [@fuku] thanks to Corollary \[th:capsup\]. Now we have at our disposal a PCAF $ A$ with Revuz measure $M'$ and an “almost” PCAF $F'$. The reader may check that the uniqueness part of [@fuku Theorem 5.1.4] can be reproduced to prove that $F'$ and $A$ coincide for $x$ outside a set of capacity $0$ (just observe that this proof does not use the fact that the set where the PCAF is defined does not depend on $x$).
Definition and properties of the critical LBM
---------------------------------------------
[**(critical Liouville Brownian motion).**]{}\[LBMdefnew\] Almost surely in $X$, for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, the law of the LBM at criticality, starting from $x$, is defined by: $$\mathcal{B}^x_t=x+B_{\langle \mathcal{B}^x\rangle_t}$$ where $\langle \mathcal{B}^x\rangle$ is defined by $$\sqrt{2/\pi} F'(x,\langle \mathcal{B}^x\rangle_t)=t.$$
We stress that $\LB^x$ is a local martingale.
The critical LBM is a strong Markov process with continuous sample paths.
[*Proof.*]{} Strong Markov property results from [@fuku sect. 6]. Continuity of sample paths results from the fact that $F'$ is strictly increasing.
\[th.LBMy\] Assume further \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. Almost surely in $X$, for all $x\in S$, the $\epsilon$-regularized Brownian motion $( \mathcal{B}^{\epsilon,x})_\epsilon$ defined by Definition \[d.elbm2\] converges in law in the space $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ equipped with the supremum norm on compact sets towards $\mathcal{B}^x$.
[*Proof.*]{} This is just a consequence of Theorems \[fprimebeta\] and \[PCAF\] as explained in [@GRV1].
From [@fuku Th. 6.2.1], we claim:
[**(Dirichlet form).**]{}\[dirichlet\] The critical Liouville Dirichlet form $(\Sigma,\mathcal{F})$ takes on the following explicit form on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,M')$: $$\label{formesimple}
\Sigma(f,g)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\nabla f(x)\cdot \nabla g(x)\,dx$$ with domain $$\mathcal{F}=\Big\{f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,M')\cap H^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2,dx); \nabla f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,dx)\Big\},$$ Furthermore, it is strongly local and regular.
Let us denote by $P^X_t$ (for $t{\;\geqslant\;}0$) the mapping $$\label{semigroup}
f\in C_b({\mathbb{R}}^2)\mapsto \big(x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2\mapsto P^X_tf(x)={\mathds{E}}^B[f(\LB^{x}_t)]\big).$$ Similarly we define $P^\epsilon$ as the semigroup generated by the Markov process $\LB^{\epsilon}$. From [@fuku sect. 6], we claim:
[**(Semigroup).**]{}\[th:semi\] The linear operator $P^X_t$, restricted to $C_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, extends to a linear contraction on $L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2, M')$ for all $1{\;\leqslant\;}p <\infty$, still denoted $P^X_t$. Furthermore:
- $(P^X)_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ is a Markovian strongly continuous semigroup on $L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2, M')$ for $1{\;\leqslant\;}p <\infty$.
- Assume further \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. Almost surely in $X$, the $\epsilon$-regularized semigroup $(P^\epsilon)_\epsilon$ converges pointwise for $x\in S$ towards the critical Liouville semigroup. More precisely, for all bounded continuous function $f$, we have: $$\forall x\in S,\forall t{\;\geqslant\;}0, \quad \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}P^\epsilon_t f(x)=P^X_t f(x).$$
- $P^X$ is self-adjoint in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2, M')$.
- the measure $M'$ is invariant for $P^X_t$.
The [**critical Liouville Laplacian**]{} $\Delta_X$ is defined as the generator of the critical Liouville semigroup times the usual extra factor $2$. The critical Liouville Laplacian corresponds to an operator which can formally be written as $$\Delta_X=X^{-1}(x)e^{-2 X (x)}\Delta$$ and can be thought of as the Laplace-Beltrami operator of $2d$-Liouville quantum gravity at criticality (of course when $X$ is a free field).
One may also consider the resolvent family $(R^X_\lambda)_{\lambda>0}$ associated to the semigroup $(P^X_\t)_\t$. In a standard way, the resolvent operator reads: $$\label{def:resol}
\forall f\in C_b({\mathbb{R}}^2),\forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2,\quad R^X_\lambda f(x)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t}P_t^Xf(x)\,dt.$$ Furthermore, the resolvent family $(R^X_\lambda)_{\lambda>0}$ extends to $L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2,M')$ for $1{\;\leqslant\;}p<+\infty$, is strongly continuous for $1{\;\leqslant\;}p<+\infty$ and is self-adjoint in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,M')$. This results from the properties of the semi-group. As a consequence of Theorem \[th:semi\], it is straightforward to see that:
\[cv:resolvent\] Assume further \[A.6\] or \[A.6’\]. Almost surely in $X$, the $\epsilon$-regularized resolvent family $(R^\epsilon_\lambda)_\lambda$ converges towards the critical Liouville resolvent $(R^X_\lambda)_\lambda$ in the sense that for all function $f\in C_b({\mathbb{R}}^2)$: $$\forall x \in S,\quad \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}R^\epsilon_\lambda f(x)=R^X_\lambda f(x).$$
Also and similarly to [@fuku; @GRV2], it is possible to get an explicit expression for the resolvent operator:
\[expr:resol1\] Almost surely in $X$, the resolvent operator takes on the following form for all measurable bounded function $f$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$: $$\forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2,\quad R_\lambda^Xf(x)=\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^B\big[\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big].$$
The main purpose of this section is to prove the following structure result on the resolvent family:
[**(massive Liouville Green kernels at criticality)**]{}.\[th:green\] For every $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the resolvent family $(R^X_\lambda)_{\lambda>0}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the critical Liouville measure. Therefore there exists a family $(\r^X_\lambda(\cdot,\cdot))_\lambda$, called the family of massive critical Liouville Green kernels, of jointly measurable functions such that: $$\forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2,\forall f \in B_b({\mathbb{R}}^2),\quad R^X_\lambda f(x)=\sqrt{2/\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)\r^X_\lambda(x,y)\,M'(dy)$$ and such that:\
1) (strict-positivity) for all $\lambda>0$ and $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $M'(dy)$ a.s., $\r^X_\lambda(x,y)>0,$\
2) (symmetry) for all $\lambda>0$ and $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$: $\r^X_\lambda(x,y)=\r^X_\lambda(y,x),$\
3) (resolvent identity) for all $\lambda,\mu>0$, for all $x,y \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $$\r^X_\mu(x,y)-\r^X_\lambda(x,y)=(\lambda-\mu)\sqrt{2/\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\r^X_\lambda(x,z)\r^X_{\mu}(z,y)\,M'(dz).$$ 4) ($\lambda$-excessive) for every $y$: $e^{-\lambda t}P_t^X(\r_\lambda(\cdot,y))(x){\;\leqslant\;}\r_\lambda(x,y)$ for $M'$-almost every $x$ and for all $t>0$.
[*Proof.*]{} We have to show absolute continuity of the resolvent for $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Though inspired by [@GRV1; @GRV2], we have to adapt the proof because we do not have “uniform convergence” of the PCAF towards $0$ as $t\to 0$. In particular, it is not clear that the resolvent be strong Feller. For $\delta>0$, we define for $f\in B_b({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ $$R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)= \sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^B\big[\int_\delta^{\infty}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,]\delta,t])}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big],$$ where $F'(x,dr)$ stands for the random measure associated to the increasing function $t\mapsto F'(x,t)$. Once again, the coupling argument of Proposition \[propadapted\], it is plain to see that the mapping $$x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\mapsto R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)$$ is continuous. Now we claim
\[mass1\] For every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\delta>0$ and all nonnegative bounded Borelian function $f$, we have $$R_{\lambda}^Xf(x)=0 \Longrightarrow R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)=0.$$
\[mass2\] For every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and all nonnegative bounded Borelian function $f$, we have $$\forall \delta> 0,\quad R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)=0\Longrightarrow R_{\lambda}^Xf(x)=0.$$
We postpone the proofs of the above two lemmas. If $A$ is a measurable set such that $M'(A)=0$ then by invariance of $M'$ for the resolvent family, we deduce that $R_\lambda{\mathds{1}}_A(x)=0$ for $M'$-almost every $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Since $S$ has full $M'$-measure and because $M'$ has full support, we deduce that $R_{\lambda}^Xf(x)=0$ for $x$ belonging to a dense subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. From Lemma \[mass1\], $R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)=0$ for $x$ belonging to a dense subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Continuity of $R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf$ entails that this function identically vanishes on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for every $\delta>0$. With the help of Lemma \[mass2\], we deduce that $R_\lambda{\mathds{1}}_A(x)=0$ for $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Therefore, for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $R_\lambda {\mathds{1}}_A(x)=0$, thus showing that the measure $A\mapsto R_{\lambda}^X {\mathds{1}}_A(x)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $M'$.
[*Proof of Lemmas \[mass1\] and \[mass2\].*]{} For $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and all bounded nonnegative Borelian function $f$, we have (see Proposition \[expr:resol1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
R_\lambda^Xf(x)=&\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big]\nonumber\\
=&\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[\int_0^{\delta}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big]\nonumber\\
&+\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[e^{-\lambda F'(x,\delta)}\int_\delta^{\infty}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,]\delta,t])}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big].\label{majresol}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$R_\lambda^Xf(x){\;\geqslant\;}\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[e^{-\lambda F'(x,\delta)}\int_\delta^{\infty}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,]\delta,t])}f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big].$$ For $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, we have $e^{-\lambda F'(x,\delta)}>0$ ${\mathds{P}}^{B^x}$-almost surely. The proof of Lemma \[mass1\] follows.
Furthermore, for $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[\int_0^{\delta}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)}&f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big]\\
{\;\leqslant\;}&\lambda^{-1}\|f\|_\infty{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[1-e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,\delta)} \big].\end{aligned}$$ Since $F'(x,\delta)$ converges in law towards $0$ as $\delta \to 0$, we deduce that $$\lim_{\delta\to 0}\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[\int_0^{\delta}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)} f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big]=0.$$ From , we deduce: $$R_\lambda^Xf(x){\;\leqslant\;}R_{\lambda,\delta}^Xf(x)+\sqrt{2/\pi}{\mathds{E}}^{B^x}\big[\int_0^{\delta}e^{-\lambda \sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,t)} f(B^x_t)\,F'(x,dt)\big].$$ The proof of Lemma \[mass2\] follows.
As prescribed in [@fuku section 1.5], let us define the Green function for $f\in L^1(D,M')$ by $$Gf(x)=\lim_{t\to\infty} \int_0^tP^X_rf(x)\,dr.$$ We further denote $g$ the standard Green kernel on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Following [@fuku], we say that the semi-group $(P^X_t)_t$, which is symmetric w.r.t. the measure $M'$, is [*irreducible*]{} if any $P^X_t$-invariant set $B$ satisfies $M'(B)=0$ or $M'(B^c)=0$. We say that $(P_t^X)$ is recurrent if, for any $f\in L^1_+(D,M')$, we have $Gf(x)=0$ or $Gf(x)=+\infty$ $M'$-almost surely.
[**(Liouville Green function at criticality).**]{} The critical Liouville semi-group is irreducible and recurrent.The critical Liouville Green function, denoted by $G^X$, is given for every $x\in S$ by $$G^Xf(x)=\sqrt{2/\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1}{\pi}\ln\frac{1}{|x-y|}f(y)\,M'(dy)$$ for all functions $f\in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^2,M')$ such that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)\,M'(dy)=0.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Irreducibility is a straightforward consequence of Theorem \[th:green\] and the remaining part of the statement is a straightforward adaptation of [@GRV1; @GRV2] for $x\in S$.
We investigate now the existence of probability densities of the critical Liouville semi-group with respect to the critical Liouville measure.
[**(Critical Liouville heat kernel).**]{}\[th:heat\]The critical Liouville semigroup $(P^X_\t)_{\t>0}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the critical Liouville measure. There exists a family of nonnegative functions $(\p^X_t(\cdot,\cdot))_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$, which we call the critical Liouville heat kernel, such that: $$\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2,dt \,\text{a.s.},\forall f \in B_b({\mathbb{R}}^2),\quad P^X_t f(x)=\sqrt{2/\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}f(y)\p^X_t(x,y)\,M'(dy).$$
[*Proof.*]{} From Theorems \[th:green\] and [@fuku Theorems 4.1.2 and 4.2.4], the Liouville semi-group is absolutely continuous with respect to the Liouville measure.
Though we call the family $(\p^X_t(\cdot,\cdot))_{t{\;\geqslant\;}0}$ heat kernel, we are not in position to establish most of the regularity properties expected from a heat kernel. Furthermore, a weak form of the notion of spectral dimension is obtained in [@spectral], which is $2$. We do not know how to adapt the argument in the critical case because we cannot prove the continuity of the mapping $(x,y)\mapsto \p(t,x,y)\,dt$.
Let us consider the set $E$ defined in Theorem \[th:cap\]. Recall that $M'(E^c)=0$. As a consequence of Theorem \[th:green\], we obtain the following result where $\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure:
Almost surely in $X$, for all starting points $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the critical LBM spends Lebesgue-almost all the time in the set $E$: $$\text{a.s. in }X, \forall x \in{\mathbb{R}}^2, \text{ a.s. under }{\mathds{P}}^{B^x},\quad \lambda \lbrace t {\;\geqslant\;}0; \: \LB^x_t \in E^c \rbrace =0.$$
If one applies Theorem \[th:heat\] instead, one obtains the similar but different result:
Almost surely in $X$, for all $t>0$ $${\mathds{P}}^{B^x} \text{a.s.},\quad \LB^x_t\in E.$$
Further remarks and GFF on other domains {#other}
========================================
So far, we constructed in detail the LBM on (subdomains of) ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. This construction may be adapted to other geometries like the sphere $\S^2$ or torus $\T^2$ (equipped with a standard Gaussian Free Field (GFF) with vanishing average for instance). Actually, our techniques can be adapted to other $2$-dimensional Riemannian manifolds with a scalar metric tensor. The main reason is that a Riemannian manifold is locally isometric to ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. We will not detail the proofs since the whole machinery works essentially the same as in the plane: it suffices to have at our disposal a white noise decomposition of the underlying Gaussian distribution and to adapt properly our assumptions.
We rather give here further details in the case of the GFF on planar domains as the associated Brownian motion possesses important conformal invariance properties. We consider a bounded planar domain $D$. The Liouville Brownian motion on $D$ is defined as follows:\
$\bullet$ consider a white noise cut-off approximation $(X_\epsilon)_\epsilon$ of the GFF on $D$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions: see equation .\
$\bullet$ first define the time change as the limit $$F'(x,t)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\epsilon^2\int_0^t(2{\mathds{E}}[X_\epsilon(x+B_u)^2]-X_\epsilon(x+B_u))e^{2X_\epsilon(x+B_u)}\,du$$ for all $t<\tau^D_x$ where $B$ is a standard planar Brownian motion and $\tau^D_x$ its first exit time out of $D$. This limit turns out to be the same as $$\int_0^tC(x+B_u,D)^2(2{\mathds{E}}[X(x+B_u)^2]-X(x+B_u))e^{2X(x+B_u)-2{\mathds{E}}[X(x+B_u)^2]}\,du$$ where $C(x,D)$ is the conformal radius at $x$ in the domain $D$ (see [@complex] or [@cf:DuSh] in a different context).\
$\bullet$ extend this construction to all possible starting points as in section \[sec.markov\]. Define the exit time of this LBM out of $D$ by $\hat{\tau}^D_x=\sqrt{2/\pi}F'(x,\tau^D_x)$ and then define the Liouville Brownian motion as in Definition \[LBMdefnew\] for all time $t<\hat{\tau}^D_x$.\
$\bullet$ Observe that this Liouville Brownian motion is invariant under conformal reparametrization. This means that for all conformal map $\psi:D'\to D$ the process $\psi^{-1}(\LB^x)$ has the law of the Liouville Brownian motion on $D'$ where in the construction of $F'$ we use the standard reparametrization rule of Liouville field theory $X \rightarrow X \circ \psi + Q \ln |\psi'| $ where $Q=\frac{2}{\gamma}+ \frac{\gamma}{2}$ for a subdomain of $\mathbb{C}$ (or $Q=\frac{2}{\gamma}$ for a GFF on the sphere or the torus with vanishing mean).
[20]{}
Allez R., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: Lognormal $\star$-scale invariant random measures, [*Probability Theory and Related Fields*]{}, April 2013, Volume 155, Issue 3-4, pp 751-788, arXiv:1102.1895v1.
Ambjørn J., Boulatov D., Nielsen J.L., Rolf J., Watabiki Y.: The spectral dimension of $2D$ Quantum Gravity. *JHEP* 9802 (1998) 010, arXiv:hep-lat/9808027v1.
Ambjørn J., Anagnostopoulos K.N., Ichihara T., Jensen L., Watabiki Y.: Quantum Geometry and Diffusions. *JHEP*11(1998)022.
Barral J., Jin X., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: Gaussian multiplicative chaos and KPZ duality, *Communications in Mathematical Physics* 323, 451-485 (2013), arXiv:1202.5296v2.
Barral J., Kupiainen A., Nikula M., Webb C.: Basic properties of Gaussian multiplicative chaos, arxiv1303.4548v1.
Barral J., Kupiainen A., Nikula M., Saksman E., Webb C.: Critical Mandelbrot cascades, *Commun. Math. Phys.* 325, 685-711 (2014), arXiv:1206.5444v1.
Berestycki N., Garban C., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: KPZ formula derived from Liouville heat kernel, arXiv:1406.7280.
Bernardi O., Bousquet-Mélou M.: Counting colored planar maps: algebraicity results, *Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B*, Volume 101, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 315�377, arXiv:0909.1695.
Brézin E., Kazakov V.A. , Zamolodchikov Al.B.: Scaling violation in a field theory of closed strings in one physical dimension, *Nuclear Physics* **B338**, 673-688 (1990).
Calcagni G.: Diffusion in quantum geometry, *Phys. Rev. D* 86, 044021 (2012).
Calcagni G.: Diffusion in multiscale spacetimes, *Phys. Rev. E* 87, 012123, arXiv: hep-th/1205.5046v2.
Curien N.: A glimpse of the conformal structure of random planar maps, to appear in *Commun. Math. Phys.*, arXiv:1308.1807.
Daul J.-M.: $q$-state Potts model on a random planar lattice, arXiv:hep-th/9502014.
David F.: What is the intrinsic geometry of two-dimensional quantum gravity?, *Nucl. Phys*. B368 (1992), 671-700.
David F.: Conformal Field Theories Coupled to 2-D Gravity in the Conformal Gauge, *Mod. Phys. Lett. A* **3** 1651-1656 (1988).
David F., Bauer M., Another derivation of the geometrical KPZ relations, arXiv:0810.2858.
David F., Eynard B.: Planar maps, circle patters and $2d$ gravity, *Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré D*, vol 1 issue 2 (2014), 139-183, arXiv:1307.3123.
David F., Kupiainen A., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: Liouville quantum gravity on the Riemann sphere, arXiv 1410.7318.
Di Francesco P., Ginsparg P., Zinn-Justin J.: 2D gravity and random matrices, *Physics Reports* **254**, p. 1-133 (1995).
Distler J., Kawai H.: Conformal Field Theory and 2-D Quantum Gravity or Who’s Afraid of Joseph Liouville?, *Nucl. Phys.* **B321** 509-517 (1989).
Duplantier B., Rhodes R., Sheffield S., Vargas V.: Critical Gaussian multiplicative chaos: convergence of the derivative martingale, *Annals of Probability* volume 42, Number 5 (2014), 1769-1808, arXiv:1206.1671v2.
Duplantier B., Rhodes R., Sheffield S., Vargas V.: Renormalization of Critical Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos and KPZ formula, *Communications in Mathematical Physics* 330 (2014), 283-330, arXiv:1212.0529v3.
Duplantier, B., Sheffield, S.: Liouville Quantum Gravity and KPZ, *Inventiones Mathematicae* **185** (2) (2011) 333-393.
Durrett, R.: Probability theory and examples, *Cambridge University press* fourth edition(2010).
Eynard B., and Bonnet G.: The Potts-$q$ random matrix model: loop equations, critical exponents, and rational case, *Phys. Lett.* **B463**, 273-279 (1999).
Fukushima M., Oshima Y., Takeda M., Dirichlet Forms and Symmetric Markov Processes, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics 19, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and Hawthorne, New York, 1994.
Garban C.: Quantum gravity and the KPZ formula, *séminaire Bourbaki*, 64e année, 2011-2012, no 1052.
Garban C., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: Liouville Brownian Motion, arXiv:1301.2876v2.
Garban C., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: On the heat kernel and the Dirichlet form of Liouville Brownian Motion, *Electron. J. Probab.* 19 (2014), no 96, 1-25, arXiv:1302.6050.
Ginsparg P. and Moore G.: Lectures on 2D gravity and 2D string theory, in *Recent direction in particle theory*, Proceedings of the 1992 TASI, edited by J. Harvey and J. Polchinski (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
Ginsparg P., Zinn-Justin J.: 2D gravity $+$ 1D matter, *Physics Letters* **B240**, 333-340 (1990).
Glimm J., Jaffe A.: Quantum Physics: a functional integral point of view, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer-Verlag 1981.
Gross, D.J. and Klebanov I.R.: One-dimensional string theory on a circle, *Nuclear Physics* **B344** (1990) 475–498.
Gubser S.S., Klebanov I.R.: A modified $c = 1$ matrix model with new critical behavior, *Physics Letters* **B340** (1994) 35–42.
Kahane, J.-P.: Sur le chaos multiplicatif, *Ann. Sci. Math. Qu[é]{}bec*, **9** no.2 (1985), 105-150.
Kazakov V., Kostov I., and Kutasov D.: A Matrix Model for the 2d Black Hole, in *Nonperturbative Quantum Effects 2000*, JHEP Proceedings.
Klebanov, I.: String theory in two dimensions. arXiv:hep-th/9108019.
Klebanov I.R., Hashimoto A.: Non-perturbative Solution of Matrix Models Modified by Trace-squared Terms, *Nucl. Phys*. **B434** (1995) 264-282.
Knizhnik V.G., Polyakov A.M., Zamolodchikov A.B.: Fractal structure of 2D-quantum gravity, *Modern Phys. Lett A* **3**(8) (1988), 819-826.
Kostov I.K.: Loop amplitudes for nonrational string theories, *Phys. Lett.* **B266**, 317-324 (1991).
Kostov I.K.: Strings with discrete target space, *Nucl. Phys.* **B376**, 539-598 (1992).
Kostov I.K.: Boundary Loop Models and and 2D Quantum Gravity, in *Exact Methods in Low-dimensional Statistical Physics and Quantum Computing*, J. Jacobsen, S. Ouvry, V. Pasquier, D. Serban, and L.F. Cugliandolo, eds., Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School: Volume 89, July 2008, Oxford University Press (Clarendon, Oxford) (2010).
Kostov I.K., Staudacher M.: Multicritical phases of the $O(n)$ model on a random lattice, *Nucl. Phys.* **B384**, 459-483 (1992).
Lacoin H., Rhodes R., Vargas V.: Complex Gaussian multiplicative chaos, to appear in *Communications in Mathematical Physics*, arXiv:1307.6117.
Le Gall J.F.: Sur la mesure de Hausdorff de la courbe brownienne, *Séminaire de probabilités* (Strasbourg), tome 19 (1985), 297-313.
Maillard P. Rhodes R., Vargas V., Zeitouni O.: Liouville heat kernel: regularity and bounds, arXiv:1406.0491.
Motoo M.: Proof of the iterated logarithm through diffusion equation, *Ann. Inst. Statist. Math.*, **10** (1959) 21-28.
Nakayama Y.: Liouville Field Theory – A decade after the revolution, *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **A19**, 2771 (2004).
Nienhuis, B.: Coulomb gas formulation of two-dimensional phase transitions, in *Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz, (Academic, London, 1987), Vol. 11.
Parisi G.: On the one dimensional discretized string, *Physics Letters* **B238**, 209-212 (1990).
Polchinski J., Critical behavior of random surfaces in one dimension, *Nuclear Physics* [**B346**]{} (1990) 253–263.
Polyakov A.M., *Phys. Lett.* 103B (1981) 207.
Revuz D., Yor M.: Continuous martingales and Brownian motion, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1991.
Rhodes R., Sohier J., Vargas, V.: Levy multiplicative chaos and star scale invariant random measures, *Annals of Probability*, Volume 42, Number 2 (2014), 689-724. arXiv:1201.5219.
Rhodes R., Vargas, V.: Gaussian multiplicative chaos and applications: a review, *Probability Surveys* vol. 11 (2014), 315-392, arXiv:1305.6221.
Rhodes, R. Vargas, V.: KPZ formula for log-infinitely divisible multifractal random measures, *ESAIM Probability and Statistics*, **15** (2011) 358.
Rhodes, R. Vargas, V.: Spectral dimension of Liouville quantum gravity, *Annales Henri Poincaré* 15 (2014), 2281-2298. arXiv:1305.0154.
Robert, R., Vargas, V.: Gaussian multiplicative chaos revisited, *Annals of Probability*, **38** 2 (2010) 605-631.
Robert, R. Vargas, V.: Hydrodynamic Turbulence and Intermittent Random Fields, *Communications in Mathematical Physics*, **284** (3) (2008), 649-673.
Sheffield, S.: Conformal weldings of random surfaces: SLE and the quantum gravity zipper, arXiv:1012.4797.
Sugino F., Tsuchiya O.: Critical behavior in $c=1$ matrix model with branching interactions, *Mod. Phys. Lett.* **A9** (1994) 3149-3162.
Watabiki Y.: Analytic Study of Fractal Structure of Quantized Surface in Two-Dimensional Quantum Gravity, *Progress of Theoretical Physics*, no 114, Supplement, 1993, 1-17.
[^1]: Universit[é]{} Paris-Dauphine, Ceremade, F-75016 Paris, France. Partially supported by grant ANR-11-JCJC CHAMU
[^2]: Ecole Normale Supérieure, DMA, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. Partially supported by grant ANR-11-JCJC CHAMU
[^3]: At the time of publishing this manuscript, this heat kernel based KPZ formula has been rigorously proved in [@heatKPZ].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $I$ be a finitely supported complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of a regular local ring $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$. A theorem of Lipman implies that $I$ has a unique factorization as a $*$-product of special $*$-simple complete ideals with possibly negative exponents for some of the factors. The existence of negative exponents occurs if $\dim R \ge 3$ because of the existence of finitely supported $*$-simple ideals that are not special. We consider properties of special $*$-simple complete ideals such as their Rees valuations and point basis. Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacterstic regular local ring with $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x_1, \ldots, x_d)R$. We define monomial quadratic transforms of $R$ and consider transforms and inverse transforms of monomial ideals. For a large class of monomial ideals $I$ that includes complete inverse transforms, we prove that the minimal number of generators of $I$ is completely determined by the order of $I$. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for the complete inverse transform of a $*$-product of monomial ideals to be the $*$-product of the complete inverse transforms of the factors. This yields examples of finitely supported $*$-simple monomial ideals that are not special. We prove that a finitely supported $*$-simple monomial ideal with linearly ordered base points is special $*$-simple.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 U.S.A.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Sungkyunkwan University, Jangangu Suwon 440-746, Korea'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 U.S.A.'
author:
- William Heinzer
- 'Mee-Kyoung Kim'
- Matthew Toeniskoetter
title: |
Finitely supported $*$-simple complete ideals\
in a regular local ring
---
18 pt
Introduction {#c1}
============
Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a regular local ring of dimension $d \ge 2$. In the article [@L], Lipman considers the structure of a certain class of complete ideals of $R$, the finitely supported complete ideals. He proves a factorization theorem for the finitely supported complete ideals that extends the factorization theory of complete ideals in a two-dimensional regular local ring as developed by Zariski [@ZS2 Appendix 5]. Heinzer and Kim in [@HK1] consider the Rees valuations of special $*$-simple complete ideals, and ask whether a $*$-simple complete ideal with linearly ordered base points is necessarily special $*$-simple. We give an affirmative answer to this question for the case of monomial ideals.
Other work on finitely supported complete ideals has been done by Gately in [@G1] and [@G2] and by Campillo, Gonzalez-Sprinberg and Lejeune-Jalabert in [@CGL].
All rings we consider are assumed to be commutative with an identity element. We use the concept of complete ideals as defined and discussed in Swanson-Huneke [@SH Chapters 5,6,14]. We also use a number of concepts considered in Lipman’s paper [@L]. The product of two complete ideals in a two-dimensional regular local ring is again complete. This no longer holds in higher dimension, [@C] or [@Hu]. To consider the higher dimensional case, one defines for ideals $I$ and $J$ the $*$-product, $I*J$ to be the completion of $IJ$. A complete ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $R$ is said to be [**$*$-simple**]{} if $I \ne R$ and if $I = J*L$ with ideals $J$ and $L$ in $R$ implies that either $J = R$ or $L = R$.
Another concept used by Zariski in [@ZS2] is that of the transform of an ideal; the complete transform of an ideal is used in [@L] and [@G2].
\[1.1\] Let $R \subseteq T$ be unique factorization domains (UFDs) with $R$ and $T$ having the same field of fractions, and let $I$ be an ideal of $R$ not contained in any proper principal ideal.
1. The [**transform** ]{} of $I$ in $T$ is the ideal $I^T = a^{-1}IT$, where $aT$ is the smallest principal ideal in $T$ that contains $IT$.
2. The [**complete transform**]{} of $I$ in $T$ is the completion $\overline {I^T}$ of $I^T$.
A proper ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $R$ is [**simple**]{} if $I \neq L\cdot H$, for any proper ideals $L$ and $H$. An element $\alpha \in R$ is said to be [**integral over**]{} $I$ if $\alpha$ satisfies an equation of the form $$\alpha^n + r_1 \alpha^{n-1} + \cdots + r_n = 0, \quad \text{where} \quad r_i \in I^i.$$ The set of all elements in $R$ that are integral over an ideal $I$ forms an ideal, denoted by $\overline{I}$ and called the [**integral closure**]{} of $I$. An ideal $I$ is said to be [**complete**]{} (or, [**integrally closed**]{}) if $I = \overline {I}$.
For an ideal $I$ of a local ring $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$, the [**order**]{} of $I$, denoted $\operatorname{ord}_{R} I$, is $r$ if $I \subseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}^r$ but $I \nsubseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}^{r+1}$. If $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ is a regular local ring, the function that associates to an element $a \in R$, the order of the principal ideal $aR$, defines a discrete rank-one valuation, denoted $\operatorname{ord}_R$ on the field of fractions of $R$. The associated valuation ring (DVR) is called [**the order valuation ring** ]{} of $R$.
Let $I$ be a nonzero ideal of a Noetherian integral domain $R$. The set of [**Rees valuation rings** ]{} of $I$ is denoted [**Rees**]{}$~I$, or by [**Rees**]{}$_RI$ to also indicate the ring in which $I$ is an ideal. It is by definition the set of DVRs $$\Big\{\Big(\overline {R\Big[ \frac{I}{a}\Big]}\Big)_{Q}~~ \vert \quad 0 \neq a \in I \quad
\text{and} \quad Q \in \operatorname{Spec}\Big( \overline {R\Big[ \frac{I}{a}\Big]} \Big)\quad
\text{is of height one with}~~
I \subset Q \Big\},$$ where $\overline{\cdot}$ denotes integral closure in the field of fractions. The corresponding discrete valuations with value group $\mathbb Z$ are called the [**Rees valuations**]{} of $I$. If $J \subseteq I$ are ideals of $R$ and $I$ is integral over $J$, then $\operatorname{Rees }J = \operatorname{Rees }I$.
An ideal $I$ is said to be [**normal**]{} if all the powers of $I$ are complete. Let $I$ be a normal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of a normal Noetherian local domain $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$. The minimal prime ideals of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}R[It]$ in the Rees algebra $R[It]$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the Rees valuation rings of $I$. The correspondence associates to each Rees valuation ring $V$ of $I$ a unique prime $P \in \operatorname{Min}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}R[It])$ such that $V=R[It]_{P} \cap \mathcal{Q}(R)$. Properties of the quotient ring $R[It]/P$ relate to properties of certain birational extensions of $R$.
We use $\mu (I)$ to denote the minimal number of generators of an ideal $I$.
Preliminaries {#c2}
==============
If $R$ is a subring of a valuation domain $V$ and $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_V$ is the maximal ideal of $V$, then the prime ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_V \cap R$ is called [**the center**]{} of $V$ on $R$. Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a Noetherian local domain with field of fractions $\mathcal Q(R)$. A valuation domain $(V, \operatorname{\mathbf m}_V)$ is said to [**birationally dominate**]{} $R$ if $R \subseteq V \subseteq \mathcal Q(R)$ and $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_V \cap R = \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, that is, $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ is the center of $V$ on $R$. The valuation domain $V$ is said to be a [**prime divisor**]{} of $R$ if $V$ birationally dominates $R$ and the transcendence degree of the field $V/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_V$ over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ is $\dim R - 1$. If $V$ is a prime divisor of $R$, then $V$ is a DVR [@A p. 330].
The [**quadratic dilatation**]{} or [**blowup**]{} of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ along $V$, cf. [@N page 141], is the unique local ring on the blowup $\operatorname{Bl}_{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}(R)$ of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ that is dominated by $V$. The ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}V$ is principal and is generated by an element of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$. Let $a \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ be such that $aV = \operatorname{\mathbf m}V$. Then $R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}/a] \subset V$. Let $Q := \operatorname{\mathbf m}_V \cap R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}/a]$. Then $R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}/a]_Q$ is the [ **quadratic transformation of** ]{} $R$ [**along** ]{} $V$. In the special case where $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ is a $d$-dimensional regular local domain we use the following terminology.
\[2.1\] Let $d$ be a positive integer and let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m}, k)$ be a $d$-dimensional regular local ring with maximal ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ and residue field $k$. Let $x\in \operatorname{\mathbf m}\setminus \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$ and let $S_1 := R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$. The ring $S_1$ is a $d$-dimensional regular ring in the sense that $\dim S_1 = d$ and each localization of $S_1$ at a prime ideal is a regular local ring. To see this, observe that $S_1/xS_1$ is isomorphic to a polynomial ring in $d-1$ variables over the field $k$, cf. [@SH Corollary 5.5.9], and $S_1[1/x] = R[1/x]$ is a regular ring. Moreover, $S_1$ is a UFD since $x$ is a prime element of $S_1$ and $S_1[1/x] = R[1/x]$ is a UFD, cf. [@M Theorem 20.2]. Let $I$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of $R$ with $r:=\operatorname{ord}_{R}(I)$. Then one has in $S_1$ $$IS_1=x^rI_1 \quad \text{for some ideal}\quad I_1 \quad \text{of}\quad S_1.$$ It follows that either $I_1 = S_1$ or $\operatorname{ht}I_1 \ge 2$. Thus $I_1$ is the transform $I^{S_1}$ of $I$ in $S_1$ as in Definiton \[1.1\].
Let $\operatorname{\mathbf p}$ be a prime ideal of $R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$ with $\operatorname{\mathbf m}\subseteq \operatorname{\mathbf p}$. The local ring $$R_1:~= ~R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]_{\operatorname{\mathbf p}} ~ = (S_1)_{\operatorname{\mathbf p}}$$ is called a [**local quadratic transform**]{} of $R$; the ideal $I_1R_1$ is the transform of $I$ in $R_1$ as in Definition \[1.1\].
We follow the notation of [@L] and refer to regular local rings of dimension at least two as [**points**]{}. A point $T$ is said to be [**infinitely near**]{} to a point $R$, in symbols, $R~ \prec~ T$, if there is a finite sequence of local quadratic transformations $$\label{e1}
R=:R_0 ~\subset~ R_1 ~\subset~ R_2~ \subset \cdots \subset~ R_n=T \quad (n \geq 0),$$ where $R_{i+1}$ is a local quadratic transform of $R_i$ for $i=0,1, \ldots, n-1$. If such a sequence of local quadratic transforms as in (\[e1\]) exists, then it is unique and it is called the [**quadratic sequence**]{} from $R$ to $T$ [@L Definition 1.6]. The set of points $T$ infinitely near to $R$ such that $T$ is a local quadratic transform of $R$ is called the [**first neighborhood** ]{} of $R$. If $T$ is in the first neighborhood of $R$, a point in the first neighborhood of $T$ is said to be in the [**second neighborhood**]{} of $R$. Similar terminology is used for each positive integer $n$.
\[2.111\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a regular local ring with $\dim R \ge 2$. As noted in [@L Proposition 1.7], there is a one-to-one correspondence between the points $T$ infinitely near to $R$ and the prime divisors $V$ of $R$. This correspondence is defined by associating with $T$ the order valuation ring $V$ of $T$. Since $V$ is the unique local quadratic transform of $T$ of dimension one, the local quadratic sequence in (\[e1\]) extends to give (\[e11\]): $$\label{e11}
R=:R_0 ~\subset~ R_1 ~\subset~ R_2~ \subset \cdots \subset~ R_n=T ~\subset ~V.$$ The one-to-one correspondence between the points $T$ infinitely near to $R$ and the prime divisors $V$ of $R$ implies that $T$ is the unique point infinitely near to $R$ for which the order valuation ring of $T$ is $V$. However, if $\dim R > 2$, then there often exist regular local rings $S$ with $S \ne T$ such that $S$ birationally dominates $R$ and the order valuation ring of $S$ is $V$, cf. [@HK1 Example 2.4]. Indeed, Example 2.6 of [@HK1] demonstrates the existence of a prime divisor $V$ for a $3$-dimensional RLR $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m}, k)$ for which there exist infinitely many distinct $3$-dimensional RLRs that birationally dominate $R$, and have $V$ as their order valuation ring.
\[2.113\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional RLR with $d \ge 2$ and let $V$ be the order valuation ring of $R$. Let $(S,\operatorname{\mathbf n})$ be a $d$-dimensional RLR that is a birational extension of $R$. Then
1. $S$ dominates $R$.
2. If $V$ dominates $S$, then $R = S$.
3. Thus $R$ is the unique $d$-dimensional RLR having order valuation ring $V$ among the regular local rings birational over $R$.
For item (1), let $P := \operatorname{\mathbf n}\cap R$. Then $R_P \subseteq S$. If $P \ne \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, then $\dim R_P = n < d$. Since every birational extension of an $n$-dimensional Noetherian domain has dimension at most $n$, we must have $\dim S \le n$, a contradiction. Thus $S$ dominates $R$. Item (2) follows from [@Sa2 Theorem 2.1]. In more detail, if $V$ dominates $S$, then $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= S/\operatorname{\mathbf n}$ and the elements in a minimal generating set for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ are part of a minimal generating set for $\operatorname{\mathbf n}$. Hence we have $\operatorname{\mathbf m}S = \operatorname{\mathbf n}$. By Zariski’s Main Theorem as in [@N (37.4)], it follows that $R = S$. Item (3) follows from item (2).
\[2.12\] A [**base point**]{} of a nonzero ideal $I \subset R$ is a point $T$ infinitely near to $R$ such that $I^{T} \neq T$. The set of base points of $I$ is denoted by $$\mathcal{BP}(I)=\{~ T~\vert ~T \text{ is a point such that}~~R \prec T ~\text{and}~\operatorname{ord}_T (I^T)\neq 0~\}.$$ The [**point basis**]{} of a nonzero ideal $I \subset R$ is the family of nonnegative integers $$\mathcal B(I)=\{~\operatorname{ord}_T (I^T) ~\vert~ R~ \prec~ T ~\}.$$ The nonzero ideal $I$ is said to be [**finitely supported**]{} if $I$ has only finitely many base points.
\[2.13\] Let $R \prec T$ be points such that $\dim R=\dim T$. Lipman proves in [@L Proposition 2.1] the existence of a unique complete ideal $P_{RT}$ in $R$ such that for every point $A$ with $R \prec A$, the complete transform $$\overline{(P_{RT})^A} ~ \text{ is } ~
\begin{cases}
\text{ a $*$-simple ideal if } ~ A \prec T, \\ \text{ the ring } A \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ The ideal $P_{RT}$ of $R$ is said to be a [**special $*$-simple complete ideal**]{}.
In the case where $R \prec T$ and $\dim R = \dim T$, we say that the order valuation ring of $T$ is a [**special prime divisor**]{} of $R$.
\[2.131\] With notation at in Definition \[2.13\], a prime divisor $V$ of $R$ is special if and only if the unique point $T$ with $R \prec T$ such that the order valuation ring of $T$ is $V$ has $\dim T = \dim R$. Let $\dim R = d$. If $V$ is a special prime divisor of $R$, then the residue field of $V$ is a pure transcendental extension of degree $d - 1$ of the residue field $T/\operatorname{\mathbf m}(T)$ of $T$, and $T/\operatorname{\mathbf m}(T)$ is a finite algebraic extension of $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$. If the residue field $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ of $R$ is algebraically closed and $V$ is a special prime divisor of $R$, then the residue field of $V$ is a pure transcendental extension of $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ of transcendence degree $d - 1$. It would be interesting to identify and describe in other ways the special prime divisors of $R$ among the set of all prime divisors of $R$.
\[lipman1\] Let $R = \alpha$ be a $d$-dimensional regular local ring with $d \ge 2$. Lipman in [@L Theorem 2.5] proves that for every finitely supported complete ideal $I$ of $R$ there exists a unique family of integers $$(n_\beta) ~ = ~ (n_\beta(I))_{\beta \succ \alpha, ~ \dim \beta = \dim \alpha}$$ such that $n_\beta = 0$ for all but finitely many $\beta$ and such that $$\label{es30}
\Big( \prod_{n_\delta < 0} P_{\alpha\delta}^{-n_\delta} \Big)*I ~=~
\prod_{n_\gamma > 0}P_{\alpha\gamma}^{n_\gamma}$$ where $P_{\alpha\beta}$ is the special $*$-simple ideal associated with $\alpha \prec \beta$ and the products are $*$-products. The product on the left is over all $\delta \succ \alpha$ such that $n_\delta < 0$ and the product on the right is over all $\gamma \succ \alpha$ such that $n_\gamma > 0$.
A question of interest is for which finitely supported complete ideals $I$ the unique factorization of $I$ given in Equation \[es30\] involves special $*$-simple ideals $P_{\alpha \delta}$ with $n_{\delta} < 0$. If $\dim R = 2$ there are no negative exponents and every $*$-simple complete ideal is special $*$-simple.
Lipman gives the following example to illustrate this decomposition.
\[s3.1\] Let $k$ be a field and let $\alpha = R = k[[x,y,z]]$ be the formal power series ring in the 3 variables $x,y,z$ over $k$. Let $$\beta_x = R[\frac{y}{x}, \frac{z}{x}]_{(x, y/x, z/x)}, \quad
\beta_y = R[\frac{x}{y}, \frac{z}{y}]_{(y, x/y, z/y)}, \quad
\beta_z = R[\frac{x}{z}, \frac{y}{z}]_{(z, x/z, y/z)}$$ be the local quadratic transformations of $R$ in the $x,y,z$ directions. The associated special $*$-simple ideals are $$P_{\alpha \beta_x} = (x^2, y, z)R, ~ \quad P_{\alpha \beta_y} = (x,y^2, z)R, ~ \quad
P_{\alpha \beta_z} = (x,y,z^2)R.$$ The equation $$\label{es1}
(x,y,z)(x^3, y^3, z^3, xy, xz, yz) ~= ~ P_{\alpha \beta_x} P_{\alpha \beta_y} P_{\alpha \beta_z}$$ represents the factorization of the finitely supported ideal $I = (x^3, y^3, z^3, xy, xz, yz)R$ as a product of special $*$-simple ideals. Here $P_{\alpha \alpha} = (x,y,z)R$. The base points of $I$ are $\mathcal {BP}(I) = \{\alpha, \beta_x, \beta_y, \beta_z\}$ and the point basis of $I$ is $\mathcal B(I) = \{2,1,1,1\}$. Equation (\[es1\]) represents the following equality of point bases $$\mathcal B(P_{\alpha\alpha})~ + ~ \mathcal B(I) ~=~ \mathcal B(P_{\alpha \beta_x})
~+ ~ \mathcal B( P_{\alpha \beta_y}) ~+~ \mathcal B( P_{\alpha \beta_z}).$$ Each of $P_{\alpha \beta_x}, P_{\alpha \beta_y}, P_{\alpha \beta_z}$ has a unique Rees valuation. Their product has in addition the order valuation of $\alpha$ as a Rees valuation. Lipman’s unique factorization theorem given in Equation \[es30\] along with Fact \[order1\] imply that the ideal $I$ is $*$-simple. To see this, suppose by way of contradiction that $I$ has a non-trivial $*$-factorization $I = L * W$. Then $L$ and $W$ have order $1$, and hence by Fact \[order1\] are special $*$-simple ideals. But this contradicts Lipman’s unique factorization theorem for $I$ as a product of special $*$-simple ideals as stated in Equation \[es30\]. We conclude that $I$ is $*$-simple.
\[factprop\] (1) The finite set $\mathcal {BP}(I)$ of base points of the finitely supported complete ideal $I$ of Remark \[lipman1\] is a partially ordered set with respect to inclusion. This partially ordered set is a rooted tree with unique minimal element $\alpha = R$. For each base point $\beta$ of $I$ there is a unique finite sequence of base points $\alpha \prec \gamma_1 \prec \cdots \prec \gamma_n = \beta$ of $I$, where $\gamma_1$ is a local quadratic transform of $\alpha$, and each $\gamma_{i+1}$ is a local quadratic transform of $\gamma_i$. Thus there exists a unique path from $\alpha$ to each base point $\beta$. A base point $\beta$ of $I$ is a [**maximal base point**]{} of $I$ if $\beta$ is a maximal element in the partially ordered set $\mathcal {BP}(I)$, that is, if $\beta \prec \gamma$ with $\gamma$ a base point of $I$, then $\beta = \gamma$. In the unique $*$-factorization of $I$ given in Equation \[es30\], the integer $n_{\beta}$ associated to each maximal base point $\beta$ of $I$ is equal to the point basis of $I$ at $\beta$ and hence is positive.\
(2) Let $I$ be a finitely supported ideal of a $d$-dimensional regular local ring $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$. For each $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}\setminus \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$, Corollary 1.22 of [@L] implies that the transform $I^{S}$ of $I$ in the ring $S = R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}/x]$ is either the ring $S$ or an ideal of height $d$ in $S$.
\[order1\] Let $J$ be a finitely supported complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of a $d$-dimensional regular local ring $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$. If $J$ has order one, then $J$ is a special $*$-simple ideal and has the form $J = (x_1, \ldots, x_{d-1},~ x_d^{n})R$, for some positive integer $n$ and regular system of parameters $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ for $R$.
Since $J$ has order one, either $J = \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ or there exists a positive integer $e < d$ and a regular system of parameters $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ for $R$ such that $J = (x_1, \ldots, x_e) R + J'$, where the image of $J'$ in the regular local ring $\frac{R}{(x_1, \ldots, x_e)R}$ has order $n \ge 2$ and where also $\operatorname{ord}_{R} J' = n$. Since $J$ is $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary, $J'$ contains some power of $x_d$. Assume that $J \ne \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, and let $S = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x_d}]$. Then the transform $J^{S}$ of $J$ in $S$ is $$J^{S ~} = ~\big( \frac{x_1}{x_d}, \ldots, \frac{x_{e}}{x_d} \big)S ~ + ~ x_d^{n-1} J'^{S}.$$ This equality and the fact that $J'^{S}$ contains some power of $x_d$ implies that $J^{S}$ has radical $(\frac{x_1}{x_d}, \ldots, \frac{x_e}{x_d}, ~ x_d)S$. Hence the unique minimal prime of $J^{S}$ is $(\frac{x_1}{x_d}, \ldots, \frac{x_e}{x_d}, x_d)S$. By item 2 of Remark \[factprop\], the ideal $J^{S}$ has height $d$. Therefore $e = d-1$. Since $ \frac{R }{ (x_1, \ldots, x_{d-1}) R}$ is a DVR whose maximal ideal is generated by the image of $x_d$, we have $J = (x_1, \ldots, x_{d-1}, ~ x_d^n)R$. A simple induction proof yields that $J$ is special $*$-simple.
Point basis and change of direction {#c3}
====================================
\[7.1\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a regular local ring, and consider the sequence $$\label{e2}
R=:R_0 ~\subset~ R_1 ~\subset~ R_2~ \subset \cdots \subset~ R_n=T \quad (n \geq 2),$$ where $R_{i+1}$ is a local quadratic transform of $R_i$ for $i=0,1, \ldots, n-1$.
\[7.1.5\] Let notation be as in Setting \[7.1\] and assume $\dim R = \dim T$.
1. If $\dim R = 2$, then the special $*$-simple complete ideal $P_{RT}$ has a unique Rees valuation $\operatorname{ord}_T$.
2. In the higher dimensional case, the special $*$-simple complete ideal $P_{RT}$ has $\operatorname{ord}_T$ as a Rees valuation and often also has other Rees valuations. We observe in [@HK1 Proposition 6.4] that the other Rees valuations of $P_{RT}$ are in the set $\{\operatorname{ord}_{R_i} \}_{i=0}^{n-1}$.
3. The residue field $R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$ of $R_n$ is a finite algebraic extension of the residue field $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ of $R_0$.
1. If $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$, then the other Rees valuations of $P_{RT}$ are in the set $\{\operatorname{ord}_{R_i} \}_{i=0}^{n-2}$, cf. [@HK1 Corollary 4.11].
2. If $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 \subsetneq R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$, then $\operatorname{ord}_{R_{n-1}}$ may be a Rees valuation of $P_{RT}$, cf. [@HK1 Example 6.11].
\[7.11d\] We say [**there is no change of direction**]{} for the local quadratic sequence $R_0$ to $R_n$ in Equation (\[e2\]) if there exists an element $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ that is part of a minimal generating set of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$. We say [**there is a change of direction**]{} between $R_0$ and $R_n$ if $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 \subseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}_n^2$.
\[7.12\] Concerning change of direction for the local quadratic sequence $R_0$ to $R_n$ of Equation (\[e2\]), the following statements are equivalent:
1. There exists $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ that is part of a minimal generating set of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$.
2. $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 \nsubseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}_n^2$.
3. $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 \nsubseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}_i^2$ for all $i=0,1,\ldots, n$.
4. There exists $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ such that $\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0)=\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(x)=1$ for all $i=0,1,\ldots, n$.
5. There exists $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i R_{i+1}=x R_{i+1}$ for all $i=0,1,\ldots, n-1$.
\[7.2\] With notation as in Setting \[7.1\], assume that $\dim R = \dim R_n$. Let $I = P_{R_0R_n}$. By [@L Corollary 2.2], the transform $I^{R_i} = P_{R_iR_n}$ for all $i$ with $0 \le i \le n$. By [@HK1 Proposition 4.6], we have $\operatorname{Rees }_{R_i} I^{R_i} \subseteq \operatorname{Rees }I$. Thus for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n$, we have $$\operatorname{Rees }_{R_i} P_{R_iR_n} ~ = ~ \operatorname{Rees }_{R_i} I^{R_i} ~ \subseteq ~ \operatorname{Rees }I,$$ and the number of Rees valuations of $I$ is greater than or equal to the number of Rees valuations of $P_{R_iRn}$.
\[7.4\] With notation as in Setting \[7.1\] assume that $d:=\dim R=\dim R_1$ and $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}=R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$. Let $J \subseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ be a nonzero ideal of $R$, and let $J^{R_1}$ denote the transform of $J$ in $R_1$. Then $ \operatorname{ord}_R(J)\geq \operatorname{ord}_{R_1}(J^{R_1})$.
By appropriate choice of a regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, z$ for $R$, we may assume that $R_1$ is a localization of $S = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$ at the maximal ideal $(x, \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, \frac{z}{x})S$. To show $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (J) \geq \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (J^{R_1})$, it suffices to show that for $f \in J$ such that $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (f) = \operatorname{ord}_{R} (J) = r$, it follows that $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (\frac{f}{x^r}) \leq r$. To prove this, we identify more explicitly certain isomorphisms connected with the transform. Consider the Rees algebra $R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t] = \bigoplus_{n \ge 0} \operatorname{\mathbf m}^nt^n$ and the associated graded ring $\operatorname{gr}_{\operatorname{\mathbf m}} (R) := R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t] / \operatorname{\mathbf m}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t] \cong k [X, Y, \ldots, Z]$, a polynomial ring in $d$ variables over the field $k := R / \operatorname{\mathbf m}$. For $f \in R$ with $\operatorname{ord}_{R} f = r$, let $f^*$ denote the leading form of $f$ in $\operatorname{gr}_{\operatorname{\mathbf m}} (R)$, that is, $f^{*}$ is the image of $f t^{r} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}^rt^r \subset R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$ in its quotient $\operatorname{gr}_{\operatorname{\mathbf m}} (R)$.
As a $\operatorname{\mathbb Z}$-graded ring, we have $ R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t] [\frac{1}{x t}] = S [x t, \frac{1}{x t}]$ is a Laurent polynomial ring in $xt$ over $S$, and $\frac{f}{x^r} = \frac{f t^r}{(x t)^r}$ is in $S$. Since $\operatorname{\mathbf m}S = x S$, we obtain by permutability of localization and residue class formation $$\label{rees6}
S \big[x t, \frac{1}{x t} \big] / x S \big[x t, \frac{1}{x t} \big] ~ = ~(S / x S) \big[x t, \frac{1}{x t} \big] ~ \cong ~\operatorname{gr}_{\operatorname{\mathbf m}} (R) \big[ \frac{1}{X } \big].$$ The isomorphism in Equation \[rees6\] identifies $\frac{1}{xt}$ with $\frac{1}{X}$, and the ring $S / x S$ with the polynomial ring in $d-1$ variables $A := k [\frac{Y}{X}, \ldots, \frac{Z}{X}]$ over the field $k$. Equation \[rees6\] also identifies the image $w$ of $\frac{f}{x^r}$ in $S / x S$ with $ \frac{f^*}{X^r}$, a polynomial in $A$ of degree $\le r$. Since $R_1$ is the localization of $S$ at the maximal ideal $(x, \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, \frac{z}{x})S$, the $d-1$-dimensional regular local ring $R_1 / x R_1$ is isomorphic to the localized polynomial ring $B := k[\frac{Y}{X}, \ldots, \frac{Z}{X}]_{(\frac{Y}{X}, \ldots, \frac{Z}{X})}$. For a polynomial $g \in A$, we have $\deg g \le \operatorname{ord}_B(g)$. Therefore $\operatorname{ord}_{B} (w) \le r$. Since $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (\frac{f}{x^r}) \le \operatorname{ord}_{R_1 / x R_1}(w) = \operatorname{ord}_B(w)$, we conclude that $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (\frac{f}{x^r}) \le r$.
We observe in Remark \[7.4r\] that Lemma \[7.4\] holds even without the assumption that $R / \operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_1 / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$.
\[7.4r\] Assume that $R \subset R_1$ are $d$-dimensional regular local rings and that $R_1$ is a local quadratic transform of $R$ with $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}\subsetneq R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$. We may assume that $R_1$ is a localization of $S = R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$ with respect to a maximal ideal of $S$ that contains $x$. As in the proof of Lemma \[7.4\], we obtain a polynomial ring $A$ in $d-1$ variables over $k = R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ such that $R_1/xR_1$ is isomorphic to $A_N$, where $N$ is a maximal ideal of $A$. Since $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}\subsetneq R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$, the field $A/N$ is a proper finite algebraic extension of $k$.
For $A$ a polynomial ring in $n$ variables over a field $F$ and $N$ a maximal ideal of $A$, we prove by induction on $n$ the following statement:
- For each polynomial $h \in A$, we have $\operatorname{ord}_{N} (h) \le \deg h$.
This is clear for $n = 1$ by factoring $h$ as a product of irreducible polynomials. If $n > 1$ and $A = F [t_1, \ldots, t_n]$, then $P = N \cap F [t_n]$ is a maximal ideal of $F [t_n]$ by Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz. Hence $P$ is generated by an irreducible polynomial $p (t_n) \in N \cap F [t_n]$. Let $B = A / (N \cap F [t_n]) \cong E [t_1, \ldots, t_{n-1}]$, where $E = F [t_n] / p (t_n) F [t_n]$ is a finite algebraic field extension of $F$. Let $\overline{h}$ denote the image of $h$ in $B$ and let $\overline{N}$ denote the image of $N$ in $B$. By the induction hypothesis, $\operatorname{ord}_{\overline{N}} (\overline{h}) \le \deg \overline{h}$. Since $\deg \overline{h} \le \deg h$ and $\operatorname{ord}_{\overline{N}} (\overline{h}) \ge \operatorname{ord}_{N} (h)$, the claim follows.
This implies for an ideal $J$ in $R$ that $\operatorname{ord}_R J \ge \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} J^{R_1}$ also in the case where $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}\subsetneq R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$.
\[7.3\] Assume notation as in Setting \[7.1\] with $\dim R = \dim R_n$ and $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$. Let $I = P_{R_0R_n}$. Then:
1. $ \operatorname{ord}_{R_n}(I^{R_n})=\operatorname{ord}_{R_{n-1}}(I^{R_{n-1}})=1$
2. $ \operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(I^{R_i}) \geq \operatorname{ord}_{R_{i+1}}(I^{R_{i+1}})$ for $i$ with $0 \leq i \leq n-1$.
3. $\mathcal B(I)=\{r_0,~r_1,~ \ldots, r_{n-2},~ 1,~ 1\}$ is a decreasing sequence, where $r_i:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(I^{R_i})$ for $i$ with $0 \leq i \leq n$.
(1): Since $I^{R_{n-1}}=P_{R_{n-1}R_{n}}$, we have $\mathcal B(I^{R_{n-1}})=\{1,~1\}$, by [@HK1 Remark 6.5]. Item (2) follows from Lemma \[7.4\]. Item (3) is immediate from items (1) and (2).
\[3.1\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a universally catenary analytically unramified Noetherian local domain with $\dim R = d$, and let $V$ be a prime divisor of $R$ centered on $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$. Let $I \subseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ be an ideal of $R$. The following are equivalent
1. $V \in \operatorname{Rees }I$.
2. There exist elements $b_1, \ldots, b_d$ in $I$ such that $b_1V = \cdots= b_dV = IV$ and the images of $~\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in the residue field $k_v$ of $V$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.
3. If $I = (a_1, \ldots, a_n)R$, then there exist elements $b_1, \ldots, b_d$ in $\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n$ such that $b_1V = \cdots= b_dV = IV$ and the images of $~\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in the residue field $k_v$ of $V$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.
Thus if $I = (a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_d)R$, then $V \in \operatorname{Rees }I \iff a_1V = a_2V =\cdots= a_dV$ and the images of $\frac{a_2}{a_1}, \ldots, \frac{a_d}{a_1}$ in $k_v$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.
$(1) \Rightarrow (2)$: If $V \in \operatorname{Rees }I$, then by definition $V$ is a localization of the integral closure of the ring $R[I/b]$ for some nonzero $b \in I$. We have $I/b \subset V$ and so $IV = bV$. Since $V$ has center $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ on $R$ and is centered on a prime ideal of height one of the integral closure of $R[I/b]$, the dimension formula [@SH Theorem B.5.1, p. 403], or [@M p. 119], implies that there exist elements $b_1 := b, b_2, \ldots, b_d$ in $I$ such that $b_1V = \cdots= b_dV = IV$ and the images of $~\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in the residue field $k_v$ of $V$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.\
$(2) \Rightarrow (3)$: If $I = (a_1, \ldots, a_n)R$, we may assume that $a_1V = IV$. It follows that $R[I/a_1] \subseteq V$ and $V$ is centered on a height-one prime of the integral closure of $R[I/a_1]$. We have $R[I/a_1] = R[\frac{a_2}{a_1}, \ldots, \frac{a_n}{a_1}]$. By the dimension formula, there exist elements $b_2, \ldots, b_d$ in $\{a_i\}_{i=2}^n$ such that $b_1V = \cdots= b_dV = IV$ and the images of $~\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in the residue field $k_v$ of $V$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.\
$(3) \Rightarrow (1)$: We have $R[\frac{b_2}{b_1},\ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}] \subseteq R[I/b_1]$. Let $A$ denote the integral closure of $R[I/b_1]$ and let $\operatorname{\mathbf p}$ denote the center of $V$ on $A$. We have $\operatorname{\mathbf p}\cap R = \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, and $$R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}~ \subseteq ~A/\operatorname{\mathbf p}~\subseteq V/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_v ~= k_v.$$ Since the images of $\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in $A/\operatorname{\mathbf p}\subseteq k_v$ are algebraically independent over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$, the dimension formula implies that $\operatorname{ht}\operatorname{\mathbf p}= 1$. Thus $A_{\operatorname{\mathbf p}}$ is a DVR that is birationally dominated by $V$. Hence $A_{\operatorname{\mathbf p}} = V$, and $V \in \operatorname{Rees }I$.
The last sentence is immediate from the equivalence of items 1, 2, and 3.
\[contracted\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional regular local ring with $d \ge 2$, let $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}\setminus \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$, and let $S = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$. Let $K$ be an ideal of $R$ that is contracted from $S$, and let $x f \in K$, where $f \in R$. Then
1. $g f \in K$ for each $g \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}$.
2. If $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (x f) = \operatorname{ord}_{R} (K)$, then the order valuation $\operatorname{ord}_R$ is a Rees valuation of $K$.
For item 1, notice that $\frac{g}{x} \in S$ implies $x \frac{g}{x} f = g f \in K S \cap R = K$. For item 2, let $V$ denote the order valuation ring of $R$. The assumption that $xf \in K$ and $\operatorname{ord}_R xf = \operatorname{ord}_R(K)$ implies by item 1 that also $ y f, \ldots,$ and $ z f$ are in $K$. We have $K V = xfV = yfV = \cdots = zfV$. In the residue field $V / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_V$ of $V$, the $d - 1$ elements $\overline{\frac{y f}{x f}} = \overline{\frac{y}{x}}, \ldots, \overline{\frac{z f}{x f}} = \overline{\frac{z}{x}}$ form a transcendence basis for $V/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_V$ as an extension field of $R / \operatorname{\mathbf m}$. By Theorem \[3.1\], $V \in \operatorname{Rees }K$.
Proposition \[reestrans\] is useful for relating the Rees valuations of the transform of an ideal to the Rees valuations of the ideal.
\[reestrans\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional regular local ring and let $(S,\operatorname{\mathbf n})$ be a $d$-dimensional regular local ring that birationally dominates $R$. Let $I$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of $R$ such that its transform $J = I^{S}$ in $S$ is not equal to $S$, and let $V$ be a DVR that birationally dominates $S$. Then $$V \in ~ \operatorname{Rees }_S J ~ \iff ~ V \in ~ \operatorname{Rees }_R I.$$
Since $R$ and $S$ are regular local rings, the hypothesis of Theorem \[3.1\] are satisfied. Hence $V$ is a Rees valuation ring of an ideal in $R$ or $S$ implies $V$ is a prime divisor in the sense that the residue field of $V$ has transcendence degree $d-1$ over the residue field of $R$ or $S$. By [@M Theorem 15.5], the field $S/\operatorname{\mathbf n}$ is algebraic over $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ . Hence $V$ is a prime divisor over $R$ if and only if $V$ is a prime divisor over $S$.
Let $I = (a_1, \ldots, a_n) R$. Since $J = I^S$, there exists a nonzero $x \in S$ such that $J = (a_1 / x, \ldots, a_n / x) S$. Since the ratios of the $a_i$ are the same as the ratios of the $a_i / x$, Theorem \[3.1\] implies that $V \in \operatorname{Rees }_S J$ if and only if $V \in \operatorname{Rees }_R I$.
With notation as in Theorem \[3.1\], let $\overline{\frac{b_2}{b_1}}, \ldots,
\overline{\frac{b_d}{b_1}}$ denote the images of $\frac{b_2}{b_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_d}{b_1}$ in the residue field $k_v$ of $V$. An interesting integer associated with $V \in \operatorname{Rees }I$ and $b_1, \ldots b_d$ is the field degree $$\Big [k_v: (R/\operatorname{\mathbf m})\Big (\overline{\big (\frac{b_2}{b_1}\big )},\ldots, \overline{\big (\frac{b_d}{b_1}\big )}\Big )\Big ]$$
\[7.41\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a regular local ring and let $L$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal with $\operatorname{ord}_R(L) = 1$. Let $V$ denote the order valuation ring of $R$. We have $$V ~\in ~\operatorname{Rees }_RL ~~\iff ~~ L ~= ~\operatorname{\mathbf m}.$$
By passing from $R$ to $R(u)$, where $u$ is an indeterminate over $R$, we may assume that the residue field of $R$ is infinite, cf. [@SH page 159]. Let $J = (a_1, \ldots, a_d)R$ be a minimal reduction of $L$. Since $J$ and $L$ have the same integral closure, we have $\operatorname{ord}_RJ = \operatorname{ord}_RL = 1$. Thus at least one of the $a_i \notin \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$. If all the $a_i \notin \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$, then $J = \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ and hence $L = \operatorname{\mathbf m}$. On the other hand, if some $a_i \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}^2$, then by Theorem \[3.1\], $V \notin \operatorname{Rees }L$.
\[7.5\] Assume notation as in Setting \[7.1\] with $\dim R = \dim R_n \ge 3$ and $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$. Let $I = P_{R_0R_n}$. The following statements are equivalent:
1. There is no change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_n$.
2. $\operatorname{Rees }_{R_0} (I) = \operatorname{Rees }_{R_n} ( \operatorname{\mathbf m}_n)$.
3. $ \operatorname{ord}_{R_0} I =1$.
4. $\mathcal{B}(I)=\{1, 1, \ldots, 1,1\}.$
5. There exist generators $x, y, z \ldots, w$ for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ such that $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}_j ~ = ~\big( x, ~\frac{y}{x^{j}}, ~ \frac{z}{x^{j}}, ~ \ldots, ~ \frac{w}{x^{j}} \big) R_j$$ for each $j$ with $1 \le j \le n$.
6. There exist generators $x, y, z \ldots, w$ for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ such that $$P_{R_0R_n}=\big(x^{n+1}, ~ y, ~ z, ~ \ldots, ~ w \big)R_0.$$
$(1)\Leftrightarrow (2)$: This follows from [@HK1 Theorem 6.8].\
$(3)\Leftrightarrow (4)$: This follows from Proposition \[7.3\].\
$(1)\Rightarrow (5)$: Since there is no change of direction in the local quadratic sequence from $R_0$ to $R_n$, by Remark \[7.12\], we may choose an element $x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$ such that $x$ is part of a minimal generating set for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_j$ for each $j$ with $1\leq j \leq n$.
We prove item 5 holds by induction on $n$. Let $x, y', z', \ldots, w'$ be a regular system of parameters for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0$. Since $R_1$ is a localization of $R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}/x]$ at a maximal ideal containing $x$ and $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$, there exist elements $a_1, b_1, \ldots, c_1 \in R$ such that $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 ~=~ (x, ~ \frac{y'}{x}- a_1, ~\frac{z'}{x} - b_1, ~\ldots, ~ \frac{w'}{x} - c_1)R_1.$$ We take $y = y'-a_1x$, $z = z' - b_1x, \ldots, w = w' - c_1x$. Then $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x,y,z, \ldots, w)R$ and $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 = (x, \frac{y}{x}, \frac{z}{x}, \ldots, \frac{w}{x})R_1$. This proves the case where $n=1$. Assume that item 5 holds for $n-1$. Then there exist elements $y', z', \ldots, w'$ such that $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}~ = ~ (x, y', z', \ldots, w')R \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n-1} ~ = ~\big( x, ~\frac{y'}{x^{n-1}}, ~ \frac{z'}{x^{n-1}}, ~
\ldots, ~ \frac{w'}{x^{n-1}} \big) R_{n-1}$$ Since $R_n$ is a localization of $R_{n-1}[ \frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n-1}}{x}]$ at a maximal ideal containing $x$ and $R/m = R_n/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$, there exist elements $a_n, b_n, \ldots, c_n \in R$ such that $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n ~=~ (x, ~ \frac{y'}{x^{n}}- a_n, ~\frac{z'}{x^{n}} - b_n, ~\ldots, ~ \frac{w'}{x^{n}} - c_n)R_n.$$ Then taking $y = y'-a_nx^n$, $z = z' - b_nx^n, \ldots, w = w' - c_nx^n$ completes an inductive proof that item 1 implies item 5.
$(5) \Leftrightarrow (6)$: This is a straightforward computation.\
$(6) \Rightarrow (3)$: This is clear.\
$(3)\Rightarrow (2)$: Let $V_j$ be the order valuation ring of $R_j$. Since $\operatorname{ord}_{R_j}(I^{R_j})=1$ for each $j$ with $0 \leq j \leq n$, we have $V_j \notin \operatorname{Rees }_{R_j}(I^{R_j})$, by Lemma \[7.41\], and hence by [@HK1 Corollary 4.7], $\operatorname{Rees }_{R_{j+1}}(I^{R_{j+1}})=\operatorname{Rees }_{R_j}(I^{R_j})$. Thus we have $$\operatorname{Rees }_{R_0}(I)=\operatorname{Rees }_{R_{1}}(I^{R_{1}})=\cdots=\operatorname{Rees }_{R_n}(I^{R_n})=\operatorname{Rees }_{R_n}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n).$$
\[7.51\] In the case where $R$ is a 2-dimensional regular local ring, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Proposition \[7.5\] are equivalent and imply item 2. However, item 2 does not imply item 1.
$*$-simple complete monomial ideals {#c5}
====================================
In this section we consider monomial ideals.
\[5.1\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be an $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring and fix $d$ elements $x,y,\ldots, z$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}:=(x, y, \ldots, z)R$. An ideal $I$ of $R$ is said to be a [**monomial ideal**]{} if $I$ is generated by elements $x^ay^b \cdots z^c$ with $a,b,\ldots, c \in \operatorname{\mathbb N}_0$. Let $$^xS ~= ~ R \big[ \frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x} \big] = R \big[ \frac{y}{x}, ~\ldots, ~\frac{z}{x} \big] \qquad x_1 ~:= ~x,~\quad y_1:~= ~\frac{y}{x},~\quad \ldots,~\quad~z_1~:=\ ~\frac{z}{x}.$$ If $I$ is a monomial ideal in $R$, the transform of $I$ in $^xS$ is generated by elements of the form $x_1^ay_1^b \cdots z_1^c $ with $a,b,\ldots, c \in \operatorname{\mathbb N}_0$. This motivates us to define an ideal $J$ of $^xS$ to be a [**monomial ideal**]{} if $J$ is generated by monomials in $x_1, y_1, \ldots, z_1$. We consider monomial quadratic transformations of $R$ defined as follows: the ring $^xR=R\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}\big]_{(x,~ \frac{y}{x},~\ldots,~\frac{z}{x})}$ is a [**local monomial quadratic transformation**]{} of $R$ [**in the $x$-direction**]{}. An ideal $J$ of $^xR$ is said to be a [**monomial ideal**]{} if $J$ is generated by monomials in $x_1, y_1, \ldots, z_1$.
In a similar manner, we define $^yR$, $\ldots$, $^zR$ to be the [**local monomial quadratic transformations**]{} of $R$ in the [**$y$-direction**]{}, $\ldots$, [**$z$-direction**]{}, respectively, if $$^yR~= ~R\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{y}\big]_{(\frac{x}{y},~y,~\ldots,~\frac{z}{y})}, \quad~
\ldots, \quad~
^zR=R\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{z}\big]_{(\frac{x}{z},~ \frac{y}{z},~\ldots,~z)}.$$ We define an ideal of $^yR$, $\ldots$, $^zR$ to be a [**monomial ideal**]{} if it is generated by monomials in the respective rings. We refer to the elements in the fixed set of minimal generators of the regular local ring as [**variables**]{}.
For a monomial ideal $I$ of one of these rings, let $\Delta (I)$ denote the set of monomial minimal generators of $I$.
Notice that there are precisely $d$ distinct local monomial quadratic transformations of $R$. If $I$ is a finitely supported complete monomial $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal of $R$, then the base points of $I$ in the first neighborhood of $R$ are a subset of $\{^xR,~ ^yR, ~\ldots, ~^zR \}$. Moreover, by repeating the above process of monomial quadratic transformations, we obtain more information about the base points and point basis of a finitely supported complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal of $R$. There are, for example, at most $d^2$ base points of a monomial ideal in the second neighborhood of $R$.
\[Setting4\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring with $d \ge 3$ and fix a regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, z$ for $R$. Let $R_1 := {^xR}$ be the local monomial quadratic transform of $R$ in the $x$-direction, where $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 := (x_1, y_1, \ldots, z_1) R_1$ is the maximal ideal of $R_1$ as in Definition \[5.1\].
We observe in Remark \[monoprop\], that many of the properties of monomial ideals of a localized polynomial ring over a field also hold for the the monomial ideals of Setting \[Setting4\].
\[monoprop\] Let $I$ and $J$ be monomial $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideals of the ring $R$ of Setting \[Setting4\].
1. A monomial of $R$ is in $I$ if and only if it is a multiple of a monomial in $\Delta(I)$.
2. Let $K$ denote any one of the ideals $I + J$, $I J$, $(I : J)$, and $I \cap J$. Then $K$ is also a monomial ideal.
3. If $I$ is complete, then $(I:J)$ is complete.
4. \[monoprop4\] The integral closure $\overline I$ of $I$ is again a monomial ideal.
5. \[monoprop5\] If a power of one of $x, y, \ldots,$ or $z$ is in the integral closure of $I$ then it is also in $I$.
Item 1 and item 2 are Lemmas 6, 7 and Theorem 6 of [@T], and item 3 is Remark 1.3.2 of [@SH]. The proof of item 4 is given in [@KS]. For the proof of item 5, we use that the quotient ring obtained by going modulo the ideal generated by the other $d-1$ variables is a PID. Assume for example that $x^n \in \overline I$. Then $I + (y,\ldots, z)R$ is an integrally closed monomial ideal since its image $ \frac{I + (y,\ldots,z)R}{(y,\ldots,z)R}$ is an integrally closed ideal. Hence $\overline I \subseteq I + (y,\ldots,z)R$. Moreover, $x^n \in I + (y,\ldots,z)R$ and $I + (y,\ldots,z)R$ a monomial ideal implies $x^n \in I$.
\[contract7\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I_1$ be a monomial ideal of $R_1$ that contains a power of $x = x_1$. Then $I_1 \cap R$ is a monomial ideal of $R$.
Since $R$ is equicharacteristic, the completion $\widehat R$ of $R$ has a coefficient field $k$ [@N (31.1)]. Since $R$ is regular, $\widehat R$ is regular and is the $d$-dimensional formal power series ring $k[[x, y, \ldots, z]]$. Since $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$, the completion $\widehat {R_1}$ of $R_1$ is the formal power series ring $k[[x, y_1, \ldots, z_1]]$, and the local inclusion map $R \hookrightarrow R_1$ extends to a homomorphism on completions $\phi: \widehat{R} \rightarrow \widehat{R_1}$. Commutativity of the diagram $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[name=RHat] at (-1, 1) {$\widehat{R}$};
\node[name=k1] at (-1, -1) {$R / \operatorname{\mathbf m}$};
\node[name=R1Hat] at (1, 1) {$\widehat{R'}$};
\node[name=k2] at (1, -1) {$R_1 / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$};
\draw[->]
(RHat) edge (k1)
(R1Hat) edge (k2)
(RHat) edge node[above] {$\phi$} (R1Hat)
(k1) edge node[above] {$\simeq$} (k2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ implies that $\phi$ is a $k$-algebra homomorphism.
$$\phi: \widehat R \longrightarrow \widehat{R_1} \quad \text{ where } \quad x ~\mapsto ~ x ,\quad y ~ \mapsto ~xy_1, \quad \ldots \quad , z ~\mapsto ~ xz_1.$$ Uniqueness of expression for $f \in \widehat{R}$ as a power series in $k [[x, y, \ldots, z]]$ implies that $\phi$ is injective. The subring $R' := k [x, y, \ldots, z]_{(x, y, \ldots, z)}$ of $\widehat R$ is a localized polynomial ring in $d$-variables over $k$, and we have $\widehat{R'} = k[[x,y, \ldots, z]] = \widehat R$. Similarly, the subring $R'_1 : = k [x, y_1, \ldots, z_1]_{(x, y_1, \ldots, z_1)}$ of $\widehat{R_1}$ is a localized polynomial ring in $d$ variables over the field $k$ , and we have $\widehat {R_1} = \widehat {R'_1}$.
Note that the set $\Delta (I_1)$ of minimal monomial generators of $I_1$ in $R_1$ is contained in the rings $\widehat{R_1}$ and $R'_1$. Consider the diagram,
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[name=RHat] at (0, 0) {$\widehat{R}$};
\node[name=R] at (-1.5, -1) {$R$};
\node[name=RPrime] at (1.5, -1) {$R'$};
\node[name=R1Hat] at (0, 2) {$\widehat{R_1}$};
\node[name=R1] at (-1.5, 1) {$R_1$};
\node[name=R1Prime] at (1.5, 1) {$R'_1$};
\draw[->]
(R) edge (RHat)
(R) edge (R1)
(R1) edge (R1Hat)
(RPrime) edge (RHat)
(RPrime) edge (R1Prime)
(R1Prime) edge (R1Hat)
(RHat) edge node[right] {$\phi$} (R1Hat);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Since $\widehat{R_1}$ is faithfully flat over $R_1$, we have $$I_1 ~= ~\Delta(I_1)R_1 ~= ~ \Delta(I_1)\widehat{R_1} \cap R_1.$$ Since $\Delta (I_1) \subset R'_1$ and $\widehat{R_1}$ is faithfully flat over $R'_1$, we have $I_1 \widehat{R_1} \cap R'_1 = \Delta (I_1) R'_1$.
Define a $\operatorname{\mathbb Z}^d$-grading on the polynomial ring $A = k[x,y, \ldots, z]$ and its localization $A[\frac{1}{x}]$ by giving $x$ weight $(1,0, \ldots, 0)$, $y$ weight $(0,1,0, \ldots, 0)$, $\ldots$, and $z$ weight $(0,0,\ldots, 1)$. The polynomial ring $A_1 = k[x, \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, \frac{z}{x}]$ is a graded subring of $A[\frac{1}{x}]$, and $\Delta(I_1)$ is a subset of $A_1$. Since $A$ is a graded subring of $A_1$ and the graded ideals of $A$ with respect to this multi-grading are precisely the monomial ideals, we have $J : = \Delta(I_1)A_1 \cap A$ is a monomial ideal of $A$. Since $\Delta(I_1)$ contains a power of $x$, the ideal $J$ is primary for the maximal ideal $(x,y, \ldots, z)A$. Hence $JR' = \Delta(J)R'$ is a monomial ideal of $R'$ that is primary for the maximal ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}'$ of $R'$, and we have $\Delta(J)R' = \Delta(I_1)R_1' \cap R'$.
Since the $\operatorname{\mathbf m}'$-primary ideals of $R'$ are in one-to-one inclusion preserving correspondence with the $\widehat{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}$-primary ideals of $\widehat R$, we have $I_1 \widehat{R_1} \cap \widehat{R} = \Delta(J) \widehat{R}$. It follows that $\Delta(J )\widehat{R} \cap R = I_1 \cap R$. Since $\widehat{R}$ is faithfully flat over $R$ and $\Delta(J) \subset R$, it follows that $\Delta(J)R = I_1 \cap R$ is a monomial ideal of $R$.
Let $R_1$ denote the ring $^xR$ of Definition \[5.1\], let $I_1$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal in $R_1$, and let $\nu_x$ denote the $x$-adic valuation of $R$ on its field of fractions $\mathcal Q(R)$. Thus $\nu_x (x) = 1$, $\nu_x (y_1) = \cdots = \nu_x(z_1) = -1$. For each monomial $\alpha ~:= ~x_1^{\alpha_x}y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} ~ \in ~ \Delta(I_1)$, we have $$\nu_x (\alpha) ~ = \alpha_x~-~(\alpha_y~+~\cdots~+~\alpha_z).$$ Define the integer $\delta(I_1)$ as follows: $$\delta(I_1)~~:= ~~ \max~\Big\{ - \nu_x (\alpha)~\vert~ \alpha ~\in ~ \Delta(I_1) \Big\}.$$ Thus $x^{\delta (I_1)} \alpha \in R$ for each $\alpha \in \Delta (I_1)$, and $\delta (I_1)$ is the smallest integer with this property.
In analogy with work of Gately [@G2 page 2844] in the case where $R$ is a localized polynomial ring in three variables over a field, we define the complete inverse transform $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ of $I_1$ to be the integral closure of the ideal $J$, where $$\label{5.11}
J ~:= ~\Big( \big\{ x^{\delta (I_1)} \alpha = x^{\delta(I_1) + \nu_x (\alpha)}y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z}~\vert~
\alpha \in \Delta(I_1) \big\},
\quad y^{\delta(I_1)},
\quad \ldots,
\quad z^{\delta(I_1)} \Big )R.$$
We observe in Lemma \[5.14\] that $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ has the following properties:
\[5.14\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I_1$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary complete monomial ideal. There exist integers $n_x, n_y, \ldots, n_z$ such that $x_1^{n_x}, y_1^{n_y}, \ldots, z_1^{n_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$. Let $I := \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$. Then:
1. $\delta (I_1) = \max (n_y, \ldots, n_z)$.
2. $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I) = \delta (I_1)$.
3. $x^{n_x + \delta (I_1)} \in \Delta (I)$.
To prove item 1, let $r := \max (n_y, \ldots, n_z)$. By definition, we have $\delta (I_1) \ge r$. Since $I_1$ is integrally closed, we have $$I_1 ~\supset ~ \overline{(y_1^{n_y}, ~ \ldots, ~ z_1^{n_z})} ~ \supset ~\overline{(y_1^{r}, ~ \ldots, ~ z_1^{r})}~ = ~(y_1, ~ \ldots, ~ z_1)^{r}.$$ The last equality follows because $(y_1, \ldots, z_1)$ is a normal ideal of $R_1$. Thus whenever $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z = r$, we have $y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in I_1$. Hence for every element $x_1^{\alpha_x} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$, we have $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z \le r$, so in particular, $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z - \alpha_x \le r$, and item 1 holds.
To prove item 2, observe that by construction of $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$, we have $I = \overline {J}$, where $J$ is as defined in Equation \[5.11\]. We have $y^{\delta(I_1)} \in J$, and $\operatorname{ord}_{R}(y^{\delta(I_1)})=\delta(I_1)$. Also we have $$\operatorname{ord}_{R}(x^{\delta(I_1)+ \nu_x (\alpha) }y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z})
=\delta(I_1)+\alpha_x \geq \delta(I_1).$$ Hence $\operatorname{ord}_{R}(J)=\delta(I_1)$. Since $\operatorname{ord}_{R}(\overline{J})=\operatorname{ord}_{R}(J)$, we have $ \operatorname{ord}_{R}(I)= \delta(I_1)$.
Since $x_1^{n_x} \in \Delta (I_1)$ the definition of $J$ gives $x^{\delta (I_1) + n_x} \in J$. Remark \[monoprop\] implies that $x^n \in \Delta(J)$ if and only if $x^n \in \Delta(\overline J)$. Since every other monomial in Equation \[5.11\] is divisible by one of the variables $y, \ldots, z$, it follows that $x^{\delta (I_1) + n_x} \in \Delta (J)$. This proves item 3.
\[compat2\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I_1$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal in $R_1$. Let the ideal $J$ be as in Equation \[5.11\]. To see that $I = \overline J$ is the inverse transform of $I_1$ as defined by Lipman in Lemma 2.3 of [@L], it suffices to observe that with the notation of Definition \[5.1\], we have
1. The transform of $I$ in $^xS$ is a monomial ideal that localizes in $R_1$ to the ideal $I_1$. This is clear by definition of $I$.
2. The transform of $I$ in any of the other $d-1$ affine components $^yS = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{y}]$, $\ldots$, and $^zS = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{z}]$ is the unit ideal. This is clear because $y^{\delta (I_1)}$, $\ldots$, and $z^{\delta (I_1)}$ are in $I$.
3. The ideal $I$ is not a $*$-multiple of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$.
To see that $I$ is not a $*$-multiple of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$, let $L = I : \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, and assume by way of contradiction that $I$ is a $*$-multiple of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$, say there a complete ideal $K$ such that $I = \operatorname{\mathbf m}* K$. Since $\operatorname{\mathbf m}K \subset I$, we have $K \subset L$. Thus $\operatorname{\mathbf m}* L \subset \operatorname{\mathbf m}* K =I \subset \operatorname{\mathbf m}* L$, so we may assume $\operatorname{\mathbf m}* L = I$. The ideal $L$ is a complete monomial ideal, and the ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}L$ is a monomial ideal. Since $y^{\delta (I_1)}, \ldots, z^{\delta (I_1)} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}* L$, it follows that $y^{\delta (I_1)}, \ldots, z^{\delta (I_1)} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}L$ by Remark \[monoprop\].\[monoprop5\]. But this implies that $y^{\delta (I_1) - 1}, \ldots, z^{\delta (I_1) - 1} \in L$. Since the transform $L^{R_1}$ of $L$ in $R_1$ is $I_1$, it follows that $y_1^{\delta (I_1) - 1}, \ldots, z_1^{\delta (I_1) - 1} \in I_1$, which is a contradiction.
\[compat3\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary complete monomial ideal with exactly one base point $R_1$ in its first neighborhood. Lemma 2.3 of [@L] implies that there exists a nonnegative integer $n$ such that, $$I = \operatorname{\mathbf m}^n * \operatorname{CIT}(I^{R_1}).$$ Thus if $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I) = r$, then Equation \[5.11\] implies that $(y, \ldots, z)^{r} \subset I$.
\[eq9\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I_1$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal of $R_1$. Let $I = \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ and $\delta = \delta(I_1)$. Then: $$\label{5.129}
I~ = ~
\Big(\{ \alpha = x^{\alpha_x} y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} ~|~ x^{- \delta} \alpha = x^{\alpha_x + \alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z - \delta} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in I_1\} \Big)R.$$ Thus for $a, b, \ldots, c \in \operatorname{\mathbb N}_0$ with $ a +b + \ldots + c = \delta $, we have $$x^{a} y^{b} \cdots z^{c} ~ \in ~ I ~\iff ~ y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} ~ \in ~ I_1.$$ Hence the monomials in $I$ of minimal order are determined by the monomials in $I_1$ involving only the $d - 1$ elements $y_1, \ldots, z_1$.
By Remark \[monoprop\].\[monoprop4\], $I$ is a monomial ideal, and by Remark \[compat2\], $I$ is equal to $x^{\delta} I_1 \cap R$. Let $x^a y^b \cdots z^c \in R$ be a monomial. We have $x^a y^b \dots z^c \in I$ if and only if $x^a y^b \cdots z^c \in x^{\delta} I_1$. Rewriting $x^a y^b \cdots z^c = x^{a + b + \ldots + c} y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c}$, it follows that $x^a y^b \cdots z^c \in x^{\delta} I_1 \iff x^{a - \delta + b + \ldots + c} y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} \in I_1$. The final assertion is an immediate consequence of Equation \[5.129\].
\[mingens\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I_1$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal of $R_1$. Let $I := \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ in $R$ and let $\delta = \delta(I_1)$.
1. For every $\alpha = x^{a} y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} \in \Delta (I_1)$, we have $x^{\delta } \alpha = x^{\delta + a - b - \ldots - c} y^{b} \cdots z^{c} \in \Delta (I)$. Thus the map $$\label{5.131}
\phi : \Delta (I_1) \longrightarrow \Delta (I) \qquad \text{ defined by } \qquad
\phi(\alpha) = x^{\delta } \alpha$$ is a one-to-one map from $\Delta (I_1)$ into $\Delta (I)$. In particular, $\mu (I) \ge \mu (I_1)$.
2. Every monomial in $\Delta (I)$ has the form $y_1^{e} \cdots z_1^{f} x^{\delta } \gamma$ for some $\gamma = x^{a} y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} \in \Delta (I_1)$, where $e + \ldots + f \le \delta + a - (b + \ldots + c)$. Thus every minimal monomial generator of $I$ is obtained from the set $x^{\delta } \Delta (I_1)$ by possibly replacing $x^i$ by $y^j \cdots z^k$, where $i = j+ \cdots + k \le (j + \ldots + k) + (b + \ldots + c) \le \delta $.
Recall by Equation \[5.129\] that the monomials in $I$ are the monomials in $x^{\delta} I_1$ that are in $R$.
To see item 1, let $\alpha = x^{\alpha_x} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$ be as in the statement of item 1. Equation \[5.11\] implies that $x^{\delta} \alpha = x^{\alpha_x - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) + \delta}y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in I$. We show that $x^{\delta} \alpha$ is in $\Delta(I)$. Let $\beta = x^{\beta_x} y^{\beta_y} \cdots z^{\beta_z} \in I$ be a monomial that divides $x^\delta \alpha$. Then $$\beta_x \le \alpha_x - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) + \delta,\quad
\beta_y \le \alpha_y,
\quad \ldots,
\quad \beta_z \le \alpha_z.$$ It follows that $x^{- \delta} \beta = x^{\beta_x + (\beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z) - \delta} y_1^{\beta_y} \cdots z_1^{\beta_z}$ is in $I_1$, and we have $$\beta_x + (\beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z) - \delta \le
(\delta + \alpha_x - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z)) + (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) - \delta = \alpha_x.$$ Hence $x^{- \delta} \beta$ divides $\alpha$ in $R_1$. Since $\alpha \in \Delta(I_1)$, we have $x^{- \delta} \beta = \alpha$ and $\beta = x^{\delta} \alpha$. This proves item 1.
To see item 2, let $\alpha = x^{\alpha_x} y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I)$, and consider its transform $x^{- \delta} \alpha = x^{\alpha_x + (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) - \delta} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in I_1$. Then $x^{- \delta} \alpha$ is divisible by some $\beta = x^{\beta_x} y_1^{\beta_y} \cdots z_1^{\beta_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$ and we have the inequalities, $$\beta_x \le \alpha_x + (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) - \delta, \quad \beta_y \le \alpha_y, \quad \ldots, \quad \beta_z \le \alpha_z.$$ Consider the integer $s := \beta_x - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) + \delta$. Then $s \le \alpha_x$. Let $\gamma = y_1^{\alpha_y - \beta_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z - \beta_z}$. Then $\gamma \beta = x^{\beta_x} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in I_1$ and $x^{\delta} x^{- s} \gamma \beta = y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in R$. We first show that $s \ge 0$.
Suppose by way of contradiction that $s < 0$. Then $x^{-s} \gamma \beta \in I_1$ and it follows that $x^{\delta} x^{-s} \gamma \beta = y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in I$. Since $\alpha \in \Delta(I)$, this monomial is $\alpha$, and we have $\alpha_x = 0$. However, $(y, \ldots, z)^{\delta } \subset I$ implies $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z \le \delta$, and this implies $s \ge 0$, a contradiction.
Thus $s \ge 0$. That $\gamma \beta \in I_1$ implies $x^{\delta} \gamma \beta = x^{s} y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in I$. Since $\alpha \in \Delta(I)$, it follows that $\alpha$ divides this monomial, so we have $\alpha_x \le s$, and by construction, $s \le \alpha_x$, so $s = \alpha_x$. This proves item 2.
For a class of monomial ideals $I$ that includes complete inverse transforms, we prove in Theorem \[mingens3\] that the minimal number of generators of $I$ is completely determined by the order of $I$.
\[mingens3\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring, and fix $d$ elements $x,y, \ldots, z$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x, y, \ldots, z)R$. Let $I$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal with $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I) = r$. If $(y, \ldots, z)^{r} \subset I$ and $I$ is contracted from $S = R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$, then $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^r) = \binom{d+r-1}{r}$.
Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the set of monomials in $y, \ldots, z$ of degree less than or equal to $r$. To prove the theorem, it suffices to show that the elements of $\Delta (I)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of $\mathcal S$. Since $I$ is $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary, for each monomial $\alpha \in \mathcal{S}$ there is a nonnegative integer $c$ such that $x^c \alpha \in I$. By choosing $c$ to be minimal with this property, we obtain a one-to-one map of sets $\varphi : \mathcal{S} \rightarrow I$. Notice that for each monomial $\alpha \in \mathcal{S}$ of degree $r$, we have $\varphi (\alpha) = \alpha$ and $\alpha \in \Delta (I)$.
Given a monomial $\beta = x^{\beta_x} y^{\beta_y} \cdots z^{\beta_z} \in I$, set $\alpha = y^{\beta_y} \cdots z^{\beta_z}$. If the degree of $\alpha$ is greater than $r$, then $\alpha$ is divisible by an element in $\varphi (\mathcal S)$. If the degree of $\alpha$ is less than or equal to $r$, then $\beta$ is divisible by $\varphi (\alpha)$. We conclude that $I \subseteq \varphi(\mathcal S) R$. Since the elements in $\varphi(\mathcal S)$ are monomials, it follows that $\Delta (I) \subseteq \varphi(\mathcal S)$.
It remains to show that every element in $\varphi (\mathcal{S})$ is in $\Delta (I)$. Suppose by way of contradiction that there exists $\alpha = y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z} \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $\varphi (\alpha) = x^{c} \alpha \in I$ is not in $\Delta (I)$. There exists a monomial $\beta = x^{\beta_x} y^{\beta_y} \cdots z^{\beta_z} \in I$ that properly divides $x^c\alpha$. Take $\beta$ so that $\beta_x$ is minimal among monomials in $I$ that properly divide $x^c\alpha$. The minimality of $c$ implies that for some variable $w$ other than $x$, $\beta_w < \alpha_w$. We may assume without loss of generality that $w = y$. If $\beta_x = 0$, then $r = \beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z < \alpha_y + \ldots +\alpha_z$, a contradiction to the assumption that $\alpha$ has degree at most $r$. The fact that $I$ is contracted from $S$ implies that $x^{\beta_x - 1} y y^{\beta_y} \cdots z^{\beta_z}$ is an element in $I$ that properly divides $x^{c} \alpha$. This contradicts the minimality of $\beta_x$ and thus completes the proof of Theorem \[mingens3\].
\[mingens4\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\], and let $I$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal of order $r$ in $R$ whose only base point in the first neighborhood of $R$ is $R_1$. Then $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^r)$.
In view of Remark \[compat3\], this follows from Theorem \[mingens3\].
\[examtable\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\] with $d = 3$. Consider the ideal $$J_1 ~= ~ (x^2,~ xy_1,~ xz_1, ~ y_1z_1,~ y_1^3,~ z_1^3)R_1.$$ Then $$I~=~ \operatorname{CIT}(J_1) ~=~(x^5, ~x^3y,~x^3z,~x^2y^2,~xyz,~x^2z^2, ~(y,~z)^3)R.$$ In the following tables, the entry in the $i$-th column and $j$-th row gives the integer $c$ such that $x^c y^i z^j \in \Delta (I)$. The table on the left shows the image of $\Delta (J_1)$ under the map $\phi$ defined in Lemma \[mingens\], and the table on the right shows all of the elements of $\Delta (I)$, obtained from the left table by converting powers of $x$ to powers of $y, z$ as in Lemma \[mingens\].
0 1 2 3
--- --- --- --- ---
0 5 3 0
1 3 1
2
3 0
0 1 2 3
--- --- --- --- ---
0 5 3 2 0
1 3 1 0
2 2 0
3 0
\[shapeofideals\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\]. Let $I_1$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal, let $I := \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ in $R$, and let $\delta = \delta(I_1)$. Consider the following statements:
1. $\mu (I) = \mu (I_1)$.
2. $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1)$.
3. For every $y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} \in \Delta (I_1)$, $b + \ldots + c = \delta$.
4. $\operatorname{ord}_{R}$ is not a Rees valuation of $I$.
Then $(1) \iff (2), ~~ (2) \implies (3)$ and $(3) \iff (4)$.
Lemma \[mingens\] implies that item 1 is equivalent to the map $\phi: \Delta(I_1) \to \Delta(I)$ of Equation \[5.131\] is surjective. Thus $\mu(I) = \mu(I_1)$ if and only if $$\label{mingens2}
\Delta (I) ~= ~ \{~ x^{\delta + a - (b + \ldots + c)} y^{b} \cdots z^c ~|~ x^{a} y_1^{b} \cdots z_1^{c} \in \Delta (I_1) ~ \}.$$
To see that item 1 implies item 2, assume item 1, and suppose by way of contradiction that item 2 does not hold. Then there exists an element $\alpha = x^{\alpha_x} y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$ such that $\alpha_x + (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (\alpha) < \delta$. Among all such elements, take $\alpha$ to have minimal $\alpha_x$. The element $x^{\delta} \alpha = x^{\alpha_x + \delta - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z)} y^{\alpha_y} \cdots
z^{\alpha_z}$ is in $\Delta (I)$ by Equation \[mingens2\]. Our assumption implies that $\delta + \alpha_x - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) > 0$, so $y_1 x^{\delta} \alpha \in I$, and hence is divisible by an element in $\Delta (I)$. Since $\mu (I) = \mu (I_1)$, $y_1 x^{\delta} \alpha$ is divisible by some $x^{\delta} \beta$, where $\beta = x^{\beta_x} y_1^{\beta_y} \cdots z_1^{\beta_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$. That is, $$\beta_x + \delta - (\beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z) ~\le ~ \alpha_x + \delta - (1 + \alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z),$$ $$\label{soi1}
\beta_y ~\le ~ \alpha_y + 1,
\quad \ldots,
\quad \beta_z ~ \le ~ \alpha_z.$$ In Equation \[soi1\], the lower dots represent the fact that for every one of our fixed set of minimal generators $w$ for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ other than $x$ or $y$, $\beta_w \le \alpha_w$. Hence $$\beta_x ~ \le ~ \alpha_x + (\beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z) - (1 + \alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) ~ \le ~ \alpha_x.$$ We have either $\beta_x = \alpha_x$ or $\beta_x < \alpha_x$.
Suppose that $\beta_x = \alpha_x$. Then each of the inequalities in Equation \[soi1\] is an equality. Thus $\alpha$ properly divides $\beta$ in $I_1$, a contradiction to the fact that $\beta \in \Delta (I_1)$.
Thus we must have $\beta_x < \alpha_x$, that is, $\beta_x \le \alpha_x - 1$. Then $$\operatorname{ord}_{R_1}(\beta) ~ = ~ \beta_x + (\beta_y + \ldots + \beta_z) ~\le ~
(\alpha_x - 1) + (1 + \alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) ~\le~
\alpha_x + (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) ~ < ~ \delta.$$ This contradicts the choice of $\alpha$ and completes the proof that item 1 implies item 2.
Assume item 2 holds. To prove item 3 also holds, let $y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$. Lemma \[5.14\] implies that $\delta = \operatorname{ord}_{R} (I)$. Hence we have $$\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1)~ \le ~\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z ~\le ~\delta ~ =
~\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I)~ = ~\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I_1),$$ so equality holds throughout, and item 3 holds.
We next show that item 2 implies item 1. Let $S_2 := R_1 [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1}{x}]$. We show that $I_1 S_2 \cap R_1 = I_1$. We have $y_1^\delta, \ldots, z_1^\delta \in \Delta(I_1)$ and $x^{n_x} \in \Delta( I_1)$ for some integer $n_x \ge \delta$. We consider the extension of $I_1$ in the blowup $\operatorname{Proj}(R_1[\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1t])$ of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$. Since $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1) = \delta$ and $y_1^{\delta}, \ldots, z_1^\delta \in I_1$, the extension of $I_1$ in every monomial quadratic transform of $R_1$ other than in the $x_1$-direction is the same as the extension of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^{\delta}$. Thus $(S_2)_{(x, \frac{y_1}{x}, \ldots, \frac{z_1}{x})}$ is the unique base point of $I_1$ in the first neighborhood of $R_1$. Corollary \[mingens4\] implies that $\mu (I_1) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^\delta)$ and $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^\delta)$, thus proving item 1.
To see that item 3 implies item 4, consider the monomials of $I$ of minimal order in $R$. Proposition \[eq9\] implies each such monomial has the form $y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z}$, where $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z = \delta$.
Let $w_1, \ldots, w_{d-1}$ denote the variables $y, \ldots, z$. Let $k$ denote the residue of $R$ and let $K$ denote the residue field of the order valuation ring of $R$. Let $\xi_i$ denote the image of $\frac{w_i}{w_{d-1}}$ in the field $K$, and let $L = k (\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_{d-2} )$, so that the transcendence degree of $L$ over $k$ is $d - 2$. Then $L$ contains the image of $\frac{\alpha}{\beta}$ in $K$, for all elements $\alpha, \beta \in I$ of minimal order. Theorem \[3.1\] implies that $\operatorname{ord}_R$ is not a Rees valuation of $I$.
To see that item 4 implies item 3, assume there exists an element $y_1^{\alpha_y} \cdots z_1^{\alpha_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$ such that $\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z < \delta$. By Equation \[5.129\], the element $x^{\delta - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z)} y^{\alpha_y} \cdots z^{\alpha_z}$ is in $I$, where $\delta - (\alpha_y + \ldots + \alpha_z) > 0$. Since $I$ contains an element of minimal order divisible by $x$, Proposition \[contracted\] implies that $\operatorname{ord}_{R}$ is a Rees valuation of $I$.
Example \[3not1\] demonstrates that items 3 and 4 of Theorem \[shapeofideals\] do not in general imply items 1 and 2.
\[3not1\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\] with $d = 3$. Let $I_1$ be the complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary ideal $(x, y_1^2, y_1 z_1, z_1^2)R_1$. Then $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1) = (x^3, y^2, y z, z^2, x^2 y, x^2 z)$. The ideal $I_1$ satisfies items 3 and 4, but not items 1 and 2 of Theorem \[shapeofideals\].
The ideal $I_1$ of Example \[3not1\] is not finitely supported. In connection with Theorem \[shapeofideals\], we ask:
1. If the complete monomial ideal $I_1$ in Theorem \[shapeofideals\] is finitely supported and satisfies items 3 and 4, does it also satisfy items 1 and 2?
2. If $I$ is a finitely supported $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary complete monomial ideal of order $r$, is $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^r)$?
3. If $I$ is an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary complete monomial ideal of order $r$ with only finitely many base points in its first neighborhood, is $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^r)$?
4. Do either of the two previous questions have an affirmative answer without the assumption that $I$ is a monomial ideal?
Without the assumption that $I$ has finitely many base points in its first neighborhood, it is easy to give examples in a $3$-dimensional regular local ring $R$ of complete monomial ideals of order $1$ that require an arbitrarily large minimal number of generators. For example, for each positive integer $k$, the ideal $x R + (y, z)^{k} R$ is a complete monomial ideal that requires $k+2$ generators.
In Theorem \[compat\] we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the complete inverse transform of a $*$-product of monomial ideals to be the $*$-product of the complete inverse transforms of the factors.
\[compat\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\]. Let $I_1$ and $ I'_1$ be complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideals of $R_1$. Let $y_1^{n_y}, \ldots, z_1^{n_z} \in \Delta (I_1)$ and $y_1^{n'_y}, \ldots, z_1^{n'_z} \in \Delta (I'_1)$. Let $$n ~: = ~\max \{n_y, \ldots, n_z\} + ~\max \{n'_y, \ldots, n'_z\} ~ - ~\max \{n_y + n'_y, \ldots, n_z + n'_z\}.$$ Then $n$ is a nonnegative integer and we have $$\operatorname{CIT}(I_1) * \operatorname{CIT}(I'_1)~ = ~\operatorname{\mathbf m}^{n} * \operatorname{CIT}(I_1 * I'_1).$$
Lemma 2.3 of [@L] implies that $$\operatorname{CIT}(I_1) * \operatorname{CIT}(I'_1) ~ = ~ \operatorname{\mathbf m}^{k} * \operatorname{CIT}(I_1 * I'_1)$$ where $$k~ = ~ \operatorname{ord}_{R} (\operatorname{CIT}(I_1)) + ~\operatorname{ord}_{R} (\operatorname{CIT}(I'_1)) - ~\operatorname{ord}_{R} (\operatorname{CIT}(I_1 * I'_1))$$ is a nonnegative integer. Lemma \[5.14\] implies that $k = n$.
The following corollary is immediate.
Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\]. Let $I_1$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal of $R_1$. With all products taken to be $*$-products, we have
1. For $k \ge 0$, $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1^k) = \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)^{k}$.
2. For $k \ge 0$, $\operatorname{CIT}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^k I_1) = \operatorname{CIT}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1)^k \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$.
\[simple\] Assume the notation of Setting \[Setting4\] with $d = 3$. Consider the ideals $$I_1~ = ~(x, y_1^2, z_1) \qquad I'_1~ = ~(x, y_1, z_1^2) \quad \text { and } \quad
I_1I_1' ~= ~ (x^2, xy_1, xz_1, y_1z_1, y_1^3, z_1^3)$$ of $R_1$. Let $I = \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ and $I' = \operatorname{CIT}(I'_1)$. We have $$I ~= ~(x z, y^2, y z, z^2) +~ \operatorname{\mathbf m}^3 \qquad \text{ and } \qquad I'~ = ~(x y, y^2, y z, z^2) + ~\operatorname{\mathbf m}^3,$$ while $$K~ := ~ \operatorname{CIT}(I_1 I'_1) ~ = ~ (x^5, x^3 y, x^3 z, x y z) + (y, z)^3.$$ Theorem \[compat\] implies that $I * I' = \operatorname{\mathbf m}* K$. The ideals $I$ and $I'$ are special $*$-simple complete ideals each having three base points, the first two base points being $R$ and $R_1$. The third base point for $I$ and $I'$ are $$R_2 ~= ~R_1[\frac{x}{y_1}, \frac{z_1}{y_1}]_{(y_1, \frac{x}{y_1}, \frac{z_1}{y_1})} \quad \text{ and } \quad R_2'~ = ~
R_1[\frac{x}{z_1}, \frac{y_1}{z_1}]_{(z_1, \frac{x}{z_1}, \frac{y_1}{z_1})}$$ respectively. Since $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ is clearly special $*$-simple, the expression $\operatorname{\mathbf m}* K = I * I'$ is the unique factorization of $K$ as a product of special $*$-simple ideals. The ideal $K$ has four base points $R, R_1, R_2, R_2'$ and has point basis $3,2,1,1$. We prove that $K$ is $*$-simple. The points $R_2$ and $R_2'$ are maximal base points of $K$. Assume that $K = L *W$ is a nontrivial $*$-factorization. Since $K$ is a complete inverse transform, neither $L$ nor $W$ is a power of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$, so both $L$ and $W$ have $R_1$ as a base point. We first show that neither $L$ nor $W$ has both $R_2$ and $R_2'$ as base points. Assume by way of contradiction that $L$ has both $R_2$ and $R_2'$ as base points. Then $W$ has neither $R_2$ nor $R_2'$ as a base point. We have $ K^{R_1} = L^{R_1}*W^{R_1}$. Since $L^{R_1}$ has two maximal base points, Fact \[order1\] implies that $L^{R_1}$ has order at least $2$. Thus $L^{R_1} = K^{R_1}$ and $W^{R_1} = R_1$, a contradiction to the assumption that $R_1$ is a base point of $W$. Thus $K = L*W$ implies that each of $L$ and $W$ contains precisely one of the two maximal base points $R_2$ and $R_2'$. Hence the base points of $L$ and $W$ are linearly ordered. Theorem \[nonegativeexpo\] implies that the factorizations of $L$ and $W$ as a $*$-product of special $*$-simple ideals involve no negative exponents. Since $I$ is the special $*$-simple ideal $P_{RR_2}$ and $I'$ is the special $*$-simple ideal $P_{RR_2'}$, Remark \[factprop\] implies that $L \subseteq I$ and $W \subseteq I'$ and therefore that $K$ is contained in the $I * I'$. This contradicts the fact that $K$ has order 3 and $I * I'$ has order 4. We conclude that $K$ is $*$-simple.
Sequences of local monomial quadratic transformations {#cc5}
=====================================================
\[5.3\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be an equicharacteristic $d$-dimensional regular local ring and fix a regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, z$ for $R$. Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, and let $$\label{5.31}
R:=R_0~\subset~R_1~\subset~R_2~ \subset~\cdots~\subset~ R_{n-1}~\subset~R_n$$ be a [**sequence of $d$-dimensional local monomial quadratic transformations**]{} in the sense that the fixed regular system of parameters for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{i+1}$ is determined inductively from $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i$ in the following manner:
Fix a regular system of parameters $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i:=(x_i,~y_i,~\ldots,~z_i)R_i$ for $i$ with $0\leq i \leq n$ as defined inductively. Then we say that $R_{i+1}$ is a [**local monomial quadratic transformation**]{} of $R_i$ in the $x$-direction if $$R_{i+1}=R_i\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i}{x_i}\big]_{(x_i,~\frac{y_i}{x_i},~\ldots,~\frac{z_i}{x_i})},
\quad \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{i+1}=(x_{i+1},~y_{i+1},~ \ldots, ~z_{i+1})R_{i+1},$$ $$\text{where}\quad x_{i+1}:=x_i,
\quad y_{i+1}:=\frac{y_i}{x_i},
\quad \ldots,
\quad z_{i+1}:=\frac{z_i}{x_i}.$$ Similarly, we say that $R_{i+1}$ is a [**local monomial quadratic transformation** ]{} of $R_i$ in the $y$-direction, $\ldots$, or $z$-direction if $$R_{i+1}=R_i\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i}{y_i}\big]_{(\frac{x_i}{y_i},~y_i,~\ldots,~\frac{z_i}{y_i})},
\quad \ldots,
\quad \text{or}\quad
R_{i+1}=R_i\big[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i}{z_i}\big]_{(\frac{x_i}{z_i},~\frac{y_i}{z_i},~\ldots,~z_i)}.$$ Let $V_i$ denote the order valuation ring of $R_i$, for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n$. For each integer $i$ with $1 \le i \le n$ and each $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i$-primary monomial ideal $I$, let $\operatorname{CIT}(I)$ denote the complete inverse transform of $I$ in $R_{i-1}$.
\[monomial valuations\] Assuming notation as in Setting \[5.3\], Proposition \[contract7\] implies that the $V_i$-ideals in $R$ are all monomial ideals.
\[5.40\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], and let $n = 2$. Let $I_1, \ldots, I_m$ be $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2$-primary complete monomial ideals of $R_2$. With all products taken to be $*$-products, for each $k \in \operatorname{\mathbb N}_0$ we have $$\operatorname{CIT}\left( \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^k \prod_{i=1}^{m} \operatorname{CIT}(I_i) \right) ~ = ~\operatorname{CIT}(\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^k) \prod_{i=1}^{m} \operatorname{CIT}( \operatorname{CIT}(I_i) )$$
Without loss of generality, we may assume that the local monomial quadratic transformation from $R_1$ to $R_2$ is in the $x$-direction. If $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} \operatorname{CIT}(I_i) = e_i$, then Remark \[compat2\] and Proposition \[eq9\] imply that $w_1^{e_i} $ is a minimal generator for $\operatorname{CIT}(I_i)$ for each of the elements $w_1$ other than $x_1$ in the fixed regular system of parameters for $R_1$. The assertion now follows from Theorem \[compat\].
\[nonegativeexpo\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\] and let $I $ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal of $R$. If the base points of $I$ are a subset of $\{R_0, \ldots, R_n \}$, then the unique factorization of $I$ as a product of special $*$-simple ideals involves no negative exponents.
We use induction on $n$. If $n = 0$, the only base point of $I$ is $R$, so $I$ is a power of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ and the assertion holds.
Assume $n > 0$ and the assertion is true for $n - 1$. Let $J_1 = I^{R_1}$ be the complete transform of $I$ in $R_1$, and let $J := \operatorname{CIT}(J_1)$. Lipman’s unique factorization theorem implies that there exists a unique set of integers $k_i$ such that $$\left( \prod_{k_i < 0} P_{R_0 R_i}^{- k_i} \right) I ~= ~\prod_{k_i > 0} P_{R_0 R_i}^{k_i},$$ where all products are $*$-products. Taking complete transform to $R_1$ of the ideals on both sides of this equation, we obtain $$\left( \prod_{i \ge 1, k_i < 0} P_{R_1 R_i}^{- k_i} \right) J_1~ = ~ \prod_{i \ge 1, k_i > 0} P_{R_1 R_i}^{k_i}.$$ By the induction hypothesis $k_i \ge 0$ for $1 \le i \le n$. Hence $$J_1 = \prod_{i \ge 1, k_i > 0} P_{R_1 R_i}^{k_i}.$$ Taking complete inverse transform and using Lemma \[5.40\] gives $$J ~ = ~ \prod_{i=1}^{n} P_{R_0 R_i}^{k_i}.$$ Since $J^{R_1} = I^{R_1}$ and $R_1$ is the only base point of $I$ or $J$ in the first neighborhood of $R$, Lemma 2.3 of [@L] implies that there exists an integer $n \ge 0$ such that $I = \operatorname{\mathbf m}^{n} * J$. It follows that $n = k_0$ and $I$ has no negative exponents in its unique factorization as a product of special $*$-simple ideals.
\[simpleisspecial\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\]. If $I$ is an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary finitely supported $*$-simple complete monomial ideal and the base points of $I$ are linearly ordered, then $I$ is a special $*$-simple ideal.
We may assume the base points of $I$ are $\{R_0, \ldots, R_n\}$ as in Setting \[5.3\], and apply Theorem \[nonegativeexpo\].
\[5.41\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], and let $n = 2$. Let $I_2 \subset R_2$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2$-primary complete monomial ideal, and let $I_1 = \operatorname{CIT}(I_2)$ in $R_1$ and $I_0 = \operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$ in $R_0$. The following are equivalent:
1. There is a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$.
2. $\mu(I_0) > \mu(I_1)$.
3. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} (I_0) = s$, where $s = \max \{ \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (\alpha) \vert \alpha \in \Delta (I_1) \}$.
4. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} (I_0) > \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1)$.
5. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0}$ is a Rees valuation of $I_0$.
The proof proceeds as follows. We show that if there is a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$, then items 2, 3, 4 and 5 hold, and if there is not a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$, then items 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not hold. Thus, items 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all equivalent to item 1. We may assume without loss of generality that $R_1 \subset R_2$ is in the $x$-direction.
Let $x_2^{n_x}, y_2^{n_y}, \ldots, z_2^{n_z} \in \Delta (I_2)$, and let $r = \delta (I_2) = \max\{n_y, \ldots, n_z\}$. Lemma \[5.14\] and Proposition \[eq9\] imply that $x_1^{n_x + r}, y_1^{r}, \ldots, z_1^{r} \in \Delta (I_1)$ and $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1) = r$. Thus we have $s = n_x + r > \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1)$.
Assume there is no change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$. That is, $R_0 \subset R_1$ is in the $x$-direction. By Lemma \[5.14\], $r = \delta (I_1)$, and $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} (I_0) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1)$. Theorem \[shapeofideals\] implies that $\mu(I_0) = \mu(I_1)$ and $V_0 \notin \operatorname{Rees }(I_0)$. Thus items 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not hold.
Assume there is a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $R_0 \subset R_1$ is in the $y$-direction. Lemma \[5.14\] implies that $\delta (I_1) = n_x + r$, and $\operatorname{ord}_{R} (I_0) = n_x + r$. Thus items 3 and 4 hold. Theorem \[shapeofideals\] implies that $\mu(I_0) > \mu(I_1)$, and since $z^{r} \in \Delta (I_1)$ and $r < n_x + r = \delta (I_1)$, Theorem \[shapeofideals\] also implies that $V_0 \in \operatorname{Rees }(I_0)$. Thus items 2 and 5 hold.
\[5.41r\] The integer $s$ of item 2 of Theorem \[5.41\] is the smallest integer $s$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1^s \subset I_1$. It is also equal to $\max\{a, b, \ldots, c\}$, where $x_1^{a}, y_1^{b}, \ldots, z_1^{c} \in \Delta (I_1)$.
Let $I$ be a complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal that has at most one base point in the first neighborhood of $R$. By Remark \[compat3\], this assumption on $I$ is equivalent to the assumption that $I$ is either a power of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$, or $I$ is a power of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ times $\operatorname{CIT}(I_1)$, where $I_1$ is an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$-primary monomial ideal of the unique base point $R_1$ of $I$ in the first neighborhood of $R$. Let $x^a, y^b, \ldots, z^c \in \Delta (I)$. We associate with $I$ a pair of integers, $r = \min (a, b, \ldots, c)$ and $s = \max (a, b, \ldots, c)$. With our assumptions on $I$, it follows that $r = \operatorname{ord}_{R} (I)$ and $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^{s} \subseteq I$. That is, $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^r \supseteq I \supseteq \operatorname{\mathbf m}^s$, and $r$ is the maximum integer and $s$ is the minimum integer such that these inclusions hold. We call the integer $s$ the [**index**]{} of $I$. Even in the case where the $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary complete ideal $I$ is not a monomial ideal, we refer to the smallest integer $s$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^s \subseteq I$ as the [**index**]{} of $I$.
Theorem \[5.41\] yields a description of how these invariants behave with respect to complete inverse transform. In particular, let $I_1, I_0$ be as Theorem \[5.41\], and let $s$ and $r$ be the index and order of $I_1$, respectively. If there is no change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$, then the index and order of $I_0$ are $s + r$ and $r$, respectively. If there is a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$, then the index and order of $I_0$ are $s + r$ and $s$, respectively.
\[5.43\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], and let $n = 3$. Let $I_3 \subset R_3$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3$-primary complete monomial ideal, and define $I_i = \operatorname{CIT}(I_{i+1})$ in $R_i$ for $0 \le i \le 2$. The following are equivalent:
1. There is a change in direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$ and a change in direction from $R_1$ to $R_3$.
2. $\mu(I_0) > \mu(I_1) > \mu(I_2)$.
3. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} (I_0) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_1}(I_1) + \operatorname{ord}_{R_2}(I_2)$.
4. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0}$ and $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1}$ are both Rees valuations of $I_0$.
Applying Theorem \[5.41\], it is straightforward that items 1 and 2 are equivalent. By Proposition \[reestrans\], $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} \in \operatorname{Rees }_{R_0} (I_0)$ if and only if $\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} \in \operatorname{Rees }_{R_1} (I_1)$. Thus it is clear that items 1 and 4 are equivalent. It remains to show that item 1 is equivalent to item 3.
We may assume without loss of generality that $R_2 \subset R_3$ is in the $x$-direction. Let $x^{a_3}, y^{b_3}, \ldots, z^{c_3} \in \Delta(I_3)$ and let $r_2 = \delta(I_3) = \max\{b_3, \ldots, c_3\}$. Lemma \[5.14\] and Proposition \[eq9\] imply that $x_2^{a_3 + r_2}, y_1^{r_2}, \ldots, z_1^{r_2} \in \Delta (I_2)$ and $\operatorname{ord}_{R_2} (I_2) = r_2$.
We compute the index and order of $I_1$, and $I_0$ as in Remark \[5.41r\]. Let $s$ and $r$ be the index and order of $I_2$, respectively, and notice that $s > r$. We have the following diagram. In the diagram, the index and order of $I_i$ are on the $i$-th level. Going down to the left from level $i$ to level $i - 1$ indicates a change in direction from $R_{i-1}$ to $R_{i+1}$, whereas going down to the right indicates no change in direction.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[level distance=1.5cm,
level 1/.style={sibling distance=6cm},
level 2/.style={sibling distance=3cm}]
\node (Root) {$(s, r)$}
child {
node {$(s + r, s)$}
child {
node {$(2 s + r, s + r)$}
}
child {
node {$(2 s + r, s)$}
}
}
child {
node {$(s + r, r)$}
child {
node {$(s + 2 r, s + r)$}
}
child {
node {$(s + 2 r, r)$}
}
};
\node [right of=Root, node distance=7cm] (Level2) {$(2)$}
child { node {$(1)$} edge from parent[draw=none]
child { node{$(0)$} edge from parent[draw=none]}
};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Since $s > r$, it follows from this diagram that $\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} (I_0) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_1} (I_1) + \operatorname{ord}_{R_2} (I_2)$ if and only if item 1 holds.
Theorem \[5.43\] directly implies the following more general result that we state as Corollary \[5.431\].
\[5.431\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], with $n \ge 3$. Let $I_n \subset R_n$ be an $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$-primary complete monomial ideal. Define $I_i = \operatorname{CIT}(I_{i+1})$ in $R_i$ for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n - 1$. The following are equivalent:
1. There is a change in direction from $R_i$ to $R_{i+2}$ for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n - 2$.
2. $\mu (I_0) > \mu (I_1) > \ldots > \mu (I_{n-1})$.
3. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_i} (I_i) = \operatorname{ord}_{R_{i+1}} (I_{i+1}) + \operatorname{ord}_{R_{i+2}} (I_{i+2})$ for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n - 3$.
4. $\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}$ is a Rees valuation of $I_0$ for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n - 2$.
\[gcd one\] We describe all possible ordered pairs $(s, r)$ such that $s$ is the index and $r$ is the order of a special $*$-simple monomial ideal. Assume the notation of Setting \[5.3\]. The index and order of $P_{R_n R_n} = \operatorname{\mathbf m}_n$ and $P_{R_{n-1} R_n}$ are $(1, 1)$ and $(2, 1)$, respectively. For $i$ with $0 \le i \le n - 2$, if the index and order of $P_{R_{i+1} R_n}$ is $(s, r)$, then Theorem \[5.43\] implies the index and order of $P_{R_i R_n}$ is $(s + r, s)$ if there is a change of direction from $R_i$ to $R_{i+2}$ and $(s + r, r)$ if there is no change of direction from $R_i$ to $R_{i+2}$. Diagram \[MonomialTree\] illustrates the first few levels of an infinite tree that describes this behavior, where the left path indicates a change of direction and the right path indicates no change of direction.
$$\label{MonomialTree}\begin{tikzpicture}[level distance=1.5cm,
level 2/.style={sibling distance=6cm},
level 3/.style={sibling distance=3cm},
level 4/.style={sibling distance=1.5cm}]
\node (Root) {$(1, 1)$}
child {
node {$(2, 1)$}
child {
node {$(3, 2)$}
child {
node {$(5, 3)$}
child { node {$(8, 5)$} }
child { node {$(8, 3)$} }
}
child {
node {$(5, 2)$}
child { node {$(7, 5)$} }
child { node {$(7, 2)$} }
}
}
child {
node {$(3, 1)$}
child {
node {$(4, 3)$}
child { node {$(7, 4)$} }
child { node {$(7, 3)$} }
}
child {
node {$(4, 1)$}
child { node {$(5, 4)$} }
child { node {$(5, 1)$} }
}
}
};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
For a vertex $(s, r)$ at a given level past the first (that is, $s \ge 2$), there are precisely two vertices at the next level adjacent to $(s, r)$, namely $(s + r, s)$ and $(s + r, r)$. Since $\gcd (s, r) = 1$ implies that $\gcd (s + r, r) = 1$ and $\gcd (s + r, s) = 1$, and $\gcd (1, 1) = 1$, every ordered pair $(s, r)$ of positive integers that may be realized as the index and order of a special $*$-simple monomial ideal satisfies the properties: (i) $s \ge r$, and (ii) $\gcd (s, r) = 1$. We show in Theorem \[invariants\] that every pair $(s, r)$ satisfying (i) and (ii) is realized as the index and order of a special $*$-simple monomial ideal and observe uniqueness properties of this realization.
\[invariants\] Let $(s, r)$ be an ordered pair of positive integers such that $s \ge r$ and $gcd (s, r) = 1$. Then $(s, r)$ occurs exactly once in the tree described in Diagram \[MonomialTree\].
We use induction on the positive integer $s$. The cases where $s \le 2$ are clear.
Assume $s > 2$ and that for all positive integers $s' < s$ and all ordered pairs $(s', r')$ that satisfy $s' \ge r'$ and $\gcd (s', r') = 1$, the assertions of Proposition \[invariants\].
Let $r$ be a positive integer with $s > r$ and $\gcd (s, r) = 1$. Either we have $s - r > r$ or $s - r < r$.
**Case 1:** Assume that $s - r > r$. Consider the pair $(s - r, r)$. By the induction hypothesis, the pair $(s - r, r)$ occurs exactly once in Diagram \[MonomialTree\]. Passing one step down in the diagram from $(s - r, r)$ to the right gives $(s, r)$.
Suppose that $(s, r)$ occurs as the child node of some $(s', r')$. Thus $s' + r' = s$, and either $s' = r$ or $r' = r$. If $s' = r$, then $r' = s - r > r = s'$, which contradicts the fact that $s' \ge r'$, so it must be the case that $r' = r$. Thus $(s', r') = (s - r, r)$.
**Case 2:** Assume that $s - r < r$. Similarly to the previous case, the pair $(r, s - r)$ occurs exactly once, and $(s, r)$ is obtained by passing down one step to the left.
Suppose that $(s, r)$ occurs as the child node of some $(s', r')$. As before, $s' + r' = s$, and either $s' = r$ or $r' = r$. If $r' = r$, then $s' = s - r < r = r'$, which contradicts the fact that $s' \ge r'$, so $s' = r$. Thus $(s', r') = (r, s - r)$.
We record in Corollaries \[5.5\] and \[5.6\] implications of Theorem \[5.43\] for special $*$-simple monomial ideals.
\[5.5\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], and fix $i$ with $0 \leq i \leq n-3$. If there are two change of directions from $R_i$ to $R_{i+3}$, then we have $$\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(P_{R_iR_n})=\operatorname{ord}_{R_{i+1}}(P_{R_{i+1}R_n})+\operatorname{ord}_{R_{i+2}}(P_{R_{i+2}R_n}).$$
\[5.6\] Assume notation as in Setting \[5.3\], and let $I := P_{R_0R_n}$ denote the special $*$-simple complete ideal associated to the sequence of local monomial quadratic transformations of Equation \[5.31\]. Let $r_i:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}(P_{R_iR_n})$ for each $i$ with $0 \leq i \leq n$. If for each $i$ with $0 \le i \le n-2$ there is a change of direction between $R_i$ and $R_{i+2}$, then
1. $V_i\in \operatorname{Rees }(P_{R_iR_n})$ for all $i=0,1,2,\ldots, n-2$.
2. $\operatorname{Rees }(I)=\{V_0,~V_1,~ V_2,~ \ldots, V_{n-2},~V_n\}$.
3. $\mathcal B(I)=\{r_0, r_1, r_2, r_3, \ldots, 13,8,5,3,2,1,1\}$ is a Fibonacci sequence.
4. The sequence $(s_0, s_1, \ldots, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1)$, where $s_i$ is the index of $P_{R_iR_n}$, is a shift of a Fibonacci sequence.
Example \[7.9\] describes the structure of the special $*$-simple complete ideal $P_{R_0R_4}$ in the case where there is a change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$ and from $R_2$ to $R_4$, but there is no change of direction from $R_1$ to $R_3$.
\[7.9\] Let the notation be as in Setting \[5.3\] with $d = 3$ , $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x,y,z)R$ and $n = 4$. Assume that the local quadratic transforms are: $$R ~:=R_0 ~\subset~ {^xR_1} ~\subset~ {^{yx}R_2} ~\subset ~{^{yyx}R_3}~\subset~ {^{zyyx}R_4}.$$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& S_1 := ~R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}],~~ N_1 := ~ (x,~ \frac{y}{x},~ \frac{z}{x})S_1, ~~R_1 := ~ (S_1)_{N_1},~~ \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 := ~ N_1R_1:=(x_1,~y_1,~z_1)R_1. \\
& S_{2} := ~ R_1[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1}{y_1}],~~ N_{2} := ~(\frac{x_1}{y_1},~ y_{1},~ \frac{z_{1}}{y_{1}})S_{2},
~~ R_{2} := ~ (S_{2})_{N_{2}},~~\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{2} := ~ N_{2}R_{2}:=(x_{2},~y_{2}, ~z_{2})R_{2}.\\
& S_{3} := ~ R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{y_2}],~~ N_{3} := ~(\frac{x_2}{y_2},~ y_{2},~ \frac{z_{2}}{y_{2}})S_{3},~~
R_{3} := ~ (S_{3})_{N_{3}},~~ \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{3} := ~ N_{3}R_{3}:=(x_{3},~y_{3}, ~z_{3})R_{3}.\\
& S_{4} := ~ R_3[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3}{z_3}],~~ N_{4} ~:= ~(\frac{x_3}{z_3},~ \frac{y_3}{z_3},~ z_{3})S_{4},~~
R_{4} := ~ (S_{4})_{N_{4}},~~\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{4} := ~ N_{4}R_{4}:=(x_{4},~y_{4}, ~z_{4})R_{4}.\\
\end{aligned}$$
The sequence of special $*$-simple ideals is: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{R_4 R_4} ~ =& ~(x_4,~ y_4, ~ z_4). \\
P_{R_3 R_4} ~=& ~(x_3, ~ y_3, ~z_3^2). \\
P_{R_2 R_4} ~=& ~ (x_2^2,~ x_2 z_2, ~ z_2^2, ~ x_2 y_2, ~y_2^2 z_2, ~ y_2^3). \\
P_{R_1 R_4~} =& ~ (x_1^2, ~ x_1 z_1, ~ z_1^2, ~x_1 y_1^2, ~y_1^3 z_1, ~ y_1^5).\end{aligned}$$
Then:
1. Let $v_i:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_i}$ for each $0 \leq i\leq 4$. Then we have $$\begin{array}{c|c|c|c }
& x & y & z \\ \hline
v_4:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_4} & 6 & 8 & 11 \\ \hline
v_3:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_3} &3 &4 &6 \\ \hline
v_2:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_2} &2 &3 &4 \\ \hline
v_1:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} &1 &2 &2 \\ \hline
v_0:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} &1 &1 &1
\end{array}$$
2. The special $*$-simple complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal $P_{R_0R_4}$ is the ideal $K$, where $$\aligned
K:&= \{\alpha \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}~\vert~ v_4(\alpha) \geq 40=v_4(y^5)~~ \text{and}~~v_0(\alpha) \geq 5\}\\
&= (y^5,~x^4y^2,~x^3z^2,~xy^3z,~x^5z,~x^7,~x^2yz^2,~x^2z^3,~xy^2z^2,~xyz^3,~xz^4,~\\
&\qquad y^4z,~y^3z^2,~y^2z^3,~yz^4,~z^5,~x^4yz,~x^3y^3,~x^3y^2z,~x^2y^4,~x^6y)R.
\endaligned$$
3. $\mathcal BP(P_{R_0R_4})=\{R_0, R_1, R_2, R_3, R_4\}.$
4. $\mathcal B(P_{R_0R_4})=\{5,2,2,1,1\}.$
5. $(s_0, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4) = (7, 5, 3, 2, 1)$, where $s_i$ is the index of $P_{R_i R_4}$.
6. The set of Rees valuations of $P_{R_0R_4}$ is $\{\operatorname{ord}_{R_0},~\operatorname{ord}_{R_2},~\operatorname{ord}_{R_4}\}$.
Item 1 is clear. Item 2 follows from Remark \[monomial valuations\] and Lemma \[mingens\]. Item 3 is clear. Theorem \[5.41\] implies items 4, 5, and 6.
In Example \[7.9\], the ideal $K = P_{R_0R_4}$ has three Rees valuations with one of these Rees valuations, $\operatorname{ord}_{R_2}$, redundant in the representation of $K$ as the intersection of valuation ideals corresponding to its Rees valuations.
\[5.11q\] With $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ as in Definition \[5.1\], let $I$ be a finitely supported monomial $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary ideal.
1. If $I$ is complete, does it follow that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ is complete?
2. If $I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$, does it follow that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$?
\[5.11r\] If the ideal $I$ in Question \[5.11q\] has only one base point in the first neighborhood of $R$, and if $I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$ , then $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$. If, for example, the first neighborhood of $R$ is in the $x$-direction, then $I$ is contracted from $S = R [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]$. Hence for $f \in R$ if $x f \in I$ then also $y f \in I$, $\ldots $, $z f \in I$. This same condition holds for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$, so $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ is contracted from $S$. Since $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ has the same base points in the first neighborhood of $R$ as $I$, it follows that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R[\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$. A simple induction argument implies that for every positive integer $n$ the ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^n I$ is contracted from $\operatorname{Proj}R [\operatorname{\mathbf m}t]$.
Without the assumption that the complete $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$-primary monomial ideal is finitely supported, the ideal $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ may fail to be complete as we demonstrate in Example \[notfinsup\]. Example \[notfinsup\] is a modification of the example given in [@SH Exercise 1.15].
\[notfinsup\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be in Definition \[5.1\] with $d = 3$ and $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x, y, z)R$. Let $I = (x^{12}, y^7z^5)R + \operatorname{\mathbf m}^{13}$. Then $I$ is an integrally closed ideal. The integral closure of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ contains monomials of order 13 that are not in $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$. Using that $I$ is the integral closure of $(x^{12}, y^7 z^5, y^{13}, z^{13})R$, we see that the Rees valuations of $I$ are the monomial valuations $v$ and $w$ where: $$v (x) = 91, \quad v (y) = 96, \quad v (z) = 84$$ $$w (x) = 65, \quad w (y) = 60, \quad w (z) = 72$$ Examples of monomials integral over $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$ are $x^6 y^4 z^3$ and $x^2 y^6 z^5$. Let $J$ denote the integral closure of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}I$. Then $J = \operatorname{\mathbf m}* I$. Since $I$ and $(J : \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ are complete ideals, and for each valuation $v'$ dominating $R$ we have $v' (J) = v '(\operatorname{\mathbf m}) + v' (I)$ and $v' (J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}) \ge v '(J) - v' (\operatorname{\mathbf m}) = v '(I)$, it follows that $J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}\subseteq I$ . We clearly have $I \subseteq J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, so $I = J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}$ and hence $J = \operatorname{\mathbf m}* (J : \operatorname{\mathbf m})$. Thus we have constructed a complete monomial ideal $J$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}* (J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}) = J$, but $\operatorname{\mathbf m}(J : \operatorname{\mathbf m}) \ne J$.
The Monomial Condition for Transforms
=====================================
\[13\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring. In Section \[c5\] we define monomial ideals with respect to a fixed regular system of parameters for $R$. We then examine properties of these monomial ideals with respect to monomial local quadratic transforms and inverse transforms. With a fixed regular system of parameters for $R$, in Section \[cc5\] we consider a finite sequence $(R_i,\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i)$ of local monomial quadratic transformation of $R$, where the variables for $R_{i+1}$ are determined by the variables for $R_i$ as in Setting \[5.3\]. For such a sequence as in Setting \[5.3\], the special $*$-simple ideal $P_{R_0R_n}$ is then a monomial ideal, and Corollary \[5.6\] describes properties of the index and order of these monomial ideals.
In this connection, it is natural to ask: let $n \in \operatorname{\mathbb N}_0$, and let $(R_i,\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i)$ be a sequence of local quadratic transformations $$\label{eq13}
R ~:= ~ R_0 ~\subset ~ R_1 ~\subset ~ \ldots \subset ~ R_{n-1} ~ \subset ~R_{n}$$ such that $R_0 / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_{n} / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n}$. Under what conditions does there exist a regular system of parameters for $R$ such that with respect to this system of parameters the local quadratic transformations in Equation \[eq13\] are monomial? It is clear that for $n = 1$, so a local quadratic transformation $R \subset R_1$ with $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_1/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$, the answer is that always such a regular system of parameters for $R$ can be found. Theorem \[is monomial\] implies that the answer is also affirmative for $n = 2$, while Example \[not monomial\] shows that for $n= 3$ the answer in general is negative.
Theorem \[is monomial\] gives sufficient conditions in order that the sequence in Equation \[eq13\] be monomial with respect to some regular system of parameters for $R$.
\[is monomial\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring and let $(R_i,\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i)$ with $0 \le i \le n + 1$ be a sequence of local quadratic transformations with $R = R_0$ such that $R_0 / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_{n+1} / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n+1}$. If there is no change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_{n}$, then there exists a regular system of parameters for $R$ such that with respect to these parameters, the sequence $R_0 \subset \dots \subset R_{n+1}$ is monomial as in Setting \[5.3\].
If there is no change in direction from $R_{n-1}$ to $R_{n+1}$, the conclusion follows from Proposition \[7.5\]. Assume there is a change in direction from $R_{n-1}$ to $R_{n+1}$. Proposition \[7.5\] applied to the sequence from $R_0$ to $R_{n}$ implies there exists a regular system of parameters $(x, y, \ldots, w, \ldots, z)$ for $R$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i = (x, \frac{y}{x^i}, \ldots, \frac{w}{x^i}, \ldots, \frac{z}{x^i})$, for each $i$ with $1 \le i \le n $. Let $x_n = x$, $y_n = \frac{y}{x^n}$, $\ldots$, $w_n = \frac{w}{x^n}$, $\ldots$, $z_n = \frac{z}{x^n}$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $R_{n+1}$ is a localization of $R_{n} [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n}}{y_{n}}]$. Since $R_0 / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_0 = R_{n+1} / \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n+1}$, we have $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n+1} ~ = ~( \frac{x_{n}}{y_{n}} - c_{x}, ~ y_{n}, \ldots, \frac{w_n}{y_n} - c_w, \ldots, \frac{z_{n}}{y_{n}} - c_{z})R_{n+1},$$ where for each variable $w$ the element $c_{w} \in R_0$. Since there is a change of direction from $R_{n-1}$ to $R_{n+1}$, we have $\frac{x_{n}}{y_{n}} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n+1}$. Thus we must have $c_x \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, and we may assume $c_{x} = 0$.
For each variable $w$ other than $x$ and $y$, we set $w' = w - c_{w} y$. We have $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}~=~ (x,y, \ldots, w', \ldots, z')R \quad \text{ and } \quad \operatorname{\mathbf m}_i~=~ (x, \frac{y}{x^i}, \ldots, \frac{w'}{x^i}, \ldots, \frac{z'}{x^i})R_i,$$ for each $i$ with $1 \le i \le n$. Notice that $w' = x^n(w_n - c_wy_n)$. Thus $$\operatorname{\mathbf m}_{n+1} ~ = ~( \frac{x_{n}}{y_{n}} , ~ y_{n}, \ldots, \frac{w'}{x^ny_n}, \ldots, \frac{z'}{x^ny_{n}})R_{n+1}.$$ Hence $R_0 \subset \dots \subset R_{n+1}$ is monomial with respect to $(x, y, \ldots, w', \ldots, z')$.
Theorem \[is monomial\] together with Theorem \[5.41\] yield the following description of the special $*$-simple ideal $P_{R_0R_{n+1}}$ in the case where there is no change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_{n}$, and there is a change of direction from $R_{n-1}$ to $R_{n+1}$.
\[invar4\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ and $(R_i,\operatorname{\mathbf m}_i)$ be as in Theorem \[is monomial\]. If there is no change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_{n-1}$, and there is a change of direction from $R_{n-1}$ to $ R_{n+1}$, then the special $*$-simple ideal $I := P_{RR_{n+1}}$ has the following properties:
1. $\mu (I) = \mu (\operatorname{\mathbf m}^2) = \binom{d+1}{2}$.
2. $\mathcal B(I)=\{2, \ldots, 2,1,1\}$.
3. The index and order of $I$ are $(2 n + 1, 2)$.
4. The Rees valuations of $I$ are the order valuations of $R_{n-1}$ and $R_{n+1}$.
Items 1, 2, and 3 follow from Theorem \[5.41\]. Item 4 follows from Theorem \[5.41\], Remark \[7.1.5\], and Remark \[7.2\].
Assume the notation of Corollary \[invar4\] and that $\dim R = 3$ with $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x, y, z)$. Then the special $*$-simple ideal $I = P_{RR_{n+1}}$ has minimal monomial generators, $$I = (y^2, ~ y z, ~ z^2, ~ x^{n} z, ~ x^{n+1} y, ~ x^{2n + 1}).$$
Theorem \[is monomial2\] gives other sufficient conditions in order that the sequence in Equation \[eq13\] be monomial with respect to some regular system of parameters for $R$.
\[is monomial2\] Let $(R,\operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be a $d$-dimensional equicharacteristic regular local ring, and let $R = R_0 \subset R_1 \subset R_2 \subset R_3$ be a sequence of local quadratic transforms such that $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_3/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3$. If there is a change of direction from $R$ to $R_{2}$ and a change of direction from $R_1$ to $R_3$, then there exists a regular system of parameters for $R$ such that with respect to these parameters, the sequence $R_0 \subset \dots \subset R_{3}$ is monomial as in Setting \[5.3\].
Theorem \[is monomial\] implies that the sequence $R \subset R_1 \subset R_2$ is monomial. Hence there exists a regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, z$ for R such that $R \subset R_1 \subset R_2$ is monomial with $ \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 ~ = ~ (x, \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, \frac{w}{x}, \ldots, \frac{z}{x})R_1$ and $ \operatorname{\mathbf m}_2 ~ = ~ (\frac{x^2}{y}, \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, \frac{w}{y}, \ldots, \frac{z}{y})R_2$, that is, the extension $R \subset R_1$ is monomial in the $x$-direction and $R_1 \subset R_2$ is monomial in the $y$-direction. Let $x_2 = \frac{x^2}{y}, ~ y_2 = \frac{y}{x}, \ldots, w_2 = \frac{w}{y}, \ldots, z_2 = \frac{z}{y}$. Since there is a change of direction from $R_1$ to $R_3$, the affine component $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{y_2}]$ of the blowup of $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2$ is not contained in $R_3$. Hence $R_3$ is contained in and thus is a localization of at least one of the other affine components $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{x_2}]$, $ \ldots, R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{w_2}]$, $ \ldots,
R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{z_2}]$. If $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{x_2}]$ is contained in $R_3$, then $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3 =
(x_2, \frac{y_2}{x_2} - c_y, \ldots, \frac{w_2}{x_2} - c_w, \ldots, \frac{z_2}{x_2} - c_z)R_3$, where the elements $c_y, \ldots, c_w, \ldots, c_z$ may be taken to be in $R$ since $R/\operatorname{\mathbf m}= R_3/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3$. Since there is a change of direction from $R_{1}$ to $R_{3}$, we have $\frac{y_{2}}{x_{2}} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_{3}$. Thus we must have $c_y \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}$, and we may assume $c_{y} = 0$. Define $w' = w - c_wx^2$ for each variable $w$ other than $x$ and $y$. Then $x, y, \dots w', \ldots, z'$ is a regular system of parameters for $R$ and we have $$\frac{w_2}{x_2} - c_w ~ = ~ \frac{w}{x^2} - c_w ~ = ~ \frac{w - c_wx^2}{x^2} ~=~ \frac{w'}{x^2}$$ for each variable $w$ other than $x$ and $y$. Thus the sequence $R$ to $R_3$ is monomial with respect to the regular system of parameters $x, y, \dots w', \ldots, z'$ for $R$.
It remains to consider the case where $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{x_2}]$ is not contained in $R_3$. Then $R_3$ is a localization of $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{w_2}]$ for some $w_2$. We may assume $R_3$ is a localization of $R_2[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{z_2}]$. Thus $\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3 =
(\frac{x_2}{z_2} - c_x, \frac{y_2}{z_2} - c_y, \ldots, \frac{w_2}{z_2} - c_w, \ldots, z_2)R_3$. As in the previous case, we may assume $c_y = 0$. Because $R_3$ does not contain $R_2 [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{x_2}]$, we have $\frac{x_2}{z_2} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_3$, so we may assume $c_x = 0$. For each variable $w$ other than $x, y,$ and $z$, we define $w' = w - c_w z$. Then $x, y, \ldots, w', \ldots z$ is a regular system of parameters for $R$. We have $$\frac{w_2}{z_2} - c_w = \frac{w}{z} - c_w = \frac{w - c_w z}{z} = \frac{w'}{z}.$$ Therefore the sequence $R$ to $R_3$ is monomial with respect to the regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, w', \ldots z$ for $R$.
We observe a relationship between proximate points and change of direction. We recall the following definition.
\[6.1\] Let $\alpha \subsetneq \beta$ be a birational extension of $d$-dimensional regular local rings. Then $\beta$ is said to be [**proximate**]{} to $\alpha$ if $\beta \subseteq V_{\alpha}$, where $V_{\alpha}$ denotes the order valuation ring of $\alpha$.
\[6.3\] Assume notation as in Discussion \[13\] with $n = 2$, and let $V$ denote the order valuation ring for $R$. The following are equivalent:
1. There is a change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$.
2. $R_2$ is proximate to $R_0$.
By Theorem \[is monomial\], we may assume that the sequence of local quadratic transforms from $R_0$ to $R_2$ is a monomial sequence with respect to the regular system of parameters $x, y, \ldots, z$ for $R$.
To show 2 implies 1, assume there is no change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$. Then we may assume $R_0$ to $R_1$ and $R_1$ to $R_2$ are in the $x$-direction. Thus $\frac{y}{x} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_1$, and $\frac{y}{x^2} \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}_2$. Since $\frac{y}{x^2} \notin V$, we have $R_2 \nsubseteq V$, so $R_2$ is not proximate to $R_0$.
To show 1 implies 2, assume there is a change of direction from $R_0$ to $R_2$. Without loss of generality, $R_0$ to $R_1$ is in the $x$-direction and $R_1$ to $R_2$ is in the $y$-direction. Let $w$ denote any one of the elements in the fixed regular system of parameters for $R$ other than $x$ or $y$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1 &= (x_1, y_1, \ldots, w_1, \ldots, z_1),
\quad x_1 = x, \quad y_1 = \frac{y}{x}, \quad w_1 = \frac{w}{x} \\
\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2 &= (x_2, y_2, \ldots, w_2), \ldots, z_2),
\quad y_2 = y_1 = \frac{y}{x}, \quad x_2 = \frac{x_1}{y_1} = \frac{x^2}{y}, \quad w_2 = \frac{w_1}{y_1} = \frac{w}{y}
\end{aligned}$$ We have $V = (R_1)_{x R_1}$. Consider the ring $S = R_1 [\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1}{y_1}]$. Then $S \subset V$ and $V = S_{\operatorname{\mathbf p}}$, where $\operatorname{\mathbf p}$ is a height-one prime of $S$. Since $S[\frac{1}{y_1}] = R_1[\frac{1}{y_1}]$, the height-one primes of $S$ not containing $y_1$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the height-one primes of $R_1$ not containing $y_1$. Each of the rings $R_1$ and $S$ has precisely one height-one prime containing $y_1$, namely $y_1R_!$ and $y_1S$. Since $x_2$ has positive $V$-value and is not in any of the other height-one primes of $S$, we have $x_2 S = \operatorname{\mathbf p}$ and $V = (R_2)_{x_2R_2}$. so $R_2$ is proximate to $R_0$.
The invariants $(s, r)$ defined in Remark \[5.41r\] of a special $*$-simple ideal need not be relatively prime if the ideal is not monomial. We demonstrate this in Example \[not monomial\].
\[not monomial\] Let $(R, \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be an equicharacteristic $3$-dimensional regular local ring with $\operatorname{\mathbf m}= (x, y, z)R$. The ideal $$I = (y^2 - x^3, ~ x^2 y, ~ x y^2, x z, ~ y z, ~ z^2)R$$ is readily seen to be special $*$-simple with base points $$R ~ = ~R_0 ~ \subset ~ R_1~ \subset ~ R_2 ~\subset ~ R_3,$$ where $R_1$ and $R_2 $ are obtained from $R_0$ and $R_1$ by taking the local monomial quadratic transformations in the $x$-direction and $y$-direction, respectively. Thus $R_1 = R[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}}{x}]_{(x, \frac{y}{x}, \frac{z}{x})}$, with $x_1 = x$, $y_1 = \frac{y}{x}$ and $z_1 = \frac{z}{x}$, and $R_2 = R_1[\frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_1}{y_1}]_{(\frac{x_1}{y_1}, y_1, \frac{z_1}{y_1})}$ with $x_2 = \frac{x_1}{y_1}$, $y_2 = y_1$ and $z_2 = \frac{z_1}{y_1}$. The local quadratic transformation $R_2$ to $R_3$ is $$R_3 = R_2 \big[ \frac{\operatorname{\mathbf m}_2}{y_2} \big]_{(\frac{x_2}{y_2} - 1,~ y_2, ~ \frac{z_2}{y_2})}.$$ Thus $x_3 = \frac{x_2-y_2}{y_2}$, $y_3 = y_2$ and $z_3 = \frac{z_2}{y_2}$. Let $\nu$ denote the order valuation of $R_3$ and $V$ the corresponding valuation ring. It is readily seen that $$\nu (x) = 2, \quad \nu (y) = 3, \quad \nu (y^2 - x^3) = 7, \quad \nu (z) = 5.$$ Further, $I = I V \cap R$, so $I$ is a valuation ideal and $\nu (I) = 7$. The ideal $I$ has order $2$, and $x^3 \not\in I$ implies $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^3$ is not contained in $I$. However, we have $\operatorname{\mathbf m}^4 \subset I$. Thus $I$ has order $2$ and index $4$. The point basis $\mathcal B(I) = \{2, 1, 1, 1\}$ is not the point basis of a special $*$-simple monomial ideal. As noted in Remark \[gcd one\], the invariants $(s,r)$ of a special $*$-simple monomial ideal are relatively prime. Therefore there does not exist a regular system of parameters for $\operatorname{\mathbf m}$ in which the ideal $I$ is a monomial ideal.
Another description of the order valuation ring $V$ of $R_3$ in Example \[not monomial\] may be obtained as follows. Since $R$ is equicharacteristic, the completion $\widehat R$ of $R$ has the form $\widehat{R} = k [[x, y, z]]$, where $k$ is a field. Let $u, w, t$ be indeterminates over $k$, and consider the $k[[x,y,z]]$-algebra homomorphism $\varphi : k[[x,y,z]] \longrightarrow k(u,w)[[t]]$ obtained by mapping $$x \mapsto t^3, \quad y \mapsto t^3 + u t^4, \quad z \mapsto w t^5.$$ The map $\varphi$ is an embedding and $V = k (u, w) [[ t ]] \cap \mathcal{Q} (R)$.
Example \[7.11\] illustrates a pattern where there are exactly two changes of direction from $R_0$ to $R_3$ and where $R_0/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_0=R_3/\operatorname{\mathbf m}_3$.
\[7.11\] Let $(R,~ \operatorname{\mathbf m})$ be an equicharacteristic $4$-dimensional regular local ring. Assume that $R = R_0 \subset R_1 \subset R_2 \subset R_3$ is a sequence of local quadratic transforms such that there is a change of direction from $R$ to $R_2$ and a change of direction from $R_1$ to $R_3$. Theorem \[is monomial2\] implies that there exists a regular system of parameters $x, y, z, w$ for $R$ such that the sequence from $R$ to $R_3$ is monomial with respect to these parameters. Moreover, we may assume the sequence of local quadratic transforms is one of the following two choices: $$R:=R_0 ~\subset~ {^xR_1} ~\subset~ {^{yx}R_2} ~\subset ~{^{zyx}R_3}, \quad \text{or} \quad R:=R_0 ~\subset~ {^xR_1} ~\subset~ {^{yx}R_2} ~\subset ~{^{xyx}R_3}.$$ Let $V_i$ denote the order valuation ring of $R_i$ with valuation $v_i$, for $0 \le i \le 3$.
In the case of $R_0 \subset~ {^xR_1} \subset~{^{yx}R_2} \subset {^{zyx}R_3}$, we have:
1. The valuations are defined by, $$\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c }
&x &y &z &w \\ \hline
v_3:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_3} &4 &6 &7 &8 \\ \hline
v_2:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_2} &2 &3 &4 &4 \\ \hline
v_1:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} &1 &2 &2 &2 \\ \hline
v_0:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} &1 &1 &1 &1
\end{array}$$
2. $P_{R_0R_3}$ is given by $$P_{R_0R_3} = (y, ~ z, ~ w)^{3} + (x^5, ~ x^3 y, ~ x^3 z, ~ x^3 w, ~ x^2 y^2, ~ x^2 y z, ~ x y w, ~ x^3 z^2, ~ x z w, ~ x w^2)$$
3. $\operatorname{Rees }P_{R_0R_3} = \{ V_0, V_1, V_3 \}$
4. $P_{R_0R_3} = \{ a \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}~|~ v_3 (\alpha) \ge 18 \}$.
In the case of $R_0 \subset~ {^xR_1} \subset~{^{yx}R_2} \subset {^{xyx}R_3}$, , we have:
1. The valuations are defined by, $$\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c }
&x &y &z &w \\ \hline
v_3:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_3} &3 &5 &7 &7 \\ \hline
v_2:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_2} &2 &3 &4 &4 \\ \hline
v_1:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_1} &1 &2 &2 &2 \\ \hline
v_0:=\operatorname{ord}_{R_0} &1 &1 &1 &1
\end{array}$$
2. $P_{R_0R_3}$ is given by $$P_{R_0R_3} = (y, ~ z, ~ w)^{3} + (x^5, ~ x^4 y, ~ x^3 z, ~ x^3 w, ~ x^2 y^2, ~ x y z, ~ x y w, ~ x z^2, ~ x z w, ~ x w^2)$$
3. $\operatorname{Rees }P_{R_0R_3} = \{ V_0, V_1, V_3 \}$
4. $P_{R_0R_3} = \{ a \in \operatorname{\mathbf m}~|~ v_3 (\alpha) \ge 15 \}$.
[GGP0]{}
.
I. S. Cohen, On the structure and ideal theory of complete local rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 59 (1946), 54-106.
O. Zariski and P. Samuel,[*Commutative Algebra, Vol. 2*]{}, D. Van Nostrand, New York, 1960.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the extent to which very bright ($-23.0<M_{UV}<-21.75$) Lyman-break selected galaxies at redshifts $z\simeq 7$ display detectable Ly$\alpha$ emission. To explore this issue, we have obtained follow-up optical spectroscopy of 9 $z\simeq 7$ galaxies from a parent sample of 24 $z\simeq 7$ galaxy candidates selected from the 1.65 deg$^2$ COSMOS-UltraVISTA and SXDS-UDS survey fields using the latest near-infrared public survey data, and new ultra-deep Subaru $z'$-band imaging (which we also present and describe in this paper). Our spectroscopy has yielded only one possible detection of Ly$\alpha$ at $z=7.168$ with a rest-frame equivalent width $\mathrm{EW}_0=3.7^{+1.7}_{-1.1}\,{\rm \AA}$. The relative weakness of this line, combined with our failure to detect Ly$\alpha$ emission from the other spectroscopic targets allows us to place a new upper limit on the prevalence of strong Ly$\alpha$ emission at these redshifts. For conservative calculation and to facilitate comparison with previous studies at lower redshifts, we derive a 1-$\sigma$ upper limit on the fraction of UV-bright galaxies at $z\simeq 7$ that display $\mathrm{EW}_0>50\,{\rm \AA}$, which we estimate to be $<0.23$. This result may indicate a weak trend where the fraction of strong Ly$\alpha$ emitters ceases to rise, and possibly falls between $z\simeq
6$ and $z\simeq 7$. Our results also leave open the possibility that strong Ly$\alpha$ may still be more prevalent in the brightest galaxies in the reionization era than their fainter counterparts. A larger spectroscopic sample of galaxies is required to derive a more reliable constraint on the neutral hydrogen fraction at $z\sim 7$ based on the Ly$\alpha$ fraction in the bright galaxies.
author:
- 'Hisanori Furusawa, Nobunari Kashikawa, Masakazu A. R. Kobayashi, James S. Dunlop, Kazuhiro Shimasaku, Tadafumi Takata, Kazuhiro Sekiguchi, Yoshiaki Naito, Junko Furusawa, Masami Ouchi, Fumiaki Nakata, Naoki Yasuda, Yuki Okura, Yoshiaki Taniguchi, Toru Yamada, Masaru Kajisawa, Johan P. U. Fynbo, and Olivier Le Fèvre'
title: 'A New Constraint on the Ly$\alpha$ Fraction of UV Very Bright Galaxies at Redshift 7'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Understanding the epoch of cosmological reionization has been a key challenge in modern observational cosmology. The Gunn-Peterson test with spectra of high-redshift (high-$z$) quasars is an observational tool for detecting the reionization epoch, and suggests that the intergalactic medium (IGM) was reionized at $z>6$ [@fan06]. There is also observational evidence that neutral hydrogen still remains in the IGM of the universe at $z\sim 6$, e.g., studies with quasars [@becker15] and with gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) [@totani14; @hartoog15]. Recent analysis of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) indicated the redshift of the cosmic reionization of $\sim 8.8$ by Planck [@planck15].
Galaxies associated with Ly$\alpha$ emission, i.e., Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) are also valuable probes to infer the neutral hydrogen (H [i]{}) fraction ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ of the IGM. @mcquinn07 suggested the effectiveness of this concept from a theoretical viewpoint. Observational studies indicated that the luminosity functions (LFs) of the Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) show a monotonic decline in number density at $z=3$ to $z=7$ [@mclure13; @bowler12; @bowler14; @bowler15; @bouwens15]. In contrast, the LFs of LAEs show little change at $z=3-6$, implying an increasing fraction of LAEs relative to LBGs with increasing redshift; in turn, they show a significant decline at $z>6$ in the number density, e.g., @konno14 who presented a clear decrease in the Ly$\alpha$ LF at $z=7.3$ from the $z=6.6$. This rapid decline in the Ly$\alpha$ LF can be attributed to a change in ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ at $z>6$. The neutral hydrogen in the IGM could decrease observed Ly$\alpha$ photons from star-forming galaxies by resonant scattering[@kobayashi10]. @ouchi10 suggested an increase in the H [i]{} fraction from $z=5.7$ to $z=6.5$ and the estimated ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ is 0.22 at $z=6.5$. They suggested possible cosmic variance in the number density of LAEs across a $\sim 1$ sq.degree area by a factor of 2 to 10 depending on their NB921 magnitudes. @kashik11 inferred ${x_\mathrm{HI}}=0.38$ at $z=6.5$ from a different data set, suggesting existence of the cosmic variance in ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ with a possible patchy reionization process in the universe.
A caveat in investigating reionization with the LFs of galaxies is that the LFs are likely to be influenced by galaxy evolution. In contrast, the Ly$\alpha$ fraction, i.e., the fraction of galaxies exhibiting strong Ly$\alpha$ emission of the total LBGs, has an advantage in that it should be less affected by galaxy evolution, especially in terms of the number density, than the Ly$\alpha$ LFs, which require comparison with the UV LFs [@stark10]. In addition, star formation activity and dust/metal content of galaxies which contribute to the equivalent width (EW) of Ly$\alpha$, do not change rapidly even at $z=7-8$ compared to those at lower redshifts [@dunlop13].
The Ly$\alpha$ fraction at each redshift has been studied intensively to yield a complementary information to the cosmic reionization process [@stark10; @stark11; @pentericci11; @ono12; @curtis-lake12; @treu13; @tilvi14; @caruana14; @cassata15]. The studies by @stark10 and @ono12 suggested that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction of LBGs drops significantly from $z=6$ to $z=7$ in contrast to its monotonic increase at $z=4-6$. Their faint sample showed a more rapid decline than the bright sample. @tilvi14 also studied the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z\gtrsim 7$ and discussed the decline in Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z\gtrsim 7.5$ with the possibility of witnessing the ongoing cosmic reionization process at $z\sim 7-8$. A recent study with Hubble Space Telescope (HST) slitless spectroscopy targeting gravitationally lensed clusters of galaxies (GLASS) also indicated that the number of LAEs at $z\sim 7$ with respect to that of the LBGs is consistent with a lower probability of Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z\gtrsim 7$ than at $z\sim 6$ [@schmidt16].
While the relative number of LAEs is an effective tracer of the cosmic reionization state, a fair application would require consideration of several factors that may affect the observable Ly$\alpha$ emission from high-$z$ galaxies. The strength of Ly$\alpha$ emitted from galaxies may be affected by a combination of physical properties of galaxies and the transmission of the IGM along the lines of sight.
@stark10 discussed the importance of the coupled effects by internal dust extinction and the geometry and kinematics of H [i]{} gas surrounding a galaxy, to determine the net Ly$\alpha$ photons that can escape from the galaxy. LBGs with low luminosities tend to have low metallicity or dust extinction, leading to a bluer UV color [@bouwens14; @bowler15] and likely association of strong Ly$\alpha$ emission. This may introduce a possible luminosity dependence of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction, as suggested in previous studies [@stark11; @ono12]. @steidel10 discussed a similar trend in the stellar mass dependence on the strong Ly$\alpha$ emission.
Observational studies suggested that LBGs with high UV luminosities tend to show a deficit in strong Ly$\alpha$ emission [@ando06; @shimasaku06]. Based on spectroscopic observations of LBGs, @stark11 reported that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction of LBGs with low UV luminosities is higher than that of those with high luminosities at $z=3-6$. In addition, the Ly$\alpha$ fraction ($\mathrm{EW}>25\,{\rm \AA}$) rises as redshift increases over $z=4-6$. @cassata15 supported this trend at $z<5$ based on a spectroscopic survey of galaxies in the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) sample. @curtis-lake12 reported the same increase in Ly$\alpha$ fraction ($\mathrm{EW}>25\,{\rm \AA}$) from $z=5$ to $6$ at bright magnitudes ($L>2L^*$). Recent spectroscopic studies have also reported detection of Ly$\alpha$ in a few sources in a similar luminosity range [@oesch15; @roberts-borsani15; @zitrin15].
The redshift above $\sim 7$ is an important epoch to understand the progression of reionization. In particular, it is of interest to investigate even brighter objects ($M_{UV}<-21.75$), i.e., in environments in very massive dark matter halos. Such massive halos are thought to evolve and form galaxies with strong clustering in an earlier epoch, and so are likely to host larger amounts of ionizing sources than less massive halos. Therefore, it is expected that reionization would progress earlier in the environments around the massive dark matter halos than in other regions. However, despite intensive observational studies of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z>6$, only small numbers of the LBGs at $z\gtrsim 7$ are available. Primarily due to limitations in the surveyed area and as brighter galaxies are rarer, very little is known about the LBGs with very bright magnitudes. Previous studies on the Ly$\alpha$ fraction were conducted only at UV magnitudes fainter than $-21.75$. Thus, new deep and wide imaging and spectroscopic observations are indispensable to extend our knowledge of the bright magnitude regime. Focusing on such UV-bright LBGs is also an effective approach that facilitates follow-up spectroscopy and allows determination of a reliable Ly$\alpha$ fraction at high redshifts.
We have undertaken a new survey program to cover an unprecedentedly wide area by a deep imaging survey to detect UV-bright LBGs, followed by spectroscopic observation of some of the high-$z$ candidate galaxies. In this study, with the new spectroscopic sample from our survey program, we examine the Ly$\alpha$ fraction of LBGs at $z=7$ for very bright magnitudes. We also discuss the cosmic reionization at redshift 7, providing a new constraint on the cosmic neutral H [i]{} fraction. In Section 2, we summarize the observations and data reduction in our $z'$-band imaging survey program, and explain the method of target selection for LBG candidates at $z=7$. Section 3 describes the follow-up spectroscopy and properties of the spectroscopic sample. The Ly$\alpha$ EW of our UV-bright galaxy sample is described in Section 4. We discuss the Ly$\alpha$ fraction of LBGs in Section 5, and its implications and interpretation regarding the state of the cosmic reionization in Section 6. Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 7. Throughout the paper, we use the AB magnitude system [@oke83], and assume a flat universe with $(\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda , h)=(0.3, 0.7, 0.7)$.
Imaging Observations, Data, and Target Selection
================================================
This paper aims to study the Ly$\alpha$ fraction based on LBG candidates at $z=7$ in the two common fields, COSMOS/UltraVISTA and SXDS/UKIDSS-UDS (hereafter, UltraVISTA and UDS, respectively). These two survey fields represent a unique and powerful combination for studies on high-$z$ galaxies, where extensive multi-wavelength surveys at various facilities have been performed. In particular, the two ground-based deep near-infrared (NIR) surveys UltraVISTA [@mccracken12] and UKIDSS-UDS [@lawrence07] provide an unprecedentedly wide and deep data set over an area of 1.65 sq.degree, making the two fields the most suitable for searches of bright LBGs at $z=7$.
Initially, however, only relatively shallow optical data sets were available in these fields, especially in the $z'$ band, which is crucial for detecting the dropout feature of the Lyman-break of the $z=7$ galaxies, e.g., COSMOS imaging [@capak07] by the Subaru Telescope covering the UltraVISTA field in the $B, g', V, r', i'$ and $z'$ bands, with $z'=25.1$ (5 $\sigma$, 3-arcsec aperture), and the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey (SXDS) [@furusawa08] located at the UDS field in the $B, V, R_c, i'$, and $z'$ bands to a depth of $z'\sim 26$ (5 $\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture). This situation motivated us to undertake a new observational campaign of ultra-deep imaging in the $z'$ band in the two fields.
We use a combined sample of the LBGs presented previously by @bowler12 [@bowler14], and a small addition to this work in the UDS field as described below. In the following sections, we first present an overview of the entire $z'$-band imaging campaign and data reduction. Then, construction of the sample of LBGs in each field is explained.
Suprime-Cam $z'$-band Data
--------------------------
### Observations
The deep imaging observations in the $z'$ band were conducted with Suprime-Cam [@miyazaki02] using the 8.2 m Subaru Telescope, which uses fully depleted CCDs that were introduced in 2008 August. Our survey plan was designed to cover the two target fields UltraVISTA and UDS ($\sim 2$ sq.degree) with eight pointings of Suprime-Cam, the field of view of which is $34\times 27$ sq.arcmin. Figure \[fig:pointing\] summarizes this pointing strategy. Each pointing was planned to be integrated by 20 hours, divided into shorter exposures. The observing times were awarded as an open-use Subaru intensive program (PI: Furusawa; S08B-051). Originally, 20 nights were allocated over three semesters from 2008 October to 2009 November. To compensate for low completion rate due to poor weather conditions, etc., another 16 nights were added by a regular open-use program and the observatory’s discretionary time. Final exposure times in each pointing, which are merged into the stacked images are 19.6, 18.3, 18.7, and 20.8 hours for the UltraVISTA field, and 11.7, 16.2, 11.7, and 15.5 hours for the UDS field. The $z'$-band data obtained in this campaign are summarized in Table \[tab:zdata\].
### Data Reduction
Data reduction of the $z'$-band data performed to generate mosaic-stacked images from raw CCD images, following the procedure described in @furusawa08. The SDFRED2 software [@yagi02; @ouchi04] provided by the observatory was used. Small fluctuations due to cross-talk between amplifiers of the CCD were corrected [@yagi12] for the UDS field data. The full width half-maximums (FWHMs) of the point spread function (PSF) of the stacked images before any convolution or transformation are 0.76, 0.84, 0.70, and 0.82 arcsec for the UltraVISTA field, and 0.75, 0.81, 0.78, and 0.81 arcsec for the UDS field.
The celestial coordinates of the stacked images were calibrated with the USNO-B1.0 catalog [@monet03], using SExtractor and SCAMP[^1] . The resultant residuals of the determined coordinates from the USNO-B1.0 catalog coordinates are on the order of 0.5 to 0.8 arcsec rms. This accuracy is good enough to perform image warping in Section \[sec:sample\_selection\_uds\].
Magnitude zero points of the stacked images were determined with a standard star GD71 ($z'=14.03$). The estimated depths in the $z'$ band are 26.6, 26.5, 26.5, and 26.8 (5 $\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture) for the UltraVISTA field, and 26.3, 26.6, 26,6, and 26.6 for the UDS field. This data set is the deepest ever achieved in the $z'$ band covering the entire two deep fields ($\sim 2$ sq.degree).
Sample Selection in UltraVISTA Field
------------------------------------
Sample selection of $z=7$ galaxies in the UltraVISTA field (RA $10^h00^m28.^s00$, Dec. $+02^\circ 12^{'}30^{''}$, J2000) was performed by @bowler14, in an update to their initial work [@bowler12]. In the field, the UltraVISTA DR2 provides NIR photometry in the $Y,
J, H$, and $K_s$ bands ($J=25.3$ in ultradeep strips; 5 $\sigma$, 1.8-arcsec aperture) over a field of 0.91 sq.degree e.g., Figure 1 in @bowler14. They combined the UltraVISTA-DR2 data with the multi-waveband data including the CFHTLS data in the $u^{*}, g, r, i, z'$ bands ($z=25.2$; 5$\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture), and the final $z'$-band data set (Table \[tab:zdata\]) provided by our imaging campaign.
The high-$z$ candidates were selected based on a photometric redshift ($z_\mathrm{phot}$) analysis applied to the sources detected in the $J$ or $Y+J$ band under conditions with no detection in the $i$ or bluer bands. The resultant $z=7$ LBG sample in the UltraVISTA field contained 19 candidates with $z_\mathrm{phot}>6.5$, including 13 sources at $z_\mathrm{phot}>6.75$.
Sample Selection in UDS Field {#sec:sample_selection_uds}
-----------------------------
The UDS-DR10 data (Omar Almaini, private communication) covers an area of 0.74 sq.degree centered on the UDS field (RA $02^h17^m48^s$, Dec. $-05^\circ 05^{'}57^{''}$, J2000) to depths of $J=25.5, H=24.9$, and $K=25.1$ (5 $\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture). @bowler14 performed selection of $z=7$ LBGs in the UDS field with photometric redshift analysis using the multi-waveband data set including the NIR UDS ($J, H$, and $K$) data and the optical SXDS ($B, V, R_c, i'$, and $z'$) data. The data set also included the $z'$-band data in our imaging campaign. However, the $z'$-band data were of interim status, which consisted of 11.1, 16.2, 11.2, and 15.5 hours slightly shallower in the UDS1 and UDS3 than the final data set listed in Table \[tab:zdata\]. Additional $z'$-band data have been obtained since their study.
Their LBG sample in the UDS field included only two candidates with $z_\mathrm{phot}>6.5$ in contrast to the UltraVISTA field. This relatively small number of high-$z$ candidates in the UDS field may have been due to their requirement of significant detection in the $Y$ band to avoid contamination by severe cross-talk from the UKIRT/WFCAM, which is only applied to the UDS field. To add as many $z=7$ candidates to their LBG sample in this field as possible, in this study we used the combined data of the UDS-DR10, the SXDS, and the updated $z'$-band data set with the final depths (Table \[tab:zdata\]). Moreover, we applied a different sample selection to the data from that adopted in @bowler14. Our additional sample selection procedure is described below.
### Additional Sample Selection in UDS Field {#sec:uds_selection}
We transformed the $z'$-band stacked images in the UDS field onto the same pixel coordinates as those of the $J$-band image. The images in the $z'$ to $K$ bands were convolved with a single Gaussian smoothing kernel to have the same FWHMs (0.83 arcsec) of the PSF as the $J$-band images.
On the $z', J, H, K$ images, we ran SExtractor (ver. 2.19.5) in double-image mode, with detection on the $J$-band image, to generate $J$-band detected multi-waveband catalogs ($J\leq 25.5$; 5 $\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture), separately for each of the four pointings. We also removed sources located at pixels that were affected by low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) around the image edges, strong blooming, and strong halos of bright stars.
We applied the following condition to the magnitude-limited sample of galaxies: (1) $z'-J>2.5$, (2) $J-K>-0.5$, and (3) complete dropout in all of the $B, V, R_c$ and $i'$ bands. The first condition involves selection of the Lyman-break, which together with the second condition minimizes contamination by galactic LT-dwarf stars. The third condition is to reduce contamination by lower-redshift galaxies. The resultant intermediate catalogs that satisfied the above conditions included 659, 757, 725, and 700 sources in each pointing, respectively.
To remove false sources due to severe cross-talk on the $J, H, K$ images, we visually inspected every candidate source in the intermediate catalogs by eye, instead of requiring detection in the $Y$ band. The false signals due to cross-talk appeared at positions of 191 pixels and/or its multiples from bright root signals in either the x- or y-axis, in each of the $J, H, K$ bands. These locations of cross-talk signals are inherited from the characteristics of the read-out electronics of UKIRT/WFCAM. If the candidate is an artifact of cross-talk, there must be a root signal that causes a series of cross-talk located at one of the positions of the multiples of 191 pixels from the candidate. Importantly, a series of false signals decays monotonically with distance from the root signal, and also does not go beyond the quadrant area where the root signal is located. Therefore, for every candidate source, we inspected 24 locations with distances of 191 and 282 pixels from the candidate on the x- and y-axes and grid points according to their combinations. In cases where there is any possible false signal at these locations, we excluded the candidate source as it is likely to be a false signal.
We finally selected three new candidates of galaxies at $z\sim 7$ in the UDS field, which are listed in Table \[tab:uds\_cand\]. Figure \[fig:stamps\] shows postage stamp images of the three sources. The three candidates, FH2-22303, FH2-48620, and FH4-42903, have bright $J$ magnitudes (24.3, 25.4, 25.3; 2-arcsec aperture), or rest-frame UV magnitudes of $-22.6$, $-21.8$, and $-21.2$, respectively. Photometric redshifts were derived using data from all of the broad bands from $B$ to $K$ bands based on the same method employed in @furusawaj11. The resultant $z_\mathrm{phot}$ are $7.05^{+0.08}_{-0.06},
6.86^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$, and $6.87^{+0.15}_{-0.17}$ for FH2-22303, FH2-48620, and FH2-42903, respectively, supporting the high redshifts $z\sim 7$ of the candidate galaxies. The associated errors correspond to their $68\%$ confidence levels. The best-fit spectral energy distributions (SEDs) for the three sources are shown in Figure \[fig:photoz\_fit\]. The first two sources (FH2-22303 and FH2-48620) are brighter than all $z=7$ galaxies studied to date by spectroscopy for the Ly$\alpha$ fraction [@cassata11; @cassata15; @ono12], if confirmed at $z=7$. We confirmed that the number density of the combined data set ($-23<M_{UV}<-22$) of the sample by @bowler14 and the new 3 sources $\sim (1\pm{0.4})\times 10^{-6} \rm{mag}^{-1}
\rm{Mpc}^{-3}$, is consistent with the UV LF presented by @bowler14.
Final Photometric Sample of the $z=7$ Candidates
------------------------------------------------
We selected a total of 24 photometric sample of galaxies at $z>6.5$. The sample consists of 19 galaxies in the UltraVISTA field, 2 in the UDS field presented by @bowler14, and the 3 new galaxies in the UDS field added in this study.
Of the 24 LBG candidates at $z=7$, 18 galaxies have very bright UV magnitudes of $M_{UV}<-21.75$ (14 galaxies in the UltraVISTA, and 4 in the UDS fields). As discussed in Section \[sec:spec\], nine galaxies are spectroscopically followed up in this study, and seven of these belong to the very bright magnitude range.
Follow-up Spectroscopy {#sec:spec}
======================
Observations, Data, and Analysis
--------------------------------
We conducted spectroscopic observations of nine sources of the 24 $z=7$ candidate galaxies selected in the previous section. These targets were chosen to include the four high-priority sources in the UltraVISTA field, which were qualified as ‘robust’ in @bowler12, and all the five sources in the UDS field. The ‘robust’ targets were categorized based on results of $z_\mathrm{phot}$ analysis that did not accept either galactic stars or low-$z$ dusty galaxies in @bowler12. A summary of the target sources is shown in Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]. The IDs of all the sources presented in @bowler14 are taken from Table 2 of @bowler14 with the prefix ‘B14-’, containing four sources in the UltraVISTA field and two in the UDS field. The three sources with the prefix ’FH’ are the sources in the UDS field added in this study. The observations were performed on the four nights of 2013 March 5 and 6 and 2014 October 24 and 25, in multi-object spectroscopy (MOS) mode with Subaru/FOCAS [@kashik02]. The VPH900 grism combined with the OH58 order-sort filter was employed, covering a wavelength range of 7,500 to 10,450 Å giving a spectral resolution of $R\sim 1,500$ (0.74Å pixel$^{-1}$) with a slit width of 0.8 arcsec. This combination has the highest throughput at the target wavelengths among the 8-m class telescopes, especially at around $\sim 1\micron$, and is therefore highly suitable for the follow-up spectroscopy of Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z=7$. Each MOS mask has a single target source at $z\sim
7$. The integrated times of 1.3 to 6 hours are devoted to each source (Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]), being split into individual exposures of 1,200 s, with a dithering width of 1.0 arcsec in the spatial direction between exposures.
Data analysis was performed in a regular manner using the standard pipeline FOCASRED and MOSRED, implemented based on IRAF and provided by the observatory. The raw spectrum data were first bias-subtracted and flatfielded by domeflat data. The pixel areas of target spectra were extracted by applying distortion correction based on a predefined pattern. Then, wavelengths were calibrated based on night sky OH emission lines embedded in the 2D spectra, and sky background was subtracted from the 2D spectra. The reduced 2D spectra of individual exposures were shifted in the spatial direction by the dithering width and combined by taking median with 3-$\sigma$ clipping of outlying pixels.
Flux calibration was performed on the stacked 2D spectra using spectrophotometric standard stars GD153, G191B2B, and Feige110, with IRAF tasks ‘standard’, ‘sensfunc’, ‘fluxcalib’, and ‘extinction’. With these tasks, the atmospheric extinction was corrected assuming the atmospheric attenuation as a function of wavelength at Maunakea, which was measured by CFHT. This procedure also removed features of the flatfield as a function of wavelength. The overall fitting error was $\sim 2\%$ rms in this calibration, which is good enough for the following discussion. We determined a spatial range of the source on the calibrated 2D spectrum using the IRAF task ‘prows’, and extracted a 1D spectrum by summing fluxes within a spatial range of 6 pixels or 1.2 arcsec centered at the flux peak.
The effects of slit-loss on the measured fluxes of each source were corrected by estimating the missing fluxes based on the seeing size during the spectroscopic observations and the intrinsic sizes of the sources on the $J$-band images. The estimated slit-loss fractions ranged from $0.23$ to $0.31$.
Upper Limit of Ly$\alpha$ Fluxes
--------------------------------
Only a source B14-065666 displays a possible Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z\sim 7$, while the other eight sources showed no convincing emission line features to the S/N level of 3, i.e., no detection of Ly$\alpha$. Figure \[fig:b14-065666spec\] shows the 2D and 1D spectra of the B14-065666 at around wavelengths including the emission line profile. It was confirmed that the line is detected in each of 2D spectra generated separately for different dither positions, and spatial positions of the line are consistent with the dithering pattern. Only a single line feature is detected in the source B14-065666. This suggests that the line is unlikely to be H$\alpha$ $\lambda
6563$Å, as \[NII\]$\lambda\lambda$6548,6584Å(S/N$\lesssim 2$) lines are not visible within the covered wavelength range on the spectrum. In addition, the red color of $z'-J\sim 2.9$ cannot be explained by ordinary galaxy SEDs. This line is unlikely to be the \[OIII\], because the doublet lines \[OIII\]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 $\sim 95\,{\rm \AA}$ apart could be resolved assuming line ratio$\sim 0.4$ in the areas that are free from the OH emission, although the S/N ($\gtrsim 2$) is not sufficiently large. In addition, the red $z'-J$ color cannot be explained due to lack of any break feature around the wavelength range. The \[OII\] line in this case was located out of the wavelength coverage and could not be detected. The likelihood of the \[OII\] is also small, as the double lines \[OII\]$\lambda\lambda$3727,3729Å (5.3Å apart in the observer’s frame) should be resolved, although the S/N may not be sufficiently large assuming line ratio $\sim 1$ near an OH emission band. Nonetheless, the photometric redshift of $7.04^{+0.16}_{-0.11}$[@bowler14] and the red $z'-J$ color of the source could exclude being a lower-$z$ galaxy at $z=1.67$.
The property of the possible Ly$\alpha$ emission was measured on the 1D spectrum of B14-065666. By profile fitting with the Gaussian function by the IRAF task ‘splot’, the line profile is centered at $9,932.7\,{\rm \AA}$, which corresponds to a redshift of 7.168 for Ly$\alpha$. This spectroscopic redshift agrees with the $z_\mathrm{phot}$ estimated by @bowler14. The measured Ly$\alpha$ flux density is $(4.4\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-18}$ erg s${}^{-1}$ cm${}^{-2}$ (S/N of 5.5), and the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity was $L_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}=(2.6\pm 0.5)\times
10^{42}$ erg s${}^{-1}$ (Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]). Here, the flux error was estimated by fluctuation of sky background counts over the wavelength range of the 2D spectra where the line profile is located, avoiding the severe OH skylines. This luminosity is fainter than $L^*(\mathrm{Ly\alpha})$ of the Ly$\alpha$ LF in the redshift range by a factor of $\sim 2$ [@ouchi10] to $11$ [@matthee15].
As the other eight sources did not show any possible emission lines, we studied noise statistics of their 2D spectra to estimate the observational upper limits of their Ly$\alpha$ fluxes. To measure the noise fluctuation, we sampled about 500 locations on the 2D spectra in the wavelength range corresponding to Ly$\alpha$ at $z=6.75$ to $7.25$ for five sources, including both regions free from and affected by the OH skylines. Each sampling area covered a rectangular area of 1 arcsec in the spatial direction and a width of 25Å in the wavelength direction, as a typical Ly$\alpha$ observed line width. For the other three sources (B14-169850, B14-035314, B14-118717), $z_\mathrm{phot}$ of which are below $6.75$ [@bowler14], we chose the sampling wavelength range to cover the redshifts spanning $z_\mathrm{phot}\pm 0.25$. This range corresponds to the maximum 1-$\sigma\ z_\mathrm{phot}$ error of all the photometric sample galaxies as a conservative choice.
The histogram of the measured counts was fitted by the Gaussian function and the 1-$\sigma$ error was estimated for each candidate source in the same manner as adopted in @ono12. We calculated the 3-$\sigma$ upper limits of the Ly$\alpha$ flux density, which are also shown in Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\].
EW Upper Limit
--------------
We derived the upper limit of the Ly$\alpha$ flux EW for our candidate sources based on the UV luminosities and the 3-$\sigma$ upper limit of the Ly$\alpha$ flux determined in the previous section. The EW upper limit in the observer’s frame ($\mathrm{EW_{obs}}$) is converted to that in the rest-frame ($\mathrm{EW}_0$) on the assumption of $z=7$, except the source of B14-065666 ($z=7.168$). The estimated upper limits of $\mathrm{EW}_0$ range from $1.8$ to $10.7\,{\rm \AA}$, which are shown in Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]. The UV magnitudes were calculated from the $J$-band magnitudes derived from [MAG\_AUTO]{} and assuming a flat spectrum of galaxies located at $z=7$. For the only source B14-065666 exhibiting a possible Ly$\alpha$ emission line, the line flux was converted to $\mathrm{EW}_0$ using a UV magnitude of $-22.3$ as a continuum flux, assuming redshift of $7.168$. The resultant $\mathrm{EW}_0$ is $3.7^{+1.7}_{-1.1}\,{\rm \AA}$, which is consistent with the tendency for UV-bright galaxies to have small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ even in this very bright magnitude range ($<-21.75$).
EW of UV Very Bright Galaxies
=============================
The relations between Ly$\alpha$ $\mathrm{EW}_0$ and UV magnitudes of galaxies in different redshift bins are shown in Figure \[fig:ew0\_z\_scatter\]. Our data are compared with previous studies, which provide the following results.
First, in panels (a)–(c) for $z<6.62$, the galaxy sample by @cassata11 includes galaxies with very bright magnitudes ($M_{UV}<-21.75$). However, only a few galaxies show very small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ of Ly$\alpha$ emission in this magnitude range.
Second, in panels (c) and (d), our data are shown with the upper limits to the $\mathrm{EW}_0$(Ly$\alpha$), which provide a new galaxy sample to the very bright magnitude range at $z\sim 7$. These galaxies are associated with very small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ of $<10\,{\rm \AA}$. Our data suggest the existence of a considerable fraction of galaxies with low $\mathrm{EW}_0$(Ly$\alpha$) at $z\sim 7$ at the brightest UV magnitudes ($<-21.75$) studied to date; only a source with $\mathrm{EW}_0>30\,{\rm
\AA}$ at $z=7$ in this magnitude range was reported [@ono12] prior to this study.
In panel (c) $z=4.55-6.62$, the data points by @cassata11 seem to be located at systematically higher $\mathrm{EW}_0$ than our data. However, their data points at $M_{UV}<-21.75$ in panel (c) should be at $z<5.96$ based on their EW (540 to 1250Å) in the observer’s frame. In addition, with an independent sample based on photometric redshifts, @cassata15 indicated that $80\%$ of bright galaxies ($M<M^*$) at $z=4.5-6$ have small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ of $<30\,{\rm \AA}$, including galaxies with very small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ ($<10\,{\rm \AA}$). Therefore, there should be no marked difference in the relation of $\mathrm{EW}_0$ and UV magnitudes at $z>6$ between the previous studies [@cassata11; @cassata15] and this study.
Finally, panel (e) compares our results for the LBG candidates with those on the narrow-band selected LAEs in a previous study that surveyed a $\sim 0.25$ sq.degree field [@kashik11]. Our UV-selected galaxies show lower $\mathrm{EW}_0$ than the LAEs in the same redshift range.
Ly$\alpha$ Fraction of UV Very Bright Galaxies\[sec:lya\_frac\]
===============================================================
We aim to obtain a new constraint on the Ly$\alpha$ fraction for the very bright magnitude range at $z=7$, which is studied here for the first time. The new result should be complementary to previous results at fainter magnitudes to understand a luminosity dependence of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction.
To derive our results according to the same formalism as adopted in previous studies [@stark10; @ono12; @cassata15], we use the fraction of galaxies with a rest-frame Ly$\alpha$ $\mathrm{EW}_0$ larger than 50Å, $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$. Previous studies discussed $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ in the two magnitude ranges (bright: $-21.75<M_{UV}<-20.25$, and faint: $-20.25<M_{UV}<-18.75$). As seven sources of our nine sample galaxies are brighter (Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]) than the above bright magnitude range, we introduce a new magnitude range of ‘very bright’ ($-23.0<M_{UV}<-21.75$). We chose the threshold $\mathrm{EW}_0$ of 50Å, as the $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ in the bright magnitudes ($M<-21.75$) at $z\lesssim 6$ presented by @stark10 is only the previous result that can be directly compared with our data at $z=7$. It is essential to compare our Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z=7$ with those at lower redshifts to discuss a change in the Ly$\alpha$ fraction and progress in the reionization at these epochs.
We estimated the $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ as follows. First, the seven sources with UV magnitudes spanning from $-22.7$ to $-21.8$ ($<-21.75$) were selected. Then, weights for each source were derived by the inverse of detection completeness of each source as a function of brightness. The derived weighted numbers were summed, yielding a weighted total number of sample galaxies of $7.94$ for all seven sources. Finally, as none of the sample galaxies show Ly$\alpha$ emission with $\mathrm{EW}_0>50\,{\rm \AA}$, we estimated upper limit of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction. Here, as an upper limit of the number of sources, we adopted a $1$-$\sigma$ upper confidence level (1.84) for the observed count zero based on the Poisson distribution [@gehrels86]. The $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ were estimated by dividing this upper limit $1.84$ by the weighted total number of sample galaxies $7.94$.
In this procedure, the completeness values for the four sources in the UltraVISTA field and one in the UDS field were taken from @bowler14. We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the completeness of the other sources in the UDS fields (Section \[sec:uds\_selection\]). Each simulation was performed by adding 1,000 artificial point sources with known magnitudes at random positions on the $J$-band image, and detecting them again. The completeness was calculated as the fraction of recovered sources among the input sources. The simulations were repeated 20 times and the completeness of each simulation was averaged to determine the effective completeness. We confirmed that the completeness values from @bowler14 and this study are consistent and the possible uncertainty if any should not change the following discussion. We did not correct for an effect of the OH skylines on detection of the Ly$\alpha$ emission assuming the finding by @ono12. Their simulation showed that over $90\%$ of simulated Ly$\alpha$ lines were recovered and the effect could be ignored at the same wavelengths as those in this study. Moreover, even if B14-065666 were not a true Ly$\alpha$ detection, the following results on Ly$\alpha$ fraction would not be changed.
Figure \[fig:xlya50\_z\] shows changes in the Ly$\alpha$ fraction ($\mathrm{EW}_0\gtrsim 50\,{\rm \AA}$) over $z=3-7$ in the three different UV magnitude ranges: (a) faint ($-20.25<M_{UV}<-18.75$), (b) bright ($-21.75<M_{UV}<-20.25$), and (c) very bright ($-23<M_{UV}<-21.75$). Our data provide upper limits to the $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ at $z=7$ in the very bright range for the first time. The following findings are obtained.
First, in the (c) very bright magnitude range, our data point at $z=7$ possibly implies that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z=7$ remains at a similar fraction or lower than that at $z=6$, although the data points have large errors. In the same panel, the data points derived from @stark10 may support a rapid increase in $X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$ from $z=3.5$ to $z=6$. @ono12 suggested that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction shows a significant decline at $z=7$ from $z=6$, which is also seen in panels (a) and (b) at the fainter magnitudes. Our results are consistent with this finding even in the very bright magnitude range.
Second, in comparison between panels (b) and (c), our upper limit may indicate a weak trend of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction in the very bright magnitude range ($-23<M_{UV}<-21.75$) at $z=7$ consistently being at a similar level to that at fainter magnitudes. The possibility of a slightly higher Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z=7$ in the (c) very bright range than in the (b) bright range also cannot be excluded. This result seems to extend the relation at $z\sim 4.5-6$ [@stark10] where the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at very bright magnitudes ($M_{UV}\sim
-22$) is at the same level or slightly higher than that of fainter magnitudes ($-21.75<M_{UV}<-20.75$). A similar trend was suggested by @curtis-lake12 in their bright magnitude range ($L>2L^*$) at $z\sim 6$. They suggested that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction for the bright sample may be significantly higher (by $\sim 20\%$ or a factor of $\sim 2$) than that of the fainter sample [@stark11]. Our finding may present some hints of a different trend from that suggested by @ono12, where the Ly$\alpha$ fraction for the faint ((a) $-20.25<M_{UV}<-18.75$) sample is consistently higher than that of the bright ((b) $-21.75<M_{UV}<-20.25$) sample at $z=4-7$.
Finally, our upper limit may imply that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction in the (c) very bright magnitudes at $z=7$ is comparable to or lower than that in the (a) faint magnitude range at the same redshifts.
Discussion
==========
Ly$\alpha$ Fraction
-------------------
The results in the previous section could provide only weak implications for the Ly$\alpha$ fraction of bright galaxies due to the current large errors. Nevertheless, the trend seen in the Ly$\alpha$ fraction may possibly imply the existence of physical mechanisms that cause the LBGs with large luminosities to have an Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction similar to or higher than that of fainter LBGs ($M_{UV}>-21.75$). For example, @bowler14 discussed a possible excess at the bright end of the UV LF at $z=7$ by extrapolation of the conventional Schechter function. The similar excess of the Ly$\alpha$ LFs has also been studied by @matthee15. The excess in the very bright galaxies would require consideration of some special physical processes of galaxy formation, such as lack of an efficient mass-quenching mechanism [@peng10] in this epoch. @bongiorno16 implied that the feedback from a central active galactic nucleus (AGN) of galaxies, where star formation rate is suppressed by outflows from a luminous AGN, could be a mass-quenching mechanism. If the AGN feedback is weak in the bright galaxies at $z=7$, destruction of the H [ii]{} regions associated with star formation would be reduced, which supports higher luminosities of Ly$\alpha$ emission. At the lower redshifts, where the AGN feedback is thought to work more efficiently, star formation in bright galaxies is more suppressed than in faint galaxies. The bright galaxies would have higher metallicity in the gas, and possibly more dust than in the counterparts in $z\gtrsim 7$; hence, the Ly$\alpha$ emission would be less efficient at the lower redshifts.
In addition, the outflow from a galaxy, if any, may help an increase in the Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction, due to scattering of the Ly$\alpha$ lines, e.g., @dijkstra14b. Moreover, the very bright LBGs may be located in massive dark matter halos where the reionization progresses in an earlier epoch. This trend may lead to a higher transmission of the IGM than in less massive halos. Our result seems to be consistent with this trend.
It is difficult to clearly interpret the observation that the Ly$\alpha$ fraction in the very bright range at $z=4.5-6$ is still higher than that in the bright range at the same redshifts. This could be in part accounted for by magnification of the sample galaxies due to gravitational lensing by their foreground galaxies [@vanderburg10], although the result cannot be fully explained. We note that the above discussion depends on the uncertainty of measurements of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at each redshift. As the error bars for the very bright sample galaxies at both lower redshifts reported by @stark10 and at $z=7$ examined in this study are still large, we cannot draw strong conclusions regarding the trend based only on the existing data, and further spectroscopic samples are necessary to obtain more reliable constraints.
Cosmic Neutral Hydrogen Fraction
--------------------------------
Now that we have derived the Ly$\alpha$ fraction in the unprecedentedly bright UV magnitude range, it is interesting to derive a new constraint on the neutral H [i]{} fraction (${x_\mathrm{HI}}$) in the cosmic reionization epoch. The cumulative probability distribution function (PDF) of Ly$\alpha$ $\mathrm{EW}_0$, which is the probability of galaxies having a rest-frame $\mathrm{EW}_0$ larger than a given value, has been used to discuss the neutral H [i]{} fraction with faint spectroscopic samples of galaxies ($-20.25<M_{UV}<-18.75$) at $z=7$ in previous studies [@pentericci11; @ono12]. @ono12 reported that the neutral H [i]{} fraction may be 0.6 to 0.9 by comparing their EW-PDF with the model of @dijkstra11, which is consistent with those suggested by @schenker12 and @pentericci11. @caruana14 obtained ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\sim 0.5$ at $z=7$ with 22 relatively faint $z$-dropout galaxies ($-21.1<M_{UV}<-18.0$), followed up by FORS2 of the Keck Telescope. The slight difference in resultant neutral H [i]{} fraction from that of @ono12 may have been due to difference in the magnitude ranges studied.
Figure \[fig:pdf\_ew0\] shows the resultant EW-PDF of our new spectroscopic sample in the very bright UV magnitude range ($-23<M_{UV}<-21.75$), compared with the results reported in the literature at the same redshift $z=7$. We estimated the upper limit of EW-PDF at $\mathrm{EW}_0=7.1\, {\rm \AA}$ as follows. Of our seven spectroscopic sample galaxies in the very bright magnitude range (i.e., without B14-118717 and FH4-42903), the largest value of the observational upper limit of the $\mathrm{EW}_0$ was $7.1\,{\rm \AA}$ (FH2-48620; Table \[tab:spec\_fluxlimit\]). Hence, we assume that the Ly$\alpha$ emission with $\mathrm{EW}_0>7.1\,{\rm
\AA}$, if any, would be detected in the seven spectroscopic data, but none of the seven sources shows such an emission line. Therefore, the EW-PDF upper limit was derived by dividing the $1$-$\sigma$ upper limit $1.84$ by the weighted total number of sample galaxies $7.94$, to EW-PDF($\mathrm{EW}_0>7.1\,{\rm \AA}$)$\sim 0.23$ (filled square with downward arrow). Here, we assume the non-detection of EW to 3-$\sigma$ significance based on the noise statistics averaged over the studied wavelength range, which includes both areas with and without OH emission. This assumption may be slightly optimistic for this small EW range, as there is a chance that possible lines, if any, would be located in the relatively noisier OH emission bands. Nevertheless, the essence of the following discussion is not changed by the uncertainty.
Although we assume $z=7$ for all the sample galaxies except $z=7.168$ of B14-065666, our discussions in this study would also not be changed by making use of $z_\mathrm{phot}$ in estimation of $\mathrm{EW}_0$. The typical difference in the upper limits determined by $z=7$ and $z_\mathrm{phot}$ is sufficiently small ($\Delta EW\sim 0.1\,{\rm
\AA}$).
We compare our data with the model prediction of EW-PDF presented by @dijkstra14. Their model was generated by computing PDF of a fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons transmitted through the IGM, combining models of galactic shell-wind outflows with large-scale semi-numeric simulations of reionization. They determined the reference model EW-PDF at $z=6$ (${x_\mathrm{HI}}\sim 0$) to coincide with the median Ly$\alpha$ fraction ($\mathrm{EW}_0>75\,{\rm \AA}$) at $z=6$ by @stark10. The data point at $z\sim 6$ by @stark10 in the very bright magnitude bin at $M_{UV}=-22$ (open circle) is also plotted in Figure \[fig:pdf\_ew0\], which is still consistent with the reference EW-PDF within the error bars. We estimated the EW-PDF models for the various neutral H [i]{} fractions at $z=7$ by rescaling the reference EW-PDF (see caption of Figure \[fig:pdf\_ew0\]). It is noted that the model of @dijkstra14 was calculated for the UV magnitude range $-21.75<M_{UV}<-20.25$, which is fainter than that of our data, due to the dark matter halo mass range considered in their calculation. Nevertheless, inclusion of more massive halos, which is naively interpreted as the inclusion of UV-brighter galaxies, should produce little if any change in the result (Mark Dijkstra, private communication). Hence, we simply compare their model with our data.
Our upper limit would not contradict the model curves of ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\gtrsim 0.7$. Although this is a speculative comparison due to the large error and the small sample size, our data may possibly imply ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ around $0.7$ to $0.9$ with the assumed escape fraction of $\sim 0.65$. This ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ is consistent with the report of @ono12 in the fainter magnitude range. This result in the new very bright magnitude range may give further support to the findings discussed in previous studies that the reionization of the universe progresses rapidly from $z=7$ to $=6$. We examined the same comparison with the models at fainter magnitudes ($-20.75<M_{UV}<-18.75$) using the data points in @ono12, and found an inferred ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ of $\lesssim 0.7$. The combination of the results in the very bright and faint magnitudes may favor ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\sim 0.7$ on the assumption of the escape fraction $\sim 0.65$.
Based on our data together with the previous results of @ono12 and @stark10 at the same redshift, the possibility of lower ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\sim 0.2$ cannot be excluded. As shown by the long-dashed curve (magenta), evolution of the escape fraction of ionizing photons from galaxies may contribute to the net change in EW-PDF. The possible increase in escape fraction may significantly reduce the Ly$\alpha$ fraction under the same IGM transmission, which would lower the ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ required to explain the observed EW-PDF at $z=7$.
Moreover, @dijkstra14 mentioned the effect on their model of the possible existence of LBGs with Ly$\alpha$ absorption ($\mathrm{EW}<0$) at high redshifts $z>6$, which was reported by @shapley03 for $z=3$ LBGs. They suggested that the EW-PDF model would be shifted by $\Delta EW_0\sim -25\,{\rm \AA}$ by considering LBGs with $\mathrm{EW}<0$. Such a shift may explain the Ly$\alpha$ fraction ($\mathrm{EW}_0=25\, {\rm \AA}$, $M_{UV}<-20.25$) at $z=8$ of $0.07-0.08$ presented by @treu13. If this is the case at $z=7$ in this study, the possible ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ range would be further decreased to $0.2$ or lower. However, if we rescale the $z=6$ reference EW-PDF model to exactly match the data point of @stark10 (open circle), even higher H [i]{} fractions than the ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\sim 0.7$ would be favored. Together with the above discussion, the lack of any strong Ly$\alpha$, such as $>25\,{\rm \AA}$, in our spectroscopic sample may imply a hint of the unlikely very low ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ at $z=7$.
Thus, further investigations to gain a better understanding of the physical properties and evolution of galaxies at high redshifts are necessary to provide stringent constraints on ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$. In addition, the number of spectroscopic samples of galaxies is still limited, and therefore future efforts to increase the size of the sample from low to high luminosity ranges, for reliably determining the Ly$\alpha$ fraction will be indispensable.
Conclusions
===========
We conducted a search for UV-bright LBGs in two legacy survey fields, UltraVISTA and UKIDSS-UDS, which cover an area of 1.65 sq.degree ($J=25.3-25.5$). Very deep imaging observations on the two survey fields have been undertaken in the $z'$ band ($z'\sim 26.5$; 5$\sigma$, 2-arcsec aperture) with Subaru/Suprime-Cam.
We performed selection of $z=7$ candidates in the UDS field from the multi-waveband catalogs ($J=25.5$; 5$\sigma$) with the updated $z'$-band data, based on the red color in $z'-J$, combined with relatively mild to red color in $J-K$, and dropout in all optical bands. In the UDS field, we chose three candidates of possible UV-bright galaxies at $z=7$. The 19 candidate sources in the UltraVISTA field and two sources in the UDS field at $z>6.5$ presented by @bowler14 were combined with the three new sources in the UDS field, yielding 24 targets in total. The spectroscopic observations were obtained on nine sources of the $z=7$ candidates with Subaru/FOCAS. Only a single source B14-065666 shows possible Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z=7.168$, while the other eight sources show no emission line features. By measurements of noise fluctuations on the 2D spectra, the observational upper limits of the 3-$\sigma$ upper limits of the Ly$\alpha$ fluxes and $\mathrm{EW}_0$ were estimated based on these eight sources. The upper limits of Ly$\alpha$ $\mathrm{EW}_0$ span $1.8$ to $10.7\,{\rm \AA}$ for these sources. The only source showing a possible Ly$\alpha$ emission, B14-065666, has an estimated $\mathrm{EW}_0$ of $3.7^{+1.7}_{-1.1}\,{\rm \AA}$ with a UV magnitude of $-22.3$. This result supports a tendency for UV-bright galaxies to likely have small $\mathrm{EW}_0$ even at very bright magnitudes ($<-21.75$).
The upper limits of Ly$\alpha$ EW at $z=7$ were compared with those of previous studies at $z=2-6$. Our new data provide clear upper limits to the $\mathrm{EW}_0$(Ly$\alpha$) at $z\sim 7$ in the very bright UV magnitude $<-21.75$, implying that a considerable fraction of galaxies with very bright magnitudes ($<-21.75$) have low EW at $z\sim 7$.
Based on the upper limits of the Ly$\alpha$ EW, the 1-$\sigma$ upper limits of Ly$\alpha$ fraction with thresholding $\mathrm{EW}_0=50\,{\rm \AA}$ ($X_\mathrm{Ly\alpha}^{50}$) at $z=7$ was derived for the brightest magnitude range studied to date ($-23.0<M_{UV}<-21.75$). While the Ly$\alpha$ fraction may support a rapid increase from $z=3.5$ to $z=6$ even in this bright magnitude range, it may possibly imply leveling off, remaining at the same level or below at $z=7$. This result may support the findings at fainter magnitudes reported by @ono12. Our data may also indicate a weak trend whereby the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $-23<M_{UV}<-21.75$ may be similar to that of the fainter magnitudes at $z>5$, possibly up to $z=7$. A slightly higher fraction cannot be ruled out. With a large uncertainty, this result may witness the earlier progression of reionization in more massive dark matter halos, as well as a possible physical mechanism for providing a higher Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction in the very UV-bright galaxies at redshift 7.
Finally, we discussed the Ly$\alpha$ EW-PDF derived from the upper limits of the Ly$\alpha$ fraction at $z=7$, to provide a new constraint on the neutral H [i]{} fraction (${x_\mathrm{HI}}$). Our resultant EW-PDF at $\mathrm{EW}_0=7.1\,{\rm \AA}$ at the very bright magnitudes was combined with previous studies at fainter magnitudes by @stark10 [@stark11] and @ono12. We performed a speculative comparison of the observed EW-PDF with the model of @dijkstra14. Although the constraint is not strong given the large error bars, we derived the neutral H [i]{} fraction of ${x_\mathrm{HI}}=0.7-0.9$ favored by our data, leaving open the possibility of lower ${x_\mathrm{HI}}$ depending on evolution of the physical properties of galaxies, such as the escape fraction. The same comparison with EW-PDF for the fainter counterparts ($-20.75<M_{UV}<-18.75$) may support ${x_\mathrm{HI}}\lesssim 0.7$, which is consistent with or below the value for the brighter galaxies. However, further compilation of spectroscopic observations is necessary to determine more reliable constraints on the Ly$\alpha$ fraction and reionization at $z\gtrsim 7$ based on a firm understanding of the evolution of galaxies.
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments that have improved the manuscript. We are grateful to Rebecca Bowler for her valuable contribution to the proposals for spectroscopic observations. We express our gratitude to Yutaka Ihara, Yuko Ideue, Nana Morimoto for their contributions to imaging observations, data reduction, and data evaluation, and Kimihiko Nakajima for data evaluation. We are grateful to Takashi Hattori for supporting observations and data reduction. We thank Omar Almaini for preparing the UDS data, and Mark Dijkstra for providing his latest theoretical model of the Ly$\alpha$ EW-PDF. The Subaru imaging observations were assisted by Yoshiyuki Inoue, Misae Kitamura, Kohki Konishi, Mariko Kubo, Yu Niino, and Takahiro Ohno. We thank Satoshi Miyazaki and Suprime-Cam team for commissioning Suprime-Cam FDCCDs, which has realized this work. This work is based in part on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. UltraVISTA is based on data products from observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under ESO programme ID 179.A-2005 and on data products produced by TERAPIX and the Cambridge Astronomy Survey Unit on behalf of the UltraVISTA consortium. Data analysis were in part carried out on common use data analysis computer system at the Astronomy Data Center, ADC, of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. UKIDSS uses the UKIRT/WFCAM (Casali et al. 2007) and a photometric system described in Hewett et al. (2006), and the calibration is described in Hodgkin et al. (2009). The pipeline processing and science archive are described in Irwin et al. (2016, in prep) and Hambly et al. (2008). JSD acknowledges the support of the European Research Council via the award of an Advanced Grant. This work is partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23740159 (HF) and 15H03645 (NK).
[*Facilities:*]{} , , .
Ando, M., Ohta, K., Iwata, I. et al., 2006, , 654, L9 Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Madau, P. et al. 2015, , 447, 3402 Bongiorno, A., Schulze, A., & Merloni, A., et al. 2016, , 588, A78 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A. et al. 2014, , 793, 115 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A. et al. 2015, , 803, 34 Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J. et al. 2012, , 426, 2772 Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J. et al. 2014, , 440, 2810 Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J. et al. 2015, , 452, 1817 Capak, P., Aussel, H., Ajiki, M. et al. 2007, , 172, 99 Casali, M., Adamson, A., & Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2007, , 467, 777 Cassata, P., Le Fèvre, O., Garilli, B. et al. 2011, , 525, A143 Cassata, P., Tasca, L. A. M., Le Fèvre, O. et al. 2015, , 573, A24 Caruana, J., Bunker, A. J., Wilkins, S. M. et al. 2014, , 443, 2831 Curtis-Lake, E., McLure, R. J., Pearce, H. J. et al. 2012, , 422, 1425 Dijkstra, M., Mesinger, A., & Wyithe, J. S. B. et al. 2011, , 414, 2139 Dijkstra, M., Wyithe, S., Haiman, Z. et al. 2014a, , 440, 3309 Dijkstra, M. 2014b, PASA, 31, e040 Dow-Hygelund, C. C., Holden, B. P., Bouwens, R. J. et al. 2007, , 660, 47 Dunlop, J., Rogers, A. B., McLure, R. L. et al. 2013, , 432, 3520 Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H. et al. 2006, , 132, 117 Furusawa, H., Kosugi, G., Akiyama, M. et al. 2008, , 176, 1 Furusawa, J., Sekiguchi, K., Takata, T. et al. 2011, , 727, 111 Fontana, A., Vanzella, E., Pentericci, L. et al. 2010, , 725, L205 Gehrels, N. 1986, , 303, 336 Hambly, N. C., Collins, R. S., & Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2008, , 384, 637 Hartoog, O. E., Malesani, D., Fynbo, J. P. U. et al. 2015, , 580, A139 Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., & Leggett, S. K., et al. 2006, , 367, 454 Hodgkin, S. T., Irwin, M. J., & Hewett, P. C., et al. 2009, , 394, 675 Kashikawa, N., Aoki, K., Asai, R. et al. 2002, , 54, 819 Kashikawa, N., Shimasaku, K., Matsuda, Y. et al. 2011, , 734, 119 Kobayashi, M. A. R., Totani, T., & Nagashima, M. 2010, , 708, 1119 Konno, A., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y. et al. 2014, , 797, 16 Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O. et al. 2007, , 379, 1599 Le Fèvre, O., Cassata, P., Cucciati, O et al. 2013, , 559, 14 Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Santos, S. et al. 2015, , 451, 400 McCracken. H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J. S. et al. 2012, , 544, A156 McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S, Bowler, R. A. A. et al. 2013, , 432, 2696 McQuinn, M., Hernquist, L., Zaldarriaga, M. et al. 2007, , 381, 75 Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Sekiguchi, M. et al. 2002, , 54, 833 Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B. et al. 2003, , 125, 984 Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P. G., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2015, , 804, L30 Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, , 266, 713 Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Mobasher, B. et al. 2012, , 744, 83 Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Okamura, S. et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 660 Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H. et al. 2010, , 723, 869 Peng, Y., Lilly, S. J., Kovač, K. et al. 2010, , 721, 193 Pentericci, L., Fontana, A., Vanzella, E. et al. 2011, , 743, 132 Planck Collaboration 2015, arXiv:1502.01589 Roberts-Borsani, G. W., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, , in press (arXiv:1506.00854) Schenker, M. A., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S. et al. 2012, , 744, 179 Schmidt, K. B., Treu, T., Bradač, M., et al. 2016, , 818, 38 Shapley, A., E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M. et al. 2003, , 588, 65 Shimasaku, K., Kashikawa, N., Doi, M. et al. 2006, , 58, 313 Stanway, E. R., Bunker, A. J., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2007, , 376, 727 Stark, D. P., Ellis, R., Chiu, K. et al. 2010, , 408, 1628 Stark, D. P., Ellis, R., & Ouchi, M. 2011, , 728, L2 Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E. et al. 2010, , 717, 289 Tilvi, V., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L. et al., 2014, , 795, 5 Totani, T., Aoki, K., Hattori, T. et al., 2014, , 66, 63 Treu, T., Schmidt, K. B., Trenti, M. et al., 2013, , 775, L29 van der Burg, R. F. J., Hildebrandt, H., Erben, T. et al. 2010, , 523, A74 Vanzella, E., Pentericci, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2011, , 730, L35 Yagi, M., Kashikawa, N., Sekiguchi, M. et al. 2002, , 123, 66 Yagi, M. 2012, PASP, 124, 1347 Zitrin, A., Labbè, I., Belli, S. et al. 2015, , 810, L12
\
\
\
[lrrr]{} UltraVISTA1 & 1173 & 26.63 & 0.76\
UltraVISTA2 & 1096 & 26.46 & 0.84\
UltraVISTA3 & 1123 & 26.47 & 0.70\
UltraVISTA4 & 1250 & 26.75 & 0.82\
UDS1 & 701 & 26.30 & 0.75\
UDS2 & 970 & 26.57 & 0.81\
UDS3 & 703 & 26.60 & 0.78\
UDS4 & 928 & 26.58 & 0.81\
[lccrrrrrrrr]{} FH2-22303 & 02:16:25.092 & $-$04:57:38.50 & $>$28.7 & $>$28.2 & $>$28.0 & $>$28.0 & $>$27.6 & $24.3\pm 0.1$ & $24.2\pm 0.1$ & $24.4\pm 0.1$\
FH2-48620 & 02:17:39.083 & $-$04:42:48.71 & $>$28.8 & $>$28.1 & $>$28.2 & $>$28.1 & $>$27.6 & $25.4\pm 0.2$ & $25.6\pm 0.3$ & $25.5\pm 0.2$\
FH4-42903 & 02:17:26.306 & $-$05:10:16.27 & $>$28.5 & $>$28.2 & $>$28.0 & $>$28.1 & $>$27.6 & $25.3\pm
0.2$ & $25.4\pm 0.2$ & $25.4\pm 0.2$\
[lrrrrr]{} B14-169850 & 4800 & $6.9\times 10^{-18}$ & $3.9\times 10^{42}$ & $-22.4\pm{0.1}$ & 4.7\
B14-065666 & 14400 & $(4.4\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-18}$ & $(2.6\pm 0.5)\times 10^{42}$ & $-22.3\pm{0.2}$ & $3.7^{+1.7}_{-1.1}$\
B14-304416 & 7200 & $4.9\times 10^{-18}$ & $2.8\times 10^{42}$ & $-22.7\pm{0.1}$ & 2.6\
B14-238225 & 6000 & $6.0\times 10^{-18}$ & $3.4\times 10^{42}$ & $-21.9\pm{0.2}$ & 6.5\
B14-035314 & 7200 & $4.0\times 10^{-18}$ & $2.3\times 10^{42}$ & $-21.8\pm{0.2}$ & 4.7\
B14-118717 & 6740 & $4.9\times 10^{-18}$ & $2.8\times 10^{42}$ & $-21.6\pm{0.2}$ & 7.1\
FH2-22303 & 19200 & $3.1\times 10^{-18}$ & $1.8\times 10^{42}$ & $-22.6\pm{0.1}$ & 1.8\
FH2-48620 & 4800 & $5.6\times 10^{-18}$ & $3.2\times 10^{42}$ & $-21.8\pm{0.2}$ & 7.1\
FH4-42903 & 7200 & $4.8\times 10^{-18}$ & $2.7\times 10^{42}$ & $-21.2\pm{0.2}$ & 10.7\
[^1]: http://www.astromatic.net
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study incentivized exploration for the multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem where the players receive compensation for exploring arms other than the greedy choice and may provide biased feedback on reward. We seek to understand the impact of this drifted reward feedback by analyzing the performance of three instantiations of the incentivized MAB algorithm: UCB, $\varepsilon$-Greedy, and Thompson Sampling. Our results show that they all achieve $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and compensation under the drifted reward, and are therefore effective in incentivizing exploration. Numerical examples are provided to complement the theoretical analysis.'
author:
- |
Zhiyuan Liu [^1]\
Department of Computer Science\
University of Colorado, Boulder\
[email protected] Huazheng Wang [^2]\
Department of Computer Science\
University of Virginia\
[email protected] Fan Shen\
Technology, Cybersecurity and Policy\
University of Colorado, Boulder\
[email protected] Kai Liu\
Computer Science Division\
Clemson University\
[email protected] Lijun Chen\
Department of Computer Science\
University of Colorado, Boulder\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 'Incentivized Exploration for Multi-Armed Bandits under Reward Drift'
---
Introduction
============
Multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem is a classical model for sequential decision making under uncertainty, and finds applications in many real world systems such as recommender systems [@li2010contextual; @bouneffouf2012contextual], search engine systems [@radlinski2008learning; @yue2009interactively] and cognitive radio networks [@gai2010learning], to just name a few. In the traditional MAB model, the decision maker (the principal) who selects the arm to pull and the action performers (the players) who actually pull the arm are assumed to be the same entity. This is, however, not true for several important real world applications where the principal and players are different entities with different interests. Take the Amazon product rating as an example: Amazon (the principal) would like the customers (the players) to buy and try different products (arms) of certain type in order to identify the best product (i.e., exploration), while the customers are heavily influenced by the current ratings on the products and behave myopically, i.e., select the product that currently has the highest rating (i.e., exploitation). It is well known that such exploitation-only behavior can be far from the optimal [@bubeck2012regret; @sutton2018reinforcement]. In the traditional MAB setting, the principal, who is also the player, strives to find the optimal tradeoff between exploration and exploitation and execute it accordingly. When the principal and players are different entities, misaligned interests between them need to be reconciled in order to balance exploration and exploitation in an optimal manner.
Incentivized learning has been proposed for the MAB problem to reconcile different interests between the principal and the players [@frazier2014incentivizing; @mansour2015bayesian; @Wang2018MultiarmedBW; @immorlica2019bayesian]. In order to incentivize exploration, the principal provides certain compensation to the player so that s/he will pull the arm other than the greedy choice that currently has the best empirical reward. The goal of the principal is to maximize the cumulative reward while minimizing the total compensation to the players.
However, existing incentivized MAB models [@han2015incentivizing; @Wang2018MultiarmedBW; @immorlica2018incentivizing; @liu2018incentivizing; @hirnschall2018learning] assume that the players provide unbiased stochastic feedback on reward[^3]even after they receive certain incentive from the principal. This assumption does not always hold in the real world scenarios: work based on industrial level experiments in [@martensen2000drivers; @razak2016impact; @ehsani2015effect] shows that the customers are inclined to give higher evaluation (i.e., increased reward) with incentive such as discount and coupon. The compensation could even be the primary driver of customer satisfaction [@martensen2000drivers; @lee2005customer]. This drift in reward feedback may cause negative impact on the exploration and exploitation tradeoff, e.g., a suboptimal arm is mistaken as the optimal one because of the incentives and the players will keep pulling it even after the compensation is removed. This has been ignored in previous research.
In this paper, we aim to investigate the impact of drifted reward feedback in the incentivized MAB problem. Specifically, we consider a general incentivized exploration algorithm where the player receives a compensation that is the difference in reward between the principal’s choice and the greedy choice, and provides biased feedback that is the sum of the true reward of an arm and a drift term that is a non-decreasing function of the compensation received for pulling this arm. We seek to answer the important question if the compensation scheme is effective in incentivizing exploration under reward drift from two intertwining aspects: (1) if the algorithm is robust to drifted reward so that the sequential decisions based on biased feedback still enjoy a small regret, and (2) if the proposed incentive mechanism is cost-efficient to the principal. We analyze the regret and compensation for three instantiations of the algorithm where the principal employs UCB, $\epsilon$-Greedy, and Thompson Sampling, respectively. Our analytical results, complemented by numerical experiments, show that with drifted reward the proposed compensation scheme achieves both $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ compensation, and is thus effective in incentivizing exploration.
Related Work
------------
Incentivized learning has attracted a lot of attention since the work [@frazier2014incentivizing]. In [@frazier2014incentivizing], the authors proposed a Bayesian incentivized model with discounted regret and compensation, and characterized the relationship between the reward, compensation, and discount factor. In [@mansour2015bayesian], the authors studied the non-discount case and proposed an algorithm that has $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$ regret. In [@Wang2018MultiarmedBW], the authors analyzed the non-Bayesian and non-discount reward case and showed $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and compensation for incentivized exploration based on simplified MAB algorithms. But all the models and analysis are under the assumption that the players’ feedbacks are unbiased under compensation. In contrast, we consider biased feedback under compensation, and show that the incentivized exploration with reward drift can still achieve $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and compensation.
Related work also includes those in robustness of MAB under adversarial attack. In [@lykouris2018stochastic], the authors proposed a multi-layer active arm elimination race algorithm for stochastic bandits with adversarial corruptions whose performance degrades linearly to the amount of corruptions. In [@feng2019intrinsic], the authors studied strategic behavior of rational arms and show that UCB, $\epsilon$-Greedy, and Thompson sampling achieve $\mathcal{O}(\max \{ B, \log T\})$ regret bound under any strategy of the strategic arms, where $B$ is the total budget across arms. On the other hand, in [@jun2018adversarial], the authors constructed attacks by decreasing the reward of non-target arms, and showed that their algorithm can trick UCB and $\epsilon$-Greedy to pull the optimal arm only $o(T)$ times under an $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ attack budget. All the modeled attacks are from exogenous sources, e.g., malicious users, while in our paper, the reward drift can have an interpretation as arising from attacks but generated endogenously by the incentivized exploration algorithm itself.
Model, Notation, and Algorithm
==============================
Consider a variant of the multi-armed bandit problem where a principal has $K$ arms, denoted by the set $[K] = \{1,\cdots,K\}$. The reward of each arm $i \in [K]$ follows a distribution with support $[0,1]$ and mean $\mu_{i}$ that is unknown. Without loss of generality, we assume that arm $1$ is the unique optimum with the maximum mean. Denote by $\Delta_i = \mu_1 - \mu_i$ the reward gap between arm $1$ and arm $i (i \neq 1)$, and let $\Delta = \min_i \Delta_i$. At each time $t = 1, \cdots, T$, a new player will pull one arm $I_t\in [K]$ and receive a reward $r_t$ that will fed back to the principal and other players. Let $n_i(t) = \sum_{\tau =1}^{t-1} \mathbb{I}(I_\tau = i)$ denote the number of times that arm $i$ has been pulled up to time $t$ and $\hat{\mu}_i(t) =\frac{1}{n_i(t)} \sum_{\tau=1}^{t-1} r_\tau\mathbb{I}(I_\tau = i)$ the corresponding empirical average reward, where the indicator function $\mathbb{I}(A)=1$ if $A$ is true and $\mathbb{I}(A)=0$ otherwise.
In real world applications, the principal and players may exhibit different behaviors. The principal would like to see the players select the best arm and maximize the cumulative reward. On the other hand, the players may be heavily influenced by other players’ feedback, e.g., the reward history of the arms, and behave myopically, i.e., pull the arm that currently achieves the highest empirical reward (exploitation). It is well known that such a myopic exploitation-only behavior can be far from the optimum due to the lack of exploration [@sutton2018reinforcement]. The principal cannot pull the arm directly, but can provide certain compensation to incentivize the players to pull arms with suboptimal empirical reward (exploration). However, this compensation may affect the players’ feedback [@martensen2000drivers], which results in a biased reward history and disturbs both the principal and players’ decisions. Specifically, we assume that at time $t$ there is a drift $b_t$ in feedback that is caused by compensation $x$, captured by an unknown function $b_t=f_t (x)$ with the following properties.
\[assumption:1\] The reward drift function $f_t(x)$ is non-decreasing with $f_t(0) = 0$, and is Lipschitz continuous, i.e., for any $x$ and $y$, there exists a constant $l_t$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
| f_t(x) - f_t(y) | \leq l_t |x-y|.
\end{aligned}$$
The biased feedback $r_t + b_t$ is then collected, and the principal and players know only the sum and cannot distinguish each part.
Let $l = \max_{t} l_t$ for later use. Denote by $E_t^i=1$ the event that arm $i$ is pulled with compensation at time $t$ and $E_t^i = 0$ otherwise. Denote $B_i(t) = \sum_{\tau =1}^{t-1} b_{\tau} \mathbb{I}(E_{\tau}^{i} = 1)$ be the cumulative drift of arm $i$ up to time $t$ and $\bar{\mu}_i(t) = \hat{\mu}_i(t) + \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)}$ be the corresponding average drifted reward. The general incentive mechanism and algorithm are described in Algorithm \[algo:1\].
We characterize the performance of the incentivized exploration algorithm in terms of two metrics – the expected cumulative regret that quantifies the total loss because of not pulling the best arm, and the cumulative compensation that the principal pays for incentivizing exploration: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(R(T)) &= \mathbb{E}(\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\mu_1 - \mu_{I_t})) = \sum_{i=2}^{N} \Delta_i \mathbb{E}(n_i(T+1)), \nonumber\\
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &= \mathbb{E}(\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\bar{\mu}_{I_t} - \bar{\mu}_{G_t})). \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Notice that in Algorithm 1 the compensation and pulled arm are decided based on biased feedback which may not be an accurate reflection of an arm’s reward, while the regret is in terms of the “true” reward that is unknown. We seek to answer the important question if the proposed compensation scheme is effective in incentivizing exploration from two intertwining aspects: (1) if the algorithm is robust to drifted reward so that the sequential decisions based on biased feedback still enjoy a sublinear regret, and (2) if the proposed incentive mechanism is cost-efficient to the principal. There are different arm selection strategies that the principal can employ, i.e., Step 2 of Algorithm 1. In the next section, in order to answer the above question, we analyze the cumulative regret and compensation under several typical multi-armed bandit algorithms such as UCB, $\epsilon$-Greedy, and Thompson Sampling.
Regret and Compensation Analysis
================================
In this section, we consider three instantiations of Algorithm 1 when the principal employs UCB, $\epsilon$-Greedy, and Thompson Sampling at Step 2, respectively. As will be seen later, our analysis shows that the proposed compensation scheme is effective in incentivizing exploration under reward drift.
UCB policy
----------
Consider first the case where the principal applies the UCB policy, i.e., uses the sum of average biased reward and upper confidence bound $\bar{\mu}_i(t) + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}}$ as the criterion to choose the arm to explore, as shown in Algorithm \[algo:2\]. The main result is summarized in Theorem \[theroem:1\].
\[theroem:1\] For the incentivized UCB algorithm, the expected regret $R(T)$ and compensation $C(T)$ are bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(R(T)) &\leq \sum_{i= 2}^{N} \frac{8(l\!+\!1)^2\log T}{\Delta_i} \!+\! \frac{\Delta_i(K\!-\!1)\pi^2}{3}, \\
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &\leq \sum_{i=2}^{N} \frac{16(l\!+\!1) \log T}{\Delta_i} \! +\! \frac{16(l\!+\!1) \log T}{\Delta} \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~\!+\! 2\pi K \sqrt{\frac{2\log T}{3}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Notice that compensation is incurred under the conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{I_t}(t) &\leq \bar{\mu}_{G_t}(t), \\
\bar{\mu}_{I_t}(t) + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_{I_t}(t)}} &\geq \bar{\mu}_{G_t}(t) + \sqrt{\frac{2 \log t}{n_{G_t}(t)}}.
\end{aligned}$$ By the second condition, the compensation $$\bar{\mu}_{G_t}(t) - \bar{\mu}_{I_t}(t) \leq \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_{I_t}(t)}}, \label{eq:cb}$$ and further by Assumption \[assumption:1\], the drift $b_t \leq l_t\sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_{I_t}(t)}}.$ The total drift $B_i(t)$ of arm $i$ can be bounded as follows (due to space limit, the details of inequality are provided in supplementary material): $$\begin{aligned}
B_i(t) &= \sum_{\tau =1}^{t} b_\tau \mathbb{I}(E_\tau^i = 1)
\leq 2l \sqrt{2n_i(t) \log t}. \label{bound:B}
\end{aligned}$$ For each sub-optimal arm $i \neq 1$, if this arm is pulled by the player at $t$ (with or without compensation), it must hold that $$\hat{\mu}_{i}(t) + \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}} \geq \hat{\mu}_{1}(t) + \frac{B_1(t)}{n_1(t)} + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}}.$$ So, the probability that arm $i$ is pulled by the player at time $t$ can be bounded by the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr(I_t=i)\\
\leq &\Pr\left(\!\!\hat{\mu}_{i}(t) \!+\! \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} \!+\! \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}} \!\geq\! \hat{\mu}_{1}(t)\! +\! \frac{B_1(t)}{n_1(t)} \!+\! \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}}\right) \\
\leq& \Pr\left(\!\hat{\mu}_{i}(t) \!+\! (2l\!+\!1)\sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}} \!\geq\! \hat{\mu}_{1}(t)\! + \!\frac{B_1(t)}{n_1(t)} \!+\! \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}}\right) \\
\leq& \Pr\left(\!\hat{\mu}_{i}(t) \!+\! (2l\!+\!1)\sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}} \!\geq\! \hat{\mu}_{1}(t) \!+\! \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality is due to the bound on cumulative drift. Similar to the analysis in [@auer2002finite], notice that if the event $\!\hat{\mu}_{i}(t) \!+\! (2l\!+\!1)\sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}} \!\geq\! \hat{\mu}_{1}(t) \!+\! \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}}$ happens, one of the following three events must happen: $$\begin{aligned}
X_i(t) &: {\hat{\mu}_i(t) \geq \mu_i + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)} }}, \\
Y_1(t) &: {\hat{\mu}_1(t) \leq \mu_1 - \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)} }}, \\
Z_i(t) &: {2(l+1)\sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}}} \geq \Delta_i.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\Pr(I_t=i) \leq \Pr (X_i(t))+ \Pr (Y_1(t))+\Pr (Z_i(t))$. By the Chernoff-Hoeffding’s inequality [@hoeffding1994probability], $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(X_i(t)) \leq \frac{1}{t^2},~~~~~~\Pr(Y_1(t)) \leq \frac{1}{t^2},
\end{aligned}$$ and their sum from $t=1$ to $T$ is bounded by $\frac{\pi^2}{3}$. If $n_i(t) \geq \frac{8(l+1)^2 \log T}{\Delta_i^2}$, the event $Z_i(t)$ will not happen, and thus $\sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr (Z_i(t))\leq \frac{8(l+1)^2 \log T}{\Delta_i^2}$. We can bound $\mathbb{E}[n_i(T)]$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(n_i(T))& = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr (I_t = i)\\
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^{T} \left(\Pr (X_i(t))+ \Pr (Y_1(t))+\Pr (Z_i(t))\right)\\
& \leq \frac{8(l+1)^2 \log T}{\Delta_i^2}+ \frac{\pi^2}{3}.
\end{aligned}$$ So, the expected regret $$\mathbb{E}(R(T)) \leq \sum_{i= 2}^{N} \frac{8(l+1)^2\log T}{\Delta_i} + \frac{\Delta_i(K-1)\pi^2}{3}.$$
The calculation of compensation is a bit different from that of regret since compensation can be incurred even if the best arm is pulled. The player will be compensated to pull arm 1 only when $$\bar{\mu}_1(t) \leq \bar{\mu}_i(t),$$ $$\bar{\mu}_1(t) + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_1(t)}} \geq \bar{\mu}_i(t) + \sqrt{\frac{2\log t}{n_i(t)}},$$ which requires $n_1(t) \leq n_i(t)$. So, the average number of times when the players are compensated to pull arm $1$ is smaller than $\max_{i\neq 1} \mathbb{E}(n_i(T))$. Denote by $C_i(t)$ the total compensation the players have received to pull arm $i$ up to time $t$. Recall the bound , we can bound the total compensation as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &= \mathbb{E}\left(C_1(T) + \sum_{i=2}^{K}C_i(T)\right) \nonumber\\
& \leq \sum_{m =1 }^{\max_{i \neq 1} \mathbb{E}(n_i(T))} \!\!\!\!\!\!\sqrt{\frac{2\log T}{m}} + \sum_{i=2}^{K} \sum_{m = 1}^{\mathbb{E}(n_i(T))}\!\!\!\!\!\sqrt{\frac{2\log T}{m}} \nonumber\\
& \leq \frac{16(l+1) \log T}{\Delta} + 2K\pi \sqrt{\frac{2\log T}{3}} \nonumber\\\
&~~~~~+ \sum_{i=2}^{K} \frac{16(l+1) \log T}{\Delta_i}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$\varepsilon$-Greedy policy
---------------------------
We now consider the case where the principal uses the $\varepsilon$-Greedy policy as shown in Algorithm \[algo:3\], with the choice of exploration probability $\varepsilon_t$ from that shows diminishing $\varepsilon_t$ achieves better performance. Algorithm \[algo:3\] involves a random exploration phase (Step 3), and its analysis is more involved. Recall that the “true” reward has a normalized support of $[0, 1]$, we therefore assume that the drifted reward $r_t+b_t$ is projected onto $[0,1]$. This assumption is also consistent with real world applications such as Amazon and Yelp as their rating systems usually have lower and upper bounds.
\[theroem:2\] For the incentivized $\varepsilon$-Greedy algorithm with $\varepsilon_t = \min \{1,\frac{cK}{t}\}$ and $ c \geq \frac{36}{\Delta}$, with a high probability the expected regret $R(T)$ and compensation $C(T)$ are bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(R(T)) &\leq \sum_{i=2}^{K} cS_i(l)(\log T +1) + c(K\!-\!1)(K+\frac{\pi^2}{6}), \label{eq:egrb} \\
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &\leq \max(l,1)(c+\sqrt{3c})K\log T,
\end{aligned}$$ where $S_i(l) = 1.5 + 3(1+\sqrt{3/c})l + 18c/\Delta_i^2$.
Since the biased feedback lies in the interval $[0,1]$, the drift $b_t \leq l_t(\bar{\mu}_{G_t} - \bar{\mu}_{I_t}) \leq l_t.$ A compensation for pulling arm $i$ will be incurred only when the arm is chosen by the principal to explore. By Lemma 2 [@agarwal2014taming] in supplementary material, the number of explorations that arm $i$ can receive up to time $t$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
m_i(t) \leq c(\log t + 1) + \sqrt{3c\log \frac{K}{\delta}(\log t +1)} \label{eq:neb}
\end{aligned}$$ with a probability of at least $1-\delta$. When $t$ is large enough such that $\log t \geq \log \frac{K}{\delta} - 1$, the right hand side of is upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{m}_i(t) = (c+\sqrt{3c})(\log t +1), \end{aligned}$$ and the total drift $B_i(t)$ on arm $i$ up to time $t$ is upper bounded by $l\overline{m}_i(t)$ with a probability of at least $1-\delta$.
Let $L = \frac{3l\overline{m}_i(T)}{\Delta_i}$ that is chosen to facilitate the analysis. We can bound $\mathbb{E}(n_i(T))$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}(n_i(T)) \\
\leq& \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{\varepsilon_t}{K} + \mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{t=1}^{T} (1-\varepsilon_t) \mathbb{I}(I_t = i, n_i(t) \leq L)\right) \\
&+ \mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{t=1}^{T} (1-\varepsilon_t) \mathbb{I}(I_t = i, n_i(t) \geq L)\right) \\
\leq & \underbrace{\sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{\varepsilon_t}{K} + L}_{A} + \mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{t=1}^{T}\! \mathbb{I}(I_t \!=\! i, n_i(t) \!\geq\! L)\!\right) \\
\leq & A \!+\! \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr\!\left( \!\hat{\mu}_i(t)\! +\! \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} \!\geq\! \hat{\mu}_1(t) \!+\! \frac{B_1(t)}{n_1(t)}\!,\! n_i(t) \!\geq \!L\!\!\right) \\
\leq & A + \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr\left( \hat{\mu}_i(t) + \frac{\Delta_i}{3} \geq \hat{\mu}_1(t)\right) \\
\leq & A \!+\! \sum_{t=1}^{T}\!\Pr\!\left(\! \hat{\mu}_i(t) \!\geq \!\mu_i \!+ \! \frac{\Delta_i}{3}\!\right) \!+\! \sum_{t=1}^{T}\!\Pr\!\left(\! \hat{\mu}_1(t) \!\leq\! \mu_1 \!- \!\frac{\Delta_i}{3}\!\!\right)\!,\end{aligned}$$ where the second last inequality is due to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} \leq \frac{g\overline{m}_i(t)}{3g\overline{m}_i(T)/\Delta_i} \leq \frac{\Delta_i}{3},
\end{aligned}$$ and the last inequality uses the fact that $\mu_i=\mu_1-\Delta_i$. By Lemma 3 in supplementary material, when $c \geq \frac{36}{\Delta_i}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~\sum_{t=1}^{T}\!\Pr\!\left(\! \hat{\mu}_i(t) \!\geq \!\mu_i \!+ \! \frac{\Delta_i}{3}\!\right) \!+\! \sum_{t=1}^{T}\!\Pr\!\left(\! \hat{\mu}_1(t) \!\leq\! \mu_1 \!- \!\frac{\Delta_i}{3}\!\!\right)\! \\
& \leq (\frac{c}{2} + \frac{18}{\Delta_i^2}) \log T + c(K+\frac{\pi^2}{\Delta_i^2}) + \frac{18}{\Delta_i^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ We can also show that $A \!\leq \!c(1 \!+\! 3g(1\!+ \!\sqrt{3/c}))(\log T \!+ \!1)$, and further obtain the bound on expected regret after some straightforward mathematical manipulations.
For the compensation analysis, notice again that the drifted reward is in $[0, 1]$, so the compensation at each time is less than $1$ and the total compensation the players receive to pull arm $i$ is bounded by the bound $\overline{m}_i$ on the number of explorations it receives. To be consistent with the case with no drift, we write the bound on expected compensation as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &\leq \max(l,1)(c+\sqrt{3c})K(\log T + 1).
\end{aligned}$$
Thompson Sampling
-----------------
Consider now the case where the principal uses Thompson Sampling as shown in Algorithm \[algo:4\]. Thompson Sampling starts with a (prior) distribution on each arm’s reward, and updates the distribution after the arm being pulled. At each time, the principal samples the reward of each arm according to its posterior distribution, and then selects the arm with the highest sample reward. In this paper, we consider Gaussian prior adopted from [@agrawal2013further] since the often used Beta priors are usually for binary reward feedback.
Before we analyze the performance of Algorithm \[algo:4\], we first introduce some definitions and notations that are adopted from [@agrawal2017near; @agrawal2013further].
For each arm $i$, we denote two thresholds $x_i$ and $y_i$ such that $\mu_{i} \leq x_i \leq y_i \leq \mu_{1}$. $E_i^{\mu}(t)$ denotes the event $\bar{\mu}_i(t) \leq x_i$ and $E_i^{\theta}(t)$ the event $\theta_i(t) \leq y_i$. Also, let $p_{i,t} = \Pr(\theta_1(t) \geq y_i | \mathcal{F}_{t-1})$ where $\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$ is the history of plays until time $t$.
For two arms $i$ and $j$, if $\bar{\mu}_i(t) \neq \bar{\mu}_j(t)$, there exists a constant $\Delta_{ij}$ such that $|\bar{\mu}_i(t) - \bar{\mu}_j(t)| \geq \Delta_{ij}$. Let $\underline{\Delta} = \min \Delta_{ij}$.
We have the following result on the frequency $m_i(T)$ of compensation the players receive for pulling each arm $i$ when considering the concentration inequality of Gaussian distribution [@abramowitz1965handbook].
[\[lemma:3\]]{} The expected frequency $\mathbb{E}(m_i(T))$ of compensation for pulling arm $i$ is bounded by $\frac{2\log T}{\underline{\Delta}^2}$.
The proof is provided in the supplemental material.
Our analysis of regret generalizes that in [@agrawal2017near; @feng2019intrinsic] to incorporate the effect of drift caused by compensation.
\[theroem:3\] For the incentivized Thompson Sampling algorithm, the expected regret $R(T)$ and compensation $C(T)$ can be bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(R(T)) &\leq \sum_{i=2}^{K}((4e^{11} + 21)P_i(T) + \frac{5}{\Delta_i^2} + Q_i(T) + \frac{\pi^2}{6}), \\
\mathbb{E}(C(T)) &\leq 2\max(l,1)K \frac{\log T}{\underline{\Delta}^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $P_i(T) = \frac{18 \log (T \Delta_i^2)}{\Delta_i^2}$ and $Q_i(T) = \lceil \frac{9}{2\Delta_i^2}\left((1+ \frac{4\Delta_i l}{3\underline{\Delta}^2}) \log T + \sqrt{1+ \frac{8\Delta_i l \log T}{3\underline{\Delta}^2} }\right) \rceil$.
The analysis of compensation is straightforward, similar to that for the incentivized $\varepsilon$-Greedy algorithm. By Lemma \[lemma:3\], the expected compensation $\mathbb{E}(C(T)) \leq 2\max(l,1)K\frac{\log T}{\underline{\Delta}^2}$.
Consider now the regret for choosing suboptimal arm $i(i\neq 1)$. We can bound $\mathbb{E}(n_i(T))$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~\mathbb{E}(n_i(T)) \\
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr(I_t = i, E_i^\mu(t), E^{\theta}_i(t)) \\
&~~~~+ \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr(I_t = i, E_i^\mu(t), \overline{E^{\theta}_i(t)}) + \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr(I_t = i, \overline{E^{\mu}_i(t)})
\end{aligned}$$ The first two terms can be bounded by the results of [@agrawal2017near], see the detail in supplemental material, since their analysis will not be affected by the reward drift. Specifically, by Lemma 4, the sum of first two terms is upper bounded by $cP_i(T) + \frac{5}{\Delta_i^2}$, where $c$ is certain constant and $P_i(T) = \frac{18\log (T \Delta_i^2)}{\Delta_i^2}$. As for the third term, the analysis is similar to that of UCB and $\varepsilon$-Greedy algorithm where the drift is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~\sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr(I_t = i, \overline{E^{\mu}_i(t)})\\
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr( \overline{E^{\mu}_i(t)}) =\sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr( \bar{\mu}_i(t) \geq x_i) \\
& = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr\left( \hat{\mu}_i(t) + \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} \geq x_i \right) \\
& = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr\Big( \hat{\mu}_i(t) - \mu_i \geq \underbrace{\frac{\Delta_i}{3} - \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)}}_{Y_i(t)} \Big)\\
& \leq \sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr \left( \hat{\mu}_i(t) - \mu_i \geq Y_i(t), n_i(t) \leq Q_i\right) \\
&~~~~+\sum_{t=1}^{T} \Pr \left( \hat{\mu}_i(t) - \mu_i \geq Y_i(t), n_i(t) \geq Q_i\right) \\
& \leq Q_i + \sum_{t=1}^{T} e^{-2n_i(t)Y_i(t)^2} \leq Q_i + \frac{\pi^2}{6}.
\end{aligned}$$ where the second last inequality is due to Hoeffding’s inequality. We then choose $Q_i$ such that, when $n_i(t) \geq Q_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta_i}{3} - \frac{B_i(t)}{n_i(t)} &\geq \frac{\Delta_i}{3} - \frac{2 l \log T }{\Delta^2 n_i(t)} \geq 0, \label{equ:1}\\
n_i(t) Y_i(t)^2 &\geq \log T. \label{equ:2}
\end{aligned}$$
By $\eqref{equ:1}, Q_i \geq \frac{6l \log T}{\Delta_i \underline{\Delta}^2}.$ Since $n_i(t) Y_i(t)^2$ is non-increasing in $B_i(t)$, equation requires $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta_i^2}{9}n_i + \frac{4l^2 \log^2 T}{\underline{\Delta}^4} \frac{1}{n_i} \geq (1+\frac{4\Delta_i l}{3\underline{\Delta}^2}) \log T. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The above two equations lead to $$Q_i \geq \lceil \frac{9}{2\Delta_i^2}\left((1+ \frac{4\Delta_i l}{3\underline{\Delta}^2}) \log T + \sqrt{1+ \frac{8\Delta_i l \log T}{3\underline{\Delta}^2} }\right) \rceil.$$
Discussion of Results
---------------------
As can be seen from the above analysis, all three instantiations of the incentivized exploration algorithm attain $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and compensation upper bound under drifted reward. Our results match both the theoretical lower bound for regret in [@lai1985asymptotically] and lower bound for compensation in [@Wang2018MultiarmedBW] without reward drift. Although explicit lower bounds of the regret and compensation with drifted feedback in our setting remain unknown, we argue that these lower bounds should be larger or equal to the lower bound without reward drift since non-drifting environment is a special case of the drifted reward feedback with drift function $f_t = 0$. On the other hand, the proposed incentive mechanism is still cost-efficient even the payment will lead to biased feedback, as the principal can reduce the regret from $\mathcal{O}(T)$ for the players’ myopic choices to $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ by paying merely $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ in incentive.
In terms of sensitivity to unknown drift functions $f_t$, both incentivized $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling attain $\mathcal{O}(l)$ regret and compensation, while the incentivized UCB attains $\mathcal{O}((l+1)^2)$ regret and $\mathcal{O}(l+1)$ compensation. This difference comes from two aspects: 1) UCB is deterministic given the history while $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling have a randomized exploration phase which makes them less sensitive to the drift. 2) For UCB, the drift effect is bounded by the amount of compensation which affects the frequency of compensation and in turn shapes the amount of compensation, while for $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling, the cumulative drift can be directly bounded by the frequency of compensation. Numerical experiments reported in the next section are consistent with these analytical results.
Numerical Examples
==================
In this section, we carry out numerical experiments using synthetic data to complement the previous analysis of the incentivized MAB algorithms under reward drift, including UCB, $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling.
We generate a pool of $K=9$ arms with mean reward vector $\bm{\mu} = [0.9,0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.2,0.1]$. In each iteration, after the player pulls an arm $I_t$, reward $r_t$ is set to the arm’s mean reward plus a random term drawn from $\mathcal{N}(0, 1)$, i.e. $r_t = \bm{\mu}_{I_t}+\mathcal{N}(0, 1)$. Because of the randomness in sample rewards, the greedy algorithm without exploration suffers a linear regret, e.g., we observe nearly 6000 regret for 20000 trials. For the reward drift under compensation, we consider a linear drifting function $b_t = l x_t$ where $x_t$ is the compensation offered by the principle and coefficient $l \geq 0$. The player reveals drifted reward feedback $r_t+b_t$.
![Regret and Compensation for UCB, $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling without reward drift. []{data-label="fig:2"}](./regret_com_no_drift-eps-converted-to.png){width="1\columnwidth"}
![Regret and Compensation for UCB, $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling with drift coefficient $l = 1.1$. []{data-label="fig:3"}](./regret_com_bigk-eps-converted-to.png){width="1\columnwidth"}
For the incentivized exploration, we first compare regret and compensation in a non-drifting environment ($l=0$) and a drifted reward environment ($l>0$). In a non-drifting reward environment the player always gives unbiased feedback even offered with compensation. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. As expected, all three instantiations of the incentivized MAB algorithms have a sub-linear regret and compensation. Thompson Sampling outperforms the other two both in the regret (which is consistent with observation from previous work [@vermorel2005multi; @chapelle2011empirical]) and compensation.
In Fig. \[fig:3\] we show the performance of the incentivzed MAB algorithms under drifted reward with drift coefficient $l=1.1$. We first observe that over the three algorithms Thompson Sampling still performs the best. While their relative performance are in same order as Fig. \[fig:2\], the regret and compensation are worse than non-drifting setting, e.g., regret of UCB increases from 350 to 800 because of the biased feedback.
To better understand the effect of drifted reward, we vary the coefficient $l$ from $0$ to $1.1$ and present the results in Table \[table:1\]. We notice that the incentivized UCB incurs largest regret and compensation. This is due to the fact that, as the time goes, a larger UCB and uncertainty are assigned to those arms that are less explored but may in fact have small mean rewards, and the resulting higher chance of those suboptimal arms being selected leads to larger regret and compensation. We also notice that the gap between regret and compensation of UCB increase faster compared to the other two. This is consistent with out theoretical analysis that the regret of UCB is in the order of $\mathcal{O}((l+1)^2)$ and compensation is in the order $\mathcal{O}{(l+1)}$.
$l$ 0 0.05 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1
------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
UCB(R) 348.5 432.1 451.9 522.8 615.1 712.9 854.2
UCB(C) 277.2 292.9 349.5 375.6 408.0 473.0 422.7
$\varepsilon$-Greedy(R) 160.0 170.3 218.0 260.1 266.2 272.6 317.0
$\varepsilon$-Greedy(C) 185.9 217.4 130.4 167.6 102.8 161.8 115.2
TS(R) 25.3 28.2 33.4 37.1 46.3 63.6 74.5
TS(C) 18.9 23.7 20.9 29.3 22.9 29.1 25.3
: Regret (R) and Compensation (C) with different drift coefficients.[]{data-label="table:1"}
$l$ 0 0.05 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1
------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
UCB(N) 1225 1639 1954 2172 2288 2912 3374
UCB(E) 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 1.2% 1.9% 0.4% 3.1%
$\varepsilon$-Greedy(N) 273 329 304 303 276 293 308
$\varepsilon$-Greedy(E) 0.7% 1.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.6% 0.4% 0.8%
TS(N) 60 79 58 98 131 109 106
TS(E) 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.7% 0.7%
: Number of compensation (N) and relative error (E) of estimation of arm $1$ with different drift coefficients.[]{data-label="table:2"}
We then exam the frequency of compensation, as well as the estimation error for arm 1 in terms of the relative error of the average drifted reward compared to the mean reward, and present the result in Table \[table:2\]. We see that all three incentivized exploration algorithms achieve small estimation errors that are not sensitive to the drift coefficient $l$. This is expected, as the the expected compensation and thus the drift per time approaches 0 as T increases. However, while the incentivized $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling have roughly a constant frequency of compensation across different $l$ values, the incentivized UCB is more sensitive to the coefficient in the frequency of compensation. The constant frequency of compensation for $\varepsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling can be seen from the proof of Theorem \[theroem:2\] and Lemma \[lemma:3\] that show the frequency does not depend on the drift. In contrast, seen from the proof of Theorem \[theroem:1\], the frequency of compensation for UCB depends on the drift through equation (\[eq:egrb\]).
Conclusion
==========
We propose and study multi-armed bandit algorithm with incentivized exploration under reward drift, where the player provides a biased reward feedback that is the sum of the true reward and a drift term that is non-decreasing in compensation. We analyze the regret and compensation for three instantiations of the incentivized MAB algorithm where the principal employs UCB, $\epsilon$-Greedy and Thompson Sampling, respectively. Our results show that the algorithms achieve $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and compensation, and are therefor effective in incentivizing exploration. Our current analysis is based on the assumption that the reward drift is non-decreasing over the compensation. In the future work, we would like to study other assumptions about drift function and their corresponding impact on regret and compensation. It is also important to explore if an algorithm can leverage the drifted reward to reduce the compensation.
[^1]: Equal Contribution
[^2]: Huazheng Wang is supported by Bloomberg Data Science Ph.D. Fellowship.
[^3]: We will use reward and feedback interchangeably in this paper
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study by diagrammatic means a Bose-Fermi mixture, with boson-fermion coupling tuned by a Fano-Feshbach resonance. For increasing coupling, the growing boson-fermion pairing correlations progressively reduce the boson condensation temperature and make it eventually vanish at a critical coupling. Such quantum critical point depends very weakly on the population imbalance and for vanishing boson densities coincides with that found for the polaron-molecule transition in a strongly imbalanced Fermi gas, thus bridging two quite distinct physical systems.'
author:
- Elisa Fratini and Pierbiagio Pieri
title: 'Pairing and condensation in a resonant Bose-Fermi mixture'
---
One of the main reasons behind the recent great interest in ultracold gases, is the possibility to reproduce physical systems relevant to other areas in physics, with a flexibility and a degree of tunability of physical parameters which is unimaginable in the original system of interest. The very same flexibility can also be used, however, to construct novel physical systems. A noticeable example of such novel systems, namely, resonant Bose-Fermi mixtures, will be here at issue. We will be interested in particular in the competition between boson-fermion pairing correlations and bosonic condensation, occuring in a mixture of single-component bosons and fermions when the boson-fermion pairing is made progressively stronger by means of a Fano-Feshbach resonance.
Initial theoretical studies of ultracold Bose-Fermi mixtures considered mainly non-resonant systems [@Viv00; @Yi01; @Alb02; @Rot02; @Lew04], where boson-fermion pairing is irrelevant, and studied, within mean-field like treatments, the tendency towards collapse or phase separation (as motivated by the first experimental results on non-resonant Bose-Fermi mixtures [@Mod02]). Bose-Fermi mixtures in the presence of a Fano-Feshbach resonance have been subsequently considered in [@Rad04; @Kag04; @Sto05; @Dir05; @Pow05; @Avd06; @Pol08; @Riz08; @Wat08; @Mar08; @Tit09], mostly for [*narrow*]{} resonances [@Rad04; @Dir05; @Pow05; @Avd06; @Mar08; @Pol08] and/or in specific contexts such as optical lattices, reduced dimensionality, zero temperature or vanishing densitiy of one component [@Kag04; @Sto05; @Riz08; @Wat08; @Tit09].
Most of current experiments on Bose-Fermi mixtures [@Gun06; @Osp06; @Osp06b; @Zir08; @Ni08] appear however to be closer to the case of a [*broad*]{} resonance, which is characterized by the smallness of the effective range parameter $r_0$ of the interaction potential with respect to both the average interparticle distance and the scattering length [@Sim05]. Under these conditions, the resonant Bose-Fermi mixture is accurately described by a [*minimal*]{} Hamiltonian, made just by bosons and fermions mutually interacting via an attractive point-contact potential. This Hamiltonian is simpler and more “fundamental” in character than its counterpart for a narrow resonance because of the absence of any other parameter besides the strength of the boson-fermion interaction. In addition, its simplicity allows the implementation of more sophisticated many-body calculations (beyond mean-field).
We thus consider the following (grand-canonical) Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_{s}\int\! d {\bf r} \psi^{\dagger}_s({\bf r})(-\frac{\nabla^2}{2 m_s}-\mu_s)
\psi_s({\bf r}) \nonumber\\
&+& v_0 \int\! d{\bf r} \psi^{\dagger}_B({\bf r})\psi^{\dagger}_F({\bf r})
\psi_F({\bf r})\psi_B({\bf r})
\label{hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\psi^{\dagger}_s({\bf r})$, creates a particle of mass $m_s$ and chemical potential $\mu_s$ at spatial position ${\bf r}$, where $s=B,F$ indicates the boson and fermion atomic species, respectively, while $v_0$ is the bare strength of the contact interaction (we set $\hbar=k_B=1$ throughout this paper). Ultraviolet divergences associated with the use of a contact interaction in (\[hamiltonian\]) are eliminated, as for two-component Fermi gases [@Pie00], by expressing the bare interaction $v_0$ in terms of the boson-fermion scattering length $a$ via the (divergent) expression $1/v_0= m_r/(2\pi a)-\int \! 2 m_r /{\bf k}^2 d{\bf k}/(2 \pi)^3$, where $m_r=m_B m_F/(m_B+m_F)$ is the reduced mass.
The Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) does not contain explicitly the boson-boson interaction. Provided it is repulsive and non-resonant, this interaction yields in fact a mean-field shift, which consists in a simple redefinition of the boson chemical potential (attractive boson-boson interactions would lead to mechanical instability and are excluded from our consideration). S-wave interaction between fermions is finally excluded by Pauli principle.
The effective coupling strength in the many-body system is determined by comparing the boson-fermion scattering length $a$ with the average interparticle distance $n^{-1/3}$ (with $n=n_B+n_F$, where $n_B$ and $n_F$ are the boson and fermion particle number density, respectively). In particular, we will use the same dimensionless coupling strength $(k_F a)^{-1}$ normally used for two-component Fermi gases, where the wave-vector $k_F\equiv (3 \pi^2 n)^{1/3}$ (note that $k_F$ coincides with the noninteracting Fermi wave-vector $k_F^0=(6 \pi^2 n_F)^{1/3}$ only for $n_B=n_F$).
The expected behavior of the system is clear in the two opposite limits of the boson-fermion coupling. In the weak-coupling limit, where the scattering length $a$ is small and negative (such that $ (k_F a)^{-1} \ll -1$), the two components will behave essentially as ideal Bose and Fermi gases. Bosons will condense at $T_c= 3.31 n_B^{2/3}/m_B $, while fermions will fill out (at sufficienty low temperature) a Fermi sphere with radius $k_F^0$, the chemical potentials $\mu_B$ and $\mu_F$ being modified with respect to their noninteracting values by the mean-field shifts $2 \pi n_F a/m_r$, and $2 \pi n_B a/m_r$, respectively. In the opposite strong-coupling limit where $a$ is small and positive (such that $(k_F a)^{-1} \gg 1$ ), bosons will pair with fermions to form tightly bound fermionic molecules, with binding energy $\epsilon_0=1/(2 m_r a^2)$. In particular, in systems where $n_B \le n_F$, on which we focus in the present paper, all bosons will eventually pair with fermions into molecules, suppressing condensation completely.
In a complete analogy with the BCS-BEC crossover problem in a two-component Fermi gas [@Pie00], the choice of the self-energy diagrams will be guided by the criterion that a single set of diagrams should recover the correct physical description of the two above opposite limits. In the [*normal*]{} phase above the condensation critical temperature $T_c$, to which we restrict in the present paper, this condition is met (as we shall see below) by the T-matrix choice of diagrams represented in Fig. 1, yielding the expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{selfb}
\Sigma_{B}(q)&=&-\frac{1}{\beta}\int\!\!\frac{d {\bf P}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{m}G_{F}^{0}(P-q)\Gamma(P)\\
\label{selff}
\Sigma_{F}(k)&=&\frac{1}{\beta}\int\!\!\frac{d {\bf P}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{m}G_{B}^{0}(P-k)\Gamma(P)\end{aligned}$$ for the bosonic and fermionic self-energies $\Sigma_{B}$ and $\Sigma_{F}$, where $G_B^0$ and $G_F^0$ are bare bosonic and fermionic Green’s functions and $\Gamma(P)$ is the many-body T-matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(P)&=&- \left\{\frac{m_{r}}{2\pi a}+\int\!\!\frac{d{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\right.\nonumber\\
&\times& \left.\left[\frac{1-f[\xi_{F}({\bf P}-{\bf p})]+b[\xi_{B}({\bf p})]}{\xi_{F}({\bf P}-{\bf p})+\xi_{B}\left({\bf p}\right)-i\Omega_{m}}
-\frac{2m_{r}}{{\bf p}^{2}} \right]\right\}^{-1}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!.\phantom{aa}
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ In the above expressions $q=({\bf q},\omega_{\nu})$, $k=({\bf k},\omega_{n})$, $P=({\bf P},\Omega_{m})$, where $\omega_{\nu}=2\pi\nu/ \beta$ and $\omega_{n}=(2n+1)\pi /\beta$, $\Omega_m=(2m+1)\pi/\beta$ are bosonic and fermionic Matsubara frequencies, respectively ($\beta=1/T$ being the inverse temperature and $\nu,n,m$ integer), while $f(x)$ and $b(x)$ are the Fermi and Bose distribution functions and $\xi_s({\bf p})={\bf p}^2/(2m_s)-\mu_s$. The above self-energies determine finally the dressed Green’s functions $G_s^{-1}=G_s^{0 \; -1}-\Sigma_s$ entering the particle numbers equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nb}
n_{B}&=&-\int\!\!\frac{d {\bf q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{\beta}\,\sum_{\nu}G_{B}({\bf q},\omega_{\nu})\,e^{i\omega_{\nu} 0^+}\\
\label{nf}
n_{F}&=&\int\!\!\frac{d {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{\beta}\,\sum_{n}G_{F}({\bf k},\omega_{n})\,e^{i\omega_{n} 0^+}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[selfb\]$-$\[nf\]) fully determine the thermodynamic properties of the Bose-Fermi mixture in the normal phase. This phase is characterized by the condition $\mu_{B}-\Sigma_{B}(q=0)<0$; upon lowering the temperature, condensation will then occur when $\mu_{B}=\Sigma_{B}(q=0)$. Analytic results can be obtained in the two opposite limits of the boson-fermion coupling [@details]. For weak-coupling $\Gamma(P)\simeq -\frac{2\pi a}{m_{r}}$, yielding $\Sigma_B\simeq 2 \pi n_F a/m_r$ and $\Sigma_F\simeq2 \pi n_B a/m_r$, in accordance with the expected mean-field shifts. For strong-coupling $\Gamma(P)$ gets instead proportional to the molecular propagator: $$\Gamma(P)\simeq -\frac{2\pi}{m_r^2 a}\frac{1}{i\Omega_m-\frac{{\bf P}^2}{2 M}+\mu_M}$$ where $\mu_M\equiv\mu_B+\mu_F + \epsilon_0$ is the molecular chemical potential and $M=m_B+m_F$. Insertion of this propagator in Eqs. (\[selfb\]$-$\[nf\]) leads, for $n_B < n_F$, to $\mu_M\simeq(6\pi^2 n_B)^{2/3}/2 M$, $\mu_F\simeq[6\pi^2 (n_F-n_B)]^{2/3}/2 m_F$ and $\mu_B=\mu_M-\mu_F - \epsilon_0\simeq - \epsilon_0$, as expected when all bosons pair with fermions.
For intermediate values of the boson-fermion coupling Eqs. (\[selfb\]$-$\[nf\]) need to be solved numerically. The results for the condensation critical temperature $T_c$ vs the boson-fermion dimensionless coupling $(k_F a)^{-1}$ are presented in Fig. 2 for a mixture with $m_B=m_F$ at several values of density imbalance. [@footnotemasses] All curves start in weak-coupling from the corresponding noninteracting values, and decrease monotonically for increasing coupling due to the growing pairing correlations, which tend to deplete the zero momentum mode and distribute the bosons over a vast momentum region, as required to build the internal molecular wave-function. The critical temperature vanishes eventually at a critical coupling, corresponding to a quantum critical point which separates a phase with a condensate from a phase where molecular correlations are so strong to deplete the condensate completely.
Remarkably, the critical coupling value depends very weakly on the degree of density imbalance: all curves terminate in the narrow region $1.6<(k_F a)^{-1}<1.8$. In this respect, it is interesting to consider the limit $n_B\to 0$, where the critical coupling can be calculated independently by solving the problem of a single boson immersed in a Fermi sea. This is actually the same as a spin-down fermion immersed in a Fermi sea of spin-up fermions, since for a single particle the type of statistics is immaterial. The critical coupling reduces then to that for the polaron-to-molecule transition, recently studied in the context of strongly imbalanced [*two-component Fermi gases*]{} [@sch09; @vei08; @pro08; @mas08; @mor09; @pun09; @com09]. In particular, the solution of our equations in this limit yields the critical coupling $(k_F a)^{-1}=1.60$, in full agreement with the value $(k_F^{\uparrow} a)^{-1}=1.27$ (where $k_F^{\uparrow}=2^{1/3} k_F$) reported in [@pun09; @com09] for the polaron-to-molecule transition, when treated at the same level of approximation [@footnote-a; @footnote-b]. The meeting of the properties of a Bose-Fermi mixture with those of a two-component Fermi mixture at this point of the phase diagram is quite remarkable, especially because, according to our results of Fig. 1, this “universal” point sets the scale for the quantum phase transition for [*all*]{} boson densities $n_B\le n_F$.
The chemical potentials $\mu_B$ and $\mu_F$ at $T_c$ vs. $(k_F a)^{-1}$ are reported in Fig. 3, for different values of the density imbalance. The two chemical potentials behave quite differently. The fermion chemical potential remains almost constant in the whole range of coupling considered; the boson chemical potential, on the other hand, diminishes quite rapidly with increasing coupling while depending little on the density imbalance. This different behavior results from the concurrence of several factors. For weak-coupling, the increasing (negative) mean-field shift of the fermion chemical potential for increasing coupling is partially compensated by the decrease of the temperature when moving along the critical line. On the molecular side, the fermion chemical potential is instead determined by the Fermi energy of the unpaired fermions plus a mean-field shift caused by interaction with molecules. Pauli repulsion makes this interaction repulsive [@details; @Kag04] thus keeping the fermion chemical potential positive. The boson chemical potential, on the other hand, interpolates between the mean-field value $2 \pi n_F a/m_r$ in weak coupling and $\mu_B\approx -\epsilon_0$ in strong coupling, as required by molecule formation.
Figure 4 reports the momentum distributions $n_B({\bf k})$ and $n_F({\bf k})$ (as obtained before momentum integration in Eqs. (\[nb\])-(\[nf\])) at $T_c$, for a mixture with $n_B=n_F$, at the coupling value $(k_F a)^{-1}=1.63$ (approximately at the quantum critical point). The two distributions are markedly different at low momenta, consistently with their different statistics, but coalesce into the same behavior just after the step in the fermion momentum distribution. This common behavior corresponds to the function $n_M |\phi({\bf k})|^2$ (dashed line in Fig. 4), where $\phi({\bf k})=(8\pi a^3)^{1/2}/({\bf k}^2 a^2+1)$ is the normalized two-body internal wave function of the molecules, while the coefficient $n_M$ represents their density. In the present case $n_M=0.89 \, n_B$, showing that a fraction of bosons remains unpaired but still does not condense even at such a low temperature. The extrapolation of these results at exactly zero temperature indicates the existence (in a coupling range starting right after the quantum critical point) of quite an unconventional Bose liquid, corresponding to the unpaired bosons, which do not condense even at zero temperature. The fraction of unpaired fermions is instead more conventional and consists in a Fermi liquid, which is responsible for the jump in the fermion momentum distribution. In particular, the position of the jump in Fig. 4 at $|{\bf k}|\simeq0.47 \, k_F$, corresponds to an “enclosed” density of $0.10 \, n_F$, in good numerical agreement with the value $0.11 \, n_F$ obtained from the Luttinger theorem [@lut60] for the fraction ($n_F-n_M$) of unpaired fermions (using the value $n_M=0.89\, n_B$ extracted independently above). Note finally that the number of unpaired bosons progressively decreases by increasing the coupling, as expected on physical grounds, reaching eventually a 100% conversion of bosons into molecules, as shown in the inset of Fig. 4, where the ratio $n_M/n_B$ is reported vs coupling at a constant temperature.
We wish to conclude finally by commenting on three-body losses and mechanical instabilities, that could prevent the experimental observation of the many-body physics described above. The choice of restricting our analysis to mixtures with a majority of fermions was precisely aimed at reducing the importance of these nuisances. Three-body losses are dominated by processes involving two bosons and one fermion, with a rate proportional to $n_B^2 n_F$ [@Zir08]. They can thus be controlled by keeping $n_B$ sufficiently small with respect to $n_F$. A predominance of fermions should also reduce the tendency to collapse, because of the stabilizing effect of Fermi pressure. As a matter of fact, we have verified that the compressibility matrix $\partial\mu_s/\partial n_{s'}$ remained positive definite for all couplings, temperatures, and densities $n_F\ge n_B$ considered in our calculations. Apparently, pairing correlations act to protect the system from the mean field instabilities dominating the phase diagram of non-resonant Bose-Fermi mixtures. Resonant Bose-Fermi mixtures with a majority of fermions appear thus promising systems for the observation of a rich many-body physics.
We thank F. Palestini, A. Perali, and G.C. Strinati for a careful reading of the manuscript. Partial support by the Italian MIUR under Contract Cofin-2007 “Ultracold atoms and novel quantum phases” is acknowledged.
[99]{}
L. Viverit, C.J. Pethick, and H. Smith, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 053605 (2000). X.X. Yi and C.P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A **64**, 043608 (2001). A. Albus [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **65**, 053607 (2002). R. Roth and H. Feldmeier, Phys. Rev. A **65**, 021603(R) (2002). M. Lewenstein [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 050401 (2004).
G. Modugno [*et al.*]{}, Science **297**, 2240 (2002).
L. Radzihovsky, J. Park, and P.B. Weichman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 160402 (2004). M.Y. Kagan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **70**, 023607 (2004). A. Storozhenko [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 063617 (2005). D.B.M. Dickerscheid, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 230404 (2005). S. Powell, S. Sachdev, and H.P. Buchler, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 024534 (2005). A.V. Avdeenkov, D.C.E. Bortolotti, and J.L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A **74**, 012709 (2006). L. Pollet [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 023608 (2008). M. Rizzi and A. Imambekov, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 023621 (2008). T. Watanabe, T. Suzuki, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 033601 (2008). F.M. Marchetti [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 134517 (2008). I. Titvinidze, M. Snoek, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 144506 (2009).
S. Simonucci, P. Pieri, and G.C. Strinati, Europhys. Lett.[**69**]{}, 713 (2005). K. Günter [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 180402 (2006).
C. Ospelkaus [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 120402 (2006).
S. Ospelkaus [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 120403 (2006).
J.J. Zirbel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 143201 (2008).
K.-K. Ni [*et al.*]{}, Science [**322**]{}, 231 (2008).
P. Pieri and G.C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 15370 (2000). Details of the analytic calculations will be presented elsewhere (E. Fratini and P. Pieri, in preparation).
Numerical calculations will be limited to the case $m_B=m_F$ to restrict the space parameter. This case is directly applicable to isotopic mixtures of sufficiently heavy atoms ($^{39}$K-$^{40}$K, e.g.), but it is taken as representative of the more general situation.
A. Schirotzek [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 230402 (2009).
M. Veillette [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 033614 (2008).
N.V. Prokof’ev and B.V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 125101 (2008).
P. Massignan, G.M. Bruun, and H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 031602(R) (2008). C. Mora and F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 033607 (2009). M. Punk, P.T. Dumitrescu, and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 053605 (2009). R. Combescot, S. Giraud, and X. Leyronas, arXiv:0907.3197 (2009). QMC calculations [@pro08] and refined diagrammatic approximations [@com09] for the single spin-down problem yield the value $(k_F a)^{-1}=1.11$ for the polaron-to-molecule transition, a 30% off the T-matrix prediction. This difference is due to the overestimate of the molecule-fermion repulsion by the T-matrix approximation, which yields $8/3 a$ for the molecule-fermion scattering length in place of the exact value $1.18 a$ [@sko56], thus making the molecule formation in a Fermi sea enviroment less convenient. G.V. Skorniakov and K.A. Ter-Martirosian, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**31**]{}, 775 (1956) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**4**]{}, 648 (1957)\]. The value 1.60 for the critical coupling in the limit $n_B\to 0$ is reached with a weak reentrant behavior of the critical coupling vs. imbalance, occurring at imbalances larger than those reported in Fig. 1. For instance, at imbalance 0.95, $T_c$ vanishes at $(k_F a)^{-1}\simeq1.63$. J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. [**116**]{}, 1153 (1960).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that in the complement of a highly twisted link, all closed, essential, meridionally incompressible surfaces must have high genus. The genus bound is proportional to the number of crossings per twist region. A similar result holds for surfaces with meridional boundary: such a surface either has large negative Euler characteristic, or is an $n$–punctured sphere visible in the diagram.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90840'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Temple University, 1805 North Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19122'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, 14 MacLean Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242'
author:
- Ryan Blair
- David Futer
- Maggy Tomova
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Essential surfaces in highly twisted link complements
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
Links in $S^3$ are most easily visualized via a projection diagram. However, obtaining topological and geometric information directly from link diagrams has proved to be a difficult task. Historically, alternating links are one of the few classes of links for which this information has been accessible. For instance, links with prime alternating diagrams contain no incompressible tori [@menasco:alternating], and have minimal–genus Seifert surfaces constructible directly from the diagram [@crowell:genus; @murasugi:genus]. The goal of this paper is to extend results in this vein to diagrams with a high degree of twisting. To state our results, we must define what this means.
A *bigon* in a link diagram $D(K)$ is a disk in the projection plane, whose boundary consists of two arcs in the projection of $K$. Define an equivalence relation on crossings in a diagram, in which two crossings are considered equivalent if they are connected by a string of one or more consecutive bigons. Then, a *twist region* of a diagram is an equivalence class of crossings. The minimal number of crossings in a twist region of $D(K)$ is called the *height* of $D$, denoted $h(D)$, and the number of twist regions of $D(K)$ is called the *twist number*, denoted $t(D)$.
The height and twist number of a diagram turn out to be deeply related to the geometric structure of the link it depicts. Lackenby showed that given a prime alternating diagram, the hyperbolic volume of the link complement is bounded both above and below by linear functions of the twist number $t(D)$ [@lackenby:volume]. Futer, Kalfagianni, and Purcell extended these volume estimates to non-alternating diagrams for which $h(D) \geq 7$; that is, diagrams where every twist region contains at least $7$ crossings [@fkp:volume]. Additionally, the results of Futer and Purcell [@futer-purcell:heegaard] imply that when $h(D)$ is large, there is a close connection between the link diagram and any generalized Heegaard decomposition for the exterior of $K$.
In this paper, we show that $h(D)$ provides a linear lower bound on the genus of essential surfaces in a link complement. Stating our results precisely requires several definitions.
A link diagram is *prime* if every simple closed curve in the projection plane $P$ that meets $D(K)$ transversely in two points in the interior of edges bounds a disk in $P$ that is disjoint from all crossings of the diagram. A diagram is called *twist-reduced* if, for every simple closed curve in $P$ that meets $D(K)$ in exactly two crossings, those two crossings belong to the same twist region. (See Figure \[fig:flype\], left.) We will implicitly assume that the diagram $D(K)$ is connected and alternating within each twist region (so the configuration of Figure \[fig:flype\], right cannot occur). It is easy to verify that every prime link $K$ has a prime, twist–reduced diagram, with alternating twist regions. This can be achieved by first applying a maximal number of type II Reidermeister moves that eliminate crossings, followed by applying flypes to consolidate crossings into a minimal number of twist regions.
![Left: in a twist–reduced diagram, these crossings must belong to the same twist region. Right: in a twist–reduced diagram with alternating twist region, this configuration cannot occur.[]{data-label="fig:flype"}](flype "fig:") ![Left: in a twist–reduced diagram, these crossings must belong to the same twist region. Right: in a twist–reduced diagram with alternating twist region, this configuration cannot occur.[]{data-label="fig:flype"}](R3 "fig:")
\[fig:R3\]
A surface embedded in $S^3$ is *$n$–punctured* if it meets $K$ transversely in exactly $n$ points. Two $n$–punctured surfaces are equivalent if they are transversely isotopic with respect to $K$. A surface $F$ embedded in $S^3$ is *c–incompressible* if every disk or 1–punctured disk $D$ embedded in $S^3$ such that $D\cap F=\partial D$ is transversely isotopic to a disk or 1–punctured disk contained in $F$ while fixing the boundary. Although c-incompressibility is a strictly stronger condition than incompressibility, it is often better behaved than incompressibility and more natural to use when studying surfaces in link exteriors. We can now state the main theorem.
\[thm:closed\] Let $K\subset S^3$ be a link with a connected, prime, twist–reduced diagram $D(K)$. Suppose $D(K)$ has at least $2$ twist regions and $h(D) \geq 6$. Let $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ be a closed, essential, $c$–incompressible surface in the link complement. Then $\chi(F) \: \leq \: 5 - h(D).$
Furthermore, if $K$ is a knot, then $\chi(F) \: \leq \: 10 - 2 h(D).$
A special case of Theorem \[thm:closed\] was proved by Futer and Purcell [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 1.4]: if $h(D) \geq 6$, then $\chi(F)<0$, which implies that $F$ cannot be a sphere or torus.
There is an analogous statement for surfaces with meridional boundary.
\[thm:meridional\] Let $K\subset S^3$ be a link with a connected, prime, twist–reduced diagram $D(K)$. Suppose $D(K)$ has at least $2$ twist regions and $h(D) \geq 6$. Let $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ be a connected, essential, $c$–incompressible surface in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$, whose boundary consists of meridians of $K$. Then one of two conclusions holds:
1. $F$ is a sphere with $n$ punctures, which intersects the projection plane in a single closed curve that meets the link $n$ times and is disjoint from all twist regions.
2. $\displaystyle{\chi(F) \: \leq \: 5 - h(D)}$.
In other words: either $F$ is “visible in the projection plane”, or we obtain the same Euler characteristic estimate as in Theorem \[thm:closed\].
There is an interesting analogue between several results involving the height $h(D)$ and results involving distance of bridge surfaces. Distance is an integer measure of complexity for a bridge surface for a knot that has deep implications for the underlying topology and geometry of the knot exterior. The distance of a bridge surface bounds below the genus of certain essential surfaces in the knot exterior [@BS], while Theorem \[thm:closed\] and Theorem \[thm:meridional\] demonstrate an analogous property for height. It is known that both diagrams with large height and bridge surfaces with large distance produce knots with no exceptional surgeries [@BCJTT; @futer-purcell:surgery]. Additionally, both height and bridge distance give strong restrictions on the Heegaard surfaces for the knot exterior [@futer-purcell:heegaard; @Tomova].
The analogous results about height and bridge distance are all the more striking given that the two notions are in some ways orthogonal. For instance, for $2$–bridge knots, distance is essentially equal to the number of twist regions $t(D)$ in a minimal diagram [@Zupan], while the height $h(D)$ is the minimal number of crossings per twist region. It would be interesting to know whether the analogous results are indicative of some deeper underlying structure.
Here is a brief outline of the proofs of Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\]. We begin by adding a number of extra link components to $K$, so that there is a link component encircling each twist region. (See Figure \[fig:augment\].) In Section \[sec:augment\], we review the construction of this *augmented link* $L$, and show that $F$ can be moved by isotopy into a favorable position with respect to the added link components. In Section \[sec:polyhedra\], we describe a decomposition of the augmented link complement into right-angled ideal polyhedra, and again isotope $F$ into a favorable position with respect to these polyhedra.
Sections \[sec:crossing-intersect\] and \[sec:length\] constitute the heart of the paper. Here, we use the combinatorics of the ideal polyhedra to estimate the number of times that the surface $F$ must intersect the extra link components that we added to construct $L$. Each of these intersections will make a definite contribution to the Euler characteristic of $F$, implying the estimates of Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\].
Augmented links and crossing disks {#sec:augment}
==================================
In the arguments that follow, we will assume that $D(K)$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\]. Specifically, $D(K)$ is a connected, prime, twist–reduced diagram with at least $2$ twist regions and $h(D) \geq 6$. By [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 1.4], these hypotheses on $D(K)$ imply that $K$ is prime and $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ is irreducible.
The proof of Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\] relies on the geometric study of *augmented links*. Let us recap the definitions, while pointing the reader to Purcell’s survey paper [@purcell:IntroAug] for more details.
For every twist region of $D(K)$, we add an extra link component, called a *crossing circle*, that wraps around the two strands of the twist region. The result is a new link $J$. (See Figure \[fig:augment\].) Now, the manifold $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}J$ is homeomorphic to $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, where $L$ is obtained by removing all full twists (pairs of crossings) from the twist regions of $J$. This link $J$ is called the *augmented link* corresponding to $D(K)$. By [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 2.4], both $J$ and $L$ are prime and $S^3{{\smallsetminus}}L \cong S^3{{\smallsetminus}}J$ is irreducible.
![An augmented link $L$ is constructed by adding a *crossing circle* around each twist region of $D(K)$, then removing full twists. The crossing circles are shown in red. Figure borrowed from [@futer-purcell:surgery].[]{data-label="fig:augment"}](Fig_augment.eps)
Every crossing circle $C_i$ bounds a *crossing disk* $D_i$ that is punctured twice by strands of $K$. These twice–punctured disks play a particularly significant role in the hyperbolic geometry of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Note that $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ can be recovered from $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ by $1/{n_i}$ Dehn filling on $C_i$, where ${{\left\vert n_i \right\vert}}$ is the number of full twists that we removed from the corresponding twist region.
A key goal in proving Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\] is to place the surface $F$ into a particularly nice position with respect to the crossing circles and crossing disks. This will be done in two steps. First, we move $F$ by isotopy through $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ into a position that minimizes the intersections with the crossing disks. Then, in the next section, we drill out the crossing circles and place the remnant surface $F^\circ \subset F$ into normal form with respect to a polyhedral decomposition.
\[lemma:pushout\] Let $F$ be a $c$–incompressible surface in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$, whose boundary (if any) consists of meridians. Move $F$ by isotopy into a position that minimizes the number of components of intersection with the crossing disks. Then every component of intersection between $F$ and a crossing disk $D_i$ is an essential arc in $D_i$ with endpoints in $C_i$.
The first step of the proof is to rule out closed curves of intersection. Since $D_i$ is a twice–punctured disk, every closed curve in $D_i$ is either trivial or parallel to one of the boundary components. Isotope $F$ to intersect the union of the $D_i$ minimally.
Since $F$ is incompressible and $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ is irreducible, no curve of intersection can bound a disk in $D_i$ since we could eliminate such a curve of intersection via an isotopy of $F$. Similarly, since $F$ is $c$–incompressible and $K$ is prime, no closed curve of intersection can be parallel to a meridian of $K$. Thus all closed curves of $F \cap D_i$ are parallel to $C_i$. We may then move $F$ by isotopy in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$, past the crossing circle $C_i$, and remove all remaining curves of intersection $F \cap D_i$, contradicting our minimality assumption. See Figure \[fig:remove-curves\].
[Fig\_out-of-disk.eps]{} (39,30)[$F$]{} (95,32)[$F$]{} (45,16)[$\Rightarrow$]{} (16,14)[$D_i$]{} (75,16)[$D_i$]{} (7,28)[$C_i$]{}
Now that we have ruled out closed curves of $F \cap D_i$, all components of intersection must be arcs. An arc with an endpoint on $K$ cannot occur, because $F$ is a meridional surface and after an small perturbation of $F$ we can assume that $F$ is disjoint from the points of intersection between $K$ and the crossing disks. Therefore, every component of $F \cap D_i$ is an arc from $C_i$ to $C_i$. If any of these arcs are inessential in $D_i$, then an outermost such arc $\alpha$ can be removed via an isotopy of $F$ supported in a neighborhood of the subdisk of $D_i$ cobounded by $\alpha$ and an arc in $C_i$. Thus, every component of intersection between $F$ and a crossing disk $D_i$ is an essential arc in $D_i$ with endpoints in $C_i$.
\[cor:min-ci\] Suppose that $F$ is moved by isotopy into a position that minimizes the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$, as in Lemma \[lemma:pushout\]. This position also minimizes the number of points of intersection between $F$ and the crossing circles $C_i$.
By Lemma \[lemma:pushout\], every component of $F \cap D_i$ is an arc from $C_i$ back to $C_i$. This arc has two endpoints on $C_i$. Suppose $F^*$ is an isotopic copy of $F$ that minimizes the number of points of intersection between $F$ and the crossing circles $C_i$. As described in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:pushout\], c-incompressibility of $F^*$ and primeness of $K$ implies we can eliminate loops of intersection between $F^*$ and any $D_i$ that bound disks or 1-punctured disks in $D_i$ via an isotopy the fixes $F^* \cap \cup_i C_i$. Similarly, we can remove loops of intersection between $F^*$ and any $D_i$ that are isotopic to $C_i$ in $D_i$ via an isotopy of $F^*$ that fixes $F^* \cap \cup_i C_i$. Hence, we can assume that the points of intersection between $F^*$ and the $C_i$ are in two-to-one correspondence with the components of intersection of $F^*$ and the $D_i$. Thus, minimizing the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$ also minimizes the number of points of intersection between $F$ and the crossing circles $C_i$.
Our next step is to drill out the crossing circles $C_i$. Suppose, following Corollary \[cor:min-ci\], that $F$ intersects $\bigcup_i D_i$, and thus $\bigcup_i C_i$, minimally. Let $F^\circ = F {{\smallsetminus}}\bigcup_i C_i$ be the remnant of $F$ after removing the crossing circles.
\[lemma:essential-remnant\] Let $L$ be the augmented link, as in Figure \[fig:augment\]. Then, after isotoping $F$ to minimize the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$, $F^\circ = F {{\smallsetminus}}\bigcup_i C_i$ is an essential $c$–incompressible surface in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$.
Suppose that $F^\circ$ is compressible in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Let $\gamma$ be an essential curve in $F^\circ$ that bounds a compressing disk $D$ in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. If $\gamma$ is essential in $F$, then we contradict the incompressibility of $F$. Hence $\gamma$ bounds a disk $E$ in $F$ that is disjoint from $K$ but meets $\bigcup_i C_i$ in a nontrivial number of points. Since $E\cup D$ is a 2-sphere bounding a 3-ball, there is an isotopy of $F$ taking $E$ to $D$ that strictly reduces the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$, a contradiction.
Suppose that $F^\circ$ is incompressible and c-compressible in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Let $\gamma$ be an essential curve in $F^\circ$ that bounds a 1-punctured disk $D$ in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. If $\gamma$ is essential in $F$, then we contradict the c-incompressibility of $F$. Hence, $\gamma$ bounds a punctured disk $E$ in $F$ that meets $\bigcup_i C_i$ in at least two points and meets $K$ in at most one point. If $E$ meets $K$ in exactly one point, then, since $K$ is prime, $E\cup D$ is a 2-sphere bounding a 3-ball that meets $K$ in a single unknotted arc. Thus, there is an isotopy of $F$ transverse to $K$ taking $E$ to $D$ that strictly reduces the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$, a contradiction. If $E$ is disjoint from $K$, then the isotopy of $F$ taking $E$ to $D$ is supported in a 3-ball disjoint from $K$ and again strictly reduces the number of components of $F \cap \bigcup_i D_i$, a contradiction.
Suppose that $F^\circ$ is boundary parallel in the exterior of $L$. Then $F^\circ$ is isotopic to the boundary of a regular neighborhood of a component of $L$ or $F^\circ$ is boundary compressible. If $F^\circ$ is boundary compressible, then, since the exterior of $L$ has all torus boundary components, $F^\circ$ is compressible in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, which is a contradiction as previously demonstrated, or $F^\circ$ is a boundary parallel annulus. If $F^\circ$ is a boundary parallel annulus, then $F$ is not essential in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$, a contradiction. If $F^\circ$ is isotopic to the boundary of a regular neighborhood of a component of $L$, then $F$ is not essential in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$, a contradiction.
The polyhedral decomposition {#sec:polyhedra}
============================
In this section, we consider the intersection between the punctured surface $F^\circ$ and a certain polyhedral decomposition of of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. For the purposes of this paper, a *right-angled ideal polyhedron* is a convex polyhedron in hyperbolic $3$–space, all of whose vertices lie on the sphere at infinity, and all of whose dihedral angles are $\pi/2$. A *right-angled polyhedral decomposition* of a $3$–manifold $M$ is an expression of $M$ as the union of finitely many right-angled ideal polyhedra, glued by isometries along their faces. Note that a right-angled polyhedral decomposition endows $M$ with a complete hyperbolic metric.
In our setting, where $M$ is the augmented link complement $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, there is a well-studied way to decompose $M$ into two identical right-angled ideal polyhedra, first considered by Adams [@adams:auglink] and later popularized by Agol and Thurston [@lackenby:surgery Appendix]. Purcell’s survey article [@purcell:IntroAug] describes the polyhedral decomposition in great detail. For our purposes, the salient features are summarized in the following theorem, and illustrated in Figure \[fig:polyhedraldecom\].
\[thm:aug-geometry\] Let $D(K)$ be a prime, twist–reduced diagram of a link $K$ with at least $2$ twist regions. Let $L$ be the augmented link constructed from $D(K)$. Then the augmented link complement $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ is hyperbolic, and there is a decomposition of $S^3{{\smallsetminus}}L$ into two identical totally geodesic polyhedra $P$ and $P'$. In addition, these polyhedra have the following properties.
1. The faces of $P$ and $P'$ can be checkerboard colored, with shaded faces all triangles corresponding to portions of crossing disks, and white faces corresponding to regions into which $L$ cuts the projection plane.
2. All ideal vertices are $4$–valent.
3. The dihedral angle at each edge of $P$ and $P'$ is $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
The hyperbolicity of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ is a theorem of Adams [@adams:auglink]; compare [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 2.2]. The remaining assertions are proved in [@purcell:IntroAug Proposition 2.2].
![Decomposing $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ into ideal polyhedra. First, slice along the projection plane, then split remaining halves of two–punctured disks. This produces the polygon on the right. Figured borrowed from [@futer-purcell:surgery].[]{data-label="fig:polyhedraldecom"}](Fig_splitting_surface.eps "fig:"){width="1.4in"} ![Decomposing $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ into ideal polyhedra. First, slice along the projection plane, then split remaining halves of two–punctured disks. This produces the polygon on the right. Figured borrowed from [@futer-purcell:surgery].[]{data-label="fig:polyhedraldecom"}](Fig_splitting_surface2.eps "fig:"){width="1.4in"} ![Decomposing $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ into ideal polyhedra. First, slice along the projection plane, then split remaining halves of two–punctured disks. This produces the polygon on the right. Figured borrowed from [@futer-purcell:surgery].[]{data-label="fig:polyhedraldecom"}](Fig_polygonalization.eps "fig:"){width="1.5in"}
Our goal is to place $F^\circ$ in normal form with respect to this polyhedral decomposition. Our convention is that the ideal vertices of the polyhedra are truncated to form *boundary faces* that tile the boundary tori of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Then, ${{\partial}}F$ intersects the boundary faces in a union of arcs.
\[normal-def\] Let $P$ be a truncated ideal polyhedron. An embedded disk $D \subset P$ is called [*normal*]{} if its boundary curve $\gamma = {{\partial}}D$ satisfies the following conditions:
1. \[i:transverse\] $\gamma$ is transverse to the edges of $P$,
2. \[i:loop\] $\gamma$ doesn’t lie entirely in a face of $P$,
3. \[i:bent-arc\] no arc of $\gamma$ in a face of $P$ has endpoints on the same edge, or on a boundary face and an adjacent edge,
4. \[i:edge-compression\] $\gamma$ intersects each edge at most once, and
5. \[i:bdy-compression\] $\gamma$ intersects each boundary face at most once.
If $M$ is a $3$–manifold subdivided into ideal polyhedra, a surface $S$ is called *normal* if its intersection with each polyhedron is a disjoint union of normal disks.
It is a well-known fact, originally due to Haken [@haken:normal], that every essential surface in an irreducible $3$–manifold can be isotoped into normal form. However, in our context, we would like to make $F^\circ$ normal while preserving the conclusion of Lemma \[lemma:pushout\]. This requires carefully managing the complexity of the surface.
\[def:surf-complexity\] Let $M$ be a $3$–manifold with a prescribed polyhedral decomposition. Let $S \subset M$ be a properly embedded surface, transverse to the edges and faces of the polyhedra. Order the faces of the polyhedral decomposition: $f_1, \ldots, f_n$. Then the *complexity* of $S$ is the ordered $n$–tuple $$c(S) \: = \: \big( \#(S \cap f_1), \ldots, \#(S \cap f_n) \big).$$ Here, $\#$ denotes the number of components. Given two surfaces $S$ and $S'$, we say that $c(S) \leq c(S')$ if the inequality holds in each coordinate. We say that $c(S) < c(S')$ if $c(S) \leq c(S')$ and there is a strict inequality in at least one coordinate.
\[lemma:normalize\] Let $M$ be an irreducible $3$–manifold with incompressible boundary, and with a prescribed polyhedral decomposition. Let $S \subset M$ be a properly embedded essential surface, transverse to the edges and faces of the polyhedra. Then $S$ can be isotoped to a normal surface by a sequence of moves that monotonically reduces the complexity $c(S)$.
This argument is adapted from Futer and Guéritaud [@fg:arborescent Theorem 2.8], and the figures are drawn from that paper.
We need to ensure that $S$ satisfies the conditions of Definition \[normal-def\]. By hypothesis, $S$ is transverse to the polyhedra. This transversality implies that for every polyhedron $P$, each component of $S \cap {{\partial}}P$ is a simple closed curve, and gives condition . Additionally, since $S$ is incompressible, we can assume that we have isotoped $S$ to meet each polyhedron in a collection of properly embedded disks.
Now, whenever some component of $S \cap {{\partial}}P$ violates one of the conditions –, we will describe a move that reduces the complexity $c(S)$. That is, for each face $\sigma$ of the polyhedra, the intersection number $\#(S \cap \sigma)$ will either remain constant or decrease, with a strict decrease for at least one face.
Suppose that $\gamma$ is a closed curve, violating $\eqref{i:loop}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\gamma$ is innermost on the face $\sigma$. Then $\gamma$ bounds a disk $D \subset \sigma$, whose interior is disjoint from $S$. But since $S$ is incompressible, $\gamma$ also bounds a disk $D' \subset S$. Furthermore, since $M$ is irreducible, the sphere $D \cup_\gamma D'$ must bound a ball. Thus, we may isotope $S$ through this ball, moving $D'$ past $D$. This isotopy removes the curve $\gamma$ from the intersection between $S$ and $\sigma$. In addition, the isotopy will remove the intersections between $D'$ and any other faces of $P$.
Next, suppose that $\gamma$ runs from an edge $e$ back to $e$, violating the first half of condition . Then $\gamma$ and a sub arc of $e$ co-bound a disk $D \subset \sigma$, and we can assume $\gamma$ is innermost (i.e. $S$ does not meet $D$ again). We can use this disk $D$ to guide an isotopy of $S$ past the edge $e$, as in the left panel of Figure \[fig:normalize\]. This isotopy removes $\gamma$ from the intersection between $S$ and $\sigma$. Some intersection components between $S$ and the interiors other faces adjacent to $e$ will also merge. Hence, $\#(S \cap \sigma)$ stays constant or decreases for each face.
Suppose that an arc $\gamma$ runs from a boundary face to an adjacent interior edge in a face $\sigma$, violating the second half of condition . Then $\gamma$ has endpoints in adjacent edges of $\partial \sigma$, and we may assume without loss of generality that it is outermost in $\sigma$. Thus $\gamma$ once again cuts off a disk $D$ from $\sigma$. By isotoping $S$ along this disk, as in the right panel of Figure \[fig:normalize\], we remove $\gamma$ from $S\cap \sigma$ and alter the intersection of $S$ with any other face by an isotopy of arcs in that face.
![When a surface violates condition of normality, then an isotopy in the direction of the arrow removes intersections between $S$ and all the faces that meet edge $e$.[]{data-label="fig:normalize"}](Fig_normalize.eps)
Suppose a component $\gamma'$ of $S \cap {{\partial}}P$ intersects an edge $e$ twice, violating . Let $\gamma$ be the closure of a component of $\gamma'-e$ such that $\gamma$ together with a subarc of $e$ cobound a disk $D$. By passing to an outermost arc of intersection between $S$ and $D$, we can assume that $D\cap S = \partial D \cap S=\gamma$. If $\gamma$ is contained in a face of $\partial P$, then we violate . Hence, we can assume that $\gamma$ meets the face of $\partial P$ that contains a neighborhood of $\partial \gamma$ in at least two components. While fixing $\partial D \cap e$ isotope the rest of $D$ slightly into the interior of $P$. If $S$ meets the interior of $D$ it does so in simple closed curves. Since $S$ meets $P$ in a collection of properly embedded disks, then we can eliminate all components of intersection between $S$ and the interior of $D$ via a isotopy of $S$ that is supported in the interior of $P$ and fixes $c(S)$. After this isotopy, $D$ is a boundary compressing disk for the component of $S\cap P$ that contains $\gamma'$ in its boundary. As in Figure \[fig:normalize\], left, we may use $D$ to guide an isotopy of $S$ past edge $e$. Since $\gamma$ meets the face of $\partial P$ that contains a neighborhood of $\partial \gamma$ in at least two components, this isotopy will strictly reduce $\#(S \cap \sigma)$ for that face and will not increase $\#(S \cap \sigma)$ for every other face $\sigma$ that meets $e$.
Finally, suppose that $\gamma$ meets a boundary face twice, violating . Then the polyhedron $P$ contains a boundary compression disk $D$ for $S$ such that $\partial D \cap \partial M$ is contained in the boundary face. Since $S$ is boundary–incompressible, $\gamma$ must also cut off a disk $D' \subset S$, as in Figure \[fig:bdy-normalize\]. Since $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ is irreducible, it follows that the disk $D \cup_\gamma D'$ is boundary–parallel. Thus we may isotope $S$ through a boundary–parallel ball, moving $D'$ past $D$, which eliminates all components of intersection between $D'$ and $\partial P$. Since $\partial D'$ meets the edge of a boundary face, this isotopy strictly lowers $c(S)$.
![When a surface violates condition of normality, isotoping disk $D'$ past $D$ removes intersections between $S$ and the faces.[]{data-label="fig:bdy-normalize"}](Fig_bdy-normalize.eps)
Since each of the above moves reduces the complexity $c(S)$, a minimum–complexity position will be normal.
As a consequence, we get the following structural statement.
\[lemma:normal-in-disks\] Let $F^\circ = F {{\smallsetminus}}\bigcup_i C_i$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:essential-remnant\]. Suppose that $F^\circ$ has been isotoped into normal form via the procedure of Lemma \[lemma:normalize\]. Then the following hold.
1. \[i:arc-in-disk\] For each crossing disk $D_i$, each component of $F^\circ \cap D_i$ is an essential arc in $D_i$ with endpoints in $C_i$.
2. \[i:arc-in-face\] For each shaded face $\sigma$ of the polyhedra, $F^\circ \cap \sigma$ is an arc from an ideal vertex at a crossing circle to the opposite edge. See Figure \[fig:surf-in-disk\].
Recall that in the construction of $F^{\circ}$, we have assumed that we have isotoped $F$ to minimize the number of components of $F\cap \bigcup_i D_i$. Hence, by Lemma \[lemma:pushout\], conclusion holds before we begin the normalization procedure. Additionally, there is an isotopy of $F^\circ$ supported in a neighborhood of the $D_i$ such that after this isotopy any component of $F^{\circ}\cap D_i$ meets any shaded face of the polyhedra in at most one arc. Since each arc of intersection of $F^{\circ}\cap D_i$ is essential in $D_i$, then for each shaded face $\sigma$ of the polyhedra, $F^\circ \cap \sigma$ is an arc from an ideal vertex at a crossing circle to the opposite edge. Hence, we can assume both conclusion and conclusion hold before we begin the normalization procedure.
We claim that before the normalization procedure, the total number of arcs of $F^\circ$ in shaded faces is $$2 \sum_i \# \big(F \cap D_i \big) = \sum_i \# \big(F \cap C_i \big).$$ This is because each component of $F^\circ \cap D_i$ runs from $C_i$ to $C_i$, and consists of one arc in each of the two shaded faces comprising $D_i$. Each such arc runs from an ideal vertex at $C_i$ to the opposite edge, as in Figure \[fig:surf-in-disk\].
[Fig\_surf-in-disk.eps]{} (5,31)[$C_i$]{} (26,22)[$\sigma$]{} (26, 8)[$\sigma'$]{} (73,31)[$C_i$]{} (57,0)[$K$]{} (99.5,0)[$K$]{}
Now, consider what happens during the normalization procedure of Lemma \[lemma:normalize\]. That procedure monotonically reduces the complexity $c(F)$. In other words, for every face $\sigma$, $\# (F \cap \sigma)$ either stays constant or goes down. But by Corollary \[cor:min-ci\], the quantity $2 \sum_i \# \big(F \cap D_i \big)$ is already minimal before normalization. Since this quantity is the total number of intersections between $F^\circ$ and the shaded faces, it follows that $\# (F \cap \sigma)$ stays constant for every shaded face $\sigma$. This means that the intersections between $F$ and the shaded faces remain as in Figure \[fig:surf-in-disk\], and conclusions and remain true throughout the normalization process.
\[lemma:cusp-curve\] Assume that $F^\circ$ is in normal form. For each cusp torus $T_i$ corresponding to crossing circle $C_i$, each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ \cap T_i$ consists of $(n_i -1)$ segments parallel to shaded faces and $2$ diagonal segments that have one endpoint on a white face and one endpoint on a shaded face. Here, $n_i$ is the number of crossings in the twist region of $C_i$. See Figure \[fig:cusp-curve\].
Recall from [@futer-purcell:surgery Lemma 2.6] that the cusp torus $T_i$ corresponding to crossing circle $C_i$ is cut by the polyhedra into two rectangular boundary faces, one in each polyhedron. In the universal cover of $T_i$, we have a rectangular lattice spanned by ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{w}}}$, where ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ is a step parallel to a shaded face (horizontal in Figure \[fig:cusp-curve\]) and ${{\boldsymbol{w}}}$ is a step parallel to a white face (vertical in Figure \[fig:cusp-curve\]). In order to recover $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ from $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, we need to fill the torus $T_i$ along a slope corresponding to the meridian of $C_i$ in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}J$. By [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 2.7], this Dehn filling slope is homologous to ${{\boldsymbol{w}}}+ n_i {{\boldsymbol{s}}}$.
[Fig\_cusp-curve.eps]{}
In $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}J$, the punctured surface $F^\circ$ meets the neighborhood of each crossing circle in a meridian. By the above paragraph, each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ on $T_i$ has homological intersection $\pm 1$ with the shaded faces. On the other hand, by Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\], each puncture of $F^\circ$ at $C_i$ gives rise to a single arc in the the shaded disk. Thus, each curve of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ on $T_i$ only has *geometric* intersection number $1$ with the shaded faces. The only way to do this while staying in the homology class ${{\boldsymbol{w}}}+ n_i {{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ is to take $(n_i - 1)$ segments parallel to ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$, along with two diagonal segments whose sum is ${{\boldsymbol{w}}}+ {{\boldsymbol{s}}}$.
In the following section we will need a vocabulary that allows us to translate combinatorial statements regarding normal loops in the boundary of $P$ into combinatorial statements regarding the knot diagram $D(K)$. The following remark provides this translation.
\[rmk:poly-to-projection\] The homeomorphism from $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}J$ to $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$ can be taken to be the identity outside of a neighborhood of the union of the crossing disks in $S^3$. We can view this fact diagrammatically by shrinking the twist regions in the diagram of $K$ until each is contained in the regular neighborhood of the arc of intersection between the corresponding crossing disk and the plane of projection for $K$. By Theorem \[thm:aug-geometry\], the white faces of the polyhedral decomposition of the complement of $L$ meet the complement of the neighborhood of the union of the crossing disks in $S^3$ exactly in the plane of projection for $L$. Equivalently, the white faces of the polyhedral decomposition of the complement of $J$ meet the complement of a regular neighborhood of the twist regions of $K$ exactly in the plane of projection for $K$. In this way, arcs and loops in the white faces of the polyhedral decomposition are arcs and loops in the complement of the twist regions in the plane of projection for $K$.
Additionally, in light of Lemma \[lemma:cusp-curve\], we know exactly how a normal surface meets the faces of the boundary of a polyhedron that correspond to cusp tori. In particular, if a normal loop in the boundary of a polyhedron meets only white faces and cusp tori faces, then each component of intersection with the cusp tori faces is a segment in the ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ direction. Hence, if a normal surface meets the boundary of a polyhedron in a loop that is disjoint from the shaded faces and this loop meets the collection of cusp tori faces in $n$ components, then there is a curve in the plane of projection for $K$ that cuts through twist regions $n$ times and meets $K$ in exactly $2n$ points. See Figure \[fig:curves\].
[curves.eps]{}
Intersections with crossing circles {#sec:crossing-intersect}
===================================
In this section, we bound from below the number of times that a $c$–incompressible surface $F$ must meet the crossing circles. We note that some, but not all, of the subsequent lemmas carry the hypothesis that $F$ is closed. This will allow us maximum flexibility in proving Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\].
\[lemma:int-1-circle\] Suppose that $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ is a closed, $c$–incompressible surface. Then $F$ must intersect a crossing circle.
Suppose that $F$ is disjoint from every $C_i$. Then $F = F^\circ$, and by Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\], we can assume $F$ is normal and disjoint from the crossing disks. By Theorem \[thm:aug-geometry\] the shaded faces of $P \cup P'$ glue to form the crossing disks. Thus $F \cap ({{\partial}}P \cup {{\partial}}P')$ is entirely contained in the white faces.
Since $P$ and $P'$ are checkerboard colored, every side of every white face borders on a shaded face. But $F$ is disjoint from the shaded faces, hence it cannot meet any edge of the white faces. Thus any intersection of $F$ with a white face must be a simple closed curve, contradicting the normality of $F = F^\circ$.
\[lemma:int-2-circles\] Suppose that $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ is a $c$–incompressible surface, either meridional or closed. Let $\Delta \subset F^\circ$ be a normal disk that meets exactly one crossing circle cusp. Then $\Delta$ must also meet a cusp corresponding to $K$.
In particular, if $F$ is closed, some normal disk $\Delta \subset F^\circ$ must meet at least two crossing circles.
Let $\gamma \subset {{\partial}}\Delta$ be the unique arc of ${{\partial}}\Delta$ in a boundary face $T_i$ corresponding to a crossing circle $C_i$. By Lemma \[lemma:cusp-curve\], $\gamma$ is either a segment in the ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ direction, parallel to a shaded face, or else a diagonal segment that runs from a white face to a shaded face. We will consider these possibilities in turn.
$\gamma$ runs parallel to the shaded faces, from a white face $\omega'$ to another white face $\omega$. Consider where ${{\partial}}\Delta$ can go next. If ${{\partial}}\Delta$ crosses an edge of a polyhedron into a shaded face $\sigma$, Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\] implies that it must next run into a boundary face $T_j$ corresponding to some crossing circle $C_j$. But by hypothesis, ${{\partial}}\Delta$ meets only one boundary face, hence $T_i = T_j$. Thus, ${{\partial}}\Delta$ must meet $T_i$ both in a segment parallel to a shaded face and in a diagonal segment that runs from a white face to a shaded face, contradicting normality.
If ${{\partial}}D$ runs from $\omega$ directly into the boundary face $T_j$ of a crossing circle $C_j$, then again we must have $T_i = T_j$, which means that $\omega = \omega'$ and ${{\partial}}\Delta$ contains only two segments. But then, as Figure \[onecircle\] shows, we can use Remark \[rmk:poly-to-projection\] to find a loop in $D(K)$ corresponding to $\gamma$ that intersects $K$ twice with non-trivial regions on each side. This contradicts the primeness of the diagram $D(K)$.
The remaining possibility, if $\gamma$ is a segment in the ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$ direction, is that ${{\partial}}\Delta$ runs through $\omega$ to the a truncated ideal vertex corresponding to $K$. This is our desired conclusion.
$\gamma$ is a diagonal segment that runs from a shaded face $\sigma$ to a white face $\omega$. Then, observe that the two ends of $\gamma$ are separated by an odd number of knot strands. (See Figure \[onecircle\].) Thus, to form a closed curve, ${{\partial}}\Delta$ must either cross a strand of $K$, which is our desired conclusion, or cross through another shaded face $\sigma'$. But then, as above, ${{\partial}}\Delta$ would have to run through $\sigma'$ to a boundary face $T_j$ of some crossing circle $C_j$, which contradicts either normality (if $T_i = T_j$) or the hypotheses (if $T_i \neq T_j$).
Thus, in all cases, ${{\partial}}D$ must meet a cusp corresponding to $K$.
[Fig\_one-circle.eps]{} (7,6)[$K$]{} (32,6)[$K$]{} (60,6)[$K$]{} (84,6)[$K$]{} (32,24)[$\omega$]{} (85,24)[$\omega$]{} (37.5,30)[${{\partial}}\Delta$]{} (92,30)[${{\partial}}\Delta$]{} (20,32.8)[$\gamma$]{} (72,33.5)[$\gamma$]{} (67,17)[$\sigma$]{}
[Fig\_two-circles.eps]{} (10,8)[$K$]{} (34,8)[$K$]{} (62,8)[$K$]{} (86,8)[$K$]{} (48,34)[${{\partial}}\Delta$]{}
\[lemma:int-3-circles\] Suppose that $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ is a closed, $c$–incompressible surface. Then $F$ must intersect at least $3$ crossing circles.
Suppose $F$ meets strictly fewer than three crossing circles. By Lemmas \[lemma:int-1-circle\] and \[lemma:int-2-circles\], $F$ must meet exactly two distinct crossing circles, $C_i$ and $C_j$.
Recall that Lemma \[lemma:cusp-curve\] implies that each component of intersection between ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ and the cusp torus $T_i$ (resp. $T_j$) contains $n_i -1 \geq 5$ (resp. $n_j-1 \geq 5$) segments parallel to ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$, and only two other segments. By Lemma \[lemma:int-2-circles\], a normal disk $\Delta \subset F$ cannot intersect $T_i$ only. It follows that some disk $\Delta \subset F$ intersects each of $T_i$ and $T_j$ in a segment parallel to ${{\boldsymbol{s}}}$.
Consider how the curve ${{\partial}}\Delta$ can close up. This curve cannot meet the ideal vertices corresponding to $K$, and it also cannot meet any additional shaded faces (otherwise Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\] would force $\Delta$ to run into an additional crossing circle $C_k$). The only remaining possibility is that ${{\partial}}\Delta$ runs through a white face from $T_i$ to $T_j$, and then through another white face back to $T_i$. Now, Figure \[fig:two-circles\] shows that we can use Remark \[rmk:poly-to-projection\] to find a loop in the projection plane corresponding to ${{\partial}}\Delta$ that will intersect $K$ four times, with two intersections adjacent to the twist region of $C_i$ and the remaining intersections adjacent to the twist region of $C_j$. This violates the hypothesis that $D(K)$ is twist-reduced.
\[lemma:multiple-int\] Every cusp $T_i$ of a crossing circle $C_i$ contains an even number of components of $\partial F^\circ$. Furthermore, if $K$ is a knot and $F$ is a closed surface, then every cusp $T_i$ met by $F^\circ$ contains at least $4$ components of $\partial F^\circ$.
The first conclusion is an immediate consequence of the fact that $F$ is separating.
For the second conclusion, suppose that $F$ is a closed surface and $K$ is a knot. Since $F$ is closed, it must separate $S^3$ into two components. The knot $K$ must lie in one of these components. But every arc of $F \cap D_i$ separates the two strands of $K$ that puncture the disk $D_i$. Therefore, since $K$ lies on one side of $F$, the arcs of $F \cap D_i$ must come in pairs. Hence, if $F$ intersects a crossing circle $C_i$ at all, it must meet it at least $4$ times.
\[cor:sum-up\] If $F$ is closed, the punctured surface $F^\circ$ must meet the crossing circle cusps at least $b$ times, where $b \geq 12$ if $K$ is a knot, and $b \geq 6$ if $K$ is a link.
Immediate from Lemmas \[lemma:int-3-circles\] and \[lemma:multiple-int\].
Combinatorial length {#sec:length}
====================
The lemmas in the previous section give us a lot of control over the number of times that $F^\circ$ meets the cusps $T_i$ corresponding to the crossing circles. To prove Theorems \[thm:closed\] and \[thm:meridional\], we need to show that each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ\cap T_i$ makes a substantial contribution to the Euler characteristic of $F^\circ$, hence to that of $F$ as well.
This can be done in one of two ways: either by estimating the *geometric length* of each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ on a maximal cusp corresponding to the crossing circle $C_i$, or to estimate its *combinatorial length* in the sense of bounding the complexity of normal disks comprising $F^\circ$. The paper of Futer and Purcell contains readily applicable estimates on both combinatorial length and geometric length [@futer-purcell:surgery Theorem 3.10 and Proposition 5.13], and either result would suffice for Theorem \[thm:closed\]. We choose to pursue the combinatorial approach, because this is the approach that will generalize to meridional surfaces in Theorem \[thm:meridional\].
The notion of combinatorial length was developed by Lackenby, as part of his study of Dehn surgeries on alternating knots [@lackenby:surgery]. The main idea is that the Euler characteristic of a surface can be controlled by understanding the intersections between that surface and the truncated ideal vertices in an ideal polyhedral decomposition.
Let us recap the key definitions. Every normal disk $\Delta \subset F^\circ$ has a well-defined *combinatorial area*, computed using the dihedral angles of the polyhedra in a manner that mimics the area formula for hyperbolic polygons.
Let $D$ be a normal disk in a right-angled ideal polyhedron $P$, with the boundary faces of $P$ lying on $\partial M$. Let $n$ be the number of interior edges of $P$ crossed by $\partial D$. Then the *combinatorial area* of $D$ is defined to be $$area(D)=\frac{\pi}{2}n+\pi|\partial D \cap \partial M|-2\pi.$$ Furthermore, the combinatorial area of a normal surface $H$ is defined to be the sum of the combinatorial areas of all of its constituent normal disks and is denoted $area(H)$.
Let $H\subset M$ be a normal surface in a $3$–manifold with a right-angled polyhedral decomposition. Then $$area(H) = -2\pi \chi (H).$$
Specializing to the case where $M = S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, we have a way to “see” combinatorial area from the crossing circles.
\[def:comb-length\] Let $\Delta$ be a normal disk with respect to the polyhedral decomposition of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Let $\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_n$ be the segments of ${{\partial}}\Delta$ that lie in boundary faces corresponding to crossing circles, and suppose that $n \geq 1$. Then, for each $\gamma_i$, we define $$\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) = {{\rm area}}(\Delta) / n.$$ In other words, the area of $\Delta$ is distributed evenly among its intersections with the crossing circle cusps.
It is worth remarking that our definition of $\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta)$ differs slightly from the corresponding definition in Futer and Purcell [@futer-purcell:surgery Definition 4.9]. The difference is that the latter definition divides the area of $\Delta$ among *all* the segments of $\Delta$ in boundary faces, not just those corresponding to crossing circles. Definition \[def:comb-length\] is designed to give stronger versions of some of the following estimates.
\[lemma:length-area\] Let $S$ be any normal surface in the polyhedral decomposition of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. Then $${{\rm area}}(S) \: \geq \: \sum_i \ell(\gamma_i, \Delta),$$ where the sum is taken over all normal disks $\Delta \subset S$ and all segments of ${{\partial}}\Delta$ in crossing circle cusps.
This is immediate, since Definition \[def:comb-length\] ensures that the area of each disk is counted with the appropriate weight. Note that the inequality might be strict, because there may be normal disks in $S$ that have positive area but do not meet any crossing circle cusps.
In the case where $S$ is the meridional, $c$–incompressible surface $F^\circ$, we have a lot of control over the areas of disks and the corresponding combinatorial areas.
\[prop:FPlength\] Let $D$ be a normal disk in a polyhedron $P$ of a right-angled polyhedral decomposition of $M$, such that $\partial D$ passes through at least one boundary face. Let $m=|\partial D \cap \partial M|$. If $D$ is not a bigon or an ideal triangle, then $$area(D)\geq \frac{m\pi}{2}.$$
\[lemma:pi-area\] Let $\Delta \subset F^\circ$ be a normal disk that meets $n$ crossing circle cusps, where $n \geq 1$. Then, for each segment $\gamma_i$ of $\partial \Delta$ in a crossing circle cusp, $$\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) \geq \max\{ \pi/n,\, \pi/3 \}.$$
Let $m$ be the number of segments of $\Delta$ in *all* boundary faces (belonging either to $K$ or to a crossing circle). By Lemma \[lemma:int-2-circles\], $m \geq 2$. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\], $\Delta$ cannot be a bigon (because the boundary of a bigon runs between two consecutive ideal vertices). If $\Delta$ is an ideal triangle, then ${{\rm area}}(\Delta) = \pi$. Thus, by Proposition \[prop:FPlength\], ${{\rm area}}(\Delta) \geq \pi$ in all cases. By Definition \[def:comb-length\], it follows that $$\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) \geq \pi/n.$$
It remains to show that $\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) \geq \pi/3$. If $n \leq 3$, we are done by the previous paragraph. Alternately, if $n > 3$, Proposition \[prop:FPlength\] gives $area(D)\geq \frac{m\pi}{2}$, where $m \geq n$. Thus $$\ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) \: = \: \frac{{{\rm area}}(\Delta)}{n} \: \geq \: \frac{m\pi}{2n} \: \geq \: \frac{\pi}{2}. \qedhere$$
We can now complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:closed\].
Let $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ be a closed, $c$–incompressible surface. Isotope $F$ into a position that minimizes the intersection number with the crossing disks $D_i$. After drilling out the crossing circles, we obtain a surface $F^\circ = F \cap S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$, which can be placed into normal form via the procedure of Lemma \[lemma:normalize\].
Let $b$ be the number of boundary components of $F^\circ$ on the crossing circle cusps of $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$. By Corollary \[cor:sum-up\], we have $b \geq 6$, with $b \geq 12$ in case $K$ is a knot. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:cusp-curve\], each of these $b$ components consists of $(n_i + 1)$ segments in boundary faces, where $n_i \geq h(D)$. Thus, by Lemma \[lemma:pi-area\], each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ contributes at least $(h(D) + 1)\pi/3$ to the area of $F^\circ$.
Now, we may compute: $$\label{eq:closed-compute}
\begin{array}{r c l c l}
-2\pi( \chi(F) - b) & = & -2\pi \chi(F^\circ) & & \mbox{by the construction of } F^\circ \\
& = & {{\rm area}}(F^\circ) & & \mbox{by the Gauss--Bonnet formula} \\
& \geq & \sum_i \ell(\gamma_i, \Delta) & & \mbox{by Lemma \ref{lemma:length-area} } \\
& \geq & \pi/3 \cdot b \cdot (h(D) +1) & & \mbox{by Lemma \ref{lemma:pi-area}.}
\end{array}$$
We may compare the first and last terms to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:closed-finish}
\notag -2\pi( \chi(F) - b) & \geq & \pi/3 \cdot b \cdot (h(D) +1) \\
\notag - 6 \chi(F) + 6 b & \geq & b \, h(D) + b \\
\notag -6 \chi(F) & \geq & b \, ( h(D) - 5). \\
\chi(F) & \leq & b/6 \, (5 - h(D)).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $b \geq 6$ for links and $b \geq 12$ for knots gives the desired result.
The same ideas, with one added ingredient, also prove Theorem \[thm:meridional\].
Let $F \subset S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}K$ be a compact, connected, meridional, $c$–incompressible surface. Isotope $F$ into a position that minimizes the intersection number with the crossing disks $D_i$. Drill out the crossing circles, and normalize $F^\circ$ in $S^3 {{\smallsetminus}}L$.
Unlike the setting of closed surfaces (that is, unlike Lemma \[lemma:int-1-circle\]), it may happen that $F^\circ$ is disjoint from the crossing circle cusps, i.e. $F^\circ = F$. Then, by Lemma \[lemma:normal-in-disks\], each normal disk $\Delta \subset F^\circ$ must be disjoint from the shaded faces. In other words, ${{\partial}}\Delta$ is a closed curve in the white projection plane, which intersects the cusps of $K$ some number of times. This closed curve bounds a disk $\Delta$ in polyhedron $P$, unique up to isotopy. Recall that $P$ is glued to $P'$ along all its white faces, and the gluing map is the identity on white faces. Thus we have an identical normal curve in $P'$, which again bounds a normal disk $\Delta'$ that is unique up to isotopy. Since $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ are glued to each other along all their edges, we conclude that $F = F^\circ$ is a sphere punctured some number of times by $K$, and, by Remark \[rmk:poly-to-projection\], that it meets the projection plane for $K$ along the single closed curve ${{\partial}}\Delta = {{\partial}}\Delta'$.
Next, consider what happens if ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ contains $b$ components along the crossing circle cusps, where $b > 0$. By Lemma \[lemma:multiple-int\], $b$ is even. If $b \geq 6$, then we argue exactly as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:closed\]. The computations and in that proof produce the same estimate as for closed surfaces, namely $$\chi(F) \: \leq \: 5 - h(D).$$
If $b = 2$, then ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ must intersect only one crossing circle $C_i$, and in particular every normal disk of $F^\circ$ has at most one segment along a crossing circle cusp. Thus Lemma \[lemma:pi-area\] tells us that $\ell(\gamma,\Delta) \geq \pi$ for every segment $\gamma$ along $T_i$, hence each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ along $T_i$ contributes at least $(h(D) + 1)\pi$ to the area of $F^\circ$. As a consequence, the calculation of gives $$-2\pi( \chi(F) - b) \: \geq \: \pi \cdot b \cdot (h(D) +1).$$ After substituting $b=2$, this simplifies to $$\chi(F) \: \leq \: 1- h(D).$$
Similarly, if $b=4$, then ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ intersects either one or two crossing circles. Consequently, every normal disk of $F^\circ$ has at most two segments along a crossing circle cusp. Thus Lemma \[lemma:pi-area\] (with $n \leq 2$) tells us that $\ell(\gamma,\Delta) \geq \pi/2 $ for every segment $\gamma$ along along a crossing circle cusp $T_i$. Hence, each component of ${{\partial}}F^\circ$ along $T_i$ contributes at least $(h(D) + 1)\pi/2$ to the area of $F^\circ$, and the calculation of gives $$-2\pi( \chi(F) - b) \: \geq \: \pi/2 \cdot b \cdot (h(D) +1).$$ After substituting $b=4$, this simplifies to $$\chi(F) \: \leq \: 3- h(D). \hfill
\qedhere$$
[^1]: Futer is supported in part by NSF grants DMS–1007221 and DMS–1408682.
[^2]: Tomova is supported in part by NSF grant DMS–1054450.
[^3]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The structure of deformed single-particle wave functions in the vicinity of zero energy limit is studied using a schematic model with a quadrupole deformed finite square-well potential. For this purpose, we expand the single-particle wave functions in multipoles and seek for the bound state and the Gamow resonance solutions. We find that, for the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ states, where $K$ is the $z$-component of the orbital angular momentum, the probability of each multipole components in the deformed wave function is connected between the negative energy and the positive energy regions asymptotically, although it has a discontinuity around the threshold. This implies that the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ resonant level exists physically unless the $l=0$ component is inherently large when extrapolated to the well bound region. The dependence of the multipole components on deformation is also discussed.'
author:
- 'Kenichi Yoshida$^{1}$'
- 'Kouichi Hagino$^{2}$'
title: 'Role of low-$l$ component in deformed wave functions near the continuum threshold'
---
Introduction
============
Physics of nuclei located far from the $\beta$ stability line has been one of the main current subjects of nuclear physics. One of the unique properties of drip-line nuclei is that the Fermi level lies close to zero. Understanding of single-particle levels in the continuum is essential in describing the nuclear structure close to, and beyond, the drip line, since the shell structure of both bound and continuum levels plays an important role in many-body correlations such as deformation and pairing.
It has been argued recently that, as the binding energy approaches zero, the $s$-wave component of a bound single-particle wave function behaves uniquely in a deformed potential, and plays a dominant role in Nilsson levels with $\Omega^{\pi}=1/2^{+}$[@mis97; @ham04]. Naively, resonant levels can be considered as an extension of bound states into the positive energy regime. Therefore, if the $s$-wave component keeps dominant in the continuum, the level with $\Omega^{\pi}=1/2^{+}$ might not exist as a physical state. Notice that, for a Nilsson Hamiltonian[@nil55], single-particle levels with $\Omega=1/2$ belonging to high-$j$ orbit comes down in energy in a prolately deformed potential. These states play an important role in generating the deformed shell structure. It is therefore crucially important to investigate the role of low-$l$ component in a deformed wave function for $\Omega=1/2$ states and its transition from bound to resonant levels.
The structure of deformed single-particle levels in the continuum has been investigated in a few publications. In Ref.[@fer97], the resonance energy of negative parity states was studied by employing the Gamow wave function. The Analytic Continuation in the Coupling Constant (ACCC) method was applied to study single-particle resonance states in spherical and deformed nuclei [@cat00]. Using the multi-channel scattering approach, Ref. [@ham05] has studied how the single-particle energies change from bound to resonant levels when the depth of the potential is varied. In order to fully understand the structure of deformed single-particle levels in the continuum, however, a detailed study of the wave function components is still necessary, in addition to the resonance energy itself.
In this paper, we investigate the structure of deformed wave functions around zero energy using the Gamow state representation for a resonant state. To this end, we use a schematic model: a $Y_{20}$ deformed finite square-well potential without spin-orbit force. This enables us to determine the single-particle wave function analytically. To use the Gamow state for resonance has a certain advantage in analyzing the deformed wave function. That is, we are able to treat the bound and the resonant levels on the same footing, because the Gamow states are normalizable just like the bound states [@rom68]. It is then straightforward to see how the fraction of each component in the deformed wave functions changes when the single-particle level changes its character from bound to resonant. A slight disadvantage of this approach is that the expectation value with the Gamow states, including the probability of wave function components, becomes complex numbers. However, this is not a big defect for our purpose, since the physical quantity of the expectation values can be obtained by taking their real part[@ber96; @aoy98].
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present our model for a deformed single-particle potential. Numerical results and discussion are given in Sec.\[sec:results\]. Finally, we summarize the paper in Sec.\[sec:summary\].
\[model\]Model
==============
Our purpose is to study the structure of wave function in a deformed single-particle potential. To this end, we employ a schematic model for the single-particle potential, that is, a deformed square-well potential without the spin-orbit force, $$V(\boldsymbol{r})=-V_{0}\,\theta(R(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}})-r),$$ where $R(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}})=R_{0}(1+\beta_{2} Y_{20}(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}}))$. For simplicity, we expand this potential up to the first order of deformation parameter $\beta_{2}$ and obtain $$V(\boldsymbol{r})
\simeq -V_{0}\left[\theta(R_{0}-r)+
R_{0}\beta_{2} Y_{20}(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}}) \delta(r-R_{0})\right].$$ In order to solve the Schrödinger equation with this potential, we expand the wave function in the multipoles as $$\Psi_{K}(\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{l}
\dfrac{u_{lK}(r)}{r}Y_{lK}(\hat{\boldsymbol{r}}),$$ where the quantum number $K( =\Lambda)$ is the $z$-component of the orbital angular momentum $l$. By projecting out each multipole component, we obtain the coupled equations for the radial wave functions given by $$\begin{gathered}
\Bigl[ -\dfrac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}\dfrac{d^{2}}{dr^{2}}-V_{0}\theta(R_{0}-r)
+\dfrac{\hbar^{2}l(l+1)}{2mr^{2}}-E \Bigr]
u_{lK}(r) \\
=V_{0}R_{0}\beta_{2}\delta(r-R_{0})
\sum_{l^{\prime}}\langle lK|Y_{20}|l^{\prime}K
\rangle u_{l^{\prime}K}(r). \label{eq:Sch2}\end{gathered}$$
For the positive energy solution, $E > 0$, we impose the boundary condition corresponding to the Gamow state for resonance. That is, the wave function is regular at the origin and satisfies the out-going boundary condition $u(r) \sim e^{ikr}$ asymptotically. This boundary condition is satisfied only if the energy is complex, $E=\hbar^{2}k^{2}/2m=E_{R}-i\Gamma/2$, where $E_{R}$ and $\Gamma$ are the resonance energy and the width, respectively. In the case for $\Gamma=0$ and $E_R<0$, the Gamow state wave function is equivalent to the bound state wave function, which satisfies the decaying asymptotics $u(r) \sim e^{-\gamma r}$, where $\gamma=\sqrt{-2mE_R/\hbar^2}$.
The solutions of the coupled-channels equations (\[eq:Sch2\]) therefore read (we omit the subscript $K$ for simplicity of notation), $$u_{l}(r)=
\begin{cases}
A_{l}\,rj_{l}(k_{1}r) &\hspace{0.2cm} (r < R_{0}), \\
B_{l}\,rh_{l}^{(+)}(kr) &\hspace{0.2cm} (r \geq R_{0}),
\end{cases}$$ where $k_{1}=\sqrt{2m(E+V_{0})/\hbar^{2}}, k=\sqrt{2mE/\hbar^{2}}$, and $j_{l}(x), h_{l}^{(+)}(x)$ are the spherical Bessel and Hankel functions, respectively. The amplitudes $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ are determined by the matching condition at $r=R_{0}$ given by, $$\begin{aligned}
u_{l}(R_{-})=&u_{l}(R_{+}), \\
-\dfrac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}\left[ u_{l}^{\prime}(R_{+})-u_{l}^{\prime}(R_{-}) \right]=&
V_{0}R_{0}\beta_{2} \sum_{l^{\prime}} \langle lK|Y_{20}|l^{\prime}K \rangle u_{l^{\prime}}(R_{0}),\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\pm}$ represents $\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}R_{0}\pm \varepsilon$.
The bound state wave function is normalized as $$1=\int d\boldsymbol{r}\,|\Psi_K(\boldsymbol{r})|^2=
\sum_{l}N_{l},
\label{normtot}$$ where $$N_{l}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}r |u_{l}(r)|^{2}.$$ The Gamow state wave function can be also normalized by introducing the regularization factor as Zel’dovich proposed[@zel61] $$\begin{aligned}
N_{l}=&\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}r e^{-\epsilon r^{2}}\{u_{l}(r)\}^{2} \\
=&\int_{0}^{R_{0}}\mathrm{d}r \{A_{l}\, rj_{l}(k_{1}r) \}^{2} \notag \\
&+ \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}
\int_{R_{0}}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}r e^{-\epsilon r^{2}}\{B_{l}\, rh_{l}^{(+)}(kr) \}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using a property of the spherical Bessel function[@mor53], one can evaluate the first term as $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{0}^{R_{0}}\mathrm{d}r\, \{A_{l}\,rj_{l}(k_{1}r) \}^{2}\\
=\dfrac{A_{l}^{2}R_{0}^{3}}{2}
\Bigl(\{j_{l}(k_{1}R_{0})\}^{2} - j_{l-1}(k_{1}R_{0})j_{l+1}(k_{1}R_{0})
\Bigr).\end{gathered}$$ The second term can be also evaluated using the contour integral method or equivalently the Complex Scaling Method (CSM). The result is given by [@gya70], $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\int_{R_{0}}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}r \,
e^{-\epsilon r^{2}}\{B_{l}\,r h_{l}^{(+)}(kr) \}^{2} \\
=-\dfrac{B_{l}^{2}R_{0}^{3}}{2}
\Bigl(\{h_{l}^{(+)}(kR_{0})\}^{2} -
h_{l-1}^{(+)}(kR_{0})h_{l+1}^{(+)}(kR_{0}) \Bigr).
\label{normalization}\end{gathered}$$ Note that the fraction of multipole components $N_{l}$ is in general a complex number for the Gamow state wave function.
![The real part of the energy and the resonance width for a $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state with various potential depths. The corresponding potential depths are shown in Fig.\[Energy2\]. []{data-label="Energy"}](Energy.eps)
\[sec:results\]Results and discussion
=====================================
Let us now discuss the behaviour of the low-$l$ components in deformed wave functions. In Sec. \[sec:V0\], we vary the potential depth for a fixed deformation parameter, while we vary the deformation parameter for a fixed potential depth in Sec. \[sec:def\].
\[sec:V0\]Dependence on potential depth
---------------------------------------
![The real part of the energy for $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state as a function of the potential depth. In the inset, the behaviour around zero energy is enlarged.[]{data-label="Energy2"}](Energy2.eps)
![ Same as Fig.\[Energy\], but in the logarithmic scale. The solid line is an expectation for the pure $s$-wave configuration given by Eq. (\[McVoy\]).[]{data-label="Energy_fit"}](Energy_fit.eps)
We first study the wave functions at a fixed deformation, $\beta_{2}=0.5$. Figure \[Energy\] shows the real and imaginary parts of the energy for a $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state in varying the potential depth $V_0$. The correspondence between the potential depth and the real part of the energy is shown in Fig.\[Energy2\]. We observe that the width is quite large even for a small values of positive energy. This large width is caused by the admixture of the $l=0$ component in the wave function. Indeed, as shown in Fig.\[Energy\_fit\], in the small positive energy region (0.1 MeV $< \Re(E) <$ 1.0 MeV), the behavior of the width is consistent with the relation expected for the $s$-wave resonance state [@voy67; @fer97; @ham05], $$\Gamma \propto \Re(E)^{l+1/2}\times \Re(N_{l})\Bigr|_{l=0},
\label{McVoy}$$ where $\Re(E)$ denotes the real part of $E$.
Below $E_{R}=$0.1 MeV, the width is larger than the solid line, which predicts $\Gamma =0$ at $E_R=0$. Also, we did not find a physical solution between $V_0$= 41.62 and 41.68 MeV, as is shown in the inset of Fig.\[Energy2\]. These might be related to the possible presence of the anti-bound and ‘crazy’ resonance states, as presented in Ref. [@tan99] for a spherical square-well potential (see Fig.1 of Ref. [@tan99]). Above 1.0 MeV also, the width is larger than that expected by Eq.(\[McVoy\]). This is due to the fact that the relation Eq.(\[McVoy\]) is valid only for small values of $k$ [@voy67].
In Fig.\[Energy2\], we see that the slope of the single-particle energy as a function of the potential depth, $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}V_{0}$, or equivalently $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}A$, where $A$ is the mass number, becomes smaller in approaching the zero binding energy. For a spherical square-well potential, it has been shown that $\mathrm{d}E_{l}/\mathrm{d}A \rightarrow 0$ for $l=0$ in the limit of zero binding [@ham01]. This is due to the fact that the $s$-wave function can be easily extended outside the nuclear potential and also the kinetic energy is reduced due to the absence of the centrifugal barrier [@ham01]. This property implies that the $l=0$ component becomes dominant in a deformed wave function around the zero-binding region. On the other hand, the slope has a finite value in the positive energy region even in the limit of zero energy, thus the slope has a discontinuity around zero energy. Therefore, a care must be taken, as discussed in Ref. [@tan99], when one estimates the energy of a deformed resonant level with $K^\pi=0^+$ by using the ACCC method [@cat00].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The eigenphase sum and its energy derivative for $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state with potential depth $V_{0}=39.0$ MeV (the left panel), and $V_{0}=41.6$ MeV (the right panel).[]{data-label="eigenphase"}](phase_39.eps "fig:") ![The eigenphase sum and its energy derivative for $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state with potential depth $V_{0}=39.0$ MeV (the left panel), and $V_{0}=41.6$ MeV (the right panel).[]{data-label="eigenphase"}](phase_416.eps "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resonance energy and width can be also estimated using the eigenphase sum $\Delta(E)$ [@hag04]. It is defined in terms of the eigenvalues of the scattering matrix ($S$-matrix) as $$(U^{\dagger}SU)_{aa^{\prime}}=e^{2i\delta_{a}(E)}\delta_{a,a^{\prime}},
\hspace{0.2cm}
\Delta(E)=\sum_{a}\delta_{a}(E).$$ The resonance energy and width are identified with the peak energy of $\mathrm{d}\Delta(E)/\mathrm{d}E$ and its FWHM, respectively[@mut01]. Figure \[eigenphase\] shows the eigenphase sum for the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state with two different potential depths. Comparing Figs.\[Energy\], \[Energy2\] and \[eigenphase\], we see a good correspondence between the two definitions of resonance state, [*i.e.,*]{} the Gamow state representation and the approach with the eigenphase sum.
![The real part of the fraction for each multipole component $N_{l}$ for the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state. The solid, dotted, and dot-dashed lines indicate the $l=0, 2$ and $l=4$ components, respectively.[]{data-label="real_component"}](beta=05_component_0+.eps)
![Same as Fig.\[Energy\], but for a $K^{\pi}=0^{-}$ state.[]{data-label="Energy_0-"}](Energy_0-.eps)
We now discuss the energy dependence of the fraction of the multipole components in the deformed wave function. Figure \[real\_component\] shows the real part of the fraction for each multipole component in the Gamow state wave function with $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$. When the binding energy approaches zero, the $s$-wave component in the deformed wave function becomes dominant. In contrast, in the positive energy region, all the multipole components have a finite value even in the zero energy limit and show similarity with the well bound cases. As we will discuss in the next section (see Fig.\[Nilsson\] below), the state shown in Fig.\[real\_component\] originates from the $2d$ orbit in the spherical limit. This states couples with the lower-lying $2s$, $1g$ and the higher-lying $3s$ states. The dominant component is $l=4$ both in well bound and in resonant levels, as one sees in Fig.\[real\_component\]. This suggests that both the well bound and the resonant levels have a similar property to each other and the intuitive picture that the resonant level is an extension of a bound level into the continuum is valid.
Only at the limit of zero binding, the singular behavior of the $l=0$ component appears. This is entirely due to the property of the normalization integral, Eq.(\[normalization\]). Since the Gamow state wave function is equivalent to the bound state wave function for $E_{R}<0, \Gamma=0$, Eq.(\[normalization\]) holds both for the resonance and the bound states. For small values of $k$, Eq.(\[normalization\]) is proportional to $k^{2l-1}$ as discussed in Refs. [@mis97; @RJM92], that diverges only for $l=0$ as $k\to$ 0. When the total wave function $\Psi_K$ is normalized according to Eq.(\[normtot\]), then only the $s$-wave component is allowed in the wave function [@mis97]. This condition is always met for the bound state when the binding energy approaches the threshold. In principle, the same consideration can apply also to the resonance state when the resonance energy approaches zero from the positive energy side. However, as we show in Fig.\[Energy\], the resonance state acquires a relatively large width even when the real part of the energy is infinitesimally small. Since $k$ is defined as $k=\sqrt{2m(E_{R}-i\Gamma/2)/\hbar^2}$, it remains a constant even if $E_R$ itself approaches zero. This leads to the disappearance of the “$s$-wave dominance" in the positive energy side.
![Same as Fig.\[Energy2\], but for the $K^{\pi}=0^{-}$ state.[]{data-label="Energy2_0-"}](Energy2_0-.eps)
![The real part of the fraction for each multipole components $N_{l}$ for the $K^{\pi}=0^{-}$ state. The solid, dotted, and dot-dashed lines indicate the $l=1, 3$ and $l=5$ components, respectively. []{data-label="real_component_0-"}](beta=05_component_0-.eps)
We next study the case for $K^{\pi}=0^{-}$. In Figs. \[Energy\_0-\] and \[Energy2\_0-\], we show the dependence of the single-particle energy on the potential depth. In contrast to the case for $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$, due to the presence of the centrifugal barrier, we do not see any singular behavior around zero energy. Single-particle energies are connected smoothly when changing the potential depth, and the width increases gradually in the small positive energy region. Figure \[real\_component\_0-\] shows the fraction of each multipole component in the Gamow state wave function. As the binding energy approaches zero, the $p$-wave component becomes relatively large, that is consistent with the dominance of low-$l$ component in the limit of zero binding energy discussed in Ref.[@ham04]. The fractions are connected smoothly and asymptotically in the bound and resonant regions.
\[sec:def\]Deformation dependence
---------------------------------
![Same as Fig.\[Energy\] except for varying the deformation. This level corresponds to the one originating from the $2d$ orbit in the spherical limit. The deformation dependence of the single-particle energies is shown in Fig.\[Nilsson\]. []{data-label="Energy_V0=45"}](Energy_V0=45.eps)
![Single-particle energies for the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state as a function of deformation parameter $\beta_{2}$. The potential depth is $V_{0}=45.0$ (MeV), and the potential radius $R_{0}=5.0$ (fm).[]{data-label="Nilsson"}](Nilsson.eps)
In this subsection, we study the deformation dependence of the low-$l$ component in deformed wave functions for a fixed potential depth. In the realistic situation, the location of single-particle levels changes as a function of nuclear deformation. Especially, the levels of $\Omega=1/2$ ($K=0$) with (without) spin-orbit force belonging to high-$j$ (high-$l$) orbit in the spherical limit play an important role in nuclear deformation.
Figure \[Energy\_V0=45\] shows the resonance energy and width when the deformation parameter is varied from $\beta_{2}=0.0$ to 0.5. The potential depth $V_0$ and the radius $R_0$ are set to be 45.0 MeV and 5.0 fm, respectively. This state belongs to the $2d$ orbit at $\beta_{2}=0.0$ as shown in Fig.\[Nilsson\]. At around zero energy, we see the similar behavior as in Fig.\[Energy\]: the width is quite large even for the small values of positive energy, which implies that the $l=0$ component is responsible for the width of the resonant level.
![Same as Fig.\[real\_component\] except for varying the deformation.[]{data-label="V0=45_component"}](V0=45_component.eps)
The corresponding wave function components for this state are shown in Fig.\[V0=45\_component\]. As in Fig.\[real\_component\], we see the singular behavior for the $s$-wave component at around zero-binding energy, corresponding to the “$s$-wave dominance" in the limit of zero binding. Except for the zero-energy region, however, we see that the fraction of each multipole components is linked asymptotically and is smoothly connected to the $d$-state resonant level in the spherical limit. From this calculation, it is evident that the singular behavior of the $l=0$ component for the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state occurs only just below the continuum threshold and this state is connected to the physical resonant level in the continuum. Furthermore, the fraction of each-$l$ components in the deformed wave function is connected smoothly from the bound to the resonant levels except for the region near the threshold.
\[sec:summary\]Summary
======================
We have analyzed the structure of the deformed wave functions around zero energy using the Gamow state wave function for resonance, with which one can treat the resonant and bound levels on the same footing and thus analyze the wave function continuously from the negative to the positive energy regions. For this purpose, we developed a schematic model with a deformed square-well potential. Since the wave functions can be obtained analytically with this model, detailed analyses of the deformed wave functions were possible. For a $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ state, we have found a singularity in the resonance width as well as in the $s$-wave component in the deformed wave function at around zero energy. That is, the width becomes considerably large even in the small positive energy region and the $l=0$ component approaches unity in the limit of zero binding. We have shown that the “$s-$wave dominance" occurs only at the threshold of continuum. Far from the zero energy region, the probability of each-$l$ components is connected asymptotically. This implies that the $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ resonant level exists unless the $l=0$ component is large inherently when extrapolated to the well bound region. In contrast, for the $K^{\pi}=0^{-}$ state, we did not find any singular behavior even in the zero-energy limit. The single-particle energies are connected smoothly when changing the potential depth, and the width increases gradually in the small positive energy region. The probability of each-$l$ component in the wave function is also connected smoothly and asymptotically between the bound and the resonant regions.
We thank Prof. K. Matsuyanagi for his continuing encouragement and for many useful discussions. We also thank Dr. T. Myo for useful discussions on the imaginary part of expectation values for a Gamow state. We acknowledge discussions with the member of the Japan-U.S. Cooperative Science Program “Mean-Field Approach to Collective Excitations in Unstable Medium-Mass and Heavy Nuclei". This work was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research under Contract number 16740129.
[99]{}
T. Misu, W. Nazarewicz and S. berg, Nucl. Phys. [**A614**]{}, 44 (1997).
I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C[**69**]{}, 041306 (2004).
S. G. Nilsson, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. [**29**]{}, No.16 (1995).
L. S. Ferreira, E. Maglione and R. J. Liotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1640 (1997).
G. Cattapan and E. Maglione, Phys. Rev. C[**61**]{}, 067301 (2000).
I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C[**72**]{}, 024301 (2005).
W. J. Romo, Nucl. Phys. [**A116**]{}, 618 (1968).
T. Berggren, Phys. Lett. [**B33**]{}, 547 (1970); ibid. [**B373**]{}, 1 (1996).
S. Aoyama, K. Katō and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**99**]{}, 623 (1998)
Y. B. Zel’dovich, Sov. Phys. JETP [**12**]{}, 542 (1961).
P. M. Morse and H. Feshbach, [*Methods of theoretical physics*]{} (McGrow-Hill, 1953), p.1574.
B. Gyarmati and T. Vertse, Nucl. Phys. [**A160**]{}, 523 (1971).
K. W. McVoy, [*Fundamentals in Nuclear Theory*]{}, edited by A. De-Shalit and C. Villi (IAEA, Vienna, 1967),p.419.
N. Tanaka, Y. Suzuki, K. Varga and R. G. Lovas, Phys. Rev. C[**59**]{}, 1391 (1999).
I. Hamamoto, S. V. Lukyanov and X. Z. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. [**A683**]{}, 255 (2001).
K. Hagino and Nguyen Van Giai, Nucl. Phys. [**A735**]{}, 55 (2004).
A. Muta and T. Otsuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. No.142, 355 (2001).
K. Riisager, A. S. Jensen, P. Møller, Nucl. Phys. [**A548**]{}, 393 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Thomas Dean$^{1,2}$\
Chaofei Fan$^{2}$\
Francis E. Lewis$^{2}$\
Megumi Sano$^{2}$
title: Biological Blueprints for Next Generation AI Systems
---
[100]{}
J. B. Aimone, J. Wiles, and F. H. Gage. Computational influence of adult neurogenesis on memory encoding. , 61(2):187–202, 2009.
James B. Aimone, Wei Deng, and Fred H. Gage. Resolving new memories: A critical look at the dentate gyrus, adult neurogenesis, and pattern separation. , 70(4):589–596, 2011.
Marie Amalric and Stanislas Dehaene. Origins of the brain networks for advanced mathematics in expert mathematicians. , 113(18):4909–4917, 2016.
Dario Amodei, Chris Olah, Jacob Steinhardt, Paul Christiano, John Schulman, and Dan Man[é]{}. Concrete problems in ai safety. , 2016.
Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. Modular multitask reinforcement learning with policy sketches. , arXiv:1611.01796, 2016.
Marcin Andrychowicz, Filip Wolski, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, Pieter Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. Hindsight experience replay. , arXiv:1707.01495, 2017.
Natalie Angier. . Feature article on Elizabeth Spelke in the New York Times, April 30, 2012, 2012.
Bernard Ans, Stèphane Rousset, Robert French, and Serban Musca. Preventing catastrophic interference in multiple-sequence learning using coupled reverberating elman networks. , 2002.
Dirk Jan Ardesch, Lianne H. Scholtens, Longchuan Li, Todd M. Preuss, James K. Rilling, and Martijn P. van den Heuvel. Evolutionary expansion of connectivity between multimodal association areas in the human brain compared with chimpanzees. , 116(14):7101–7106, 2019.
B.R. Arenkiel. . Springer New York, 2014.
B. J. Baars. . Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1988.
Alan Baddeley. Modularity, mass-action and memory. , 38(4):527–533, 1986.
D. Badre and A. D. Wagner. Selection, integration, and conflict monitoring; assessing the nature and generality of prefrontal cognitive control mechanisms. , 41(3):473–487, 2004.
David Badre. Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro–caudal organization of the frontal lobes. , 12(5):193–200, 2008.
Bram Bakker and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Hierarchical reinforcement learning based on subgoal discovery and subpolicy specialization. In [*Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems*]{}, pages 438–445, 2004.
Horace B. Barlow. Unsupervised learning. , 1:295–311, 1989.
Peter Battaglia, Razvan Pascanu, Matthew Lai, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Interaction networks for learning about objects, relations and physics. In [*Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems*]{}, pages 4509–4517. Curran Associates Inc., 2016.
Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulcehre, Francis Song, Andrew Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matt Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. , arXiv:1806.01261, 2018.
S. Becker. A computational principle for hippocampal learning and neurogenesis. , 15(6):722–738, 2005.
Eugene Belilovsky, Michael Eickenberg, and Edouard Oyallon. Greedy layerwise learning can scale to imagenet. , 2018.
Daniel Bendor and Matthew A Wilson. Biasing the content of hippocampal replay during sleep. , 15(10):1439, 2012.
Samy Bengio, Oriol Vinyals, Navdeep Jaitly, and Noam Shazeer. Scheduled sampling for sequence prediction with recurrent neural networks. , arXiv:1506.03099, 2015.
Yoshua Bengio. The consciousness prior. , arXiv:1709.08568, 2017.
Yoshua Bengio, Pascal Lamblin, Dan Popovici, and Hugo Larochelle. Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. In [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19*]{}, pages 153–160. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.
Yoshua Bengio, J[é]{}rôme Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. Curriculum learning. In [*Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, pages 41–48, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
J. R. Binder and R. H. Desai. The neurobiology of semantic memory. , 15(11):527–536, 2011.
Peter Blouw and Chris Eliasmith. A neurally plausible encoding of word order information into a semantic vector space. In [*35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society*]{}, pages 1905–1910, 2013.
Matthew Botvinick and James An. Goal-directed decision making in prefrontal cortex: A computational framework. , 21:169–176, 2009.
Matthew M. Botvinick. Multilevel structure in behaviour and in the brain: a model of fuster’s hierarchy. , 362:1615–1626, 2007.
Edward Boyden. A history of optogenetics: the development of tools for controlling brain circuits with light. , 3, 2011.
Holly Bridge and Stuart Clare. High-resolution [MRI]{}: [*[in vivo]{}*]{} histology? , 361:137–146, 2006.
Korbinian Brodmann. . Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, Leipzig, 1909.
R.B. Buxton, K. Uludag, D.J. Dubowitz, and T.T. Liu. Modeling the hemodynamic response to brain activation. , 23:220–233, 2004.
Edward M. Callaway. Transneuronal circuit tracing with neurotropic viruses. , 18:617–623, 2008.
Margaret F Carr, Shantanu P Jadhav, and Loren M Frank. Hippocampal replay in the awake state: a potential substrate for memory consolidation and retrieval. , 14(2):147, 2011.
X. Chen, Y. Mu, Y. Hu, A. T. Kuan, M. Nikitchenko, O. Randlett, A. B. Chen, J. P. Gavornik, H. Sompolinsky, F. Engert, and M. B. Ahrens. . , 100(4):876–890, 2018.
Zhiyuan Chen and Bing Liu. Continual learning and catastrophic forgetting. In [*Lifelong Machine Learning, Second Edition*]{}, volume 12 of [ *Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning*]{}, pages 1–207. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2018.
Alex Polozov Marc Brockschmidt Rishabh Singh Chenglong Wang, Po-Sen Huang. Execution-guided neural program decoding. , arXiv:1807.03100, 2018.
Ana B. Chica, Michel Thiebaut de Schotten, Paolo Bartolomeo, and Pedro M. Paz-Alonso. White matter microstructure of attentional networks predicts attention and consciousness functional interactions. , 223(2):653–668, 2018.
Eve V. Clark. How language acquisition builds on cognitive development. , 8(10):472–478, 2004.
Neal J. Cohen and Howard Eichenbaum. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 1993.
S. M. Courtney. Attention and cognitive control as emergent properties of information representation in working memory. , 4(4):501–516, 2004.
Nelson Cowan. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? , 169:323–338, 2008.
Ivo Danihelka, Greg Wayne, Benigno Uria, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Alex Graves. Associative long short-term memory. , arXiv:1602.03032, 2016.
Maria Dolores de Hevia, Véronique Izard, Aurélie Coubart, Elizabeth S. Spelke, and Arlette Streri. Representations of space, time, and number in neonates. , 111(13):4809–4813, 2014.
Terrence W. Deacon. . W. W. Norton, 1998.
M. O. Deák. Interrelations of language and cognitive development. In P. Brooks & V. Kampe, editor, [*The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences*]{}, pages 284–291. SAGE, 2014.
S. Dehaene, M. Piazza, P. Pinel, and L. Cohen. hree parietal circuits for number processing. , 20(3):487–506, 2003.
Stanislas Dehaene. . Viking Press, 2014.
Stanislas. Dehaene and Elizabeth Brannon. . Elsevier Science, 2011.
G. Dehaene-Lambertz and E.S. Spelke. The infancy of the human brain. , 88(1):93–109, 2015.
M. D’Esposito, J. A. Detre, D. C. Alsop, R. K. Shin, S. Atlas, and M. Grossman. The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory. , 378(6554):279–281, 1995.
Jacob Devlin, Jonathan Uesato, Surya Bhupatiraju, Rishabh Singh, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Pushmeet Kohli. Robustfill: Neural program learning under noisy i/o. In [*Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70*]{}, pages 990–998. JMLR.org, 2017.
Thomas G. Dietterich. Hierarchical reinforcement learning with the [MAXQ]{} value function decomposition. , 13:227–303, 2000.
C. Diuk, A. Schapiro, N. Córdova, J. Ribas-Fernandes, Y. Niv, and M. Botvinick. Divide and conquer: hierarchical reinforcement learning and task decomposition in humans. In [*Computational and robotic models of the hierarchical organization of behavior*]{}, pages 271–291, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. Springer.
Daniel Dombeck and David Tank. Imaging in neuroscience. In Helmchen and Konnerth, editors, [*Two-Photon Imaging of Neural Activity in Awake Mobile Mice*]{}, pages 355–369. Cold Spring Harbor Press, 2011.
Rodney J. Douglas and Kevan A.C. Martin. Behavioral architecture of the cortical sheet. , 22(24):R1033–R1038, 2012.
L. J. Drew, S. Fusi, and R. Hen. Adult neurogenesis in the mammalian hippocampus: [W]{}hy the dentate gyrus? , 20(12):710–729, 2013.
Mark Eisenberg, Tali Kobilo, Diego E. Berman, and Yadin Dudai. Stability of retrieved memory: Inverse correlation with trace dominance. , 301(5636):1102–1104, 2003.
Chris Eliasmith. . Oxford Series on Cognitive Modeling. Oxford University Press [USA]{}, 2013.
Jerry Fodor. . Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
Jerry A. Fodor and Zenon W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture. , 28(1-2):3–71, 1988.
David J Foster and Matthew A Wilson. Reverse replay of behavioural sequences in hippocampal place cells during the awake state. , 440(7084):680, 2006.
M. J. Frank and D. Badre. Mechanisms of hierarchical reinforcement learning in corticostriatal circuits [I]{}: computational analysis. , 22(3):509–526, 2012.
Robert French. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. , 3:128–135, 1999.
Robert M. French. Pseudo-recurrent connectionist networks: An approach to the ’sensitivity-stability’ dilemma. , 9(4):353–380, 1997.
K. Fukushima. Neocognitron: [A]{} self organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. , 36:93–202, 1980.
Joaquín M. Fuster. , pages 375–425. Elsevier, London, 2015.
Joaquín M. Fuster. . Elsevier, London, 2015.
S. Ge, E. L. Goh, K. A. Sailor, Y. Kitabatake, G. L. Ming, and H. Song. regulates synaptic integration of newly generated neurons in the adult brain. , 439(7076):589–593, 2006.
Samuel J. Gershman and Nathaniel D. Daw. Reinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: [A]{}n integrative framework. , 68:101–128, 2017.
James J. Gibson. . Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1950.
Jozien Glense, Yvette Bohraus, and Nikos K. Logothetis. at high spatial resolution: Implications for [BOLD]{}-models. , 10:66–66, 2016.
Gary H. Glover. Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 22:133–144, 2011.
Patricia S. Goldman-Rakic. Topography of cognition: Parallel distributed networks in primate association cortex. , 11(1):137–156, 1988.
Aida G[ó]{}mez-Robles, William D. Hopkins, Steven J. Schapiro, and Chet C. Sherwood. Relaxed genetic control of cortical organization in human brains compared with chimpanzees. , 112(48):14799–14804, 2015.
Alex Graves, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Geoffrey Hinton. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In [*2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing*]{}, pages 6645–6649. IEEE, 2013.
Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. Neural [T]{}uring machines. , arXiv:1410.5401, 2014.
Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, Malcolm Reynolds, Tim Harley, Ivo Danihelka, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwińska, Sergio Gómez Colmenarejo, Edward Grefenstette, Tiago Ramalho, John Agapiou, Adrià Puigdoménech Badia, Karl Moritz Hermann, Yori Zwols, Georg Ostrovski, Adam Cain, Helen King, Christopher Summerfield, Phil Blunsom, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Demis Hassabis. Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory. , 538:471–476, 2016.
Karol Gregor, Ivo Danihelka, Alex Graves, and Daan Wierstra. : A recurrent neural network for image generation. , arXiv:1502.04623, 2015.
Arthur Guez, Th[é]{}ophane Weber, Ioannis Antonoglou, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Daan Wierstra, R[é]{}mi Munos, and David Silver. Learning to search with [MCTS]{}nets. , arXiv:1802.04697, 2018.
RW Guillery. Is postnatal neocortical maturation hierarchical? , 28(10):512–517, 2005.
Caglar Gülcehre, Marcin Moczulski, Francesco Visin, and Yoshua Bengio. Mollifying networks. , arXiv:1608.04980, 2016.
Jessica B. Hamrick, Kelsey R. Allen, Victor Bapst, Tina Zhu, Kevin R. McKee, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Peter W. Battaglia. Relational inductive bias for physical construction in humans and machines. , abs/1806.01203, 2018.
Jessica B. Hamrick, Andrew J. Ballard, Razvan Pascanu, Oriol Vinyals, Nicolas Heess, and Peter W. Battaglia. Metacontrol for adaptive imagination-based optimization. , arXiv:1705.02670, 2017.
Yunyun Han, Justus M. Kebschull, Robert A. A. Campbell, Devon Cowan, Fabia Imhof, Anthony M. Zador, and Thomas D. Mrsic-Flogel. The logic of single-cell projections from visual cortex. , 556:51–56, 2018.
Marc D. Hauser and Elizabeth Spelke. Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge: A case study of mathematics. In M. Gazzaniga and N. Logothetis, editors, [*The Cognitive Neurosciences, [III]{}*]{}, pages 853–864. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.
Michael Hawrylycz, Jeremy A. Miller, Vilas Menon, David Feng, Tim Dolbeare, Angela L. Guillozet-Bongaarts, Anil G. Jegga, Bruce J. Aronow, Chang-Kyu Lee, Amy Bernard, Matthew F. Glasser, Donna L. Dierker, Jörg Menche, Aaron Szafer, Forrest Collman, Pascal Grange, Kenneth A. Berman, Stefan Mihalas, Zizhen Yao, Lance Stewart, Albert-László Barabási, Jay Schulkin, John Phillips, Lydia Ng, Chinh Dang, David R. Haynor, Allan Jones, David C. Van Essen, Christof Koch, and Ed Lein. Canonical genetic signatures of the adult human brain. , 18:1832–1844, 2015.
Michael J. Hawrylycz, Ed S. Lein, Angela L. Guillozet-Bongaarts, Elaine H. Shen, Lydia Ng, Jeremy A. Miller, Louie N. van de Lagemaat, Kimberly A. Smith, Amanda Ebbert, Zackery L. Riley, Chris Abajian, Christian F. Beckmann, Amy Bernard, Darren Bertagnolli, Andrew F. Boe, Preston M. Cartagena, M. Mallar Chakravarty, Mike Chapin, Jimmy Chong, Rachel A. Dalley, Barry David Daly, Chinh Dang, Suvro Datta, Nick Dee, Tim A. Dolbeare, Vance Faber, David Feng, David R. Fowler, Jeff Goldy, Benjamin W. Gregor, Zeb Haradon, David R. Haynor, John G. Hohmann, Steve Horvath, Robert E. Howard, Andreas Jeromin, Jayson M. Jochim, Marty Kinnunen, Christopher Lau, Evan T. Lazarz, Changkyu Lee, Tracy A. Lemon, Ling Li, Yang Li, John A. Morris, Caroline C. Overly, Patrick D. Parker, Sheana E. Parry, Melissa Reding, Joshua J. Royall, Jay Schulkin, Pedro Adolfo Sequeira, Clifford R. Slaughterbeck, Simon C. Smith, Andy J. Sodt, Susan M. Sunkin, Beryl E. Swanson, Marquis P. Vawter, Derric Williams, Paul Wohnoutka, H. Ronald Zielke, Daniel H. Geschwind, Patrick R. Hof, Stephen M. Smith, Christof Koch, Seth G. N. Grant, and Allan R. Jones. An anatomically comprehensive atlas of the adult human brain transcriptome. , 489:391–399, 2012.
T. E. Hazy, M. J. Frank, and R. C. O’reilly. Towards an executive without a homunculus: computational models of the prefrontal cortex/basal ganglia system. , 362(1485):1601–1613, 2007.
Bernhard Hengst. Hierarchical reinforcement learning. In Claude Sammut and Geoffrey I. Webb, editors, [*Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining*]{}, pages 611–619. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2017.
Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. , 9:1735–1780, 1997.
John Hughlings Jackson. . Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson. Basic Books, 1958.
Michal Januszewski, Jörgen Kornfeld, Peter H Li, Art Pope, Tim Blakely, Larry Lindsey, Jeremy B Maitin-Shepard, Mike Tyka, Winfried Denk, and Viren Jain. High-precision automated reconstruction of neurons with flood-filling networks. , 15:605–610, 2017.
David Jilk, Christian Lebiere, Randall O’Reilly, and John R. Anderson. : An explicitly pluralistic cognitive architecture. , 20:197–218, 2008.
Hannah R. Joo and Loren M. Frank. The hippocampal sharp wave-ripple in memory retrieval for immediate use and consolidation. , 19:744–757, 2018.
Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A preliminary report. In [*Proceedings Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, pages 167–173, 1993.
Mattias P Karlsson and Loren M Frank. Awake replay of remote experiences in the hippocampus. , 12(7):913, 2009.
R. P. Kesner and E. T. Rolls. A computational theory of hippocampal function, and tests of the theory: [N]{}ew developments.
James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil C. Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska[-]{}Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Claudia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. , arXiv:1612.00796, 2016.
Y. Kitabatake, K. A. Sailor, G. L. Ming, and H. Song. Adult neurogenesis and hippocampal memory function: new cells, more plasticity, new memories? , 18(1):105–113, 2007.
Etienne Koechlin, Chrystèle Ody, and Frédérique Kouneiher. The architecture of cognitive control in the human prefrontal cortex. , 302:1181–1185, 2003.
H. Kolster, J. B. Mandeville, J. T. Arsenault, L. B. Ekstrom, L. L. Wald, and W. Vanduffel. Visual field map clusters in macaque extrastriate visual cortex. , 29(21):7031–7039, 2009.
Talia Konkle and Alfonso Caramazza. Tripartite organization of the ventral stream by animacy and object size. , 33(25):10235–10242, 2013.
Ivica Kostović and Miloš Judaš. Early development of neuronal circuitry of the human prefrontal cortex. In Michael S. Gazzaniga, editor, [*The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th Edition*]{}, pages 29–48. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
Leonard F. Koziol, Deborah Budding, Nancy Andreasen, Stefano D’Arrigo, Sara Bulgheroni, Hiroshi Imamizu, Masao Ito, Mario Manto, Cherie Marvel, Krystal Parker, Giovanni Pezzulo, Narender Ramnani, Daria Riva, Jeremy Schmahmann, Larry Vandervert, and Tadashi Yamazaki. Consensus paper: the cerebellum’s role in movement and cognition. , 13:151–177, 2014.
Tejas D. Kulkarni, Karthik Narasimhan, Ardavan Saeedi, and Josh Tenenbaum. Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation. In [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29*]{}, pages 3675–3683, 2016.
Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L. McClelland. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? [C]{}omplementary learning systems theory updated. , 20(7):512–534, 2016.
Dharshan Kumaran and Eleanor A. Maguire. The human hippocampus: Cognitive maps or relational memory? , 25(31):7254–7259, 2005.
Christian Lebiere and John Anderson. A connectionist implementation of the act-r production system. In [*Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society*]{}, pages 635–640. Cognitive Science Society, 1993.
J. Y. Lettvin, H. R. Maturana, W. S. McCulloch, and W. H. Pitts. What the frog’s eye tells the frog’s brain. , 47:1940–1951, 1959.
Long-Ji Lin. Self-improving reactive agents based on reinforcement learning, planning and teaching. , 8(3):293–321, 1992.
Michael Littman, Thomas Dean, and Leslie Kaelbling. On the complexity of solving [M]{}arkov decision problems. In [*Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*]{}, pages 394–402, San Francisco, California, 1995. AUAI, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Bria Long, Chen-Ping Yu, and Talia Konkle. Mid-level visual features underlie the high-level categorical organization of the ventral stream. , 115(38):E9015–E9024, 2018.
E. L. MacLean. Unraveling the evolution of uniquely human cognition. , 113(23):6348–6354, 2016.
D. Marr and Giles Skey Brindley. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. , 262(841):23–81, 1971.
J. McClelland. On the time relations of mental processes: [A]{}n examination of systems of processes in cascade. , 86:287–330, 1979.
J. McClelland and D. Rumelhart. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: [I]{}. [A]{}n account of basic findings. , 88:375–407, 1981.
J. L. McClelland and N. H. Goddard. Considerations arising from a complementary learning systems perspective on hippocampus and neocortex. , 6(6):654–665, 1996.
James L. McClelland, Bruce L. McNaughton, and Randall C. O’Reilly. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: [I]{}nsights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. , 102(3):419–457, 1995.
DI McCloskey. Corollary discharges: motor commands and perception. , pages 1415–1447, 2011.
W. S. McCulloch and W. H. Pitts. A logical calculus of ideas immanent in nervous activity. , 5:115–133, 1943.
William Menegas, Benedicte M Babayan, Naoshige Uchida, and Mitsuko Watabe-Uchida. Opposite initialization to novel cues in dopamine signaling in ventral and posterior striatum in mice. , 6:e21886, 2017.
Shawn Mikula and Winfried Denk. High-resolution whole-brain staining for electron microscopic circuit reconstruction. , 2015.
Volodymyr Mnih, Adri[à]{} Puigdom[è]{}nech Badia, Mehdi Mirza, Alex Graves, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Tim Harley, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. , arXiv:1602.01783, 2016.
Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. Playing [Atari]{} with deep reinforcement learning. , arXiv:1312.5602, 2013.
Kristof Van Moffaert and Ann Nowé. Multi-objective reinforcement learning using sets of pareto dominating policies. , 15:3663–3692, 2014.
Zoltán Molnár, Gavin J. Clowry, Nenad Sestan, Ayman Alzu’bi, Trygve Bakken, Robert F. Hevner, Petra S. Hüppi, Ivica Kostović, Pasko Rakic, E. S. Anton, David Edwards, Patricia Garcez, Anna Hoerder-Suabedissen, and Arnold Kriegstein. New insights into the development of the human cerebral cortex. , 235(3):432–451, 2019.
Felipe Mora-Berm[ú]{}dez, Farhath Badsha, Sabina Kanton, J. Gray Camp, Benjamin Vernot, Kathrin K[ö]{}hler, Birger Voigt, Keisuke Okita, Tomislav Maricic, Zhisong He, Robert Lachmann, Svante Paabo, Barbara Treutlein, and Wieland B. Huttner. Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development. , 5:e18683, 2016.
Richard G.M. Morris, Jennifer Inglis, James A. Ainge, Henry J. Olverman, Jane Tulloch, Yadin Dudai, and Paul A.T. Kelly. Memory reconsolidation: Sensitivity of spatial memory to inhibition of protein synthesis in dorsal hippocampus during encoding and retrieval. , 50(3):479–489, 2006.
Arun Naira, Praveen Srinivasana, Sam Blackwella, Cagdas Alciceka, Rory Fearona, Alessandro De Mariaa, Vedavyas Panneershelvama, Mustafa Suleymana, Charles Beattiea, Stig Petersena, Shane Legga, Volodymyr Mniha, Koray Kavukcuoglua, and David Silver. Massively parallel methods for deep reinforcement learning. , arXiv:1507.04296, 2015.
Karthik Narasimhan, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Grounding language for transfer in deep reinforcement learning. , 63:849–874, 2018.
Joshua P. Neunuebel and James J. Knierim. retrieves coherent representations from degraded input: Direct evidence for [CA3]{} pattern completion and dentate gyrus pattern separation. , 81(2):416–427, 2014.
Kenichi Oishi, Karl Zilles, Katrin Amunts, Andreia Faria, Hangyi Jiang, Xin Li, Kazi Akhter, Kegang Hua, Roger Woods, Arthur W. Toga, G. Bruce Pike, Pedro Rosa-Neto, Alan Evans, Jiangyang Zhang, Hao Huang, Michael I. Miller, Peter C.M. van Zijl, John Mazziotta, and Susumu Mori. Human brain white matter atlas: Identification and assignment of common anatomical structures in superficial white matter. , 43(3):447–457, 2008.
H. Freyja Ólafsdóttir, Daniel Bush, and Caswell Barry. The role of hippocampal replay in memory and planning. , 28(1):R37–R50, 2018.
Randall C. O’Reilly. Biologically based computational models of high-level cognition. , 314:91–94, 2006.
Randall C. O’Reilly, Rajan Bhattacharyya, Michael D. Howard, and Nicholas Ketz. Complementary learning systems. , 38(6):1229–1248, 2014.
Randall C. O’Reilly and Michael J. Frank. Making working memory work: A computational model of learning in the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. , 18:283–328, 2006.
Randall C O’Reilly, Michael J Frank, Thomas E Hazy, and Brandon Watz. Pvlv: the primary value and learned value pavlovian learning algorithm. , 121(1):31, 2007.
Randall C. O’Reilly, Thomas E. Hazy, and Seth A. Herd. The [Leabra]{} cognitive architecture: [H]{}ow to play 20 principles with nature and win! In Susan E. F. Chipman, editor, [*The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science*]{}, Oxford Handbooks, pages 91–115. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Randall C. O’Reilly, Yuko Munakata, Michael J. Frank, Thomas E. Hazy, and Contributors. . Wiki Book, 1st Edition, 2012.
Randall C. O’Reilly, Alex A. Petrov, Jonathan D. Cohen, Christian J. Lebiere, Seth A. Herd, and Trent Kriete. How limited systematicity emerges: A computational cognitive neuroscience approach. In Paco Calvo and John Symons, editors, [*The Architecture of Cognition*]{}, pages 191–224. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2014.
Razvan Pascanu, Yujia Li, Oriol Vinyals, Nicolas Heess, Lars Buesing, S[é]{}bastien Racani[è]{}re, David P. Reichert, Theophane Weber, Daan Wierstra, and Peter Battaglia. Learning model-based planning from scratch. , arXiv:1707.06170, 2017.
Alexander Pashevich, Danijar Hafner, James Davidson, Rahul Sukthankar, and Cordelia Schmid. Modulated policy hierarchies. , arXiv:1812.00025, 2018.
M.L. Platt and E. S Spelke. What can developmental and comparative cognitive neuroscience tell us about the adult human brain? , 19(1):1–5, 2009.
Ruben Portugues, Claudia E. Feierstein, Florian Engert, and Michael B. Orger. Whole-brain activity maps reveal stereotyped, distributed networks for visuomotor behavior. , 81:1328–1343, 2014.
Sebastien Racaniere, Andrew K. Lampinen, Adam Santoro, David P. Reichert, Vlad Firoiu, and Timothy P. Lillicrap. Automated curricula through setter-solver interactions. , arXiv:1909.12892, 2019.
Pasko Rakik, Jon Arellano, and Joshua Breunig. Development of the primate cerebral cortex. In Michael S. Gazzaniga, editor, [*The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th Edition*]{}, pages 7–28. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
Daniel Rasmussen, Aaron Voelker, and Chris Eliasmith. A neural model of hierarchical reinforcement learning. , 12(7):1–39, 2017.
J. J. Ribas-Fernandes, A. Solway, C. Diuk, J. T. McGuire, A. G. Barto, Y. Niv, and M. M. Botvinick. A neural signature of hierarchical reinforcement learning. , 71(2):370–379, 2011.
Anthony Robins. Catastrophic forgetting, rehearsal and pseudorehearsal. , 7(2):123–146, 1995.
Alexandra G. Rosati, Victoria Wobber, Kelly Hughes, and Laurie R. Santos. Comparative developmental psychology: How is human cognitive development unique? , 12(2):147470491401200211, 2014.
Eleanor Rosch. Cognitive reference points. , 7(4):532–547, 1975.
Eleanor H. Rosch. Natural categories. , 4(3):328–350, 1973.
S. A. Rose, J. F. Feldman, and J. J. Jankowski. A cognitive approach to the development of early language. , 80(1):134–150, 2009.
Jon W. Rueckemann and Elizabeth A. Buffalo. Auditory landscape on the cognitive map. , 543:631, 2017.
Himanshu Sahni, Saurabh Kumar, Farhan Tejani, and Charles L. Isbell. Learning to compose skills. , arXiv:1711.11289, 2017.
Alvaro Sanchez[-]{}Gonzalez, Nicolas Heess, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Josh Merel, Martin A. Riedmiller, Raia Hadsell, and Peter Battaglia. Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control. , arXiv:1806.01242, 2018.
Adam Santoro, David Raposo, David G Barrett, Mateusz Malinowski, Razvan Pascanu, Peter Battaglia, and Timothy Lillicrap. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30*]{}, pages 4967–4976. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
Anna C Schapiro, Elizabeth A McDevitt, Timothy T Rogers, Sara C Mednick, and Kenneth A Norman. Human hippocampal replay during rest prioritizes weakly learned information and predicts memory performance. , 9(1):3920, 2018.
Tom Schaul, John Quan, Ioannis Antonoglou, and David Silver. Prioritized experience replay. , arXiv:1511.05952, 2015.
M. L. Schlichting and A. R. Preston. Memory integration: neural mechanisms and implications for behavior. , 1:1–8, 2015.
C. Schmidt-Hieber, P. Jonas, and J. Bischofberger. Enhanced synaptic plasticity in newly generated granule cells of the adult hippocampus. , 429(6988):184–187, 2004.
NW Schuck and Y Niv. Sequential replay of non-spatial task states in the human hippocampus. biorxiv. , 10:315978, 2018.
Yevgeny Seldin, Gill Bejerano, and Naftali Tishby. Unsupervised segmentation and classification of mixtures of [M]{}arkovian sources. In [*Proceedings of the 33rd Symposium on the Interface of Computing Science and Statistics*]{}, 2001.
Yevgeny Seldin, Gill Bejerano, and Naftali Tishby. Unsupervised sequence segmentation by a mixture of switching variable memory [M]{}arkov sources. In [*Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2001)*]{}, pages 513–520, 2001.
Rishabh Singh and Pushmeet Kohli. . In [*Summit on Advances in Programming Languages 2017*]{}, 2017.
Kirsty L. Spalding, Olaf Bergmann, Kanar Alkass, Samuel Bernard, Mehran Salehpour, Hagen B. Huttner, Emil Boström, Isabelle Westerlund, Celine Vial, Bruce A. Buchholz, Göran Possnert, Deborah C. Mash, Henrik Druid, and Jonas Frisén. Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans. , 153:1219–1227, 2013.
Kimberly L. Stachenfeld, Matthew M. Botvinick, and Samuel J. Gershman. The hippocampus as a predictive map. , 20:1643, 2017.
Larry W. Swanson. Mapping the human brain: past, present, and future. , 18(11):471–474, 1995.
CM Sylvester, GL Shulman, AI Jack, and M Corbetta. Anticipatory and stimulus-evoked blood oxygenation level-dependent modulations related to spatial attention reflect a common additive signal. , 29(34):10671, 2009.
Travis, Katherine E., Yael Leitner, Heidi M. Feldman, and Michal Ben-Shachar. Cerebellar white matter pathways are associated with reading skills in children and adolescents. , 36(4):1536–1553, 2015.
F.J. Varela, Eleanor. Rosch, and E. Thompson. . MIT Press, 1991.
J. von Uexküll and D.L. Mackinnon. . . K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company Limited, 1926.
Nicholas P Vyleta, Carolina Borges-Merjane, and Peter Jonas. Plasticity-dependent, full detonation at hippocampal mossy fiber–[CA3]{} pyramidal neuron synapses. , 5:e17977, 2016.
S. Wakana, H. Jiang, L. M. Nagae-Poetscher, P. C. van Zijl, and S. Mori. Fiber tract-based atlas of human white matter anatomy. , 230(1):77–87, 2004.
Jane X. Wang, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Dharshan Kumaran, Dhruva Tirumala, Hubert Soyer, Joel Z. Leibo, Demis Hassabis, and Matthew Botvinick. Prefrontal cortex as a meta-reinforcement learning system. , 21:860–868, 2018.
Ke Wang, Rishabh Singh, and Zhendong Su. Dynamic neural program embedding for program repair. , arXiv:1711.07163, 2017.
Wei Wang and Guang-Zhong Wang. Understanding molecular mechanisms of the brain through transcriptomics. , 10:214–214, 2019.
Theophane Weber, S[é]{}bastien Racani[è]{}re, David P. Reichert, Lars Buesing, Arthur Guez, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Adri[à]{} Puigdom[è]{}nech Badia, Oriol Vinyals, Nicolas Heess, Yujia Li, Razvan Pascanu, Peter Battaglia, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. Imagination-augmented agents for deep reinforcement learning. , arXiv:1707.06203, 2017.
Jason Weston, Sumit Chopra, and Antoine Bordes. Memory networks. , arXiv:1410.3916, 2014.
Romain Willemet. Understanding the evolution of mammalian brain structures; the need for a (new) cerebrotype approach. , 2:203–224, 2012.
D. J. Willshaw, P. Dayan, and R. G. M. Morris. Memory, modelling and marr: a commentary on marr (1971) simple memory: a theory of archicortex. , 370(1666):20140383, 2015.
M. A. Wilson and B.L. McNaughton. Reactivation of hippocampal ensemble memories during sleep. , 265(5172):676–679, 1994.
L. Wiskott, M. J. Rasch, and G. Kempermann. A functional hypothesis for adult hippocampal neurogenesis: avoidance of catastrophic interference in the dentate gyrus. , 16(3):329–343, 2006.
Anthony Wright. Higher cortical functions: Association and executive processing. In [*Neuroscience Online: An electronic textbook for the neurosciences*]{}. The University of Texas McGovern Medical School, 1997.
O. Yizhar, L.E. Fenno, T.J. Davidson, M. Mogri, and K. Deisseroth. Optogenetics in neural systems. , 71:9–34, 2011.
F. Zhang, V. Gradinaru, A.R. Adamantidis, R. Durand, R.D. Airan, L. de Lecea, and K. Deisseroth. Optogenetic interrogation of neural circuits: technology for probing mammalian brain structures. , 5:439–56, 2010.
Zhihao Zheng, J. Scott Lauritzen, Eric Perlman, Camenzind G. Robinson, Matthew Nichols, Daniel Milkie, Omar Torrens, John Price, Corey B. Fisher, Nadiya Sharifi, Steven A. Calle-Schuler, Lucia Kmecova, Iqbal J. Ali, Bill Karsh, Eric T. Trautman, John Bogovic, Philipp Hanslovsky, Gregory S. X. E. Jefferis, Michael Kazhdan, Khaled Khairy, Stephan Saalfeld, Richard D. Fetter, and Davi D. Bock. A complete electron microscopy volume of the brain of adult drosophila melanogaster. , 174:1–14, 2018.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes a method for hand pose estimation from RGB images that uses both external large-scale depth image datasets and paired depth and RGB images as privileged information at training time. We show that providing depth information during training significantly improves performance of pose estimation from RGB images during testing. We explore different ways of using this privileged information: (1) using depth data to initially train a depth-based network, (2) using the features from the depth-based network of the paired depth images to constrain mid-level RGB network weights, and (3) using the foreground mask, obtained from the depth data, to suppress the responses from the background area. By using paired RGB and depth images, we are able to supervise the RGB-based network to learn middle layer features that mimic that of the corresponding depth-based network, which is trained on large-scale, accurately annotated depth data. During testing, when only an RGB image is available, our method produces accurate 3D hand pose predictions. Our method is also tested on 2D hand pose estimation. Experiments on three public datasets show that the method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods for hand pose estimation using RGB image input.'
author:
- |
Shanxin Yuan\
Imperial College London\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Bj[ö]{}rn Stenger\
Rakuten Institute of Technology\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Tae-Kyun Kim\
Imperial College London\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: |
RGB-based 3D Hand Pose Estimation\
via Privileged Learning with Depth Images
---
Introduction
============
3D hand pose estimation has been greatly improving in the past few years, especially with the availability of depth cameras. While new methods [@oberweger2015training; @ye2016spatial; @ge20173d; @wan2017crossing; @tang2018opening] and datasets [@tang2014latent; @tompson2014real; @sun2015cascade; @yuan2017bighand2; @garcia2018first] have been published, state-of-the-art methods are still lacking in accuracy required for fine manipulations for AR or VR systems. There is a large accuracy gap between pose estimation from RGB and depth image input, which several recent works have aimed to narrow [@simon2017hand; @zimmermann2017learning; @mueller2017real; @PantelerisArgyros2017]. One of the difficulties has been the lack of large-scale realistic RGB datasets with accurate annotations. Recent papers have addressed this issue by creating synthetic datasets [@zimmermann2017learning], or employing GANs to generate training data [@mueller2017ganerated]. In this paper we propose using depth data as [*privileged information*]{} during training. Fully annotated depth datasets [@tang2014latent; @tompson2014real; @sun2015cascade; @yuan2017bighand2; @garcia2018first] are abundant in the literature, but so far no attempt has been made to use this data to support the task of 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images. There are also a few RGB-D datasets proposed recently [@zimmermann2017learning; @zhang20163d] to tackle the problem of 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images, however all existing methods [@zimmermann2017learning; @mueller2017ganerated; @zhang20163d] utilise only RGB images for training. The available depth images, either paired with RGB images [@zhang20163d; @zimmermann2017learning] or alone in the large-scale *BigHand2.2M* dataset [@yuan2017bighand2] could be used to aid the training.
The use of privileged information in training [@vapnik2009new], also called training with hidden information [@wang2015classifier], or side information [@xu2013speedup], has been shown to improve performance in other domains, such as image classification [@chen2017training], object detection [@hoffman2016learning], and action recognition [@shi2017learning]. But the concept of using privileged information to help 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images has not been attempted. To the best of our knowledge, this paper proposes the first solution. Existing methods for 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images pursue two main directions: (1) using only RGB images for 3D hand pose estimation [@zhang20163d; @zimmermann2017learning; @mueller2017ganerated], with different CNN models being proposed. Given the limited size of real RGB datasets, a large number of synthetic images [@zimmermann2017learning; @mueller2017ganerated] are created to help the training, whether they are purely synthetic [@zimmermann2017learning], or using CycleGAN [@zhu2017unpaired] to enforce a certain realism [@mueller2017ganerated]. (2) Using RGB-D images for 3D hand pose tracking [@mueller2017real], where the input is the depth channel in addition to the RGB channels. This works well when the paired RGB and depth images are available at test time. The lack of large-scale annotated training data limits the success of this approach. Our study proposes a new framework for 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images, by using the existing abundant fully annotated depth data in training, as privileged information. This helps improve 3D hand pose estimation using a single RGB image input at test time. Our method transfers supervision from depth images to RGB images. We use two networks, an RGB-based network and a depth-based network, see Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\]. We explore different ways to use depth data: (1) initially, we treat a large amount of independent external depth training data as privileged information to train the depth-based network. (2) After the initial training is completed, paired RGB and depth images are used to tune the RGB-based network and the depth-based network. The idea is to let the middle layer activations of the RGB network mimic that of the depth network. (3) We also explore the use of foreground hand masks to suppress background area activations in the middle layers of the RGB network. By doing this, we force the RGB network to extract features only from the foreground area.
Compared to existing methods for 3D hand pose estimation by RGB images, our main contributions are:
- To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to introduce the concept of using privileged information (depth images) to help the training of a RGB-based hand pose estimator.
- We propose three ways to use the privileged information: as external training data for a depth-based network, as paired depth data to transfer supervision from the depth-based network to the RGB-based network, as hand masks to suppress the background activations in the RGB-based network.
- Our training strategy can be easily embedded into existing pose estimation methods. We demonstrate this in the experiments of 2D hand pose estimation with an RGB image input by a different CNN model. Results on 2D hand pose estimation, using our training strategy improve over state-of-the-art methods for 2D hand pose estimation with RGB input.
Comprehensive experiments are conducted on three datasets: the Stereo dataset [@zhang20163d], the RHD dataset [@zimmermann2017learning], and the Dexter-Object dataset [@sridhar2016real]. The Stereo dataset and RHD dataset are used for evaluating 3D pose estimation from an RGB input. All three datasets are used for evaluating 2D hand pose estimation from a single RGB image.
Related Work
============
**3D hand pose estimation.** Hand pose estimation from depth data has made rapid progress in the past years [@oberweger2015training; @ge20173d; @wan2017crossing; @sharp2015accurate; @choi2015collaborative], where comprehensive studies [@erol2007vision; @supancic2015depth; @yuan20183d] have been instrumental in advancing the field. Random forests [@tang2014latent; @tang2015opening; @wan2016hand] and CNNs [@ye2016spatial; @ge20173d; @wan2017crossing; @tompson2014real] trained on large-scale public depth image datasets [@tang2014latent; @tompson2014real; @sun2015cascade; @yuan2017bighand2; @garcia2018first] have shown good performance. A recent benchmark evaluation [@yuan20183d] showed that modern methods achieve mean 3D joint position errors of less than 10mm. Hand pose estimation from RGB images is significantly more challenging [@simon2017hand; @zimmermann2017learning; @mueller2017real; @PantelerisArgyros2017]. Due to the difficulty in capturing real RGB datasets with accurate 3D annotations, recent methods employ synthetic CG data [@zimmermann2017learning], or *GANerated* images [@mueller2017ganerated], which are more realistic synthetic images created with a CycleGAN [@zhu2017unpaired]. Mueller [@mueller2017ganerated] use an image-to-image translation network to create a large amount of RGB training images and combine a CNN with a kinematic 3D hand model for pose estimation. The method requires a predefined hand model, adapted for each user. Simon ’s [*OpenPose*]{} [@simon2017hand] system generates an annotated RGB dataset using a panoptic studio setup, using multiple views to bootstrap 2D hand pose estimation. Zimmermann and Brox [@zimmermann2017learning] proposed combining hand segmentation and 2D hand pose estimation (using *CPM* [@wei2016convolutional]), followed by estimating 3D hand pose relative to a canonical pose. Panteleris and Argyros [@PantelerisArgyros2017] estimate absolute 3D hand pose by first estimating 2D hand pose and then optimizing a 3D hand model with inverse kinematics. Note that there also exists a large body of work on the related task of recovering full 3D human body pose from images. One line of work aims to directly estimate the 3D pose from images [@li20143d; @zhou2016deep; @toshev2014deeppose]. A second approach is to first estimate 2D pose, often in terms of joint locations, and then lift this to 3D pose. 2D key points can be reliably estimated using CNNs and 3D pose is estimated using structured learning or a kinematic model [@tome2017lifting; @tompson2014joint; @simo2012single; @zhou2016sparseness].\
**Learning with privileged information and transfer learning.** Privileged information denotes training data that is available only during training but not at test time. The concept to provide teacher-like supervision at training time was introduced by Vapnik and Vashist [@vapnik2009new]. The idea has proven useful in other domains [@chen2017training; @hoffman2016learning; @shi2017learning]. Shi [@shi2017learning] treated skeleton data as privileged information in CNN-RNNs for action recognition from depth sequences. Chen [@chen2017training] manually annotated object masks in 10% of the training data and treated these as privileged information for image classification. The idea is related to network compression and mimic learning proposed by Ba and Caruana [@ba2014nips] as well as network distillation by Hinton [@hinton2015distillation], where intermediate layer outputs of one network are approximated by another, possibly smaller, network. These techniques can be used to significantly reduce the number of model parameters without a significant drop in accuracy. In our case, the application target is similar to transfer learning and domain adaptation. Information from one task, prediction from depth images, is shared with another, prediction from RGB images. In transfer learning and domain adaptation information is shared across different data modalities [@rad2018domain; @chen2014recognizing; @hoffman2016learning]. Chen [@chen2014recognizing] proposed recognition in RGB images by learning from labeled RGB-D data. A common feature representation is learned across two feature modalities. Hoffman [@hoffman2016learning] learned an additional *hallucination* representation, which is informed by the depth data in training. At testing, it used the softmax to select the final prediction between the predictions from the hallucination representation and the predictions from RGB representation. Luo [@luo2017graph] recently proposed graph distillation for action detection with privileged modalities (RGB, depth, skeleton, and flow), where a novel graph distillation layer was used to dynamically learn to distill knowledge from the most effective modality, depending on the type of action. In our case, we use paired depth and RGB images during training. Depth and RGB networks are first trained separately. Subsequently the RGB network are progressively updated, while the depth network parameters remain fixed.
**Learning a latent space representation.** Latent space representation also shows promising for 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images [@spurr2018cross; @iqbal2018hand]. Spurr [@spurr2018cross] learned a cross-modal statistical hand model, via learning of a latent space representation that embeds sample points from multiple data sources such as 2D keypoints, images, and 3D hand poses. Multiple encoders were used to project different data modalities into a unified low-dimensional latent space, where a set of decoders reconstruct the hand configuration in either modality. Iqbal [@iqbal2018hand] used latent 2.5D heatmaps, containing the latent 2D heatmaps and latent depth maps, to ensure the scale and translation invariance. Absolute 3D hand poses are reconstructed from the latent 2.5D heatmaps. Cai [@Caiweakly] proposed a weakly-supervised method for 3D hand pose estimation from RGB image by introducing an additional depth regularizer module, which rendered a depth image from the estimated 3D hand pose. Training was conducted by minimizing an additional loss term, which is the $L1$ distance between the rendered depth image and the ground truth depth image.
Methods
=======
We propose a framework to train a hand pose estimation model from RGB images by using depth images as privileged information. The model learns a new RGB representation which is influenced by the paired depth representation through mimicking the mid-level features of a depth network.
As shown in Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\], we use depth images in two ways: (1) to train an initial depth-based network with the aim of regressing 3D hand poses. Depth data that is annotated with 3D full hand pose information is abundant in the literature, and we choose the largest real dataset BigHand2.2M [@yuan2017bighand2] to train our depth-based model, see the top row of Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\]. (2) Paired RGB and depth images are fed into the RGB-based and depth-based network with the parameters of the depth-based network being frozen. The training of the RGB-based network continues with the aim of minimizing a joint loss function. The joint loss function has two parts, the first part being the 3D hand pose regression loss, *Loss\_C*, and the second part the mid-level regression loss, *Loss\_Inter*.
Architecture
------------
Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\] shows our training architecture. There are two base models, each for one input channel. We use deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which have been widely used in hand pose estimation and have proven useful in transferring information from one network to another [@hinton2015distillation]. Prior work [@mueller2017real] has been shown useful in combining RGB and depth images as a four-dimensional RGB-D input to a single CNN model to estimate 3D hand pose. In our architecture, we share information in the middle layers of our two CNN models, one is a depth-based network and the other one is an RGB-based network. Each CNN model takes an input (a depth image or an RGB image) and produces a 3D hand pose estimation result.
For clarity, we denote the depth-based network *Depth\_Net*, the RGB-based network *RGB\_Net* when this is trained before privileged information is used. When privileged information is introduced in the training, we denote the RGB-based network *RGB\_PI\_Net*. In summary, *RGB\_Net* and *RGB\_PI\_Net* are the same CNN model trained before and after the paired RGB and images are used to train the RGB channel.
We aim at sharing information between the middle layers of our two CNN models, and in particular using *Depth\_Net* to inform *RGB\_PI\_Net* in the training time when paired RGB and depth images are available. To let the *Depth\_Net* channel share information with *RGB\_PI\_Net*, we introduce an intermediate regression loss between the paired layers in the two models. This intermediate regression loss is inspired by prior works [@hoffman2016learning; @hinton2015distillation], where similar techniques are used for model distillation [@hinton2015distillation], supervision transfer from well labeled RGB images to depth images with limited annotation [@gupta2016cross], and hallucination of different modalities [@hoffman2016learning]. We therefore introduce an intermediate loss, which helps *RGB\_PI\_Net* to extract middle level features that mimic the responses of the corresponding layer of the *Depth\_Net* using the paired depth image.
The intermediate loss (or *Loss\_Inter* as shown in Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\]) is defined as: $$Loss\_Inter(k)= \|A_{k}^{Depth} - A_{k}^{RGB}\|_{2}^{2} \,,
\label{equ:interloss}$$ where $A_{k}^{Depth}$ and $A_{k}^{RGB}$ are the $k_{th}$ layer activations for Depth Network and RGB Network, respectively. During testing, where only an RGB image is available, we feed the RGB image into *RGB\_PI\_Net* to estimate the 3D hand pose.
Training with privileged information
------------------------------------
This section explains the details of training the proposed architecture. We choose a base CNN for *Depth\_Net* and *RGB\_PI\_Net* for 3D hand pose estimation. For the base model, we build on Convolutional Pose Machine (CPM)’s [@wei2016convolutional] feature extraction layers with two fully connected layers to regress a 63 dimensional 3D hand pose with 21 joints.
In this initial stage, we call this external depth images as privileged information. Our *Depth\_Net* is initially independently trained on BigHand2.2M [@yuan2017bighand2] dataset, which has 2.2 million fully annotated (21 joints) depth images. After training, the model is further trained on the depth images of a smaller dataset (, Stereo [@zhang20163d] and RHD [@zimmermann2017learning] datasets) that has fully annotated paired RGB and depth images. The *RGB\_Net* is initially trained on the RGB images from the same dataset.
When the initial training is completed for both CNN models, we freeze the parameters of the *Depth\_Net* and start training *RGB\_PI\_Net* with privileged information. In this stage, our privileged information is the paired depth images, and comes into use in the form of the middle layer activations of the *Depth\_Net*. During the privileged training stage, we want the *RGB\_PI\_Net*’s middle level layer’s activations to match the activations of the corresponding layers of the *Depth\_Net*. We have two losses to optimize: (1) *Loss\_Inter* (Eqn. \[equ:interloss\]) is used to match the middle layer activations of the two CNN models. (2) *Loss\_C* (see Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_model\]) is the $L2$ loss between the ground truth and the estimated 3D hand pose. Here we use a joint loss: $$Loss\_Joint(k)= Loss\_Inter(k) + \lambda \cdot Loss\_C,
\label{equ:jointloss}$$ where $\lambda$ is used to balance the two losses, a larger value of $\lambda$ means less supervision is required from the privileged information, a smaller value means that the model depends more on the supervision. We set $\lambda$ to 100 for all experiments.
Foreground mask as privileged information
-----------------------------------------
In addition to the supervision from depth images, we also explore the idea of extracting hand masks from depth images and embedding the hand masks into CNN layers of *RGB\_PI\_Net* to suppress the background features. As shown in Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_sec\_feature\], we treat the hand mask $M_{h}$ as privileged information. At test time, when the hand mask is not available, the CNN model is viewed as a standard CNN with convolutional layers, pooling layers and full-connected layers, where the *Loss\_Mask* is not used. In the training stage, the foreground hand mask is introduced in the last convolutional layer, as shown in Figure \[fig:PI\_cnn\_sec\_feature\]. Pixels of the mask $M_{h}$ are zero on the hand region, and one otherwise. We suppress background features by minimizing the regression loss *Loss\_Mask*: $$Loss\_Mask= \|A_{k}^{RGB} \odot M_{h}\|_{2}^{2} \\ \; ,
\label{equ:maskloss}$$ where $\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication.
By minimizing the regression loss, where the response on the hand is multiplied by zero and the response outside the hand is multiplied by one, the response from outside the hand area is suppressed, focusing the response on the hand region.
Experiments
===========
We carried out experiments on both 3D and 2D hand pose estimation from RGB images. Our experiments are conducted on three public RGB-D datasets: the RHD dataset [@zimmermann2017learning], the Stereo dataset [@zhang20163d], and the Dexter-Object dataset [@sridhar2016real], as shown in Table \[tab:datasets\]. The RHD dataset is created synthetically and contains 41,238 training and 2,728 test images, with a resolution of $320 \times 320$. Each pair of RGB and depth images contains 3D annotations for 21 hand joints, and intrinsic camera parameters. The RHD dataset is built from 20 different subjects performing 39 actions. The training set has 16 subjects performing 31 actions, while the test set has 4 subjects performing 8 actions. The dataset contains diverse backgrounds sampled from 1,231 Flickr images. The Stereo [@zhang20163d] dataset is a real RGB-D dataset, which has 18,000 pairs of RGB and depth images with a resolution of $640 \times 480$ pixels. Each pair is fully annotated with 21 joints. The dataset contains six different backgrounds with respect to different difficulties (textured/textureless, dynamic/static, near/far, hightlights/no-highlights). For each background, there are two sequences, each containing 1,500 image pairs. The dataset is manually annotated. In our experiments, we follow the evaluation protocol of [@zimmermann2017learning], , we train on 10 sequences (15,000 images) and test on the remaining 2 sequences (3,000 images). The Dexter-Object [@sridhar2016real] dataset contains 3,111 images of two subjects performing manipulations with a cuboid. The dataset provides RGB and depth images, but only fingertips are annotated. The RGB images have a resolution of $640\times320$ pixels. Due to the incomplete hand annotation, we use this dataset for cross-dataset generalization.
During testing on a GTX 1080 Ti, the network forward steps take 6ms for 3D pose estimation and 8ms for the 2D case. The image cropping and normalization is the same as in [@zimmermann2017learning]. To crop the hand region, we use ground truth annotations to obtain an axis aligned crop, resized to 256$\times$256 pixels by bilinear interpolation. Examples are shown in the first row of Figure \[fig:feature\_activations\]. For 3D hand pose estimation, we use the root joint’s world coordinates and the hand’s scale to normalize the results.
3D hand pose estimation from RGB
--------------------------------
In this section, we investigate the usefulness of depth images to improve the performance of 3D hand pose estimation from an RGB image. Our base CNN model is built upon the feature extraction layers of Convolutional Pose Machine (CPM) [@wei2016convolutional] with two fully connected layers. The final output is a 63 dimensioal vector denoting the 21 joint 3D locations. Specifically, our base CNN model contains 14 convolutional layers, 4 pooling layers, and 2 fully-connected layers. At training stage, we have access to paired RGB and depth images. Initially the *Depth\_Net* is trained on *BigHand2.2M* [@yuan2017bighand2]. We continue to train the *Depth\_Net* using the depth images from the small dataset, , Stereo dataset or RHD dataset. We train the *RGB\_Net* with the RGB images from the small dataset. When the initial training is completed, we start PI-training with the paired RGB and depth images. We freeze the weights of the *Depth\_Net* and add the intermediate regression loss *Loss\_Inter* among the mid-level features of *Depth\_Net* and *RGB\_PI\_Net*, then we continue the training of *RGB\_PI\_Net* by minimizing the joint loss $Loss\_Joint$. We apply the intermediate loss to the last convolutional layers of both branches, where the parameter $k$ is set to 18 in Equation \[equ:interloss\] and Equation \[equ:jointloss\].
**Effect of PI-Learning:** We conduct experiments with the two baseline CNNs and the CNN after PI training, see the accuracy curves in Figure \[fig:sota\_com\] (top-left plot). Our networks only estimate relative 3D pose from a cropped RGB image patch containing the hand, to yield 3D hand pose in world coordinates, we follow a similar procedure of [@zimmermann2017learning], , by adding the absolute position of the root joint to our estimated results. For comparison we choose the Percentage of Correct Keypoints (PCK) over a varying threshold. Training with depth data significantly improves the performance of the RGB-based network, narrowing the gap to the depth-based network. **Comparison with the state of the art:** We compare our results with state-of-the-art methods, including PSO [@oikonomidis2011efficient], ICPPSO [@qianrealtime], Zhang [@zhang20163d], Z&B [@zimmermann2017learning], GANerated [@mueller2017ganerated], Cai [@Caiweakly], Spurr [@spurr2018cross], Iqbal [@iqbal2018hand], Panteleris [@Panteleris2018], see Figure \[fig:sota\_com\] (top-right plot). Our method out-performs all existing state-of-the-art methods. We outperform (Z&B) [@zimmermann2017learning] and [@mueller2017ganerated]. While both [@zimmermann2017learning] and [@mueller2017ganerated] used extra training data, [@zimmermann2017learning] used both Stereo (real) and RHD (synthetic) data to train their network. [@mueller2017ganerated] used synthetic (GANerated) data to train their network. The proposed method uses less RGB training data and achieved the best performance. we significantly outperformed both methods with our privileged training strategy.
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
**Feature activation maps:** To give more intuitions on the effectiveness of training using additional privileged information, we visualize the activations of the mid-level feature for the three networks. Feeding an RGB image into each network, we aggregate all the mid-level feature maps into feature map by taking the maximum across all feature maps (similar to the maxout operation [@goodfellow2013maxout]). As shown in Figure \[fig:feature\_activations\], training with privileged information helps to select more representative features, where the visualized activations are close to the foreground (the hand).
**Loss function evolution:** We keep a record of the loss during our training on the Stereo dataset, see Figure \[fig:testing\_loss\]. The loss for 3D hand pose (left plot) of the RGB network on the test data converges at iteration 15,000, we continue training for another 5,000 iterations. From iteration 20,000, we fix the depth network parameters and connect mid-level features between the RGB and depth networks, and continue training by minimizing the joint loss (right plot) using RGB-D image pairs. The intermediate loss (middle plot) is used to suppress the difference between the mid-level feature between the RGB and depth networks. Loss for 3D hand pose of the RGB network, and the joint loss stop decreasing at around iteration 30,000.
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
2D hand pose estimation from RGB
--------------------------------
In this section, we choose the base CNN model as CPM [@wei2016convolutional], which has shown great performance for 2D human pose estimation [@wei2016convolutional], and 2D hand pose estimation [@zimmermann2017learning]. Results are reported in Table \[tab:RHDbaselines\], where ‘EPE’ stands for the ‘average end point error’ in pixels, where an end point is a hand joint. Qualitative examples are shown in Figure \[fig:quali\_rhd\_2\] and Figure \[fig:quali\_stereo\_2\]. In this part of experiments, we treat the hand mask as privileged data, the CNN base model is CPM [@simon2017hand]. The baseline is obtained by the normal training procedure, , feeding the pre-processed hand image into CPM and obtaining the 2D hand pose by finding out the maximum location in each of the 21 heatmaps. For training with privileged information, we randomly select a certain proportion of RGB training data and use the hand masks, which are obtained by thresholding the depth images, in the *Loss\_Mask* to suppress the background responses. As shown in Table \[tab:RHDbaselines\], where 0.2 and 0.8 denotes the percentage of images when the *Loss\_Mask* is used during the training for 2D hand pose estimation.
**Performance on hand-object interaction dataset:** In Figure \[fig:sota\_com\] (bottom-right plot), we show a comparison in terms of 2D PCK (in pixels) on the Dexter-Object [@sridhar2016real] dataset. *Z&B\_Joint* denotes the method of Z&B [@zimmermann2017learning] trained on both RHD and Stereo datasets, which is better than *Z&B\_Stereo* (trained on Stereo) and *Z&B\_RHD* (trained on RHD). Our approach outperformed *Z&B\_Joint* even though we used less RGB training data.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we proposed a framework for 3D hand pose estimation from RGB images, with the training stage aided with privileged information, [*i.e.*]{} depth data. To the best of our knowledge, our method is the first to introduce the concept of using privileged information (depth images) to support training a RGB-based 3D hand pose estimator. We proposed three ways to use the privileged information: as external training data for a depth-based network branch, as paired depth data to transfer supervision from the depth-based network to the RGB-based network, and as a hand mask to suppress background activations in the RGB-based network. Our training strategy can be easily embedded into existing pose estimation methods. As an illustration, we estimate 2D hand pose from an RGB image using a different CNN model. Results on 2D hand pose estimation, using our training strategy, are improved over state-of-the-art methods for 2D hand pose estimation from RGB input. During testing, when only RGB images are available, our model significantly outperforms the same model trained only using RGB images. This training strategy can be incorporated into existing models to boost the performance of hand pose estimation from an RGB image. One limitation of our method is the difficulty of handling occlusion by objects, which can be addressed by systematically adding synthetic objects in the depth data (privileged information).
**Acknowledgement**: This work was supported by Huawei Technologies.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Pitters'
- 'N. Alipour Tehrani'
- 'D. Dannheim'
- 'A. Fiergolski'
- 'D. Hynds'
- 'W. Klempt'
- 'X. Llopart'
- 'M. Munker'
- 'A. N[ü]{}rnberg'
- 'S. Spannagel'
- 'M. Williams'
title: Time Resolution Studies of Timepix3 Assemblies with Thin Silicon Pixel Sensors
---
The authors thank Fernando Duarte Ramos (CERN) for his support with the mechanical integration of the tested devices in the telescope system. The help from the staff operating the CERN SPS and the North Area test facilities is gratefully acknowledged. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under Grant Agreement no. 654168 and from the Austrian Doctoral Student Programme at CERN.
[99]{}
T. Poikela et al., *Timepix3: a 65K channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous ToA/ToT and sparse readout*, JINST [**9**]{} (2014) C05013.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/C05013](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/C05013) M. Campbell et al., *A readout chip for a 64x64 pixel matrix with 15-bit single photon counting*, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. [**45**]{} 3 (1998) 751.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1109/23.682629](https://doi.org/10.1109/23.682629) X. Llopart et al., *Timepix, a 65k programmable pixel readout chip for arrival time, energy and/or photon counting measurements*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**581**]{} (2007) 485.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.079](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.079) P. N. Burrows, N. Catalan Lasheras, L. Linssen, M. Petric, A. Robson, D. Schulte, E. Sicking and S. Stapnes eds., *The Compact Linear e+e- Collider (CLIC) – 2018 Summary Report*, CERN-2018-005-M (2018), CERN, Geneva Switzerland.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.23731/CYRM-2018-002](https//doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2018-002)
L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki and H. Weerts eds., *Physics and detectors at CLIC: CLIC conceptual design report*, CERN-2012-003 (2012), CERN, Geneva Switzerland.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.5170/CERN-2012-003](https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2012-003) F. Krummenacher, *Pixel detectors with local intelligence: an IC designer point of view*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**305**]{} (1991) 527.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1016/0168-9002(91)90152-G](https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(91)90152-G) M. De Gaspari et al., *Design of the analog front-end for the Timepix3 and Smallpix hybrid pixel detectors in 130 nm CMOS technology*, JINST [**9**]{} (2014) C01037.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1088/1748-0221/9/01/C01037](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/9/01/C01037) F. Pitters et al., *Time and Energy Calibration of Timepix3 Assemblies with Thin Silicon Sensors*, CLICdp-Note-2018-008 (2018), CERN, Geneva Switzerland.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">URL:</span><https://cds.cern.ch/record/2649493/> A. Nürnberg et al., *Performance evaluation of thin active-edge planar sensors for the CLIC vertex detector*, CLICdp-Pub-2018-005 (2018), CERN, Geneva Switzerland. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">URL:</span><http://cds.cern.ch/record/2649494> J. Visser et al., *SPIDR: a read-out system for Medipix3 and Timepix3*, JINST [**10**]{} (2015) C12028.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.1088/1748-0221/10/12/C12028](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/10/12/C12028) N. Alipour Tehrani, *Test-beam measurements and simulation studies of thin pixel sensors for the CLIC vertex detector*, CERN-Thesis-2016-311, ETH Zürich (2017).\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOI:</span>[10.3929/ethz-b-000164813](https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000164813)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'One common feature of a vehicle, an ant and a kinesin motor is that they all convert chemical energy, derived from fuel or food, into mechanical energy required for their forward movement; such objects have been modelled in recent years as [*self-driven*]{} “particles”. Cytoskeletal filaments, e.g., microtubules, form a “rail” network for intra-cellular transport of vesicular cargo by molecular motors like, for example, kinesins. Similarly, ants move along trails while vehicles move along lanes. Therefore, the traffic of vehicles and organisms as well as that of molecular motors can be modelled as systems of interacting self-driven particles; these are of current interest in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. In this paper we point out the common features of these model systems and emphasize the crucial differences in their physical properties.'
address: 'Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208016, India.'
author:
- 'Debashish Chowdhury[[^1]]{}'
title: |
Traffic flow of interacting self-driven particles:\
rails and trails, vehicles and vesicles
---
\[sec1\]Introduction
====================
In the recent years non-equilibrium statistical mechanics has found unusual applications in research on traffic flow of various different types of objects. In this paper we consider mainly three different examples of such traffic, namely, (a) vehicular traffic [@css; @helbing; @naga], (b) ant-traffic on ant-trails [@cgns; @ncs; @burd; @couzin], and (c) intra-cellular traffic of molecular motors carrying vesicular cargo moving along cytoskeletal filaments [@frey]. Most of these models are essentially generalizations or extensions of the Asymmetric Simple Exclusion Process (ASEP) [@spohn], which is, to our knowledge, the simplest model of systems consisting of interacting [*driven*]{} particles; the general aim of these investigations is to understand the interplay of self-organized [*structures*]{} and [*transport*]{} in systems driven far from equilibrium [@zia; @schutz; @stinchcombe].
The aim of this article is (a) to summarize the main results of recent works on all the three systems mentioned above, elucidating the nature of various types of quenched randomness, (b) to present the challenging open problems, and (c) to indicate the possible trends of future developments in this frontier area of interdisciplinary research.
The common modeling strategy is to represent the motile elements (i.e., vehicles, ants, molecular motors) by “self-propelled” particles which convert chemical energy (derived from fuel or food) into the mechanical energy required for the forward movement. In such generic models, the mutual influences of the motile elements on the movements of each other are captured by appropriate inter-particle interactions. In the spirit of the lattice gas models, the track for the traffic movement (i.e., the highway lane or ant trail or cytoskeletal filaments) are represented as discrete lattice of “cells” each of which can accomodate at most one partcle at a time. The dynamical laws governing the forward movement of the self-propelled particles in such “particle-hopping” models are usually formulated as “update rules” in terms of cellular automata (CA) [@wolfram].
\[sec2\]Vehicular traffic
=========================
The simplest model of interacting self-driven particles is the so-called totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) [@spohn; @zia; @schutz]. Imposition of open boundary conditions leads to richer physics as compared to those for the corresponding model with periodic boundary conditions. The states of the system are updated either in parallel or in a random-sequential manner following rules which will be explained later in this section.
TASEP with periodic boundary conditions
---------------------------------------
![TASEP with periodic boundary conditions. The hopping probability of the particles is $q$.[]{data-label="fig-1"}](asepring.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![TASEP with open boundary conditions.[]{data-label="fig-3"}](asepopen.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
TASEP with periodic boundary conditions is sketched schematically in fig.\[fig-1\]. In the original formulation of TASEP, the states of the system were updated in a random sequential manner where a particle is picked up randomly and moved forward by one lattice spacing, with the hopping probability $q$, provided the site in front of the particle is empty.
The Nagel-Schreckenberg (NS) model [@ns] is a minimal CA model of vehicular traffic on idealized single-lane highways; the maximum possible (discrete) speed of the vehicles is $V_{max}$. However, in the special case $V_{max} = 1$ this model reduces to the TASEP with parallel updating.
![ Phase diagram of the TASEP for [*parallel*]{} dynamics. The inserts show typical density profiles. []{data-label="fig-4"}](asep_phase_p.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The exact fundamental diagrams of the TASEP with random-sequential updating and parallel updating are given by $$F_{r} = q ~ c ~(1-c)
\label{eq-1}$$ and $$F_{p} = \frac{1}{2}\biggl[1 - \sqrt{1-4 q ~c ~(1-c)}\biggr],
\label{eq-2}$$ respectively; the two expressions (\[eq-1\]) and (\[eq-2\]), for identical hopping probability $q = 0.75$, are compared in fig.[\[fig-2\]]{}. Note that both the expressions (\[eq-1\]) and (\[eq-2\]) exhibit particle-hole symmetry, i.e., these are symmetric under the interchange of $c$ and $1-c$. In section \[sec3\] we shall show how this symmetry is broken in a model of ant-traffic on ant-trails.
TASEP with open boundary conditions
-----------------------------------
The open boundary condition is, however, closer to the real vehicular traffic on a stretch of highway. If open boundary conditions are imposed on the TASEP, additional rules must be specified to regulate the entry and exit of the particles at the two boundaries of the finite system. Usually, these are specified as follows: if the first site at the open point of entry is empty it is filled with probability $\alpha$ whereas particles occupying the last site at the point of exit hop out of the system with probability $\beta$ (see fig.\[fig-3\]).
The open boundaries break the translational invariance of the system and give rise to stationary states with non-trivial density profiles. Such model systems have been investigated thoroughly over the last decade from the point of view of fundamental principles of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. In contrast to equilibrium systems with short-range interactions, such driven non-equilibrium systems can exhibit transitions from one dynamical phase to another, even in one-dimension with only short-range interactions, with the slight change of boundary conditions [@krug; @css].
The typical phase diagrams of the TASEP with open boundary conditions are sketched in fig.\[fig-4\]; the qualitative features of the phase diagram of TASEP is practically independent of the nature of the dynamics. In the low-density phase A the flux is independent of $\beta$ and limited only by $\alpha$. On the other hand, in the high-density phase B the flux is independent of $\alpha$ and determined by $\beta$. However, in the maximum flux phase C the current is independent of both $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Moreover, both the high- and low-density phases can be subdivided into two phases each, namely, AI, AII and BI, BII, respectively; these subphases are distinguished by the asymptotic behaviour of the density profiles at the boundaries (see the insets in fig.\[fig-4\]). In section \[sec4\] we shall see how this phase diagram is modified in models of intra-cellular transport of vesicular cargo by molecular motors.
![ Schematic representation of typical configurations; it also illustrates the update procedure. Top: Configuration at time $t$, i.e. [*before*]{} stage $I$ of the update. The non-vanishing hopping probabilities of the ants are also shown explicitly. Middle: Configuration [*after*]{} one possible realisation of [*stage $I$*]{}. Two ants have moved compared to the top part of the figure. Also indicated are the pheromones that may evaporate in stage $II$ of the update scheme. Bottom: Configuration [*after*]{} one possible realization of [*stage $II$*]{}. Two pheromones have evaporated and one pheromone has been created due to the motion of an ant. []{data-label="fig-5"}](antmodel.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
\[sec3\]Ant traffic on trails
=============================
Ants communicate with each other by dropping a chemical (generically called [*pheromone*]{}) on the substrate as they crawl forward [@wilson; @camazine]. Although we cannot smell it, the trail pheromone sticks to the substrate long enough for the other following sniffing ants to pick up its smell and follow the trail. In our recent papers [@cgns; @ncs] we have developed a particle-hopping model, formulated in terms of stochastic CA, which may be interpreted as a model of unidirectional ant-traffic on a trail. Rather than addressing the question of the emergence of the ant-trail, we have focussed attention on the traffic of ants on a trail which has already been formed.
Each site of our one-dimensional ant-trail model represents a cell that can accomodate at most one ant at a time (see Fig. \[fig-5\]). The lattice sites are labelled by the index $i$ ($i = 1,2,...,L$); $L$ being the length of the lattice. We associate two binary variables $S_i$ and $\sigma_i$ with each site $i$ where $S_i$ takes the value $0$ or $1$ depending on whether the cell is empty or occupied by an ant. Similarly, $\sigma_i = 1$ if the cell $i$ contains pheromone; otherwise, $\sigma_i = 0$. Thus, in contrast to TASEP, we have two subsets of dynamical variables in this model, namely, $\{S(t)\}$ and $\{\sigma(t)\}$. The instantaneous state (i.e., the configuration) of the system at any time is specified completely by the set $(\{S\},\{\sigma\})$.
Since a unidirectional motion is assumed, ants do not move backward. The forward-hopping probability of an ant is higher if it smells pheromone ahead of it. The state of the system is updated at each time step in [*two stages*]{}. In our ant-trail model with [*parallel*]{} dynamics, at each stage the dynamical rules are applied [*in parallel*]{} to all ants and pheromones, respectively.\
[*Stage I: Motion of ants*]{}\
An ant in cell $i$ that has an empty cell in front of it, i.e., $S_i(t)=1$ and $S_{i+1}(t)=0$, hops forward with $${\rm probability} = \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
Q &\quad{\rm if\ }~\sigma_{i+1}(t) = 1,\\
q &\quad{\rm if\ }~\sigma_{i+1}(t) = 0,
% 0 &~{\rm if}~ S_{i+1}(t) = 1.
\end{array} \right.$$ where, to be consistent with real ant-trails, we assume $ q < Q$.\
[*Stage II: Evaporation of pheromones*]{}\
At each cell $i$ occupied by an ant after stage I a pheromone will be created, i.e., $$\sigma_i(t+1) = 1\quad {\rm if\ }\quad S_i(t+1) = 1.$$ On the other hand, any ‘free’ pheromone at a site $i$ not occupied by an ant will evaporate with the probability $f$ per unit time, i.e., if $S_i(t+1) = 0$, $\sigma_i(t) = 1$, then $$\sigma_i(t+1) = \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
0 &\quad {\rm with\ probability\ } f,\\
1 &\quad {\rm with\ probability\ } 1-f.
\end{array} \right.$$
We have also considered another version of our ant-trail model where the states of the system are updated in a random-sequential manner rather than in parallel [@ncs]. Note that in both the cases, because of the periodic boundary conditions, the dynamics conserves the number $N$ of ants, but not the number of pheromones.
This model is related to several other models. For example, in the limits $f \rightarrow 0$ and $\rightarrow \infty$ this ant-trail model reduces to TASEP with the hopping probabilities $q$ and $Q$, respectively. Moreover, the ant-trail model may be regarded as the opposite limit of the bus-route model [@loan; @cd] (see ref.[@ncs] for the detailed comparison). Furthermore, the ant-trail model also has some similarities with the particle-hopping models of human trails of pedestrians [@helbped; @burs].
The typical fundamental diagrams of the ant-trail model [@cgns] with parallel dynamics are shown in fig.\[fig-6\]; the corresponding results in the case of random-sequential updating are qualitatively similar [@ncs]. The unusual shapes of the curves observed over a range of $f$ are consequences of the non-monotonic variation of the average speed of the ants with their density on the trail (see fig.\[fig-7\]).
![Fundamental diagram of the ant-trail model with parallel updating for the parameters $Q = 0.75, ~q = 0.25$. The discrete data points corresponding to $f=0.0005 ({\Diamond})$, $0.001 (\circ$), $0.005 (\bullet)$, $0.01 ({\bigtriangleup})$, $0.05 ({\Box})$, $0.10 (\times)$, $0.25 (+)$, $0.50 (\ast)$ have been obtained from computer simulations; the lines connecting these data points merely serve as the guide to the eye.. []{data-label="fig-6"}](antfdpar.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Variation of the average speed of the ants in the ant-trail model with parallel updating. Same symbols in figs.\[fig-6\] and \[fig-7\] correspond to the same values of the parameter $f$.[]{data-label="fig-7"}](antspeed.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Both the ordinary mean-field theory (MFT), which accounts for the exact fundamental diagram of the TASEP with random-sequential updating, and $2$-cluster MFT [@ssni; @css], which succussfully predicted the exact fundamental diagram of the TASEP with parallel updating, fail to capture even the qualitative features of the fundamental diagrams of the ant-trail model shown in fig.\[fig-6\] [@ncs]. However, a heuristic MFT, described in ref.[@ncs], captures at least the qualitative features of the observed flow properties of our ant-trail model.
In order to develope a quantitative theory for the flow properties of the ant-trail model, we have analyzed the spatial organization of the ants by computer simulations. Analyzing these observations we concluded that in the anomalous regime, loose clusters of ants dominate; the term “loose” means that there are small gaps in between successive ants in the cluster although the cluster appears to be an usual compact cluster if seen from a distance. As shown in fig.\[fig-8\], the fundamental diagram we calculated within the “loose”-cluster approximation (LCA) is in good quantitative agreement with the corresponding data we obtained from computer simulations of the model.
![Fundamental diagram ($f=0.005$) of the ant-trail model in the LCA (solid curve) s compared with the simulation data (broken curve).[]{data-label="fig-8"}](lcafd.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
\[sec4\]Intra-cellular traffic of molecular motors
==================================================
Molecular motors are protein molecules that convert the chemical energy, released by the hydrolysis of ATP, into mechanical energy required for its forward movement during intra-cellular transport of vesicular cargo [@howard]. The minimal models developed for explaining the mechanism of directed motion of isolated motor proteins are based on Brownian ratchets [@reimann]. In such models, each motor is represented by a particle. The essential features of the detailed mechano-chemistry of the molecular motor is captured in the Brownian ratchet models by a stochastic sequence of successive attachments and detachments of the motor with the cytoskeletal filamentary track (e,g, microtubule in the case of kinesin and dynein motors). In the simplest versions of these models [@julicher], in the attached state, the particle representing a motor is subjected to a potential that is spatially periodic, but each period of which is asymmetric. In the detached state the particle executes an unbiased diffusive motion. In spite of its simplicity, such a minimal model can account for the directed, albeit noisy, movement of individual isolated motors.
To our knowledge, the question of the effects of interactions of the motors on the intra-cellular traffic was addressed theoretically for the first time only a few years ago [@menon]. In that work, the filamentary track was discretized in the spirit of the particle-hopping models described above and the motors were represented by field-driven particles. Both forward and backward movement of the particles were possible and the hopping probability of every particle was computed from the local potential. Thus, this model was a generalization of ASEP rather than TASEP where the hopping probabilities were obtained from the local potential which itself was time-dependent. The fundamental diagram of that model, computed imposing periodic boundary conditions, is very similar to those shown in fig.\[fig-2\]. This observation indicates that further simplification in the model proposed in ref.[@menon] is possible to develope a minimal model for interacting molecular motors.
Recently, Parmeggiani et al.[@frey] have, indeed, developed such a minimal model for interacting molecular motors involved in intra-cellular transport by extending the TASEP with open boundary conditions. In this model, the molecular motors (e.g., kinesin or dynein) are represented by particles whereas the sites for the binding of the motors with the cytoskeletal tracks (e.g., microtubules) are represented by a one-dimensional discrete lattice. Just as in TASEP, the motors are allowed to hop forward, with probability $q$, provided the site in front is empty. However, unlike TASEP, the particles can also get “attached” to an empty lattice site, with probability $A$, and “detached” from an occupied site, with probability $D$ (see fig.\[fig-9\]) from any site except the end points. The state of the system was updated in a random-sequential manner.
To my knowledge, this is the first application of TASEP to intra-cellular transport phenomena although it is not the first application of TASEP in the domain of biological systems; for example, a TASEP-like model was considered earlier for protein synthesis [@protein]
![Schematic representation of the model [@frey] of intra-cellular traffic of molecular motors carrying vesicular cargo.[]{data-label="fig-9"}](motmodel.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![The phase diagram of the model [@frey] of intra-cellular traffic of molecular motors carrying vesicular cargo (reproduced, with permission, from ref.[@frey]. The inset shows the dependence of the domain wall amplitude on $\alpha$ for different values of $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig-10"}](motphase.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Carrying out Monte-Carlo simulations Parmeggiani et al.[@frey] demonstrated a novel phase where low and high density regimes, separated from each other by domain walls, coexist (see fig.\[fig-10\]). Using a MFT, they interpreted this spatial organization as traffic jam of molecular motors.
\[sec5\]Defects and disorder in particle-hopping models
=======================================================
![Schematic representation of the different types of randomness in particle-hopping models. In (a) the randomness is associated with the track; the hopping probability $q$ at the bottleneck (partially hatched region) is smaller than the normal hopping probability $Q$, In (b) the randomness is associated with the particles; $q_1$ and $q_2$ being the time-independent hopping probabilities of the particles $i$ and $j$, respectively. In (c) the randomness arises from the coupling of the dynamics of the hopping particles (filled circle) with another non-conserved dynamical variable; the two possible states of the non-conserved variable are represented by open and filled squares.[]{data-label="fig-11"}](disord1.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Schematic representation of the different types of randomness in particle-hopping models. In (a) the randomness is associated with the track; the hopping probability $q$ at the bottleneck (partially hatched region) is smaller than the normal hopping probability $Q$, In (b) the randomness is associated with the particles; $q_1$ and $q_2$ being the time-independent hopping probabilities of the particles $i$ and $j$, respectively. In (c) the randomness arises from the coupling of the dynamics of the hopping particles (filled circle) with another non-conserved dynamical variable; the two possible states of the non-conserved variable are represented by open and filled squares.[]{data-label="fig-11"}](disord2.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Schematic representation of the different types of randomness in particle-hopping models. In (a) the randomness is associated with the track; the hopping probability $q$ at the bottleneck (partially hatched region) is smaller than the normal hopping probability $Q$, In (b) the randomness is associated with the particles; $q_1$ and $q_2$ being the time-independent hopping probabilities of the particles $i$ and $j$, respectively. In (c) the randomness arises from the coupling of the dynamics of the hopping particles (filled circle) with another non-conserved dynamical variable; the two possible states of the non-conserved variable are represented by open and filled squares.[]{data-label="fig-11"}](disord3.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
At least three different types of defects and quenched randomness have been considered so far in the context of the models of interacting particles driven far from equilibrium. (a) First, the randomness may be associated with the [*track*]{} on which the particles move; typical examples are the bottlenecks on the roads (in the context of vehicular traffic) or defects on the microtubules (in intra-cellulat transport), etc. For example, as shown in fig.\[fig-11\](a), normal hopping probability at unblocked sites is $Q$ whereas that at the bottleneck is $q$ ($q < Q$). This type of quenched defect and disorder of the track leads to interesting phase-segregation phenomena (see [@css] for a review).
\(b) The second type of randomness is associated with the hopping [ *particles*]{}, rather than with the track. For example, the normal hopping probabilities of the particles may vary randomly from one particle to another (see fig.\[fig-11\](b)); the hopping probabilities are, however, “quenched” random variables, i.e., independent of time. In this case, the system is known to be exhibit coarsening of queues of the particles and the phenomenon has some formal similarities with Bose-Einstein condensation (reviewed in [@css]).
Note that in case of the randomness of type (a), the hopping probability depends only on the spatial location on the track, independent of the identity of the hopping particle. On the other hand, in the case of randomness of type (b), the hopping probability depends on the hopping particle, irrespective of its spatial location on the track. In contrast to these two types of randomness, the randomness in the hopping probabilities of the particles in some models arises from the coupling of their dynamics with that of another non-conserved dynamical variable. For example, in the ant-trail model, the hopping probability of an ant depends on the presence or absence of pheromone in front of it (see fig.\[fig-11\](c)). Therefore, in such models with periodic boundary conditions, a given particle may hop from the same site, at different times, with different hopping probabilities.
Defects of either (a) the cytoskeletal filaments or (b) the motor proteins or (c) the mechano-chemical coupling can cause malfunctiong of the intra-cellular transport leading to various types of diseases [@trafdis]. In order to get deep insight into the physical origin of such diseases, the recent model developed by Parmeggiani et al. [@frey] has been extended [@chowetal]. This modeling strategy has opened up a new horizon for further unconventional applications of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics far beyond the traditional borderlines of physics.
\[sec6\]Conclusion
==================
In this paper we began with a brief introduction to TASEP [@zia; @schutz] which is, perhaps, the simplest model of systems of interacting driven particles. TASEP, when updated in parallel, may be regarded as a special case, corresponding to the maximum allowed speed $V_{max} =1$, of the NS model [@ns], the minimal model of vehicular traffic on single-lane highways. We have summarized some of the main known results on the [*fundamental diagram*]{} for the TASEP with periodic boundary conditions and the [*phase diagram*]{} of the TASEP with open boundary conditions. Then, we have shown how these results for TASEP get [*qualitatively*]{} modified by the generalizations or extensions required to model ant-traffic on ant-trails [@cgns; @ncs] and molecular motor traffic on cytoskeletal filaments [@frey].
In the context of the ant-traffic on ant-trails, we have established how a combination of analytical and numerical calculations [@cgns; @ncs] can account for the unusual shape of the fundamental diagram observed in the computer simulations of the ant-trail model. We have also presented the phase diagram obtained by Parmeggiani et al.[@frey] from studies of their recent model for molecular motor traffic. This phase diagram suggests the possibility of coexistence of high-density regions (traffic jam) and low-density regions (freely flowing traffic), separated from each other by domain walls, in a novel phase. Finally, we have mentioned some ongoing investigations on the effects of defects and disorder on molecular motor traffic [@chowetal]. This trend of research indicates the possibility of further unconventional, but very useful, applications of statistical physics in biological systems.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} I dedicate this paper to Dietrich Stauffer on the occassion of his 60th birthday. During the two decades of our collaboration he not only taught me the art of computer simulations but also inspired me to try unconventional applications of the conventional tools of statistical physics. I thank E. Frey, V. Guttal, F. Jülicher, A. Kunwar, K. Nishinari and A. Schadschneider for enjoyable recent collaborations and/or discussions. I also thank E. Frey for his kind permission to reproduce figure \[fig-10\] from his paper [@frey]. Part of this work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (under the re-invitation program for former fellows) and by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through a joint Indo-German research project.
[99]{} D. Chowdhury, L. Santen and A. Schadschneider, Phys. Rep. [**329**]{}, 199 (2000).
D. Helbing, Rev. Mod. Phys.[**73**]{}, 1067 (2001).
T. Nagatani, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**65**]{}, 1331 (2002).
D. Chowdhury, V. Guttal, K. Nishinari and A. Schadschneider, J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, L573 (2002).
K. Nishinari, D. Chowdhury and A. Schadschneider, Phys. Rev. E (2003) in press.
M. Burd, D. Archer, N. Aranwela and D.J. Stradling, American Naturalist [**159**]{}, 283 (2002).
I.D. Couzin and N.R. Franks, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) B (2002).
A. Parmeggiani, T. Franosch and E. Frey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 086601-1 (2003).
H. Spohn, [*Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Particles*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
B. Schmittmann and R.K.P. Zia, [*Phase Transitions and Critial Phenomena*]{}, vol.17, eds. C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, New York, 1995).
G. Schütz, [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, vol.19, eds. C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, New York, 2000)
R. Stinchcombe, Adv. Phys. [**50**]{}, 431 (2001).
S. Wolfram, [*Theory and Applications of Cellular Automata*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986).
K. Nagel and M. Schreckenberg, J. de Phys. I, [**2**]{}, 2221 (1992)
J. Krug, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1882 (1991)
E.O. Wilson, [*The Insect Societies*]{} (Belknap, Cambridge, 1971); B. Hölldobler and E.O. Wilson, [*The Ants*]{} (Belknap, Cambridge, 1990). S. Camazine, J.L. Deneubourg, N.R. Franks, J. Sneys, G. Theraulaz and E. Bonabeau, [*Self-Organization in Biological Systems*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001).
O.J. O’Loan, M.R. Evans and M.E. Cates, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 1404 (1998)
D. Chowdhury and R.C. Desai, Eur. Phys. J. B [**15**]{}, 375 (2000).
D. Helbing, F. Schweitzer, J. Keltsch and P. Molner, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 2527 (1997)
C. Burstedde, K. Klauck, A. Schadschneider and J. Zittartz, Physica A [**295**]{}, 507 (2001).
M. Schreckenberg, A Schadschneider, K. Nagel and N. Ito, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 2939 (1995)
J. Howard, [*Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton*]{} (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2001).
P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. [**361**]{}, 57 (2002).
F. Julicher, A. Ajdari and J. Prost, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1269 (1997).
Y. Aghababie, G. I. Menon and M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 2578 (1999).
G.M. Schütz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**11**]{}, 197 (1997).
M. Aridor and L. A. Hannan, Traffic [**1**]{}, 836 (2000); [**3**]{}, 781 (2002).
D. Chowdhury et al., [*to be published*]{}.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a $p$-adic local field $F$. We propose and study the notions of $G$-${\varphi}$-modules and $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over the Robba ring, which are exact faithful $F$-linear tensor functors from the category of $G$-representations on finite-dimensional $F$-vector spaces to the categories of ${\varphi}$-modules and $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over the Robba ring, respectively, commuting with the respective fiber functors. We study Kedlaya’s slope filtration theorem in this context, and show that $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over the Robba ring are “$G$-quasi-unipotent”, which is a generalization of the $p$-adic local monodromy theorem proven independently by Y. André, K. S. Kedlaya, and Z. Mebkhout.'
author:
- Shuyang Ye
bibliography:
- 'G-phi-nabla.bib'
title: 'A group-theoretic generalization of the $p$-adic local monodromy theorem'
---
Introduction
============
Let $p$ be a prime number and $q$ a power of $p$. Let $K$ be a complete non-archimedean discretely valued field of characteristic $0$ equipped with an isometric automorphism ${\varphi}$, the *Frobenius*, inducing the $q$-power map on the residue field ${\kappa}\supseteq {\mathds{F}}_q$. We also require $K$ to be unramified over the fixed subfield $F$ under ${\varphi}$. See Hypothesis \[H:FK\] for a concrete example.
The *Robba ring* ${\mathcal{R}}={\mathcal{R}}(K,t)$ is the ring of bidirectional power series $\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Z}}}c_it^i$ in one variable $t$ with coefficients in $K$ which converge in an annulus $[\alpha,1)$ for some series-dependent $0<\alpha<1$. The Robba ring ${\mathcal{R}}$ is endowed with an absolute Frobenius lift ${\varphi}$ which extends the Frobenius on $K$ and lifts the $q$-power map on ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$, and with the derivation $\partial=d/dt$.
A *$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module* over ${\mathcal{R}}$ is a triple $(M,\Phi,\nabla)$, where $M$ is a finite free ${\mathcal{R}}$-module, $\Phi$ is a *Frobenius*, i.e. a ${\varphi}$-linear endomorphism of $M$ whose image spans $M$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$, and $\nabla\colon M\to M\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{R}}dt$ is a connection. Moreover, $\Phi$ and $\nabla$ should satisfy the *gauge compatibility condition*, which says that, after choosing an ${\mathcal{R}}$-basis for $M$ the actions $\Phi$ and $\nabla$ are given by matrices $A$ and $N$ respectively, and these matrices should satisfy $N=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot A({\varphi}(N))A^{-1}-\partial(A)A^{-1}$, where $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\coloneqq \partial({\varphi}(t))$.
The $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules, also known as the *overconvergent ($\mathrm{F}$-)isocrystals* in the literature, are closely related to $p$-adic local systems on $\operatorname{Spec}{\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$ (for a summary, we refer to [@ked-iso]), for which the correct monodromy theorem is the *$p$-adic local monodromy theorem* ($p$LMT), proven independently by André [@andre], Kedlaya [@ked-ann] and Mebkhout [@meb]. It states that every $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$ is quasi-unipotent. Concretely, a $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module $M$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$, after an étale extension to ${\mathcal{R}}_L$ (the Robba ring canonically associated to some finite separable extension $L$ of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$), admits a filtration by sub-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules such that the connections induced on the gradiation are trivial. A matricial description of the theorem is given as follows. Let $d$ be the rank of $M$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$, and let $A\in \operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{R}})$ (resp. $N\in \operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}({\mathcal{R}})$) be the matrix of $\Phi$ (resp. $\nabla$) in some basis. Then there exists $U\in \operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{R}}_L)$ such that $U^{-1}NU-U^{-1}\partial(U)$ is an upper-triangular block matrix with zero blocks in the diagonal.
We mention two applications of the $p$LMT in $p$-adic Hodge theory.
- In [@ber-diff], Berger associated to every $p$-adic de Rham representation $V$ a $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module $\mathrm{N}_{\operatorname{dR}}(V)$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$. Using the $p$LMT, he proved the $p$-adic monodromy theorem (previously a conjecture of Fontaine): every $p$-adic de Rham representation is potentially semistable.
- In [@mar], Marmora used the $p$LMT to construct a functor from the category of $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ to that of $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$-valued Weil-Deligne representations of the Weil group ${\mathcal{W}}_{{\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}}$, where $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$ is the maximal unramified extension of $K$ in a fixed algebraic closure of $K$.
Rather than the general linear group, a Galois representation may take values in some connected reductive group, such as the special linear group or the symplectic group. In order to have appropriate formulations of the above results in this context, it is helpful to establish a $G$-version of the $p$LMT for a connected reductive group $G$, which is the main motivation of our present paper.
In this paper, we introduce the notion of *$G$-${\varphi}$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$* (resp. *$G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$*), which are exact faithful $F$-linear tensor functors from the category $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ of $G$-representations on finite-dimensional $F$-vector spaces to the category $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_{\mathcal{R}}}$ of ${\varphi}$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ (resp. to the category $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_{{\mathcal{R}}}}$ of $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$), commuting with the respective fiber functors. These constructions are inspired by that of *$G$-isocrystals* introduced in [@dat § IX. 1]. Our main result is the following $G$-version of the $p$LMT.
\[T’:G-mono\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive $F$-group and let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be its Lie algebra. If $g\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ and $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}\otimes_F{\mathcal{R}}$ satisfy the gauge compatibility condition $X=\Gamma_g\big(\mu{\varphi}(X) \big)$, then there exists a finite separable extension $L$ over ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$ and an element $b\in G({\mathcal{R}}_L)$ such that $\Gamma_b(X)\in \operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)\big)\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}{{\mathcal{R}}_L}$.
Here, $\Gamma_y(Y)=\operatorname{Ad}(y)(Y)-\operatorname{dlog}(y)$ for all $y\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ and $Y\in {\mathfrak{g}}\otimes_F {\mathcal{R}}$, and $\lambda_g \colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to G_{\mathcal{R}}$ is a cocharacter associated to $g$ whose inverse is denoted by $-\lambda_g$. For example, $\operatorname{Ad}(y)(Y)=yYy^{-1}$ and $\operatorname{dlog}(y)=\partial(y)y^{-1}$, when $G=\operatorname{GL}_d$. In this context, $U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)$ denotes the unipotent radical of the parabolic subgroup of $G_{\mathcal{R}}$ associated to $-\lambda_g$.
When $G=\operatorname{GL}_d$, $g$ (resp. X) should be thought as the matrix of the Frobenius (resp. the matrix of the connection), and $\Gamma_b({\rule{2mm}{0.15mm}})$ as the matrix of a connection under the change-of-basis via $b^{-1}$, in particular, the gauge compatibility condition coincides with the matricial one given before. Moreover, $\operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)\big)\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}{{\mathcal{R}}_L}$ consists of upper-triangular matrices over ${\mathcal{R}}_L$ with zero-blocks (of certain sizes) in the diagonal. As such, Theorem \[T’:G-mono\] recovers the matricial $p$LMT described above.
In Proposition \[P:B\], we show that $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ are indeed pairs $(g,X)$ subject to the gauge compatibility condition in the theorem. In this sense, the theorem can be interpreted as saying that $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ are “$G$-quasi-unipotent".
Our approach to the theorem closely follows that of the $p$LMT in [@ked-ann] for absolute Frobenius lifts, wherein the author used his slope filtration theorem (along with applying the pushforward functor and twisting to each quotient of the filtration) to reduce the problem to the unit-root case, and then apply the unit-root $p$LMT attributed to Tsuzuki [@tsu-mono] to finish. More precisely, we use Kedlaya’s slope filtration theorem to construct a ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g$ from $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ to $ {\mathds{Q}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$, the category of ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ (see Theorem \[T:filtered-fiber\]). We then reduce $\operatorname{HN}_g$ to a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g$ from $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ to ${\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$, the category of ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ (see Lemma \[L:Q-to-Z\]). Then a result of Ziegler (Theorem \[T:ziegler\]) immediately implies that $\operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$ is *splittable*, i.e. factors through a ${\mathds{Z}}$-graded fiber functor (see Proposition \[P:Z-splitting\]). In particular, for any splitting of $\operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$, we construct a morphism $\lambda_g\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to G_{\mathcal{R}}$ of ${\mathcal{R}}$-groups in § \[S:slope-morphism\], which is called the *${\mathds{Z}}$-slope morphism* of $g$. With this, we can reduce the $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module $(g,X)$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$, involving the (generalized) pushforward functor and twisting, to a unit-root one (see Corollary \[C:unit-root\]). Theorem \[T’:G-mono\] then follows from the unit-root $p$LMT and a tannakian argument.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[S:pre\], we set up basic notation and conventions, and then recall some necessary background on the theory of slopes and tannakian formalism. In Section \[S:G-phi\], we study $G$-${\varphi}$-modules over the Robba ring, and construct slope morphisms. In Section \[C:G-phi-nabla\], we consider $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over the Robba ring, and prove our main result, Theorem \[T’:G-mono\], in the last subsection.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The content of this paper is part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis carried out at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The author owes a deep gratitude to his supervisor Elmar Große-Klönne for providing him this problem, and for all the helpful discussions. The author would like to thank the external examiners of the thesis for their valuable feedback. The author is also indebted to Claudius Heyer for many constructive suggestions.
Preliminaries {#S:pre}
=============
Notation and conventions
------------------------
When $k$ is a field, we denote by $\operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_k$ the category of finite-dimensional $k$-vector spaces. When $R\in$ is a $k$-algebra[^1], we denote by $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_R$ the category of $R$-modules, and by $\operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_R$ the category of $R$-algebras. When $V,W \in \operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_k$, we write $V_R$ for $V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_k R$, and write $\alpha_R\coloneqq \alpha\otimes R$, the $R$-linear extension of $\alpha$, for all $k$-linear maps $\alpha\colon V\to W$. When $G$ is an affine algebraic $k$-group, we denote by $k[G]$ the Hopf algebra of $G$, by $G_R\coloneqq G \times_{\operatorname{Spec}k} \operatorname{Spec}R$ the base extension, by $H^1(G,k)\coloneqq H^1 \big(\operatorname{Gal}(k^{\operatorname{sep}}/k),G(k^{\operatorname{sep}}) \big)$ the first Galois cohomology set, and by $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$ the category of representations of $G$ on finite-dimensional $k$-vector spaces. We denote by $\omega^G$ the (forgetful) fiber functor $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)\to \operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_k$.
By a reductive $k$-group, we mean a (not necessarily connected) affine algebraic $k$-group $G$ such that every smooth connected unipotent normal subgroup of $G_{\bar k}$ is trivial, where $\bar k$ is an algebraic closure of $k$.
For the rest of this paper, we work under the following hypothesis.
\[H:FK\] Let $p$ be a prime number and $q=p^f$ an integral power of $p$. Let $F$ be a finite extension of ${\mathds{Q}}_p$ with the ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_F$, a fixed uniformizer $\pi_F$ and the residue field ${\kappa}_F$ of $q$ elements. Let ${\kappa}$ be a perfect field containing ${\kappa}_F$. Let ${\mathcal{O}}_K={\mathcal{O}}_F\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{W({\kappa}_F)} W({\kappa})$, where $W({\kappa}_F)$ (resp. $W({\kappa})$) denotes the ring of Witt vectors with coefficients in ${\kappa}_F$ (resp. in ${\kappa}$). Then $K\coloneqq \operatorname{Frac}({\mathcal{O}}_K)\cong F\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{W({\kappa}_F)} W({\kappa})$ is a complete discretely valued field with ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_K$, a uniformizer $\pi\coloneqq \pi_F\otimes 1$ and residue field ${\kappa}$. Let $\operatorname{Frob}$ be the ring endomorphism of $W({\kappa})$ induced by the $p$-power map on ${\kappa}$, and let $${\varphi}\coloneqq \operatorname{Id}_F\otimes \operatorname{Frob}^f \colon K\operatorname{\longrightarrow}K$$ be the *Frobenius automorphism* on $K$ relative to $F$. Then ${\varphi}$ reduces to the $q$-power map on ${\kappa}$, and the fixed field of ${\varphi}$ on $K$ is $F\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{W({\kappa}_F)} W({\kappa}_F) \cong F$.
The Robba ring and its variants {#S:robba}
-------------------------------
For $\alpha\in(0,1)$, we put $${\mathcal{R}}_\alpha\coloneqq \Big\{\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Z}}} c_it^i~\Big|~\ c_i\in K, \lim\limits_{i\to\pm\infty} |c_i|\rho^i=0,~\forall\rho\in[\alpha,1) \Big\}.$$ For any $\rho\in[\alpha,1)$, we define the $\rho$-Gauss norm on $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}_\alpha$ by setting $\big|\sum\limits_i c_it^i \big|_\rho \coloneqq\sup_i\{|c_i|\rho^i\}$. The *Robba ring* is defined to be the union ${\mathcal{R}}\coloneqq {\mathcal{R}}(K,t)\coloneqq \bigcup\limits_{\alpha\in(0,1)}{\mathcal{R}}_\alpha$. For any $\sum\limits_i c_it^i\in{\mathcal{R}}$, we define $\big|\sum\limits_i c_it^i\big|_1:=\sup_i\{|c_i|\}\in {\mathds{R}}_{\geq 0}\cup \{\infty\}$, the $1$-Gauss norm.
The *bounded Robba ring* ${\mathcal{E}}^\dagger={\mathcal{E}}^\dagger(K,t)$ is the subring of ${\mathcal{R}}$ consisting of bounded elements (i.e. elements with finite $1$-Gauss norm), which is actually a henselian discretely valued field w.r.t. the $1$-Gauss norm with residue field ${\kappa}{(\!(}t{)\!)}$.
Let $R\in\{{\mathcal{R}}, {\mathcal{E}}^\dagger\}$. An *absolute $q$-power Frobenius lift* on $R$ is a ring endomorphism ${\varphi}\colon R\to R$ given by $\sum\limits_{i\in {\mathds{Z}}} c_it^i\longmapsto \sum\limits_{i\in {\mathds{Z}}} {\varphi}(c_i)u^i$.
For any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, we define $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}_\alpha$ to be the ring of formal sums $\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Q}}} c_it^i$ with $c_i\in K$, subject to the following properties.
- For any $c>0$, the set $\{i\in{\mathds{Q}}\mid |c_i|\geq c\}$ is well-ordered.
- For any $\rho\in[\alpha,1)$, we have $\lim\limits_{i\to\pm\infty} |c_i|\rho^i=0$.
For any $\rho\in[\alpha,1)$, we define the $\rho$-Gauss norm on $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}_\alpha$ by setting $$\Big|\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_i c_it^i \Big|_\rho=\sup\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Q}}}\{|c_i|\rho^i\}.$$ We define $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}} \coloneqq \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(K,t)=\bigcup\limits_{\alpha\in(0,1)} \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}_\alpha$, the *extended Robba ring*. The *absolute Frobenius lift* on $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ is a ring automorphism on $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ given by $\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Q}}} c_it^i \mapsto \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathds{Q}}} {\varphi}(c_i)t^{iq}$. We denote by $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger$ the subring of $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ consisting of bounded elements. By [@ked-relative Proposition 2.2.6], we have a ${\varphi}$-equivariant embedding $\psi:{\mathcal{R}}\to\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ such that $|\psi(x)|_\rho=|x|_\rho$ for $\rho$ sufficiently close to $1$.
The slope filtration theorem {#S:slope}
----------------------------
We recall Kedlaya’s theory of slopes. Let $R\in\{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}},\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$ equipped with a Frobenius lift ${\varphi}$. For the notions of ${\varphi}$-modules and $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over $R$, we refer to [@ked-ann §2.5]. We denote by $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}$ (resp. $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}$) the category of ${\varphi}$-modules (resp. $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules) over $R$.
Let $(M,\Phi)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}$ and let $n$ be a positive integer. Then $(M,\Phi^n)$ is a ${\varphi}^n$-module over $(R,{\varphi}^n)$. The $n$-*pushforward functor* is given by $$[n]_*\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}\operatorname{\longrightarrow}\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}^n}_R, \;\;\;\;\; (M,\Phi) \longmapsto (M,\Phi^n).$$ For any $s\in {\mathds{Z}}$, we define the *twist* $M(s)$ of $(M,\Phi)$ by $s$ to be the ${\varphi}$-module $(M,\pi^s\Phi)$. Now let $M$ be a ${\varphi}$-module over $R$ of rank $d$.
- We say that $M$ is *unit-root* ${\varphi}$-module if there exists a basis ${\mathbf{v}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{v}}_d$ of $M$ over $R$ in which $\Phi$ acts via an invertible matrix in $\operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger})$ if $R\in \{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}}\}$, or $\operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{O}}_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger})$ if $R\in\{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$.
- Let $\mu=s/r \in{\mathds{Q}}$ with $r>0$ and $(s,r)=1$. We say that $M$ is *pure of slope* $\mu$ if $([r]_*M)(-s)$ is unit-root.
Let $M$ be a ${\varphi}$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$. By Kedlaya’s *slope filtration theorem* on ${\varphi}$-modules ([@ked-ann Theorem 6.10]). We have a canonical filtration $0=M_0 \subseteq M_1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq M_l=M$ of sub-${\varphi}$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ such that each quotient $M_i/M_{i-1}$ is pure of some slope $\mu_i$ with $\mu_1< \cdots <\mu_l$, which is called the *slope filtration* of $M$. We call $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$ the *jumps* of the slope filtration. The (uniquely determined, not neccesarily strictly) increasing sequence $(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l,\cdots,\mu_l)$, with each $\mu_i$ appearing $\operatorname{rk}_{\mathcal{R}}(M_i/M_{i-1})$ times, is said to be the *Newton slope sequence* for $M$. We call $\operatorname{rk}_{\mathcal{R}}(M_i/M_{i-1})$ the *multiplicity* of $\mu_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq l$. Moreover, if $M$ is a $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$, then the slope filtration can be refined to a filtration of sub-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules. This is [@ked-ann Theorem 6.12], and is referred to the *slope filtration theorem for $({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules*.
We next recollect some results on the theory of slopes for later use.
\[L:nonzero-morphism\] Let $R\in \{{\mathcal{R}},\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$ and let $M$ and $N$ be ${\varphi}$-modules over $R$. If the slopes of $M$ are all less than the smallest slope of $N$, then no non-zero morphism from $M$ to $N$ exists.
This is [@ked-relative Proposition 1.4.18].
\[L:admissible\] The field $K$ admits an admissible extension $E$ such that the residue field ${\kappa}_E$ of $E$ is strongly difference-closed.
We need only the following consequences of the existence of such an $E$; the notion of *admissible extensions* or *strong difference-closeness* will not be explicitly used in this paper, for which we refer to loc. cit.. See also [@ked-relative] (see in particular Hypothesis 2.1.1 for the condition of being strongly difference-closed).
\[L:tilde-tensor\] Let $E$ be an admissible extension of $K$ such that ${\kappa}_E$ is strongly difference-closed.
- Let $M \in \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_{\mathcal{R}}}$. If $M$ is pure of some slope $\mu$, then $M \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ is pure of slope $\mu$.
- Let $M \in \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_{\mathcal{R}}}$. Then tensoring the slope filtration of $M$ with $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ gives the slope filtration of $M\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{{\mathcal{R}}}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$.
- Let $0 \operatorname{\longrightarrow}M_1 \operatorname{\longrightarrow}M \operatorname{\longrightarrow}M_2 \operatorname{\longrightarrow}0$ be a short exact sequence of ${\varphi}$-modules over $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ such that the slopes of $M_1$ are all less than the smallest slope of $M_2$. Then the sequence splits.
- Every ${\varphi}$-module over $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ admits a *Dieudonné-Manin decomposition*, i.e. is a direct sum of standard ${\varphi}$-submodules.
Assertion (i) is immediate from [@ked-relative Theorem 3.1.3]. For assertion (ii), we let $M$ be a ${\varphi}$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$. Then $M \otimes_{{\mathcal{R}}} \tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ is also semistable by [@ked-relative Theorem 3.1.2]. Since ${\kappa}_E$ is strongly difference-closed by assumption, we have that $M \otimes_{{\mathcal{R}}} \tilde{\mathcal{R}}(E,t)$ is pure of some slope by [@ked-relative Theorem 2.1.8]. It follows from assertion (i) that $M$ is pure of the same slope, assertion (ii) then follows. Assertion (iii) is [@liu-families Proposition 1.5.11], and Assertion (iv) is Proposition 1.5.12 in loc. cit..
The tannakian duality
---------------------
In this subsection, $k$ denotes a field. We follow the definitions and notations in [@tc].The following *tannakian duality* will be repeatedly used in this paper, whose proof can be found, e.g. in [@lag Theorem 9.2].
\[T:recover\] Let $G$ be an affine algebraic $k$-group and let $R\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_k$. Suppose that for any $(V,\rho_V)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$ we are given an $R$-linear map $\lambda_V\colon V_R\to V_R$. If the family $\{\lambda_V\mid (V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)\}$ satisfies
- $\lambda_{V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W}=\lambda_V\otimes\lambda_W$ for all $V,W\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$;
- $\lambda_{\operatorname{\mathds {1}}}$ is the identity map where $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}$ is the trivial representation on $k$;
- for all $G$-equivariant maps $\alpha\colon V\to W$, we have $\lambda_W\circ \alpha_R=\alpha_R\circ\lambda_V$.
Then there exists a unique $g\in G(R)$ such that $\lambda_V=\rho_V(g)$ for all $V$.
\[C:recover\] Let $G$ be an affine algebraic $k$-group. We have an isomorphism $G \cong \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G)$ of affine algebraic $k$-groups.
\[C:fibre-iso\] Let $G$ be a smooth affine algebraic $k$-group. Let $\ell/k$ be a field extension and let $\eta\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)\to \operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_\ell$ be a fibre functor over $\ell$. Then $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta)$ is a $G$-torsor over $\ell$. In particular, if $H^1(\ell,G)=\{1\}$ and $G(\ell)\neq \emptyset$, then $\omega^G$ is isomorphic to $\eta$ over $\ell$.
Notice that we have an action $$\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta) \times \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta)$$ by pre-composition. By [@tc Theorem 3.2 (i)], $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta)$ is an $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G)$-torsor. In particular, it is a $G$-torsor over $\ell$ by Corollary \[C:recover\].
Because $G$ is a $\ell$-group variety, $G$-torsors over $\eta$ are $\ell$-varieties by [@lag Proposition 2.69], whose isomorphism classes are classified by $H^1(\ell,G)$. It follows from the triviality of $H^1(\ell,G)$ that $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta)(\ell)\cong G(\ell)$, hence $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}^\otimes (\omega^G,\eta)(\ell)\neq \emptyset$. [@tc Proposition 1.13] then implies the second assertion.
To end this subsection, we give a Lie algebra version of Theorem \[T:recover\]. We start with recalling the notion of the Lie algebra of a $k$-group functor (see [@DG II, §4] for a more details).
For any $R\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_k$, we define the *$R$-algebra of dual numbers* $R[\varepsilon]\coloneqq R[X]/(X^2)$. Put $\varepsilon\coloneqq X+(X^2)$, we then have the canonical projection $\pi_R\colon R[\varepsilon]\to R,~\varepsilon\mapsto 0$. Let $G$ be a $k$-group functor. We define $$\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R) \coloneqq \operatorname{Ker}G(\pi_R).$$ Let $f\colon G\to H$ be a morphism of $k$-group functors. The commutative diagram $$\label{D:Lie}
\begin{tikzcd}
\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)=\operatorname{Ker}(G(\pi_R)) \ar[d,"\iota_G"] && \operatorname{Lie}(H)(R)=\operatorname{Ker}(H(\pi_R)) \ar[d,"\iota_H"]\\
G(R[\epsilon]) \ar[rr,"{f(R[\epsilon])}"] \ar[d,"G(\pi_R)"] && H(R[\epsilon])\ar[d,"H(\pi_R)"]\\
G(R)\ar[rr,"f(R)"] && H(R)
\end{tikzcd}$$ implies that $f(R[\epsilon])\circ \iota_G(X)\in \operatorname{Lie}(H)(R)$ for all $X\in \operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)$. We define $\operatorname{Lie}(f)\coloneqq f(R[\epsilon])\circ \iota_G\colon \operatorname{Lie}(G)(R) \to \operatorname{Lie}(H)(R)$. Hence, $\operatorname{Lie}({\rule{2mm}{0.15mm}})(R)$ is functor from the category of $k$-group functors to that of abelian groups.
For an affine algebraic $k$-group $G$, we write $I$ for the kernel of the counit $\epsilon_G\colon k[G]\to k$. We have the following familiar group isomorphisms $${\mathfrak{g}}\coloneqq \operatorname{Lie}(G)(k) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_k(I/I^2,k)\cong \operatorname{Der}_k(k[G],k).$$ Moreover, we have $\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)\cong {\mathfrak{g}}_R$. The Lie bracket on $\operatorname{Der}_k(k[G],k)$ then gives a Lie bracket on ${\mathfrak{g}}_R$ and hence on $\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)$. We will identify $\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}_R$, and call it the *Lie algebra* of $G$ over $R$, whenever $G$ is affine algebraic. In this case, $\operatorname{Lie}({\rule{2mm}{0.15mm}})(R)$ is a functor from the category of affine algebraic $k$-groups to that of Lie algebras over $R$.
\[R:Lie-endo\] For any $d$-dimensional $G$-representation $(V,\rho_V)$, we write $\operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_V\coloneqq \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{GL}_V)(k)$. We then have $\operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_{V,R}=\{I_d+\varepsilon B \mid B\in\operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}(R)\}$, after choosing a $k$-basis for $V$. Then $I_d+\varepsilon B \mapsto B$ gives a group isomorphism from $\operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_{V,R}$ to $\operatorname{End}_R(V_R)$. Henceforth, we will identify $\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)(X)$ as an endomorphism of $V_R$, for all $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R$.
Replacing $H$ with $\operatorname{GL}_V$ and $f$ with $\rho_V$ in diagram , we obtain a morphism $\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)=\rho_V(R[\epsilon])\circ\iota_G \colon {\mathfrak{g}}_R \to \operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_{V,R}$ of Lie algebras over $R$. Let $(W,\rho_W)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$, and let $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$. We then have $\alpha_R\circ\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)(X)=\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_W)(X)\circ\alpha_R$ for all $X\in{\mathfrak{g}}_R$.
Applying the functor $\operatorname{Lie}({\rule{2mm}{0.15mm}})(R)$ on both sides of the isomorphism in Corollary \[C:recover\] then gives us an isomorphism ${\mathfrak{g}}_R\cong \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G))(R)$ of Lie algebras over $R$. The following lemma indicates that the elements in $\operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G))(R)$ are exactly the derivatives (in the sense of taking derivations of conditions (i,ii,iii) in Theorem \[T:recover\]) of elements in $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G)(R)$.
\[C:Lie-tannakian\] Let $G$ be an affine algebraic $k$-group and let $R$ be a $k$-algebra. Suppose that for any $(V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k (G)$ we are given an $R$-linear endomorphism $\theta_V$ of $V_R$ subject to the conditions
- $\theta_{V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W}=\theta_V\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_R} +\operatorname{Id}_{V_R}\otimes \theta_W$ for all $V,W\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$;
- $\theta_{\operatorname{\mathds {1}}}=0$ where $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}=k$ is the trivial $G$-representation;
- $\theta_W\circ \alpha_R=\alpha_R\circ \theta_V$ for all $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$.
Then there exists a unique element $X\in{\mathfrak{g}}_R$ such that $\theta_V=\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)(X)$ for all $(V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$.
For any $(V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$ and $\theta_V\colon V_R\to V_R$, we define the following $R[\varepsilon]$-linear map $$\varepsilon \theta_V \colon V_{R[\varepsilon]} \operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_{R[\varepsilon]}, ~~~~~ v\otimes(x+y\varepsilon) \longmapsto \theta_V(v\otimes x)\varepsilon.$$ We then define the following $R[\varepsilon]$-linear endomorphism $$\tilde \theta_V \coloneqq \operatorname{Id}_{V_{R[\varepsilon]}}+\varepsilon \theta_V \colon V_{R[\varepsilon]} \operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_{R[\varepsilon]}.$$ Then $\tilde \theta_V\in \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{GL}_V)(R)\subseteq \operatorname{GL}_V(R[\varepsilon])$, because $\pi_R(\tilde \theta_V)=\operatorname{Id}_{V_R}$.
We claim that the family $$\label{E:Lie-tanakian}
\big\{\tilde \theta_V\colon V_{R[\varepsilon]}\to V_{R[\varepsilon]} \mid (V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k (G) \big\}$$ of $R[\varepsilon]$-linear endomorphisms satisfies conditions (i,ii,iii) in Theorem \[T:recover\]. Granting this claim for a moment, we then have that $\tilde\theta\in \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G)(R[\varepsilon])$. In particular, there exists a unique element $X\in G(R[\varepsilon])$ such that $\tilde\theta_V=\rho_V(X)$ for all $(V,\rho_V)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$. Since $\pi_R(\tilde\theta)=\operatorname{Id}\in \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G)(R)$, we have $\tilde\theta\in \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G))(R)$. The isomorphism ${\mathfrak{g}}_R\cong \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes (\omega^G))(R)$ then implies that $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R$. Furthermore, it follows from the construction that $\theta_V=\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)(X)$ for all $(V,\rho_V)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$, and the proposition follows.
It remains to prove the claim. Condition (ii) is clear from the construction. Given $(W,\rho_W)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_k(G)$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \theta_{V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W} &=\operatorname{Id}_{(V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W)_R}+\varepsilon \theta_{V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W}\\
&=\operatorname{Id}_{(V\otimes W)_R}+\varepsilon(\theta_V\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_R} +\operatorname{Id}_{V_R}\otimes \theta_W)\\
&=(\operatorname{Id}_{V_R}+\varepsilon \theta_V)\otimes (\operatorname{Id}_{W_R}+\varepsilon \theta_W)\\
&=\tilde \theta_V\otimes \tilde \theta_W.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, satisfies condition (i). It remains to show that \[T:recover\] satisfies condition (iii). Let $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$. For any $v\otimes(x+y\varepsilon)\in V_{R[\varepsilon]}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}\circ \varepsilon \theta_V(v\otimes(x+y\varepsilon)) &=\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]} (\theta_V(v \otimes x))\varepsilon
=(\alpha_R\circ \theta_V)(v\otimes x )\varepsilon \\
&=(\theta_W\circ \alpha_R)(v\otimes x )\varepsilon
=\theta_W (\alpha(v)\otimes x)\varepsilon
\\
&=\varepsilon\theta_W ( \alpha(v)\otimes (x+y\epsilon))
=\varepsilon\theta_W \circ \alpha_{R[\varepsilon]} (v\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}(x+y\varepsilon)).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}\circ \tilde \theta_V&=\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}\circ (\operatorname{Id}_{V_{R[\varepsilon]}}+\varepsilon \theta_V)
=\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}+\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}\circ \varepsilon \theta_V\\
&=\alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}+\varepsilon\theta_W \circ \alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}
=(\operatorname{Id}_{W_{R[\varepsilon]}}+\varepsilon \theta_W)\circ \alpha_{R[\varepsilon]}\\
&=\tilde \theta_W \circ \alpha_{R[\varepsilon]},\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Filtered and graded fiber functors {#S:ziegler}
----------------------------------
We recall the notion of filtered and graded fiber functors on tannakian categories following [@ziegler]. Let $\Gamma$ be a totally ordered abelian group (written additively) and let $R\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_k$. A *$\Gamma$-graded* $R$-module is an $R$-module $M$ together with a direct sum decomposition $M=\bigoplus\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma} M_\gamma$. A morphism between two $\Gamma$-graded $R$ modules $M$ and $N$ is an $R$-linear map $f\colon M\to N$ such that $f(M_\gamma)\subseteq N_\gamma$ for all $\gamma\in\Gamma$. We denote by $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$ the category of $\Gamma$-graded modules over $R$. For $M,N\in \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$, we define the tensor product $(M\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R N)_\gamma= \bigoplus\limits_{\gamma'+\gamma''=\gamma} \big( M_{\gamma'}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R N_{\gamma''}\big)$.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. A *$\Gamma$-filtration* on $M$ is an increasing map $${\mathcal{F}}\colon \Gamma \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\{R\text{-submodules of}~ M\},~~~\gamma \longmapsto {\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M ,$$ such that ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M=0$ for $\gamma\ll 0$ and ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M=M$ for $\gamma\gg 0$, which is *increasing* in the sense that ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M \subseteq {\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma'} M$ whenever $\gamma \leq \gamma'$. A *$\Gamma$-filtered $R$-module* is an $R$-module $M$ with a $\Gamma$-filtration. To abbreviate notations, we sometimes denote ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M$ by $M^\gamma$ if no confusion shall arise. A morphism between two $\Gamma$-filtered $R$-modules $M$ and $N$ is an $R$-linear map $f\colon M\to N$ such that $f(M^\gamma)\subseteq N^\gamma$ for all $\gamma\in \Gamma$. We denote by $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ the category of $\Gamma$-filtered modules over $R$.
Let $M$ be a $\Gamma$-filtered module over $R$. For any $\gamma\in \Gamma$, we put ${\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma-} M\coloneqq \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\gamma'<\gamma} {\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma'} M$. We define $$\operatorname{gr}_{\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M\coloneqq {\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M/{\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma-}M.$$ Then $\operatorname{gr}_{\mathcal{F}}M\coloneqq \bigoplus\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma} \operatorname{gr}_{\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M$ is a $\Gamma$-graded $R$ module, and is called the *$\Gamma$-graded $R$-module associated to ${\mathcal{F}}$*. We thus have a functor $$\operatorname{gr}\colon \Gamma\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\Gamma\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R.$$ Elements $\gamma\in \Gamma$ such that $\operatorname{gr}_{\mathcal{F}}^\gamma M\neq 0$ are said to be the $\Gamma$-*jumps* (or simply jumps) of ${\mathcal{F}}$.
The tensor product structure in $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ is defined by $${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma (M\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R N)=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\gamma'+\gamma''=\gamma} {\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma'} M\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R {\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma''}N,$$ for all $\Gamma$-filtered modules $M$ and $N$ over $R$.
A morphism $f\colon M\to N$ in $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ is said to be *admissible* (or *strict*) if $$f(M^\gamma)=f(M)\cap N^\gamma,~~~~~\forall \gamma\in \Gamma.$$ Following [@ziegler §4.1], we say that a short sequence $\begin{tikzcd}
0 \ar[r] &M' \ar[r,"f'"] & M \ar[r,"f''"] &M'' \ar[r] &0
\end{tikzcd}$ in $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ is *exact* if both of $f'$ and $f''$ are admissible, and the underlying short sequence in $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_R$ is exact.
Let $\mathcal T$ be a tannakian category over $k$ and let $R$ be a $k$-algebra.
- A *$\Gamma$-graded fiber functor* on $\mathcal T$ over $R$ is an exact faithful $k$-linear tensor functor $\tau\colon \mathcal T \to \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$.
- A *$\Gamma$-filtered fiber functor* on $\mathcal T$ over $R$ is an exact faithful $k$-linear tensor functor $\eta\colon \mathcal T \to \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$.
- Given an object $M=\bigoplus\limits_{\gamma\in\Gamma} M_\gamma$ in $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$, we put ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma(M)\coloneqq\bigoplus\limits_{\gamma'\leq \gamma} M_{\gamma'}$. This gives rise to a functor $\operatorname{fil}\colon\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R \to\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$.
- A $\Gamma$-filtered fiber functor $\eta$ is called *splittable* if there exists a $\Gamma$-graded fiber functor $\tau$ such that $\eta=\operatorname{fil}\circ \tau$, and $\tau$ is called a *splitting* of $\eta$.
\[R:filtered-fiber\] More concretely, a $\Gamma$-filtered fiber functor is a $k$-linear functor $\eta\colon \mathcal T \to \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ satisfying the following properties (see [@dat Definition 4.2.6, Remark 4.2.7]).
- It is *admissibly* (or *strictly*) functorial, i.e., for any morphism $\alpha\colon X\to Y$ in $\mathcal T$, we have $\eta(\alpha)\big({\mathcal{F}}^\gamma \eta(X)\big)=\eta(\alpha)(\eta(X))\cap{\mathcal{F}}^\gamma \eta(Y)$ for all $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
- It is compatible with tensor products, i.e., we have $${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma \big(\eta(X\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}Y)\big)=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\gamma'+\gamma''=\gamma} {\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma'} \big(\eta(X)\big)\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}{\mathcal{F}}^{\gamma''} \big(\eta(Y)\big),$$ for all $X,Y\in \operatorname{Ob}(\mathcal T)$ and $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
- $${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma \eta(\operatorname{\mathds {1}})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
R &\text{for}~\gamma \geq 0\\
0 &\text{for}~ \gamma <0,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}$ is the identity object in $\mathcal T$. Note that ${\mathcal{F}}^\gamma \eta(\operatorname{\mathds {1}})$ is the identity object in $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$.
\[C:Z-to-Q\] Let $(M,{\mathcal{F}})\in {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ be a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered module with ${\mathds{Z}}$-jumps $\jmath_1< \cdots <\jmath_n$. For any $\gamma\in\Gamma\setminus \{0\}$, we define a $\Gamma$-filtered module $(M,[\gamma]_*{\mathcal{F}})$ by $$([\gamma]_*{\mathcal{F}})^{x} M\coloneqq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 &\text{for}~x< \jmath_1\gamma \\
M^{\jmath_i} ~~~ &\text{for}~ \jmath_i\gamma \leq x <\jmath_{i+1}\gamma,~ 1\leq i\leq n-1\\
M &\text{for}~x\geq \jmath_n\gamma .
\end{array} \right.$$ We then have a fully faithful embedding $[\gamma]_*\colon {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R \to \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$. Similarly, we have a fully faithful embedding $[\gamma]_*\colon {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R \to \Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$ by defining $[\gamma]_* \coloneqq \operatorname{gr}\circ [\gamma]_*\circ\operatorname{fil}$.
To end this subsection, we exihibit the following theorem for later use. (Be aware that in [@ziegler], the author only considers $\Gamma$-gradings and $\Gamma$-filtrations for $\Gamma={\mathds{Z}}$.)
[@ziegler Theorem 4.15]\[T:ziegler\] Let $\mathcal T$ be a tannakian category over a field $k$ and let $R$ be a $k$-algebra. Let $\eta\colon \mathcal T \to {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R$ be a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered fiber functor. If $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes_R(\operatorname{forg}\circ \eta)$ is pro-smooth (i.e. a limit of smooth algebraic group schemes) over $R$, where $\operatorname{forg}\colon {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_R \to \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_R$ is the forgetful functor, then $\eta$ is splittable.
$G$-${\varphi}$-modules over the Robba ring {#S:G-phi}
===========================================
We fix an affine algebraic $F$-group $G$ in this section.
Definition
----------
Let $R\in\{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}},\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$ equipped with an absolute Frobenius lift ${\varphi}$.
\[D:GIsoc\] A *$G$-${\varphi}$-module* over $R$ is an exact faithful $F$-linear tensor functor $$\operatorname{I}\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}$$ which satisfies $\operatorname{forg}\circ \operatorname{I}= \omega^G \otimes R$, where $\operatorname{forg}\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}\to \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_R$ is the forgetful functor. The category of $G$-${\varphi}$-modules over $R$ is denoted by $\operatorname{G-\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}$, whose morphisms are morphisms of tensor functors.
Let $(V,\rho)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ and let $g\in G(R)$. We define $\operatorname{I}(g)(V)\coloneqq (V_R,g{\varphi})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
g{\varphi}\colon V_R \operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_R, \;\;\;\;\; v\otimes f \longmapsto \rho(g)(v\otimes 1){\varphi}(f).\end{aligned}$$ Let $V,W\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. We have a canonical isomorphism $(V\otimes W)_{\mathcal{R}}\cong V_{\mathcal{R}}\otimes_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}$, and we will henceforth identify them. Given any $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$, we define $\operatorname{I}(g)(\alpha)\coloneqq \alpha_R$. We thus have the following $G$-${\varphi}$-module over $R$ (associated to $g$). $$\operatorname{I}(g)\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R},\;\;\;\;\; V\longmapsto (V,g{\varphi}).$$ We call $\operatorname{I}(g)(V)=(V_R,g{\varphi})$ a *$G$-${\varphi}$-module* over $R$ (associated to $g$).
For any $g\in G(R)$, we sometimes write $\Phi_g= \Phi_{g,V}$ for the ${\varphi}$-linear action $g{\varphi}$ on $V_R$. Both notations have their own advantages in practice.
\[R:monoid\] For any $g\in G(R)$, we define ${\varphi}(g)\coloneqq G({\varphi})(g)$. For any $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, we have a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
G(R) \ar{r}{\rho(R)} \ar{d}[swap]{G({\varphi})} &\operatorname{GL}_V(R) \ar{d}{\operatorname{GL}_V({\varphi})}\\
G(R) \ar{r}[swap]{\rho(R)} & \operatorname{GL}_V(R)
\end{tikzcd}$$ Hence $\rho({\varphi}(g))={\varphi}(\rho(g))$. For any $h\in G(R)$ and $n,m\geq 0$, we have the following formula in $G(R)\rtimes \operatorname{\langle}{\varphi}\operatorname{\rangle}$ $$(h{\varphi}^n)\circ (g{\varphi}^m)=\big(h{\varphi}^n(g)\big){\varphi}^{n+m}.$$
The ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g$ {#S:HN}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We fix an element $g\in G({\mathcal{R}})$.
For any $V\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, we have a ${\varphi}$-module $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$. Kedlaya’s slope filtration theorem [@ked-ann Theorem 6.10] then provides a filtration $$0\subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1}\subseteq \cdots\subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_l}=V_{\mathcal{R}}$$ satisfying
- $V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1}$ is pure of some slope $\mu_1\in{\mathds{Q}}$ and each $V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}/V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_{i-1}}$ is pure of some slope $\mu_i\in{\mathds{Q}}$ for $2\leq i\leq l$;
- $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_l$.
We thus have an increasing map $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{HN}}_g \colon {\mathds{Q}}&\operatorname{\longrightarrow}\{{\mathcal{R}}\text{-submodules of}~V_{\mathcal{R}}\}\\
x &\longmapsto {\mathcal{HN}}_g^x(V_{\mathcal{R}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $${\mathcal{HN}}_g^x(V_{\mathcal{R}})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 &\text{for}~x<\mu_1\\
V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i} ~~~ &\text{for}~ \mu_i\leq x <\mu_{i+1}, 1\leq i\leq l-1\\
V_{\mathcal{R}}&\text{for}~x\geq \mu_l.
\end{array} \right.$$ Then $(V_{\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{HN}}_g)$ is a ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered module over ${\mathcal{R}}$ with ${\mathds{Q}}$-jumps $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_l$. We will denote ${\mathcal{HN}}_g^x(V_{\mathcal{R}})$ by $V_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ when ${\mathcal{HN}}_g$ is clear in the context.
\[T:filtered-fiber\] The assignments $$V \longmapsto (V_{\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{HN}}_g) ~~~\text{and}~~~\alpha \longmapsto \alpha_{\mathcal{R}},$$ for all $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$, define a ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered fiber functor $$\operatorname{HN}_g \colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}{\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}.$$
This is Proposition \[P:filtered-fiber\] and Proposition \[P:exact\] below.
For any admissible extension $E$ of $K$, we first remark that the ${\varphi}$-equivariant embedding $\psi\colon {\mathcal{R}}\to \operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$ is faithfully flat (see [@ked-relative Remark 3.5.3]). We also remark that, if $M_1$ and $M_2$ are pure ${\varphi}$-modules over ${\mathcal{R}}$ of slopes $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, respectively, then $M_1\otimes_{\mathcal{R}}M_2$ is pure of slope $\mu_1+\mu_2$ (see [@ked-relative Corollary 1.6.4]). These facts will be repeatedly used in the sequel.
\[P:filtered-fiber\] The assignments in Theorem \[T:filtered-fiber\] yield a faithful $F$-linear tensor functor $\operatorname{HN}_g \colon\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \to {\mathds{Q}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$.
Let $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}=F$ be the trivial $G$-representation. Then $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}\otimes_F {\mathcal{R}}={\mathcal{R}}$ is of rank $1$ with slope $0$, proving that $\operatorname{HN}_g$ preserves identity objects.
We claim that $\operatorname{HN}_g$ is functorial. Let $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$ be a morphism of finite-dimensional $G$-modules. We need to show that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}}^x)\subseteq W_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ for all $x\in {\mathds{Q}}$. Choose by Lemma \[L:admissible\] an admissible extension $E$ of $K$ such that ${\kappa}_E$ is strongly difference-closed. For any fixed $x\in{\mathds{Q}}$, we set $V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \coloneqq V_{\mathcal{R}}^x\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}$, and $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \coloneqq W_{\mathcal{R}}^x\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}$. By Lemma \[L:tilde-tensor\] (iv), we have a decomposition $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}=W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$ of ${\varphi}$-modules over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$, where $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$ (resp. $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$) has slopes less or equal to $x$ (resp. greater than $x$). By Lemma \[L:nonzero-morphism\], the induced morphism $V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \to W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$ of ${\varphi}$-modules is zero. We thus have $\alpha_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)} \big(V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \big)\subseteq W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$. Given any ${\mathbf{v}}\in V_{\mathcal{R}}^x$, we may write $\alpha_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}({\mathbf{v}}\otimes 1)=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})\otimes 1=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.2}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i\in I} {\mathbf{w}}_i\otimes s_i$ for some finite set $I$, with ${\mathbf{w}}_i\in W_{{\mathcal{R}}}^x$ and $s_i\in {\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}$ for all $i\in I$. Let $M$ be the ${\mathcal{R}}$-submodule of $W_{{\mathcal{R}}}$ generated by $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})$ and the ${\mathbf{w}}_i$, and let $N$ be the ${\mathcal{R}}$-submodule of $W_{{\mathcal{R}}}^x$ generated by the ${\mathbf{w}}_i$. We then have $(M/N)\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t) \cong (M\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t))/ (N\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t))=0$. It follows that $M/N=0$ as ${\mathcal{R}}\to \operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$ is faithfully flat. We thus have $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})\in N\subseteq W_{{\mathcal{R}}}^x$, as desired.
It remains to show that $\operatorname{HN}_g$ preserves tensor products (in the sense of Remark \[R:filtered-fiber\] (ii)). Let $V$ and $W$ be two finite-dimensional $G$-modules, and suppose that the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ (resp. $(W_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$) has jumps $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_{l_V}$ (resp. $\nu_1<\cdots<\nu_{l_W}$). By Lemma [@pde Lemma 16.4.3], $\big((V\bigotimes_F W)_{{\mathcal{R}}},g{\varphi}\big)$ has jumps $\{\mu_i+\nu_j \mid 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}\}$. Fix any $1\leq l\leq {l_V}$ and $1\leq s\leq {l_W}$, we need to show $$\label{E:tensor}
(V \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_F W)_{{\mathcal{R}}}^{\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}}= \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{x,y\in{\mathds{Q}}\atop\\ x+y=\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}} V_{\mathcal{R}}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^y,$$ and we will do so in the remainder of the proof.
We claim that $$\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{x,y\in{\mathds{Q}}\atop\\ x+y=\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}} V_{\mathcal{R}}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^y= \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j\leq \mu_l+\nu_s\atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}}V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i} \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^{\nu_j}.$$ It is clear that the RHS is contained in the LHS, we now show the reverse containment. Let $x,y\in{\mathds{Q}}$ such that $x+y=\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}$. If $x<\mu_1$ or $y<\nu_1$, then $V_{\mathcal{R}}^x\otimes_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^y=0$ which is contained in the RHS. Otherwise, there exists the largest integer $1\leq i\leq {l_V}$ (resp. $1\leq j\leq {l_W}$) with the property that $\mu_i\leq x$ (resp. $\nu_j\leq y$). We then have $V_{\mathcal{R}}^x\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^y=V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^{\nu_j}$ and $\mu_i+\nu_j\leq \mu_{l}+\nu_{s}$. The claim is thus proved.
From Lemma \[L:tilde-tensor\] (iv), we see that $$\big(V \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_F W \big)_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^{\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}}= \Big( \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j\leq \mu_{l}+\nu_{s}\atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}}V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^{\nu_j} \Big)\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}.$$ Therefore, we have $$\big(V \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W \big)_{{\mathcal{R}}}^{\mu_{l}+\nu_{s}}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j\leq \mu_{l}+\nu_{s}\atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}} V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{\mathcal{R}}^{\nu_j}$$ by Lemma \[L:tilde-tensor\] (ii) and the fact that ${\mathcal{R}}\to {\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}$ is faithfully flat. The desired equality then follows from the preceding claim.
Let $(M,\Phi)$ be a ${\varphi}$-module over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ of rank $d$. Then $\Phi$ is invertible since $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ is inversive, and $(M,\Phi^{-1})$ is a ${\varphi}^{-1}$-module over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$. More explicitly, let $A\in\operatorname{GL}_d(\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}})$ be the matrix of action of $\Phi$ in some basis for $M$ over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$. Then in the same basis, the matrix of action of $\Phi^{-1}$ is ${\varphi}^{-1}(A^{-1})$. For example, if $M=V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$ for some $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ and $\Phi=\psi(g){\varphi}$, then
$$\big(\psi(g){\varphi}\big) \cdot \big({\varphi}^{-1}(\psi(g^{-1})){\varphi}^{-1}\big)=1$$ in $G(\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}})\rtimes \operatorname{\langle}{\varphi}\operatorname{\rangle}$ (cf. Remark \[R:monoid\]), which implies that $\Phi^{-1}={\varphi}^{-1}(\psi(g^{-1})){\varphi}^{-1}$.
Let $M$ be a standard ${\varphi}$-module over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ of slope $\mu=s/r$ with $r>0$ and $(s,r)=1$. Namely, we have a standard basis $e_1,\cdots,e_r$ in which $\Phi$ acts via $$A=
\begin{pmatrix}\footnotesize
0 & & &\pi^s\\
1 &\ddots & & \\
&\ddots &\ddots &\\
&& 1 &0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then $${\varphi}^{-1}(A^{-1})=
\begin{pmatrix}\footnotesize
0 &1 & \\
&\ddots &\ddots & \\
& &\ddots &1\\
\pi^{-s} & & &0
\end{pmatrix},$$ which implies that $(M,\Phi^{-1})$ is a standard ${\varphi}^{-1}$-module pure of slope $-\mu$.
\[P:exact\] The functor $\operatorname{HN}_g\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \to {\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ is exact.
Let $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$ be a morphism of finite-dimensional $G$-modules. We need to show that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}}^x)=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}})\cap W_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ for all $x\in{\mathds{Q}}$. For any fixed $x\in{\mathds{Q}}$, the functoriality in Proposition \[P:filtered-fiber\] already implies that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}}^x)\subseteq \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}})\cap W_{\mathcal{R}}^x$. Thus, it suffices to show that for any non-zero element ${\mathbf{v}}\in V_{\mathcal{R}}$ such that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})\in W_{\mathcal{R}}^x$, there exists ${\mathbf{v}}'\in V_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ with $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}')$.
By Lemma \[L:tilde-tensor\] (iv), we have decompositions $$\label{E:tilde-decomposition}
V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}=V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'~~~\text{and}~~~W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}=W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$$ of ${\varphi}$-modules over $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$, in which $V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$ and $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$ have slopes less or equal to $x$, while $V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$ and $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$ have slopes greater than $x$. Notice that the composition $$\begin{tikzcd}
\xi\colon V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}' \ar[r] & V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}' \ar[r,"\alpha_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}"] &W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}' \ar[r] &W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x
\end{tikzcd}$$ is a morphism of ${\varphi}$-modules. We claim that $\xi=0$. We write $\Phi=\psi(g){\varphi}$, then $\Phi^{-1}={\varphi}^{-1}(\psi(g^{-1})){\varphi}^{-1}$. Since $\alpha$ is $G$-equivariant and ${\varphi}^{-1}(\psi(g^{-1}))\in G(\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t))$, we have that $\alpha_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}}\colon (V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)},\Phi^{-1}) \to (W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)},\Phi^{-1})$ is a morphism of ${\varphi}^{-1}$-modules. On the other hand, we also have decompositions of ${\varphi}^{-1}$-modules as in , together with the induced morphism $\xi\colon V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}' \to W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$ of ${\varphi}^{-1}$-modules. But in this case, $V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}'$ has slopes less than $x$, while $W_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}^x$ has slopes greater or equal to $x$. It then follows from Lemma \[L:nonzero-morphism\] that $\xi=0$, as claimed.
Therefore, we find ${\mathbf{v}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{v}}_n \in V_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ and $s_1,\cdots,s_n\in \operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$ such that $$\alpha_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)}({\mathbf{v}}\otimes 1)=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})\otimes 1 =\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^n \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_i)\otimes s_i.$$ Let $M$ be the submodule of $W_{{\mathcal{R}}}$ generated by $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})$ and the $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_i)$, and let $N$ be the submodule generated by the $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_i)$. We then have $$(M/N)\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t) \cong (M\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t))/ (N\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t))=0.$$ It follows that $M/N=0$ as ${\mathcal{R}}\to \operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}(E,t)$ is faithfully flat, and hence $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n r_i\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_i)\in W_{\mathcal{R}}^x$ for some $r_i\in {\mathcal{R}}$. Put ${\mathbf{v}}'\coloneqq \sum\limits_{i=1}^n r_i{\mathbf{v}}_i \in V_{\mathcal{R}}^x$, we then have $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}')=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})$, as desired.
Splittings of $\operatorname{HN}_g$ {#S:splittings}
-----------------------------------
As before, we fix an element $g\in G({\mathcal{R}})$. In § \[S:HN\], we have constructed a ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \to {\mathds{Q}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$. In this subsection, we show that $\operatorname{HN}_g$ is splittable whenever $G$ is smooth. Our strategy goes as follows. We first use Lemma \[L:Q-to-Z\] reducing $\operatorname{HN}_g$ to a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$ to which Theorem \[T:ziegler\] is applicable. This $\operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$ then admits a ${\mathds{Z}}$-splitting. Finally, in Theorem \[T:Q-splitting\], we lift such a ${\mathds{Z}}$-splitting to a ${\mathds{Q}}$-splitting of $\operatorname{HN}_g$.
We define the *support* of $\operatorname{HN}_g$ by $$\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g) \coloneqq \{x\in {\mathds{Q}}\mid \operatorname{gr}^x_{\operatorname{HN}_g}(V)\neq 0~\text{for some}~ V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)\}.$$
Notice that $\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g)$ is the set of jumps of the slope filtrations of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ for all $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$.
The general idea of the following construction was addressed in [@ans], after Definition 2.5 in loc. cit.; we will make it more explicit in our case.
\[C:d\_g\] Let $W\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ be a faithful representation. Since $G$ is algebraic, $W$ is a tensor generator for $\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, i.e., any representation $V$ of $G$ is a subquotient of a direct sum of representations $\bigotimes^m (W \bigoplus W^\vee)$ for various $m\in {\mathds{N}}$. (See [@lag Theorem 4.14].) Therefore, $\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g)$ is the additive subgroup of ${\mathds{Q}}$ finitely generated by the ${\mathds{Q}}$-jumps $\nu_1,\cdots,\nu_n$ of $(W_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$. We write $\nu_i=s_i/d_i$ with $d_i>0$ and $(s_i,d_i)=1$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. Let $d_g\in{\mathds{N}}$ be the least common multiple of the $d_i$. We then have $d_g\nu_i\in{\mathds{Z}}$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. In particular, we have $$d_g=\min \{m\in{\mathds{N}}\mid mx\in {\mathds{Z}}, \forall x\in \operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g)\}.$$ Therefore, $d_g$ is uniquely determined by $g$. We call $d_g$ the *least common denominator* of $g$.
We conclude from Construction \[C:d\_g\] that $\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathds{Z}}$ or $0$. In fact, suppose that $d_g\nu_1,\cdots,d_g\nu_n$ are not all zero, we then let $D$ be the greatest common divisor of the non-zero ones. Otherwise, we let $D=0$. We then have that $d_g\cdot\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g)=D{\mathds{Z}}$. Hence, $$\operatorname{Supp}(\operatorname{HN}_g) \cong
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathds{Z}}&\text{for}~ D\neq 0\\
0 &\text{for}~ D=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[L:Q-to-Z\] $\operatorname{HN}_g$ factors through a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \to {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ which makes the diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[scale=1.2]
\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \ar[rr,"\operatorname{HN}_g"]\ar[d,swap,"\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g"] && {\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}\\
{\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}\ar[urr,,swap,"{[d_g^{-1}]}_*"]
\end{tikzcd}$$ commute.
We remark that the functor ${[d_g^{-1}]}_*$ (cf. Construction \[C:Z-to-Q\]) is nothing but relabelling the jumps by multiplying all jumps with $d_g^{-1}$. In particular, this lemma implies that $\operatorname{gr}^x_{\operatorname{HN}_g}(V)=\operatorname{gr}^{d_gx}_{\operatorname{HN}^{\mathds{Z}}_g}(V)$ for all $x\in{\mathds{Q}}$ and $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$.
Let $V\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ and let $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$ be the ${\mathds{Q}}$-jumps of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$. We then have $d_g\mu_i\in{\mathds{Z}}$ for all $i$. We have an increasing map $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}}_g \colon {\mathds{Z}}&\operatorname{\longrightarrow}\{{\mathcal{R}}\text{-submodules of}~V_{\mathcal{R}}\}\\
x &\longmapsto {\mathcal{F}}_g^x(V_{\mathcal{R}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $${\mathcal{F}}_g^x(V_{\mathcal{R}})\coloneqq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 &\text{for}~x<d_g\mu_1\\
{\mathcal{HN}}_g^{\mu_i}(V_{\mathcal{R}}) ~~~ &\text{for}~ d_g\mu_i\leq x <d_g\mu_{i+1}, 1\leq i\leq l-1\\
V_{\mathcal{R}}&\text{for}~x\geq d_g\mu_l.
\end{array} \right.$$ Then $(V_{\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{F}}_g)$ is a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered module over ${\mathcal{R}}$ with ${\mathds{Z}}$-jumps $d_g\mu_1<\cdots<d_g\mu_l$. We thus have a ${\mathds{Z}}$-filtered fiber functor $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g \colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) &\operatorname{\longrightarrow}{\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}\\
V &\longmapsto (V_{\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{F}}_g),\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $\operatorname{HN}_g=[d_g^{-1}]_*\circ \operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$.
By the definition of $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes$ and Corollary \[C:recover\], we have $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G)(R)=\operatorname{Aut}^\otimes (\omega^G_R)\cong G(R)$ for all $R\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_k$. For any $R$-algebra $S$, we then have $$\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_R^G)(S)=\operatorname{Aut}^\otimes (\omega^G_R\otimes S)=\operatorname{Aut}^\otimes (\omega^G_S)\cong G_R(S).$$
\[P:Z-splitting\] Let $G$ be a smooth $F$-group. Then $\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g$ is splittable.
Since $\operatorname{forg}\circ \operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g=\omega^G\otimes {\mathcal{R}}$, we have $$\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes_{\mathcal{R}}(\operatorname{forg}\circ \operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g)= \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes_{\mathcal{R}}(\omega^G_ {\mathcal{R}})\cong G_{\mathcal{R}}.$$ Notice that $G_{\mathcal{R}}$ is smooth over ${\mathcal{R}}$, the proposition then follows from Theorem \[T:ziegler\].
\[T:Q-splitting\] Let $G$ be a smooth $F$-group. Then the ${\mathds{Q}}$-filtered fiber functor $\operatorname{HN}_g$ is splittable.
Choose a splitting $\tau_g\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)\to {\mathds{Z}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ of $\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g$ by Proposition \[P:Z-splitting\], we then have a ${\mathds{Q}}$-graded fiber functor ${[d_g^{-1}]}_*\circ \tau_g\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)\to {\mathds{Q}}$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_{\mathcal{R}}$. On the other hand, we have the diagram $$\label{D:splittings}
\begin{tikzcd}
&& \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \ar[drrr,"\operatorname{HN}_g"]\ar[dll,swap,"\tau_g"]\ar[d,swap,"\operatorname{HN}^{{\mathds{Z}}}_g"] \\
{\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_{\mathcal{R}}\ar[rr,"\operatorname{fil}"] \ar[drr,swap,"{[d_g^{-1}]}_*"] &&{\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}\ar[rrr,"{[d_g^{-1}]}_*"] &&& {\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Fil}}_{\mathcal{R}}\\
&& {\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_{\mathcal{R}}\ar[urrr,swap,"\operatorname{fil}"]
\end{tikzcd}$$ with the upper-left, the upper-right and the bottom triangles commutative. Here, the commutativity of the upper-left (resp. upper-right ) triangle follows from Proposition \[P:Z-splitting\] (resp. Lemma \[L:Q-to-Z\]); for the bottom one, we note that ${[d_g^{-1}]}_*\circ \operatorname{fil}=\operatorname{fil}\circ {[d_g^{-1}]}_*$. Hence, the outer diagram also commutes, which implies that $\operatorname{HN}_g$ factors through the ${\mathds{Q}}$-graded fiber functor ${[d_g^{-1}]}_*\circ \tau_g$, as desired.
The slope morphism {#S:slope-morphism}
------------------
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with $1$ and let $\Gamma$ be an abelian group (not necessarily finitely generated). We first continue the discussions in § \[S:ziegler\] to see how $\Gamma$-gradings over $R$ are related to $D(\Gamma)$-modules, for some affine group scheme $D(\Gamma)$ which will be defined as follows.
The group algebra $R[\Gamma]\coloneqq \bigoplus\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma} Re_\gamma$ carries a Hopf algebra structure, where the comultiplication is given by $\Delta(e_\gamma)=e_\gamma\otimes e_\gamma$, the counit is given by $\epsilon(e_\gamma)=1$, and the antipode is given by $S(e_\gamma)=e_{-\gamma}$, for all $\gamma\in \Gamma$. We denote by $D_R(\Gamma)$ (or simply $D(\Gamma)$ when $R$ is clear in the context) the affine $R$-group scheme represented by $R[\Gamma]$.
[@DG Proposition II. 2.5]\[L:D\] $\Gamma$-$\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$ is equivalent to the category of $D(\Gamma)$-modules.
\[C:D-to-G\_m\] For any $\gamma\in{\mathds{Q}}$, the functor $[\gamma]_*\colon {\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R \to {\mathds{Q}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$ corresponds to the character $\chi_\gamma\colon {\mathds{D}}_R\to {\mathds{G}}_{m,R}$.
Let $M\in {\mathds{Z}}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Grad}}_R$. By Lemma \[L:D\], we may write $M=\bigoplus\limits_{n\in{\mathds{Z}}} M_n$ as a direct sum of eigenmodules. By construction, we have $[\gamma]_*(M)=\bigoplus\limits_{n\in{\mathds{Z}}} ([\gamma]_*(M))_{\gamma n}$ with $([\gamma]_*(M))_{\gamma n}=M_n$ for all $n$, which is also a decomposition into eigenmodules. Therefore, giving $[\gamma]_*$ is equivalent to giving the commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
M_n \ar[r,equal] \ar[d] & ([\gamma]_*(M))_{\gamma n}\ar[d]\\
M_n\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R R[{\mathds{Z}}] \ar[r] &([\gamma]_*(M))_{\gamma n}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R R[{\mathds{Q}}]
\end{tikzcd}$$ of $R$-modules for all $n\in{\mathds{Z}}$ such that $M_n\neq 0$. Here, the left (resp. the right) vertical arrow is given by $m\mapsto m\otimes e_n$ (resp. $m\mapsto m\otimes e_{\gamma n}$). The diagram then corresponds to $R[{\mathds{Z}}]\to R[{\mathds{Q}}],~e_1\mapsto e_\gamma$, as desired.
We now apply the preceding discussions to the functors constructed in § \[S:splittings\], following [@kott1 4].
\[C:slope-morphism\] Let $g\in G({\mathcal{R}})$, we fix a splitting $\tau_g$ of $\operatorname{HN}_g^{\mathds{Z}}$ given by Proposition \[P:Z-splitting\]. For any $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, $\tau_g$ gives a decomposition of $V_{\mathcal{R}}$, which induces a morphism $\lambda_{\rho,g}\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to \operatorname{GL}_{V,{\mathcal{R}}}$ by Lemma \[L:D\]. Let $S$ be an ${\mathcal{R}}$-algebra and let $a\in {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}}(S)$. We then have a family $$\big\{\lambda_{\rho,g}(a)\colon V_S\to V_S \mid (V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \big\}$$ $ $of $S$-linear maps. Because $\tau_g$ is a tensor functor, this family satisfies conditions (i,ii,iii) in Theorem \[T:recover\]. We thus find a unique element $b\in G_{\mathcal{R}}(S)$ such that $\lambda_{\rho,g}(a)=\rho(b)$ for all $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. The assignment $a\mapsto b$ is functorial in $S$ since both $\lambda_{\rho,g}$ and $\rho$ are functorial. We then have a morphism of ${\mathcal{R}}$-groups $$\lambda_g\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \operatorname{\longrightarrow}G_{\mathcal{R}},$$ which is said to be the *${\mathds{Z}}$-slope morphism* of $g$.
By Corollary \[C:D-to-G\_m\], ${[d_g^{-1}]}_*$ gives a unique morphism $\chi_{d_g^{-1}}\colon {\mathds{D}}_{\mathcal{R}}\to {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}}$. We define $$\nu_g\coloneqq \lambda_g\circ \chi_{d_g^{-1}} \colon {\mathds{D}}_{\mathcal{R}}\operatorname{\longrightarrow}G_{\mathcal{R}},$$ which is said to be the *${\mathds{Q}}$-slope morphism* of $g$.
The following example demonstrates explicitly how $\lambda_g$ and $\nu_g$ are related to the splittings constructed in § \[S:splittings\] (cf. Diagram \[D:splittings\]).
Let $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$ and suppose that the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ is $$0\subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_l}=V_{\mathcal{R}}$$ with jumps $\mu_1<\cdots <\mu_l$. Let $$\label{E:decomp}
\textstyle V_{\mathcal{R}}=V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_1}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\cdots \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}$$ be a splitting of $\operatorname{HN}_g(V)$, i.e., we have $\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^j V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}=V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_j}$ for all $1\leq j\leq l$.
First, we fix $1\leq i\leq l$. Let $S\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ and $a\in {\mathds{D}}_{\mathcal{R}}(S)$, then $\rho\circ \nu_g(a)$ acts on $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}S$ via multiplication by $\chi_1(a)^{\mu_i}$. On the other hand, $\tau_g$ induces the same decomposition of $V_{\mathcal{R}}$. Furthermore, $\rho\circ\lambda_g(b)$ acts on $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$ via multiplication by $b^{d_g\mu_i}$, for all $b\in {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}}(S)$. Then on $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}S$, we have $$\rho\circ \nu_g(a)=\chi_1(a)^{\mu_i}=\big(\chi_{d_g^{-1}}(a)^{d_g}\big)^{\mu_i}=\rho\circ \lambda_g\big( \chi_{d_g^{-1}}(a)\big)=\rho\circ \lambda_g\circ \chi_{d_g^{-1}}(a)$$ We next apply this result to all $1\leq i\leq l$. Since $V_{\mathcal{R}}=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$, we conclude that $\rho\circ \nu_g=\rho\circ \lambda_g\circ \chi_{d_g^{-1}}$. It follows that $\nu_g=\lambda_g\circ \chi_{d_g^{-1}}$ once we choose a faithful representation, as is expected from the definition of $\nu_g$.
If $G=\operatorname{GL}_V$ for some $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_F$, we consider the standard representation $(V,\rho)$ of $G$ where $\rho$ is the identity. The discussion in the above example then indicates that the image of $\lambda_g$ is contained in a split maximal torus in $G_{\mathcal{R}}$; we conjecture that this property holds true for an arbitrary split reductive $F$-group $G$, and we shall give one more evidence as follows.
\[E:SL\_V\] Fix a $d$-dimensional $F$-vector space $V$. For any $R\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_F$, we define $$\operatorname{SL}_V(R) \coloneqq \{ g\in \operatorname{Aut}_R(V_R)=\operatorname{GL}_V(R) \mid \det(g)=1\} .$$ The affine algebraic $F$-group $\operatorname{SL}_V$ is called the *special linear group* (associated to $V$).
Fix an arbitrary $g\in \operatorname{SL}_V({\mathcal{R}})$. With the notation as in Construction \[C:Phi’\], we suppose the jumps of the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},\Phi_g)$ are $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$ and $\xi_g(V)=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$. For each $i$, we write $r_i=\operatorname{rk}_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i})$, then the $r_i$-th exterior product $\Lambda^{r_i}(V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i})$ is of rank $1$. We choose a generator $m_i$, then $\Lambda^{r_i}(\Phi_{g,\mu_i})(m_i)=f_i m_i$ for some $f_i\in {\mathcal{R}}^\times=({\mathcal{E}}^\dagger)^\times$. Let $\nu$ be the valuation of the $1$-Gauss norm on ${\mathcal{E}}^\dagger$. We then have $\mu_i=\frac{\nu(f_i)}{r_i}$ by [@ked-relative Definition 1.4.4].
Let $e_1,\cdots,e_d$ be a basis for $V$ over $F$, and let $A\in \operatorname{SL}_d({\mathcal{R}})$ be the matrix of action of $\Phi_g$ in $e_1\otimes 1,\cdots, e_d\otimes 1$. Let $U\in \operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{R}})$ represent a change-of-basis over ${\mathcal{R}}$. Then in the new basis, the matrix of action of $\Phi_g$ is $U^{-1}A {\varphi}(U)$. Notice that $\det(U)\in ({\mathcal{E}}^\dagger)^\times$ and ${\varphi}$ preserves $\nu$, we then have $$\nu\big( \det(U^{-1}A {\varphi}(U) )\big)= \nu \big(\det(U^{-1}) \det(A) {\varphi}(\det(U))\big)=\nu(\det(A)),$$ which implies that the valuation of the determinant of the matrix of action of $\Phi_g$ is invariant under change-of-basis. We denote by $\nu(\det (\Phi_g))$ this invariant. In particular, we have $\nu(\det (\Phi_g))=0$ since $\det(A)=1$ by assumption. We thus have $$0=\nu(\det (\Phi_g))=\nu(\det (\Phi'_g))=\nu(f_1)+\cdots +\nu(f_l)=r_1\mu_1+\cdots +r_l\mu_l.$$
Let $S\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ and $t\in {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}}(S)$. Since $\lambda_g(t)$ acts on each $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}S$ via multiplication by $t^{d_g\mu_i}$ where $d_g$ is the least common denominator of $g$, we then have $$\det(\lambda_g(t))= t^{d_g(r_1\mu_1+\cdots r_l \mu_l)}=1.$$ Therefore, the image of $\lambda_g$ is contained in a split maximal torus in $\operatorname{SL}_{V,{\mathcal{R}}}$.
$G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over the Robba ring {#C:G-phi-nabla}
====================================================
In this section, we fix an affine algebraic group $F$-group $G$.
Definition and an identification {#S:G-phi-nabla}
--------------------------------
Let $R\in\{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}},\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$ equipped with an absolute Frobenius lift ${\varphi}$.
\[D:GIsoc\] A *$G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module* over $R$ is an exact faithful $F$-linear tensor functor $$\operatorname{I}\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R$$ which satisfies $\operatorname{forg}\circ \operatorname{I}= \omega^G \otimes R$, where $\operatorname{forg}\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi}}_R}\to \operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_R$ is the forgetful functor. The category of $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules over $R$ is denoted by $\operatorname{G-\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}$, whose morphisms are morphisms of tensor functors. A $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module $\operatorname{I}$ over $R$ is called *unit-root* if $\operatorname{I}(V)$ is a unit-root $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over $R$ for all $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$.
We put $\partial=\partial_t=d/dt$, the usual derivation on $R$. We also put $$\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi},t)\coloneqq \partial({\varphi}(t)).$$ Let $\Omega_R^1=\Omega_{R/K}^1$ be the free $R$-module generated by the symbol $dt$, with the $K$-linear derivation $d\colon R \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1_R,~~~ f\longmapsto \partial(f) dt$. We also define a ${\varphi}$-linear endomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
d{\varphi}\colon \Omega^1_R \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1_R,\;\;\;\;\; fdt \longmapsto \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(f)dt.\end{aligned}$$
Given a finite-dimensional representation $\rho\colon G\to \operatorname{GL}_V$, we have a morphism ${\mathfrak{g}}\to \operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_V$ of Lie algebras, and hence a morphism ${\mathfrak{g}}_R \to \operatorname{\mathfrak{gl}}_V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}R\cong \operatorname{End}_R(V_R)$ of Lie algebras over $R$ (which is injective if $\rho$ is a closed embedding). For any $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R$, we denote by $X$ the action of $\operatorname{Lie}(\rho)(X)$ on $V_R$ (see Remark \[R:Lie-endo\]). We define the *connection* $\nabla_X$ of $V_R$ (associated to $X$) by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_X=\nabla_{X,V} \colon V_R &\operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_R \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R \Omega_R^1,\\
v\otimes f &\longmapsto (v\otimes 1)\otimes d(f) + X(v\otimes f)\otimes dt.\end{aligned}$$ Since $fdt\mapsto f$ gives an isomorphism $\Omega_R^1 \cong R$, we have an isomorphism $\iota\colon V_R\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R \Omega^1_R\to V_R$. Let $\Theta_X=\Theta_{X,V}$ be the *differential operator associated to $\nabla_X$* given by the following composition $$\begin{tikzcd}
V_R \ar[rr,"\nabla_X"] && V_R\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_R \Omega^1_R \ar[r,"\iota"] &V_R.
\end{tikzcd}$$ We have that $\Theta_X(v\otimes f)=v\otimes \partial(f)+X(v\otimes f)$ for all $v\otimes f\in V_R$. Moreover, we have the following easy lemma.
\[L:tensor-Theta\] Let $V$ and $W$ be finite-dimensional $G$-representations and let $\alpha\in \operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$. We then have $$\alpha_R\circ\Theta_{X,V}=\Theta_{X,W}\circ\alpha_R,\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\Theta_{X,V\otimes W}=\Theta_{X,V}\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_{\mathcal{R}}}+ \operatorname{Id}_{V_{\mathcal{R}}}\otimes \Theta_{X,W}.$$
The first equality holds since $\alpha_R$ commutes with $X$ (see Remark \[R:Lie-endo\]), and the second one follows from a direct computation.
\[C:dlog\] We consider the $R$-algebra morphism $$\hat\partial\colon R\operatorname{\longrightarrow}R[\epsilon],~~~ r\longmapsto r+\partial(r)\epsilon,$$ which induces a morphism $G(\hat\partial)\colon G(R)\to G(R[\varepsilon])$. Notice that $\pi_R\circ \hat\partial =\operatorname{Id}_R$, we then have $G(\pi_R)\circ G(\hat\partial)= \operatorname{Id}_{G(R)}$, in particular, $G(\pi_R)\big(G(\hat\partial) (g)\big)=g$. Identifying $g$ with its image in $G(R[\varepsilon])$ induced by the inclusion $R\to R[\varepsilon],r\mapsto r$, we then have $$G(\hat\partial)(g)g^{-1}\in \operatorname{Ker}G(\pi_R)={\mathfrak{g}}_R.$$ For $g\in G(R)$, we define $\partial (g)\coloneqq G(\hat\partial) (g)\in G(R[\epsilon])$, and put $$\operatorname{dlog}(g)\coloneqq \partial(g)g^{-1}\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R.$$
Let $G=\operatorname{GL}_d$ for some $d\in{\mathds{N}}$, and let $B\in G(R)$. We have that $\operatorname{dlog}(B)=I_d+\varepsilon \partial(B)B^{-1}$, where $I_d$ is the $d\times d$ identity matrix and $\partial$ acts on $B$ entry-wise. Using the isomorphism $\operatorname{Lie}(G)(R)=\{I_d+ \varepsilon B \mid B\in \operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}(R)\}\cong \{B\mid B\in \operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}(R)\}$, we may identify $\operatorname{dlog}(B)$ with $\partial(B)B^{-1}$.
- We define the *gauge transformation* $$\Gamma_g\colon {\mathfrak{g}}_R \operatorname{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{g}}_R,\;\;\;\;\; X \longmapsto \operatorname{Ad}(g)(X)-\operatorname{dlog}(g),$$ where $\operatorname{Ad}\colon G\to \operatorname{GL}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ is the adjoint representation.
- We define ${\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$ to be the category whose objects are $(g,X)\in G(R)\times {\mathfrak{g}}_R$ satisfying $X=\Gamma_g(\mu{\varphi}(X))$, and whose morphisms $(g,X) \to (g',X')$ are elements $x\in G(R)$ such that $g'=xg {\varphi}(x^{-1})$ and $X'=\Gamma_x(X)$.
\[L:phi-nabla\] Let $(g,X)\in {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$. Then $(V_R,g{\varphi},\nabla_X)$ is a $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over $R$ for all $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$.
Choose a basis $e_1,\cdots,e_d$ for $V$ over $F$ where $d=\dim_F V$. Let $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j} \in \operatorname{GL}_d(R)$ (resp. $N=(n_{ij})_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{n,n}(R)$) be the representing matrix of $\rho(g)$ (resp. $X$). For any ${\mathbf{v}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^d e_i\otimes f_i \in V_{\mathcal{R}}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
g{\varphi}(\Theta_X({\mathbf{v}})) &= g{\varphi}\Big(\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d e_i \otimes \partial(f_i) + \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d n_{ji}f_i \Big)\\
&=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d a_{ji}{\varphi}(\partial(f_i)) + \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{k=1}^d e_k \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d a_{kj}{\varphi}(n_{ji} f_i),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_X (g{\varphi}({\mathbf{v}})) &=\Theta_X \Big( \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d a_{ji} {\varphi}(f_i) \Big) \\
&=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d \partial(a_{ji}) {\varphi}(f_i) +\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d a_{ji}\partial( {\varphi}(f_i)) + \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{k=1}^d e_k \otimes \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^d \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{j=1}^d n_{kj} a_{ji} {\varphi}(f_i).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot \sum\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \sum \limits_{i=1}^d a_{ji}{\varphi}(\partial(f_i))= \sum\limits_{j=1}^d e_j \otimes \sum\limits_{i=1}^d a_{ji}\partial( {\varphi}(f_i))$, we have that $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot g{\varphi}\circ \Theta_X= \Theta_X \circ g{\varphi}$ if and only if $\mu A {\varphi}(N)=\partial(A)+NA$, i.e., $N=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}A{\varphi}(N)A^{-1}-\partial(A)A^{-1}$. The last equality holds because of the assumption $X=\Gamma_g\big(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(X)\big)$, which completes the proof.
As a consequence, we may define a functor $$\label{E:B}
{\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{G-\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}, \;\;\;\;\; (g,X)\longmapsto \operatorname{I}(g,X),$$ where $\operatorname{I}(g,X)(V)\coloneqq (V_R,g{\varphi},\nabla_X)$. We next show that this functor is an isomorphism. To do this, we need the following elementary descent result.
\[L:faithful\] Fix a field $k$, and let $A$ and $B$ be finitely generated $k$-algebras. Let $\rho\colon X\to Y$ be a closed embedding of affine algebraic $k$-schemes for $X=\operatorname{Spec}A$ and $Y=\operatorname{Spec}B$. Let $\iota\colon S\hookrightarrow \tilde S$ be an embedding in $\operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_k$. Suppose that we are given an element $\tilde z\in X(\tilde S)$ such that $\rho(\tilde z)\in Y(\iota)$, then there exists a unique element $z\in X(S)$ such that $\tilde z=X(\iota)(z)$.
W have a diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
&& A\ar[d, densely dotted,"\exists\alpha"] \ar{rrd}{\tilde z} \\
B\ar{urr}{\rho^*} \ar{rr}{\beta} && S \ar{rr}{\iota} &&\tilde S
\end{tikzcd}$$ with the outer triangle commutative in which $\rho^*$ is surjective. We prove the lemma by constructing a unique $k$-algebra morphism $\alpha\colon A\to S$ such that $\tilde z=\iota\circ\alpha$, as follows. For any $a\in A$, the surjectivity of $\rho^*$ gives us some $b\in B$ such that $\rho^*(b)=a$. We first claim that $\alpha(a)\coloneqq \beta(b)$ is well-defined. Suppose that $\rho^*(b_1)=\rho^*(b_2)$ for $b_1,b_2\in B$, then $(\tilde z\circ \rho^*)(b_1)=(\tilde z\circ \rho^*)(b_2)$, which implies that $$(\iota\circ\beta)(b_1)=(\iota\circ\beta)(b_2).$$ Since $\iota$ is injective, we have that $\beta(b_1)=\beta(b_2)$, as claimed. We then have a map $\alpha$ satisfying $\tilde z\circ \rho^*=\iota\circ\alpha\circ\rho^*$, yielding that $\tilde z=\iota\circ\alpha$ since $\rho^*$ is surjective. In particular, $\alpha$ is a $k$-algebra morphism since $\iota$ is injective and both $\iota$ and $\tilde z=\iota\circ\alpha$ are $k$-algebra morphisms. Finally, we see that $\alpha$ is unique, again because $\iota$ is injective.
We remark that $\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}$ is a rigid tensor category, with tensor products and duals defined in the usual way.
\[P:B\] The functor ${\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R) \to \operatorname{G-\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}$ is an isomorphism of categories.
The proof is similar to that of [@dat Lemma 9.1.4]. We first show that the functor is fully faithful. Let $(g,X), (g',X')\in {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$, then any morphism $\eta \colon \operatorname{I}(g,x) \to \operatorname{I}(g',X')$ is an isomorphism, since any morphism of tensor functors between rigid tensor categories is an isomorphism by [@tc Proposition 1.13]. By composing $\eta$ with the forgetful functor, we then have an automorphism of the fiber functor $\omega^G\otimes R$. By Corollary \[C:recover\], this automorphism is given by a unique element $x\in G(R)$, which then gives an isomorphism between $(g,X)$ and $(g',X')$, as desired.
It remains to show that, for any $\operatorname{I}\in \operatorname{G-\mathbf{Mod}^{{\varphi},\nabla}_R}$ there exists a unique $(g,X)\in {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$ such that $\operatorname{I}=\operatorname{I}(g,X)$. For any $(V,\rho)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, we write $\operatorname{I}(V,\rho_V)=(V_R,\Phi_V,\nabla_V)$ for a ${\varphi}$-linear map $\Phi_V$ and a connection $\nabla_V$ on $V_R$. The proof consists of two steps.
*Step 1*: There exists a unique $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R$ such that $\nabla_V=\nabla_X$. We write $\Theta_V$ for be the composition of $$\begin{tikzcd}
V_R \ar[r,"\nabla_V"] &V_R \bigotimes \Omega^1_R \ar[r,"\iota"] & V_R,
\end{tikzcd}$$ where $\iota$ is induced by $fdt\mapsto f$, and put $\theta_V\coloneqq \Theta_V-\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes \partial$. It’s clear that $\theta_{\operatorname{\mathds {1}}}=0$ where $\operatorname{\mathds {1}}$ denotes the trivial representation. Lemma \[L:tensor-Theta\] then implies that the family $$\begin{aligned}
\big\{\theta_V\colon V_R \to V_R \mid (V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \big\}\end{aligned}$$ of $R$-linear endomorphisms satisfies conditions (i,ii,iii) in Corollary \[C:Lie-tannakian\]. We thus find a unique $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}_R$ such that $\theta_V=\operatorname{Lie}(\rho_V)(X)$ for all $(V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, which implies that $\nabla_V=\nabla_X$.
*Step 2*: There exists a unique $g\in G(R)$ such that $\Phi_V=g{\varphi}$. We first assume $R\in \{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}}\}$. We put $\tilde\Phi_V \coloneqq \Phi_V\otimes {\varphi}$ where ${\varphi}$ is the Frobenius lift on $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ (in particular, $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$ is viewed as an ${\mathcal{R}}$-module via the ${\varphi}$-equivariant embedding $\psi$ described in § \[S:slope\]). The family $$\big\{\lambda_V\coloneqq \tilde\Phi_V \circ (\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes {\varphi}^{-1})\colon V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}}\to V_{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}} \mid V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \big \}$$ of $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$-linear endomorphisms satisfies conditions (i,ii,iii) in Theorem \[T:recover\], which provides a unique element $\tilde g\in G(\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}})$ such that $\lambda_V=\rho_V(\tilde g)$ for all $(V,\rho_V) \in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. We next reduce $\tilde g$ to an element in $G({\mathcal{R}})$. We compute $$\tilde\Phi_V\circ (\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes {\varphi}^{-1})(v\otimes f) =\tilde\Phi_V(v\otimes {\varphi}^{-1}(f))=\rho_V(\tilde g)(v\otimes f),$$ which implies that $\tilde\Phi_V(v\otimes f)=\rho_V(\tilde g)(v\otimes {\varphi}(f))$, and hence, $\tilde\Phi_V=\tilde g {\varphi}$. We now fix a $d$-dimensional faithful representation $(V,\rho_V)$, and an $F$-basis $e_1,\cdots,e_d$ for $V$. Suppose that $\Phi_V(e_i)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^d a_{ji}e_j$, where $a_{ij}\in R$ for all $1\leq i,j \leq d$. Put $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j} \in \operatorname{GL}_d(R)$. Then $\psi(A)=(\psi(a_{ij}))_{i,j}\in \operatorname{GL}_d(\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}})$ describes the ${\varphi}$-linear action of $\tilde\Phi_V$ as well as the $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$-linear action $\rho(\tilde g)$ in the basis $e_1\otimes 1,\cdots, e_d \otimes 1$. By replacing $X$ with $G$, $Y$ with $\operatorname{GL}_d$, $S$ with $R$, $\tilde S$ with $\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}$, and $\iota$ with $\psi$ in Lemma \[L:faithful\], we find a unique element $g\in G(R)$ such that $\psi(g)=\tilde g$. It follows that $\Phi_V=g{\varphi}$, as desired. When $R\in \{\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$, we apply the above argument to $\tilde\Phi_V \coloneqq \Phi_V$ dispensing with the reduction method, and we are done.
The pushforward functor
-----------------------
Let $R\in \{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger,{\mathcal{R}},\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}^\dagger,\operatorname{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}}\}$. For any $g\in G(R)$ and $n\in {\mathds{N}}$, we define $$[n]_*(g)\coloneqq g{\varphi}(g)\cdots{\varphi}^{n-1}(g)\in G(R),$$ the *$n$-pushforward* of $g$. Notice that $[n]_*(g){\varphi}^n=(g{\varphi})^n\in G(R)\rtimes \operatorname{\langle}{\varphi}\operatorname{\rangle}$ for all $n\in {\mathds{N}}$.
We define the *$n$-pushforward functor* by $$[n]_*\colon {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\mathbf B^{{\varphi}^n,\nabla}(G,R), \;\;\;\;\; (g,X) \longmapsto \big([n]_*(g), X \big),$$ and $[n]_*(x)=x$ for all morphisms $x\in {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$. The following lemma shows that this functor is well-defined (in particular, faithful).
\[L:push\] Let $(g,X)\in {\mathbf{B}}^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,R)$. We then have $\big([n]_*(g), X \big)\in \mathbf B^{{\varphi}^n,\nabla}(G,R)$ for all $n\in {\mathds{N}}$.
We show by induction on $n$ that $$X+\operatorname{dlog}\big([n]_*(g)\big)=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^n,t)\operatorname{Ad}\big([n]_*(g)\big)\big({\varphi}^{n}(X)\big).$$ There is nothing to show when $n=1$. We now assume by the induction hypothesis that $$X+\operatorname{dlog}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big)=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t)\operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big)\big( {\varphi}^{n-1}(X)\big),$$ We notice that $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t)=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu})\cdots{\varphi}^{n-2}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu})$, and hence $$\partial({\varphi}^{n-1}(f))=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu})\cdots{\varphi}^{n-2}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}){\varphi}^{n-1}(\partial(f))=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t){\varphi}^{n-1}(\partial(f)),~~~~~\forall f\in R,$$ which implies that $$\operatorname{dlog}({\varphi}^{n-1}(g))=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t) {\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{dlog}(g)).$$ On the other hand, since $X+\operatorname{dlog}(g)=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\operatorname{Ad}(g)({\varphi}(X))$, we have $${\varphi}^{n-1}(X)+{\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{dlog}(g))= {\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu})\operatorname{Ad}\big({\varphi}^{n-1}(g)\big)\big({\varphi}^n(X)\big).$$ We now compute $$\begin{aligned}
X+\operatorname{dlog}\big([n]_*(g)\big)
&=X+\operatorname{dlog}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big)+\operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big)\big(\operatorname{dlog}({\varphi}^{n-1}(g))\big)\\
&=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t)\operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big) \big({\varphi}^{n-1}(X)\big)\\
&\;\;\;\; +\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t)\operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big) \big({\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{dlog}(g)) \big)\\
&=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t) \operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big) \big({\varphi}^{n-1}(X)+{\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{dlog}(g)) \big)\\
&= \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^{n-1},t)\operatorname{Ad}\big([n-1]_*(g)\big) \big({\varphi}^{n-1}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu})\operatorname{Ad}\big({\varphi}^{n-1}(g)\big)\big({\varphi}^n(X)\big)\big)\\
&=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}({\varphi}^n,t) \operatorname{Ad}\big([n]_*(g)\big)\big({\varphi}^{n}(X)\big),\end{aligned}$$ which proves the lemma.
In connection with the pushforward functor on ${\varphi}$-modules as recalled in § \[S:slope\], we state the following lemma resulting from [@ked-relative Lemma 1.6.3 and Remark 1.7.2], which will not be explicitly used in the sequel.
\[L:push-slope\] Let $g\in G(R)$. Then $(V_R,g{\varphi})$ is pure of slope $\mu$ if and only if $(V_R,[n]_*(g){\varphi}^n)$ is pure of slope $n\mu$ for all $n\in {\mathds{N}}$. Moreover, if $(V_R,g{\varphi})$ has jumps $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$, then $(V_R,[n]_*(g){\varphi}^n)$ has jumps $n\mu_1,\cdots,n\mu_l$.
$G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules attached to splittings
-------------------------------------------------------
Let $g\in G({\mathcal{R}})$. We fix a splitting $\xi_g$ of $\operatorname{HN}_g$ by Theorem \[T:Q-splitting\].
\[C:Phi’\] Let $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi},\nabla_X)$ be a $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$ with the slope filtration $$0\subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_l}=V_{\mathcal{R}},$$ with jumps $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_l$. Then $\xi_g(V)$ is the decomposition $$V_{\mathcal{R}}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^l V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$$ of ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules such that $\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^j V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i} =V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_j}$ for $j=1,\cdots,l$.
- For any $1\leq j\leq l$ and ${\mathbf{v}}\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j}$, we have $\Phi_g({\mathbf{v}})\in V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_j}$, whence a unique expression $\Phi_g({\mathbf{v}})=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.2}{$\sum$}}}}{i=1}^j {\mathbf{v}}_i$ with ${\mathbf{v}}_i\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$. We thus have a ${\varphi}$-linear map $$\Phi_{g,\mu_j} \colon V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j} \operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j},~~~~ {\mathbf{v}}\longmapsto {\mathbf{v}}_j.$$ We then define $\Phi_g'\coloneqq \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l \Phi_{g,{\mu_i}}$. We define $$\operatorname{I}'(g)(V)\coloneqq (V_{\mathcal{R}},\Phi_g').$$ For a morphism $\alpha\colon V\to W$ of finite-dimensional $G$-modules, we define $\operatorname{I}'(g)(\alpha)\coloneqq \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}$.
- Similarly, for any $1\leq j\leq l$ and ${\mathbf{v}}\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j}$, we have $\Theta_X({\mathbf{v}})\in V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_j}$, whence a unique expression $\Theta_X({\mathbf{v}})=\sum_{i=1}^j {\mathbf{v}}_i$ with ${\mathbf{v}}_i\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$. We thus have a $K$-linear differential operator $$\Theta_{X,\mu_j} \colon V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j} \operatorname{\longrightarrow}V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j},~~~~ {\mathbf{v}}\longmapsto {\mathbf{v}}_j.$$ We then define $\Theta_X'\coloneqq \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l \Theta_{X,{\mu_i}}$.
Notice that $\big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_1},\Phi_{g,{\mu_1}}\big)=\big( V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1},\Phi_g|_{V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1}} \big)$, and $\big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i},\Phi_{g,{\mu_i}}\big)$ is isomorphic to $V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}/V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_{i-1}}$ as ${\varphi}$-modules for $2\leq i\leq l$. Similarly, we have $\big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_1},\Theta_{X,{\mu_1}} \big)=\big( V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1},\Theta_X|_{V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_1}} \big)$, and $\big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i},\Theta_{X,\mu_i}\big)$ is isomorphic to $V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_i}/V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_{i-1}}$ as a differential module for $2\leq i\leq l$.
The remainder of this subsection is devoted to the consequences of Construction \[C:Phi’\] (i). We will continue to discuss (ii) in § \[S:G-phi-nabla\]; we will show, in particular, that both constructions assemble to give a $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$.
\[L:I’\] $\operatorname{I}'(g) \colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \to {\varphi}\text{-}\operatorname{\mathbf{Mod}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ is a $G$-isocrystal.
By Definition \[D:GIsoc\], it amounts to show that $\operatorname{I}'(g)$ is an exact faithful $F$-linear tensor functor. In this proof, we fix $V,W\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, and suppose the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ (resp. of $(W_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$) has jumps $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_{l_V}$ (resp. $\nu_1<\cdots<\nu_{l_W}$).
We first check the functoriality of $\operatorname{I}'(g)$ (the exactness, faithfulness and $F$-linearity will follow immediately). Given $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$, we need to show that $$\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ \Phi_g'=\Phi_g'\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}.$$ For any fixed $1\leq l \leq {l_V}$, we have that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l})\subseteq W_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}$ by Theorem \[T:Q-splitting\]. Notice that $W_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}=W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_s}$ if $\mu_l=\nu_s$ for some $1\leq s\leq {l_W}$, and $W_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}=0$ otherwise. In the latter case, it is clear that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ \Phi_g'=\Phi_g'\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}=0$ on $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}$, and we are done. Suppose now we are in the former case. Let ${\mathbf{v}}$ be a non-zero element in $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l}$. We then have $\Phi_g({\mathbf{v}})\in V_{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu_l}$ and $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})\in W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_s}$. We have unique expressions $$\Phi_g({\mathbf{v}})= \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^l {\mathbf{v}}_i,~~~~~{\mathbf{v}}_i\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i},$$ and $$\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ\Phi_g({\mathbf{v}})=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^s {\mathbf{w}}_i,~~~~~{\mathbf{w}}_i\in W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_i},$$ therefore $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_l)={\mathbf{w}}_s$. We also write $$\Phi_g\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^s {\mathbf{w}}_i', \;\;\;{\mathbf{w}}_i'\in W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_i},$$ we then have ${\mathbf{w}}_i={\mathbf{w}}_i'$ for $i=1,\cdots,s$, as $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ\Phi_g=\Phi_g\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}$. We thus have $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ\Phi_{g,{\mu_l}}({\mathbf{v}})=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}}_l)={\mathbf{w}}_s$ and $\Phi_{g,{\nu_s}}\circ\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}({\mathbf{v}})= {\mathbf{w}}_s'={\mathbf{w}}_s$, which implies that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ\Phi_{g,{\mu_l}}=\Phi_{g,{\nu_s}}\circ\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}$, as desired.
It remains to show that $\operatorname{I}'(g)$ preserves tensor products. Since $\tau_g$ is a tensor functor, the $(\mu_l+\nu_s)$-th graded piece of $\tau_g(V\otimes W)$ is then $$\big(V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}\limits_F W \big)_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l+\nu_s}= \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j=\mu_l+\nu_s \atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}} \big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}\limits_{\mathcal{R}}W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_j } \big),$$ for all $1\leq l\leq l_V$ and $1\leq s \leq l_W$. It then follows from Construction \[C:Phi’\] (i) that $$\Phi'_{g,\mu_l+\nu_s}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j=\mu_l+\nu_s \atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V},1\leq j\leq {l_W}} \big(\Phi'_{g,\mu_i} \otimes \Phi'_{g,\nu_j}\big),$$ which implies that $\operatorname{I}'(g)(V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W)$ coincides with $\operatorname{I}'(g)(V)\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}\operatorname{I}'(g)(W)$ on all $(V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W)_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l+\nu_s}$, whence on $(V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W)_{{\mathcal{R}}}$. This completes the proof.
With Lemma \[L:I’\], we imitate *Step 2* in the proof of Proposition \[P:B\] and have the following proposition.
\[P:z\] There exists a unique element $z\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ such that $\operatorname{I}'(g)=\operatorname{I}(z)$.
$G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-modules attached to splittings {#S:G-phi-nabla}
-------------------------------------------------------
We fix $(g,X)\in\mathbf B^{{\varphi},\nabla}$. We also fix a splitting $\xi_g$ of $\operatorname{HN}_g$ given by Theorem \[T:Q-splitting\].
We now look back at Construction \[C:Phi’\] (ii). We claim that $\Theta_X'-\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes \partial \colon V_R \to V_R$ is $R$-linear for all $(V,\rho_V)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. Let $1\leq j\leq l$ and let $v\otimes f\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_j}$. Suppose that $\Theta_X(v\otimes f)=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.2}{$\sum$}}}}_{i=1}^j {\mathbf{v}}_i$ with ${\mathbf{v}}_i\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$. Then $\Theta_X'(v\otimes f)={\mathbf{v}}_j$ by construction. Let $f'\in R$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_X(v\otimes ff') &=v\otimes \partial(f)f'+v\otimes f\partial(f')+X (v\otimes ff')\\
&= \big( v\otimes \partial(f)+ X(v\otimes f) \big)f'+v\otimes f\partial(f')\\
&= \Theta_X(v\otimes f)f' +v\otimes f\partial(f')\\
&=f' \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.78}{$\sum$}}}}_{i=1}^j {\mathbf{v}}_i+v\otimes f\partial(f'),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\Theta_X(v\otimes ff')=f'{\mathbf{v}}_j+v\otimes f\partial(f')$. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
(\Theta_X'-\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes \partial)(v\otimes ff') &=f'{\mathbf{v}}_j+v\otimes f\partial(f')- v\otimes (ff')\\
&= f'{\mathbf{v}}_j+v\otimes f\partial(f')-v\otimes \partial(f)f'-v\otimes f\partial(f')\\
&=f' ({\mathbf{v}}_j-v\otimes \partial(f))\\
&= f' (\Theta_X'-\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes \partial)(v\otimes f),\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
The following proposition (and it’s proof) is analogous to Lemma \[L:I’\].
\[P:X\_0\] There exists a unique element $X_0\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ such that $\Theta_X'=\Theta_{X_0}$.
For any $(V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, we define $\theta_V\coloneqq \Theta_X'-\operatorname{Id}_V\otimes \partial$. We claim that the family $$\begin{aligned}
\big\{\theta_V\colon V_{\mathcal{R}}\to V_{\mathcal{R}}\mid (V,\rho_V)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \big\}\end{aligned}$$ of $R$-linear endomorphisms satisfies conditions (i,ii,iii) in Corollary \[C:Lie-tannakian\]. The lemma will follow immediately.
It is clear that $\theta_V=0$ if $V=F$ is the trivial $G$-representation. For the remainder of the proof, we fix $(V,\rho_V),(W,\rho_W)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, and suppose the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ (resp. of $(W_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$) has jumps $\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_{l_V}$ (resp. $\nu_1<\cdots<\nu_{l_W}$). Let $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}_G(V,W)$. To show that $\theta_V\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ \theta_W$, it suffices to show that $\Theta_X'\circ \alpha_{\mathcal{R}}=\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}\circ \Theta_X'$. Notice that $\alpha_{\mathcal{R}}$ respects gradings. Replacing $\Phi_g$ with $\Theta_X$ (possibly with proper decorations) in the second paragraph of the proof of Lemma \[L:I’\], we have the desired result.
It remains to show that $$\theta_{V\otimes W} =\theta_V\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_{\mathcal{R}}} +\operatorname{Id}_{V_{\mathcal{R}}} \otimes \theta_W.$$ Since $\tau_g$ is a tensor functor, the $(\mu_l+\nu_s)$-th graded piece of $\tau_g(V\bigotimes W)$ is then $$\big(V \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}W \big)_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_l+\nu_s}= \operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j=\mu_l+\nu_s \atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}} \big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_j } \big),$$ for all $1\leq l\leq l_V$ and $1\leq s \leq l_W$. It follows from Lemma \[L:tensor-Theta\] and Construction \[C:Phi’\] that $$\Theta'_{X,\mu_l+\nu_s}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{\mu_i+\nu_j=\mu_l+\nu_s \atop\\ 1\leq i\leq {l_V}, 1\leq j\leq {l_W}} \big(\Theta'_{X,\mu_i}\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_j }}+ \operatorname{Id}_{V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i }} \otimes \Theta'_{X,\nu_j} \big).$$ Let $v\otimes f\otimes w\otimes f'\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{\mathcal{R}}W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_j }$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
& \big( \theta_V\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_{\mathcal{R}}} +\operatorname{Id}_{V_{\mathcal{R}}} \otimes \theta_W \big)(v\otimes f\otimes w\otimes f')\\
=& \big(\Theta'_{X,\mu_i}(v\otimes f)-v\otimes \partial(f)\big) \otimes w\otimes f'+ v\otimes f \otimes \big( \Theta'_{X,\nu_j}(w\otimes f')-w\otimes\partial(f') \big)\\
=& \big( \Theta'_{X,\mu_i}\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{W_{{\mathcal{R}},\nu_j }}+ \operatorname{Id}_{V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i }} \otimes \Theta'_{X,\nu_j}\big)(v\otimes f\otimes w\otimes f')- v\otimes 1\otimes w\otimes \partial(ff') \\
=& \big(\Theta'_{X,\mu_l+\nu_s}-\operatorname{Id}_{V\otimes W}\otimes \partial \big)(v\otimes w\otimes ff')\\
=& \theta_{V\otimes W} (v\otimes w\otimes ff'),\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
We now summarize what we have shown thus far. The splitting $\xi_g$ of $\operatorname{HN}_g$ gives a unique element $z\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ such that $\operatorname{I}'(g)=\operatorname{I}(z)$ by Proposition \[P:z\], and a unique element $X_0\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ such that $\Theta'_X=\Theta_{X_0}$ by Proposition \[P:X\_0\]. These two elements are related as in Proposition \[P:z-X\_0\] below. We begin with some relative facts.
\[R:para\] This remark is essentially from [@cgp §2.1]. Let $k$ be a commutative ring with $1$, and let ${\mathfrak{G}}$ be a reductive $k$-group. Hereupon, we denote by ${\kappa}(s)$ the residue field of $s$ and $\bar{\kappa}(s)$ the algebraic closure of ${\kappa}(s)$, for all $s\in\operatorname{Spec}k$. A subgroup ${\mathfrak{P}}$ of ${\mathfrak{G}}$ is a *parabolic* (resp. *Borel*) subgroup if ${\mathfrak{P}}$ is smooth and ${\mathfrak{P}}_{\bar{\kappa}(s)}$ is a parabolic (resp. Borel) subgroup of ${\mathfrak{G}}_{\bar{\kappa}(s)}$, for all $s\in\operatorname{Spec}k$.
Suppose we have a cocharacter $\lambda \colon {\mathds{G}}_m\to {\mathfrak{G}}$ over $k$. For any $k$-algebra $R$, we let ${\mathds{G}}_{m,R}$ act on ${\mathfrak{G}}_R$ via the conjugation $${\mathds{G}}_{m,R}(S) \times {\mathfrak{G}}_R(S) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_R(S),\;\;\;\;(t,x)\longmapsto t.x\coloneqq \lambda(t)x\lambda(t)^{-1}$$ for all $R$-algebra $S$. For any $x\in {\mathfrak{G}}(R)$, we have an *orbit map* $\alpha_x\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,R} \to {\mathfrak{G}}_R$ given by $$\alpha_x\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,R}(S) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_R(S),\;\;\;\; t \longmapsto t.x$$ for all $R$-algebras $S$. Let ${\mathds{A}}^1$ be the affine $k$-line. We say that the *limit* $\lim\limits_{t \to 0} t.x$ exists if $\alpha_x$ extends (necessarily uniquely) to a morphism $\tilde\alpha_x\colon {\mathds{A}}^1_R \to {\mathfrak{G}}_R$ of affine $R$-schemes, and put $\lim\limits_{t \to 0} t.x \coloneqq \tilde\alpha_x(0)\in {\mathfrak{G}}_R(R)$. We define $$P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) (R)\coloneqq \big\{x\in {\mathfrak{G}}(R) \mid \lim\limits_{t \to 0} t.x~\text{exists} \big\},$$ $$U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) (R)\coloneqq \big\{x\in {\mathfrak{G}}(R) \mid \lim\limits_{t \to 0} t.x=1 \big\},$$ and $$Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) (R)\coloneqq P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(R)\cap P_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda)(R),$$ where $-\lambda$ is the inverse of $\lambda$. Then $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ is a closed $k$-subgroup of ${\mathfrak{G}}$ ([@cgp Lemma 2.1.4]), $U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ is an affine algebraic $k$-normal subgroup of $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$, and $Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ is the centralizer of the ${\mathds{G}}_m$-action in ${\mathfrak{G}}$ ([@cgp Lemma 2.1.5]). By [@cgp Proposition 2.1.8 (3)], these subgroups are smooth because ${\mathfrak{G}}$ is smooth.
It follows from the definitions that the formations of $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda),U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ and $Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ commute with any base extension on $k$. In particular, for every $s\in\operatorname{Spec}k$ we have $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)_{\bar{\kappa}(s)}
=P_{{\mathfrak{G}}_{\bar{\kappa}(s)}}(\lambda_{\bar{\kappa}(s)})$, which is a parabolic subgroup of ${\mathfrak{G}}_{\bar{\kappa}(s)}$ by [@springer Proposition 8.4.5]. Hence, $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ is a parabolic $k$-group.
By [@cgp Proposition 2.1.8 (2)], the multiplication map gives an isomorphism $$U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \rtimes Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$$ of affine algebraic $k$-groups.
Now let ${\mathds{G}}_m$ act on ${\mathfrak{g}}=\operatorname{Lie}({\mathfrak{G}})(k)$ through the adjoint representation. We then have ${\mathfrak{g}}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{n\in {\mathds{Z}}} {\mathfrak{g}}_n$, where ${\mathfrak{g}}_n=\{X\in {\mathfrak{g}}\mid t.X=t^nX,\forall t\in {\mathds{G}}_m\}$ for all $n\in {\mathds{Z}}$. We have $\operatorname{Lie}\big(Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big) ={\mathfrak{g}}_0$ (which is the centralizer of the ${\mathds{G}}_m$-action on ${\mathfrak{g}}$), $\operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big) =\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{n>0} {\mathfrak{g}}_n$, and $\operatorname{Lie}\big(P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big) =\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{n\geq 0} {\mathfrak{g}}_n$. In particular, we have the following decomposition $$\label{E:Lie-decomp}
\operatorname{Lie}\big(P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big)=\operatorname{Lie}\big(Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big)\textstyle\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda) \big).$$
\[L:Lie(U)\] With the notion above, we have $$Z-\operatorname{Ad}(u)(Z)\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)\big),$$ for all $u\in U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k)$ and $Z\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)\big)$.
Recall that $Z\in Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])$ by definition; we may also view $u$ as an element in $U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])$ via the inclusion $\iota\colon k\hookrightarrow k[\varepsilon]$. By the definition of the adjoint representation, we have $$Z-\operatorname{Ad}(u)(Z)=Z(uZu^{-1})^{-1}=ZuZ^{-1}u^{-1} \in P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon]).$$ Because $U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$ is normal in $P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)$, we have that $ZuZ^{-1}\in U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])$, and so is $ZuZ^{-1}u^{-1}$. Consider the following commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])\ar[d] \ar[rr,hook] && P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])\ar[d]\\
U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k) \ar[rr,hook] && P_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k)
\end{tikzcd}$$ Since both $Z$ and $uZ^{-1}u^{-1}$ lie in the kernel of the right vertical map, so does their product $ZuZ^{-1}u^{-1}$. Hence, $ZuZ^{-1}u^{-1}\in U_{\mathfrak{G}}(\lambda)(k[\varepsilon])$ lies in the kernel of the left vertical map. The lemma then follows.
\[P:z-X\_0\] Let $z\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ and $X_0\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ be the unique elements given by Proposition \[P:z\] and Proposition \[P:X\_0\], respectively. We have $X_0=\Gamma_z \big(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(X_0)\big)$. In particular, $\operatorname{I}(z,X_0)$ is a $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$.
The second assertion follows from the first assertion and Lemma \[L:phi-nabla\]. For the first assertion, we need to show $$\label{E:z-X_0}
X_0=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot \operatorname{Ad}(z)\big({\varphi}(X_0)\big)-\operatorname{dlog}(z).$$ It suffices to show with both sides understood as elements in $\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{\mathcal{R}})$ for some faithful representation $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. Suppose that $\dim_F V=d$, and suppose that $\nu_g(V)$ is the decomposition $V_{\mathcal{R}}=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$. We choose for each graded-piece $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$ a basis. They altogether give a basis ${\mathbf{v}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{v}}_d$ of $V_{\mathcal{R}}$, in which $\Phi_g$ acts via a block-upper-triangular matrix $$\footnotesize
A=
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1 & &\\
& A_2 &~~~~{\mathop{\scalebox{1.9}{\raisebox{1.07ex}{$\ast$}}}}\\
&& \ddots \\
&& &A_l
\end{pmatrix}\in\operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{R}}),$$ where each $A_i$ is an $m_i$ by $m_i$ invertible matrix with $m_i$ the multiplicity of $\mu_i$. Then $\Phi_z$ acts in this basis via $Z\coloneqq \operatorname{Diag}(A_1,\cdots,A_l)$. Likewise, $\Theta_X$ acts in the basis ${\mathbf{v}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{v}}_d$ via a block-upper-triangular matrix $$\footnotesize
N=
\begin{pmatrix}
N_1 & &\\
& N_2 &~~~~{\mathop{\scalebox{1.9}{\raisebox{1.07ex}{$\ast$}}}}\\
&& \ddots \\
&& &N_l
\end{pmatrix}\in\operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}({\mathcal{R}}),$$ where each $N_i$ is an $m_i$ by $m_i$ matrix, and $\Theta_{X_0}$ acts via $\overline N\coloneqq \operatorname{Diag}(N_1,\cdots,N_l)$. Write $A=ZU$ for $U\in \operatorname{GL}_d({\mathcal{R}})$, and $N=\overline N+N_+$ for $N_+\in\operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}({\mathcal{R}})$. Since $X=\Gamma_g\big(\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}{\varphi}(X)\big)$, we have $N=\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot A {\varphi}(N) A^{-1}-\partial(A)A^{-1}$, and then $$\begin{aligned}
\overline N+N_+
=& \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot (UZ)({\varphi}(\overline N+N_+))(UZ)^{-1}-\partial(UZ)(UZ)^{-1}\\
=& \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot(UZ){\varphi}(\overline N)Z^{-1}U^{-1}+\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot(UZ){\varphi}(N_+)Z^{-1}U^{-1}-\partial(U)U^{-1}-U\partial(Z)Z^{-1}U^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying $\operatorname{Ad}(U^{-1})$ on both sides, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(\overline N)Z^{-1}-\partial(Z)Z^{-1}+\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(N_+)Z^{-1}-U^{-1}\partial(U)\\
=& U^{-1}\overline NU+U^{-1}N_+U
= \overline N -(\overline N-U^{-1}\overline NU-U^{-1}N_+U).\end{aligned}$$
We claim that $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(\overline N)Z^{-1}-\partial(Z)Z^{-1}=\overline N$. Put $\lambda_{\rho,g}\coloneqq \rho\circ\lambda_g \colon{\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to \operatorname{GL}_{V,{\mathcal{R}}}$, where $\lambda_g\colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to G_{{\mathcal{R}}}$ is the slope morphism defined in Construction \[C:slope-morphism\]. Identifying $\operatorname{GL}_{V,{\mathcal{R}}}$ with $\operatorname{GL}_{d,{\mathcal{R}}}$ via the basis ${\mathbf{v}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{v}}_d$ given in the preceding paragraph, and letting ${\mathfrak{G}}=\operatorname{GL}_{d,{\mathcal{R}}}$, we then have an isomorphism $$U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g}) \rtimes Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g}) \cong P_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})$$ of affine algebraic ${\mathcal{R}}$-groups. Since $\mu_1< \cdots< \mu_l$, we have $$A\in P_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})({\mathcal{R}}),~ U\in U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})({\mathcal{R}}),~ Z\in Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})({\mathcal{R}});$$ $$N\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( P_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big),~ N_+\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big),~\overline N\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big).$$ It follows from Lemma \[L:Lie(U)\] that $\overline N-U^{-1}\overline NU \in \operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big)$. In particular, we have $\overline N-U^{-1}\overline NU-U^{-1}N_+U \in \operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big)$. On the other hand, it is clear that $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(\overline N)Z^{-1}-\partial(Z)Z^{-1}\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( Z_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big)$ and $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(N_+)Z^{-1}-U^{-1}\partial(U)\in \operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{\mathfrak{G}}(-\lambda_{\rho,g})\big)$. By decomposition , we have $\operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot Z{\varphi}(\overline N)Z^{-1}-\partial(Z)Z^{-1}=\overline N$, and the desired equality follows.
Recall that the least common denominator $d_g$ of $g$ is constructed in Construction \[C:d\_g\], and $\lambda_g \colon {\mathds{G}}_{m,{\mathcal{R}}} \to G_{\mathcal{R}}$ is the slope morphism (see Construction \[C:slope-morphism\]). We next reduce the $G$-$({\varphi},\nabla)$-module $(z,X_0)$ over ${\mathcal{R}}$ to a unit-root one by applying the pushforward functor $[d_g]_*$ and *twisting* by $\lambda_g(\pi^{-1})$.
\[C:unit-root\] $\operatorname{I}\big(\lambda_g(\pi^{-1})[d_g]_*(z),X_0 \big)$ is a unit-root $G$-$({\varphi}^{d_g},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$.
For any $V\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, it suffices to show that $(V_{\mathcal{R}},[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g},\nabla_{X_0})$ is unit-root. By Proposition \[P:z-X\_0\] and Lemma \[L:push\], $(V_{\mathcal{R}},[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g},\nabla_{X_0})$ is a $({\varphi}^{d_g},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$. Equivalently, we have $\Theta_{X_0}\circ \Phi_z^{d_g}= \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot \Phi_z^{d_g}\circ \Theta_{X_0}$. Suppose that $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ has jumps $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$, then $\big( V_{\mathcal{R}},[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g} \big)$ has jumps $d_g\mu_1,\cdots,d_g\mu_l$ by Lemma \[L:push-slope\]. For any $1\leq i \leq l$, $\rho(\lambda_g(\pi^{-1}))$ acts via multiplication by $\pi^{-d_g\mu_i}\in K$ on the graded-piece $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$, which implies that $\big( V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i},\lambda_g(\pi^{-1})[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g} \big)$ is unit-root. It follows from [@ked-revisit Proposition 4.6.3 (a)] that $\big( V_{\mathcal{R}},\lambda_g(\pi^{-1})[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g} \big)$ is unit-root. Moreover, since $\Theta_{X_0}$ is $K$-linear, we have $$\Theta_{X_0}\circ \rho(\lambda_g(\pi^{-1}))\circ \Phi_z^{d_g}= \rho(\lambda_g(\pi^{-1}))\circ \Theta_{X_0}\circ \Phi_z^{d_g}= \operatorname{\boldsymbol\mu}\cdot \rho(\lambda_g(\pi^{-1}))\circ \Phi_z^{d_g}\circ \Theta_{X_0},$$ which completes the proof.
A $G$-version of the $p$-adic local monodromy theorem
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $L$ be a finite separable extension of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$, and let ${\mathcal{E}}^\dagger_L$ be the unique unramified extension of ${\mathcal{E}}^\dagger$ with residue field $L$. We put ${\mathcal{R}}_L \coloneqq {\mathcal{R}}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger} {\mathcal{E}}^\dagger_L$.
We put $${\mathcal{E}}^{\dagger,\operatorname{nr}}\coloneqq \varinjlim_L {\mathcal{E}}^\dagger_L, \;\;\;\text{and} \;\;\; {\mathcal{B}}_0\coloneqq \varinjlim_L {\mathcal{R}}_L \cong {\mathcal{R}}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}^\dagger} {\mathcal{E}}^{\dagger,\operatorname{nr}},$$ where $L$ runs through all finite separable extensions of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$. In fact, ${\mathcal{E}}^{\dagger,\operatorname{nr}}$ is the maximal unramified extension of ${\mathcal{E}}^\dagger$ with residue field ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}^{\operatorname{sep}}$, the separable closure of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$.
The main result of this paper is:
\[T:G-mono\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive $F$-group and let $(g,X)\in \mathbf B^{{\varphi},\nabla}(G,{\mathcal{R}})$. Then there exists a finite separable extension $L$ of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$ and an element $b\in G({\mathcal{R}}_L)$ such that $\Gamma_b(X)\in \operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)\big)_{{\mathcal{R}}_L}$.
We will make use of the following lemma, which is often mentioned as Steinberg’s theorem. The theory of fields of cohomological dimension $\leq 1$ can be found in, e.g., [@ga-co II. §3]; for us, the most important example will be a henselian discretely valued field of characteristic $0$ with algebraically closed residue field (see [@ga-co II. §3.3]).
\[L:steinberg\] Suppose that $k$ is a field of cohomological dimension $\leq 1$ and ${\mathfrak{G}}$ is a connected reductive $k$-group, then have $H^1(k,{\mathfrak{G}})=1$.
We also recall that the formations of the subgroups given in Remark \[R:para\] commute with base extension.
Let $z\in G({\mathcal{R}})$ and $X_0\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathcal{R}}$ be the unique elements given by Proposition \[P:z\] and Proposition \[P:X\_0\], respectively.
Let $(V,\rho)$ be a $d$-dimensional $G$-representation (not necessarily faithful). Suppose the slope filtration of $(V_{\mathcal{R}},g{\varphi})$ has jumps $\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_l$. Suppose that $\xi_g(V)=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^l V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}$, we put $d_i\coloneqq \operatorname{rk}_{\mathcal{R}}(V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i})$ for all $i$. In the proof of Corollary \[C:unit-root\] we see that $\big(V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i},\lambda_g(\pi^{-1})[d_g]_*(z){\varphi}^{d_g},\nabla_{X_0} \big)$ is a unit-root $({\varphi},\nabla)$-module over ${\mathcal{R}}$ for all $1\leq i\leq l$. Let $\Phi_z=z{\varphi}$ and let $\Theta_{X_0}\colon V_{\mathcal{R}}\to V_{\mathcal{R}}$ be the differential operator associated to $\nabla_{X_0}$. Then $\Phi_z$ (resp. $\Theta_{X_0}$) may be extended to $V\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}_F {\mathcal{B}}_0$, which is still denoted by $\Phi_z$ (resp. $\Theta_{X_0}$). By the unit-root $p$-adic local monodromy theorem [@ked-ann Theorem 6.11], we find:
- a finite separable extension $L(V)$ of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$;
- for each $1\leq i\leq l$ a basis ${\mathbf{w}}_1^{(i)},\cdots,{\mathbf{w}}_{d_i}^{(i)}$ for $V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\bigotimes_{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{R}}_{L(V)}$ over ${\mathcal{R}}_{L(V)}$ such that $\Theta_{X_0}({\mathbf{w}}_j^{(i)})=0$ for all $1\leq j\leq d_i$.
Then, for each $1\leq i\leq l$, we have that $$W_i\coloneqq (V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}\limits_{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{B}}_0)^{\Theta_{X_0}=0}= \big\{ x\in V_{{\mathcal{R}},\mu_i}\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.67}{$\bigotimes$}}}}\limits_{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{B}}_0 \mid \Theta_{X_0}(x)=0 \big\}$$ is a $d_i$-dimensional $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$-vector space spanned by ${\mathbf{w}}_1^{(i)},\cdots,{\mathbf{w}}_{d_i}^{(i)}$. In particular, we have $$(V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0} )^{\Theta_{X_0}=0}= \big\{ x\in V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0} \mid \Theta_{X_0}(x)=0 \big\}=\operatorname*{\text{\raisebox{0.15ex}{\scalebox{0.85}{$\bigoplus$}}}}\limits_{i=1}^l W_i,$$ which is a $d_i$-dimensional $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$-vector space.
We now have two $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$-valued fiber functors $$\omega_1=\omega^G \otimes K^{\operatorname{nr}}\colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}},\;\;\;\; V \longmapsto V\otimes K^{\operatorname{nr}},$$ and $$\omega_2 \colon \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\mathbf{Vec}}_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}},\;\;\;\; V\longmapsto (V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0} )^{\Theta_{X_0}=0}.$$ Moreover, we have an action $$\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2) \times \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_1)\operatorname{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)$$ of $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_1)$ on $\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)$, given by pre-composition. We note that $\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_1)=\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega^G\otimes K^{\operatorname{nr}})\cong G_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}}$,[^2] so $\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ may be viewed as a $G_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}}$-torsor over $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$. By Lemma \[L:steinberg\], we have $H^1(K^{\operatorname{nr}},G_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}})=1$. Thus, $\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ is isomorphic to the trivial $G_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}}$-torsor over $K^{\operatorname{nr}}$, i.e., we have $\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}} \cong G_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}}$.
On the other hand, we have an isomorphism $\gamma\colon \omega_2\otimes {\mathcal{B}}_0 \to \omega_1 \otimes {\mathcal{B}}_0$ of tensor functors, induced by the ${\mathcal{B}}_0$-linear extension of the inclusion $$\begin{tikzcd}
(V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0})^{\Theta_{X_0}=0} \ar[r,hook] &V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0}
\end{tikzcd}$$ for all $(V,\rho)\in\operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$. We now fix $\beta\in\operatorname{\underline{Isom}}^\otimes(\omega_1,\omega_2)(K^{\operatorname{nr}})$, we then have an element $\tilde \beta\coloneqq \gamma\circ \beta_{{\mathcal{B}}_0} \in \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_1\otimes {\mathcal{B}}_0)({\mathcal{B}}_0)=G_{{\mathcal{B}}_0}$. Let $b\in G({\mathcal{B}}_0)$ be the inverse of the image of $\tilde \beta$ under the following isomorphism $$\operatorname{\underline{Aut}}^\otimes(\omega_1\otimes {\mathcal{B}}_0)({\mathcal{B}}_0) \operatorname{\longrightarrow}G_{{\mathcal{B}}_0}({\mathcal{B}}_0)=G({\mathcal{B}}_0).$$ Since $F[G]$ is finitely presented over $F$, the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{\mathbf{Alg}}_F}(F[G],{\rule{2mm}{0.15mm}})$ commutes with colimits. We have $$G({\mathcal{B}}_0)=G(\varinjlim_L {\mathcal{R}}_L)=\varinjlim_L G({\mathcal{R}}_L),$$ where $L$ runs over all finite separable extensions of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$, we thus find a finite separable extension $L$ of ${\kappa}{(\!(}t {)\!)}$ such that $b\in G({\mathcal{R}}_L)$.
For any $(V,\rho)\in \operatorname{\mathbf{Rep}}_F(G)$, it follows from the construction of $b$ that the automorphism $\rho(b^{-1})\colon V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0} \to V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0}$ factors through $(V_{{\mathcal{B}}_0})^{\Theta_{X_0}=0} \otimes {\mathcal{B}}_0$. Notice that $\Theta_{X_0}$ and $X_0$ agree on $\omega_1(V)=V_{K^{\operatorname{nr}}}$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:X_0}
\rho(b)X_0\rho(b^{-1})-\partial(\rho(b))\rho(b^{-1})=0.\end{aligned}$$
We now fix a faithful representation $(V,\rho)$. The equality then implies $$\Gamma_{b}(X_0)=0.$$ Put $X_1\coloneqq X-X_0\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathcal{R}}$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{b}(X) &=\operatorname{Ad}(b)(X_0+X_1)-\operatorname{dlog}(b)\\
&= \operatorname{Ad}(b)(X_0)-\operatorname{dlog}(b)+\operatorname{Ad}(b)(X_1)\\
&=\Gamma_{b}(X_0)+\operatorname{Ad}(b)(X_1)\\
&=\operatorname{Ad}(b)(X_1).\end{aligned}$$ Conserving the notation as in the second paragraph, $\Theta_X=\rho(b) X_1 \rho(b^{-1})$ acts in the basis ${\mathbf{w}}_1^{(1)},\cdots,{\mathbf{w}}_{d_1}^{(1)},\cdots,{\mathbf{w}}_1^{(l)},\cdots,{\mathbf{w}}_{d_l}^{(l)}$ via a matrix of the form $$\footnotesize
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & &\\
&& 0 &~~~~{\mathop{\scalebox{1.9}{\raisebox{1.07ex}{$\ast$}}}}\\
&&& \ddots \\
&&& & 0
\end{pmatrix}\in\operatorname{Mat}_{d,d}({\mathcal{R}}_L).$$ Here, the $i$-th $0$ in the diagonal denotes the zero matrix of size $d_i\times d_i$. Hence, $\Gamma_{b}(X)\in \operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{G_{{\mathcal{R}}_L}}(-\lambda_{g,{\mathcal{R}}_L})\big)=\operatorname{Lie}\big( U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)_{{\mathcal{R}}_L} \big)=\operatorname{Lie}\big(U_{G_{\mathcal{R}}}(-\lambda_g)\big)_{{\mathcal{R}}_L}$, as desired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Department of Mathematics, East China Normal University,</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">500 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, 200241 P.R. China</span>
\[1.5pt\] *E-mail address*: `[email protected]`
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[^1]: By an algebra, we always mean a commutative algebra with $1$.
[^2]: For this isomorphism, we refer to the discussion above Proposition \[P:Z-splitting\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Introduced by Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro, Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras are closely connected to Anderson log-algebraicity identities, Pellarin $L$-series, and Taelman class modules. In the present paper we define the de Rham map for Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras, and we prove that it is an isomorphism under natural hypotheses. As part of this investigation we determine further criteria for the uniformizability and rigid analytic triviality of Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Texas A[&]{}M University, College Station, TX 77843, U.S.A.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Texas A[&]{}M University, College Station, TX 77843, U.S.A.'
author:
- Oğuz Gezmiş
- 'Matthew A. Papanikolas'
date: 'January 30, 2019'
title: |
The de Rham isomorphism for Drinfeld modules\
over Tate algebras
---
[^1]
Introduction {#S:Intro}
============
Background
----------
Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras in positive equal characteristic were introduced by Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro in [@AnglesPellarinTavares16], where they demonstrated that these objects connect the theories of Anderson log-algebraicity identities [@And96], Pellarin $L$-series [@Pellarin12], and Taelman class modules [@Taelman10], [@Taelman12], which are associated to the Carlitz module and more general Goss $L$-series. Subsequently, Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras have been effective tools for studying special values of positive characteristic $L$-series, modular forms, and Stark units in a number of other contexts (e.g., see [@AnglesNgoDacTavares17], [@AnglesPellarinTavares18], [@AnglesTavares17], [@Demeslay14], [@PellarinPerkins18]).
In the present paper we define the de Rham map for Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras, and we investigate conditions under which it is an isomorphism (Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\]). For Drinfeld modules over fields of generic characteristic, the de Rham map was first studied by Anderson, Deligne, Gekeler, and Yu (see [@Gekeler89], [@Goss94], [@Yu90]), and Gekeler [@Gekeler89 Thm. 5.14] gave a proof that it is an isomorphism by way of quasi-periodic functions. Anderson gave another proof using rigid analytic trivializations and Anderson generating functions (see Goss [@Goss94 §1.5]).
Our investigation into the de Rham isomorphism has led also to criteria for uniformizability of Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras (Theorem \[T:characterization\]), which unlike for Drinfeld modules over fields is not guaranteed. Moreover, we show that under certain conditions, uniformizability is directly related to the existence of rigid analytic trivializations and period lattices of maximal size, much as one finds for Anderson $t$-modules (see [@And86 Thm. 4]), though with the complication that the base ring of operators has Krull dimension $>1$.
The de Rham isomorphism
-----------------------
Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements with characteristic $p > 0$. Let $\theta$, $t_1, \dots, t_s$, $z$ be independent variables over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$, let $A = {\mathbb{F}}_q[\theta]$, $A[{\underline{t}}_s] = A[t_1, \dots, t_s]$, $A[{\underline{t}}_s,z] = A[t_1, \dots, t_s, z]$ be polynomial rings. We let $K = {\mathbb{F}}_q(\theta)$ be the rational function field, $K_\infty = {\mathbb{F}}_q((1/\theta))$ its completion at the infinite place, and ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ the completion of an algebraic closure of $K_{\infty}$. Finally, we let ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ and ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ be Tate algebras on closed unit polydiscs over ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$ in the variables $t_1, \dots, t_s$ and $t_1, \dots, t_s$, $z$.
There is a natural Frobenius twisting automorphism $\tau \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$, which is obtained by applying the $q$-th power Frobenius to the coefficients of a given power series in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ (see §\[SS:Tatealgebras\]), and for each $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we set $f^{(n)} = \tau^n(f)$ for $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$. We define the twisted power series ring ${\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ by the rule $\tau f = f^{(1)}\tau$ for $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, and the twisted polynomial ring ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ is a subring.
Throughout we follow the definitions in Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro [@AnglesPellarinTavares16], and we define a *Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module*, or a *Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$*, to be an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-algebra homomorphism $$\label{E:phiintro}
\phi \colon A[{\underline{t}}_s] \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau],$$ where ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ is the twisted polynomial ring in $\tau$ over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, such that $$\label{E:phithetaintro}
\phi_\theta = \theta + A_1\tau + \cdots + A_r \tau^r, \quad A_r \neq 0.$$ As elements of ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ serve as operators on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, we see that $\phi$ induces a left $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module structure on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$. One can associate to $\phi$ an *exponential series* $$\exp_\phi = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \alpha_i \tau^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]],$$ defined by $\alpha_0 = 1$ and $\exp_\phi a = \phi_a \exp_\phi$, for $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. We show in Proposition \[P:expentire\] that $\exp_\phi$ is an entire operator (see §\[SS:TwistedPolys\]), and so there is an induced *exponential function* $$\exp_\phi \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}.$$ It should be noted that the function $\exp_\phi$ is not an analytic function on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ in the usual sense, as when $r > 0$ it does not have an expansion as a power series in any open disk in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$. However, it is open and continuous with respect to the metric on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ (see [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 §3.1]). Just as for Drinfeld $A$-modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, the map $\exp_\phi$ is an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module homomorphism via the action of $\phi$ on the codomain. We set $\Lambda_\phi := \ker (\exp_\phi)$ to be the period lattice of $\phi$.
Unlike the situation of Drinfeld $A$-modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, the exponential function $\exp_\phi$ is not necessarily surjective (e.g., see [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 §3.2]). If $\exp_\phi \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ is surjective, then we say that $\phi$ is *uniformizable*.
For Drinfeld modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, the exponential function can be expressed as an infinite product over its period lattice (see [@Goss Ch. 4], [@Thakur Ch. 2]). But the obstacle in the case of Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules is that even though $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is discrete (see §3.3 for the precise definition) in the sense that it has no arbitrarily small elements, it is not topologically discrete. Therefore, the construction of an infinite product for $\exp_\phi$ over $\Lambda_{\phi}$ becomes problematic.
Given a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ as above, if we assume further that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ in , one can define biderivations and quasi-periodic functions for $\phi$, as in [@Brownawell93], [@Brownawell96], [@BP02], [@Gekeler89], [@Gekeler90], [@Gekeler11], [@PR03], [@Yu90]. Such biderivations are ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear homomorphisms $\eta \colon A[{\underline{t}}_s] \to \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ that satisfy $\eta_{ab} = a \eta_b + \eta_a \phi_b$ for all $a$, $b \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. Associated to each biderivation $\eta$ is a quasi-periodic entire operator $F_{\eta} \in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ such that for all $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, $$F_{\eta} a - a F_{\eta} = \eta_a \exp_{\phi}.$$ It follows that the induced map $F_{\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}} \colon \Lambda_{\phi} \to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ is $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear. If we let $\operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ denote the space of all biderivations for $\phi$ and let $\operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$ denote the subspace of all strictly inner biderivations (see §\[SS:biderivations\]), then the *de Rham module* is the left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) := \operatorname{Der}(\phi)/\operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$. Our main result is the following.
Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module defined by $\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$, such that $A_r\in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free and finitely generated $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$. We define the ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-linear de Rham map $$\operatorname{DR}\colon H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$$ by $\operatorname{DR}([\eta])=F_{\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}}$. Then $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism of left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-modules.
The set-up and proof of this theorem occupy a major portion of the paper. One considerable obstacle is that significant parts of the proof of Gekeler [@Gekeler89 Thm. 5.14], which would be well-suited from first principles, do not extend to Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, because certain properties do not extend from ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ to ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ (e.g., the lack of product expansion for $\exp_\phi$ above). Instead we adopt a combined approach with that of Anderson given in [@Goss94 §1.5], which required us to develop the theory of rigid analytic trivializations and Anderson generating functions for Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules. To do this we adapt constructions that are originally due to Anderson for Drinfeld $A$-modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ (in unpublished work), but which are treated in [@HartlJuschka16] by Hartl and Juschka.
Uniformizability criteria
-------------------------
In proving Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\] it becomes apparent that the de Rham map being an isomorphism is interconnected with several other properties of the Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$, namely uniformizability and rigid analytic triviality. The idea of rigid analytic triviality goes back to Anderson in [@And86], and while we sketch the definition in our context here, it is defined fully in §\[SS:rat\].
Continuing with the definition of Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ from and , we assume further that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$. We let $\sigma = \tau^{-1}$, and letting $H(\phi) = {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$, we give $H(\phi)$ the structure of a ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-module by setting for $h \in H(\phi)$, $$z \cdot h := h \phi_{\theta}^* = h \bigl( \theta + A_1^{(-1)}\sigma + \cdots + A_r^{(-r)} \sigma^r \bigr).$$ We call $H(\phi)$ a *Frobenius module* (in the sense of [@CPY18 §2.2]), and we show that $H(\phi)$ is free of rank $r$ as a ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-module, with basis $1$, $\sigma, \dots, \sigma^{r-1}$ (Lemma \[L:Hphibasis\]). For any $\mathbb{F}_q$-algebra $R$, let $\operatorname{Mat}_{r}(R)$ be the set of $r\times r$-matrices with entries in $R$, and $\operatorname{GL}_{r}(R)$ be the set of invertible $r\times r$-matrices in $\operatorname{Mat}_{r}(R)$. With respect to the basis $\{1,\sigma,\dots,\sigma^{r-1}\}$, there is a matrix $\Phi \in \operatorname{Mat}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ such that $\Phi$ represents multiplication by $\sigma$ on $H(\phi)$ (see §\[SS:zframes\]), and a *rigid analytic trivialization* for $\phi$ is a matrix $\Psi \in \operatorname{GL}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta\})$ satisfying $$\Psi^{(-1)} = \Phi\Psi,$$ where ${\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta \}$ is the subalgebra of ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ consisting of functions that converge as far out as $|z|_{\infty} \leqslant |\theta|_{\infty}$ in the variable $z$. Finally, we let $\phi[\theta] = \{ f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \phi_{\theta}(f) = 0 \}$, the $\theta$-torsion of $\phi$ in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$. The connections among these objects are as follows.
Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$ defined by $$\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$$ such that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free and finitely generated $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
2. $\phi$ has a rigid analytic trivialization.
3. The de Rham map $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism.
4. $\phi$ is uniformizable, and $\phi[\theta]$ is free of rank $r$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
(a) By the Quillen-Suslin Theorem (see [@Lang Thm. XXI.3.7]), if $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a finitely generated and projective $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module, then it is also a free module over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. Thus Theorem \[T:characterization\] is no more general if we allow $\Lambda_{\phi}$ to be finitely generated and projective. (b) Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 Prop. 6.2, Rem. 6.3] show that in the rank $1$ case, $\phi$ being uniformizable is equivalent to $\Lambda_{\phi}$ being free of rank $1$ (see Proposition \[P:char\]). On the other hand, it is conceivable for higher ranks that $\phi$ could be uniformizable but that $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is not free. (c) The notion that the de Rham map being an isomorphism should be equivalent to $\phi$ being uniformizable with $\Lambda_\phi$ of maximal rank was originally introduced to us by Brownawell.
Outline of the paper
--------------------
The paper is organized as follows. We review fundamental information about Tate algebras and associated $\tau$-difference equations in §\[S:Notation\]. In §\[S:DrinfeldTate\] we review the theory of Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras as introduced in [@AnglesPellarinTavares16], we develop properties of their exponentials and logarithms, and we discuss Anderson generating functions. In §\[S:Frobenius\] we study Frobenius modules for Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules and drawing on arguments of Anderson as given in Hartl and Juschka [@HartlJuschka16], we explore the image of the exponential function. We define rigid analytic trivializations and prove their connections to the surjectivity of the exponential. The theory of biderivations and the de Rham map are introduced in §\[S:deRhamiso\], and the proof of Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\] occupies §\[S:deRhamisoProof\]. In §\[S:Uniformizability\] we discuss and prove the uniformizability criteria of Theorem \[T:characterization\]. Finally, in §\[S:Applications\] we consider various applications and examples.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors thank the referee for carefully reading our manuscript and for making several useful suggestions.
Notation and preliminaries {#S:Notation}
==========================
Table of notation
-----------------
The following notation will be used throughout:
---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathbb{F}}_q$ finite field with $q=p^m$ elements.
$\theta$, $t_1, \dots, t_s$, $z$ independent variables over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
$A$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q[\theta]$, the polynomial ring in $\theta$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
$K$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q(\theta)$, the field of rational functions in $\theta$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
$K_{\infty}$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q((1/\theta))$, the $\infty$-adic completion of $K$.
${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ the completion of an algebraic closure of $K_{\infty}$.
${\underline{t}}_s$ abbreviation for the list of variables $t_1, \dots, t_s$.
$A[{\underline{t}}_s]$ $A[t_1,\dots,t_s]$, the polynomial ring in $\theta$, $t_1, \dots, t_s$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
${\mathbb{T}_s}$ Tate algebra on closed unit polydisc with parameters $t_1, \dots ,t_s$ and coefficients in ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$.
${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ Tate algebra on closed unit polydisc with parameters $t_1, \dots, t_s$, $z$ and coefficients in ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$.
${\mathbb{L}}_s$ the fraction field of ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
${\mathbb{L}}_{s,z}$ the fraction field of ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$.
---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tate algebras {#SS:Tatealgebras}
-------------
We let ${{\lvert \,\cdot\, \rvert}_{\infty}}$ denote the $\infty$-adic norm on ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, normalized so that ${{\lvert \theta \rvert}_{\infty}} = q$, and we take $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}$ to be the associated valuation such that $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(\theta) = -1$. For $s \geqslant 1$ and for a power series $f=\sum a_{\nu_1\cdots \nu_s}t_1^{\nu_1}\cdots t_s^{\nu_s} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[[t_1, \dots, t_s]]$, we abbreviate $f$ as $\sum a_{\nu}{\underline{t}}_s^{\nu}$, where $\nu$ is an $s$-tuple of non-negative integers. For such an $s$-tuple $\nu$, we let $|\nu| := \nu_1 + \cdots + \nu_s$. The Tate algebra ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ is then defined by $${\mathbb{T}_s}:= \biggl\{ \sum_{\nu} a_{\nu} {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[[t_1, \dots, t_s]] \biggm| {{\lvert a_{\nu} \rvert}_{\infty}} \to 0\ \textup{as}\ |\nu| \to \infty \biggr\}.$$ For foundations on Tate algebras we appeal to results in [@FresnelvdPut Ch. 2–3]. As is customary we define a Frobenius twisting automorphism $\tau\colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ by $$\tau\biggl(\sum a_{\nu}{\underline{t}}_s^{\nu}\biggr) := \sum a_{\nu}^{q} {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu},$$ and we let $\sigma:=\tau^{-1}$. For $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the $\emph{$n$-fold twist of $f$}$ is defined to be $$f^{(n)} := \tau^{n}(f).$$ For a matrix $A=(A_{ij})\in$ Mat$_{r}({\mathbb{T}_s})$, we define $A^{(n)}:=(A^{(n)}_{ij})$.
We define the Gauss norm $ \|\cdot\|_\infty $ on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ by setting for $f = \sum a_{\nu} {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, $$\|f\|_\infty := \sup\{{{\lvert a_{\nu} \rvert}_{\infty}} \mid \nu \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geqslant 0}^s \},$$ and we denote its associated valuation by $\operatorname{ord}$ for which $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(f) = \min\{ \operatorname{ord}_\infty(a_{\nu}) \mid \nu \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geqslant 0}^s\}$. We note that ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ is complete with respect to $\|\cdot\|_\infty$. We similarly denote the Gauss norm and valuation on ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$.
We will need Tate algebras that converge on disks of more general radii. For $c \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, set $${\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/c \}= \biggl\{ \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i z^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[z]] \biggm| \|c\|_\infty^{i} \cdot \|a_i\|_\infty \to 0 \textup{\ as\ } i \to \infty \biggr\}.$$ We define the norm ${\lVert f \rVert}_c={\lVert \sum a_i z^i \rVert}_c := \sup_i \{ \|c\|_\infty^{i} \cdot \|a_i\|_\infty \}$, and it follows that ${\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/c \}$ is complete with respect to ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_c$. Given $\Upsilon \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r \times \ell}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/c \})$, put ${\lVert \Upsilon \rVert}_c=\max_{i,j} \{ {\lVert \Upsilon_{ij} \rVert}_c \}$.
\[L:limit\] For any $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ with ${\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}} \leqslant 1$, there is a positive integer $\ell$ so that with respect to ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}}$ we have $\lim_{n \to \infty} f^{(n\ell)} \in {\overline{{\mathbb{F}}}_q}[{\underline{t}}_s]$. Also, ${\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}}=1$ if and only if $\lim_{n \to \infty} f^{(n\ell)} \neq 0$.
Let $f=\sum a_\nu {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu}$. If ${\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}} < 1$, then taking $\ell = 1$ suffices, since in this case the limit easily goes to $0$. If ${\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}} = 1$, then there exist only finitely many multi-indices $\nu_1, \dots, \nu_m$ whose corresponding coefficients have norm $1$. By [@P08 Lem. 2.2.6], for each $j$ there exists $\ell_{j}>0$ and $c_j \in {\overline{{\mathbb{F}}}_q}^\times$ such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} a_{\nu_j}^{(n \ell_j)} =c_{j}$. If we then take $\ell = \operatorname{lcm}(\ell_1, \dots \ell_m)$, it follows that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} f^{(n\ell)} = c_1 {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu_1} + \dots + c_m {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu_m} \in {\overline{{\mathbb{F}}}_q}[{\underline{t}}_s],$$ which is necessarily non-zero.
Given a ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module $W$, we recall that a faithful norm ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_W \colon W \to {\mathbb{R}}_{\geqslant 0}$ on $W$ satisfies the following properties (see [@BGR §2.1]): (i) ${\lVert w \rVert}_W=0$ if and only if $w=0$; (ii) ${\lVert w_1 + w_2 \rVert}_W \leqslant \max\{{\lVert w_1 \rVert}_W, {\lVert w_2 \rVert}_W \}$ for all $w_1$, $w_2\in W$; and (iii) ${\lVert fw \rVert}_W = {\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}}\cdot {\lVert w \rVert}_W$ for all $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ and $w\in W$. Since ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ has a complete valued norm with respect to ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}}$, every faithfully normed and finitely generated ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module $W$ manifests a complete faithful norm that is essentially unique, as we see in the following lemma.
\[L:EquivNorms\] Let $W$ be a finitely generated ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module. Then there exists a complete faithful norm ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_W$ on $W$, and for any other complete faithful norm ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_W'$ on $W$, there exist $C$, $C' >0$ so that for all $w \in W$, $$C {\lVert w \rVert}_W' \geqslant {\lVert w \rVert}_W \geqslant C' {\lVert w \rVert}_W'.$$
As a primary example, we provide $\operatorname{Mat}_{r \times \ell}({\mathbb{T}_s})$ a complete faithful norm ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{r\times \ell}$ by setting ${\lVert M \rVert}_{r \times \ell} := \sup \{ {\lVert M_{ij} \rVert_{\infty}} \}$ for any $M=(M_{ij})\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r \times \ell}({\mathbb{T}_s})$. By an abuse of notation we will also denote ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{r\times \ell} = {\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}}$. All of the preceding considerations extend to ${\mathbb{T}}_{s,z}$ in the obvious manner.
Anderson-Thakur elements {#SS:ATelements}
------------------------
We now recall special Anderson-Thakur type elements of ${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ due to Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro [@AnglesPellarinTavares16], which generalize the Anderson-Thakur function $\omega$ from [@AndThak90]. For $\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, we construct an element $\omega(\alpha)$ in ${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ as follows. By the invertibility of $\alpha$, there exists $x\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{\times}$ such that ${\lVert x-\alpha \rVert_{\infty}} < {\lVert \alpha \rVert_{\infty}}$, and so we have $$\biggl\lVert \frac{x^{q^i}}{\tau^i(\alpha)} - 1 \biggr\rVert_{\infty}
= \biggl\lVert \frac{x^{q^i} - \tau^i(\alpha)}{\tau^i(\alpha)} \biggr\rVert_{\infty}
< \biggl\lVert \frac{\tau^i(x-\alpha)}{\tau^i(\alpha)} \biggr\rVert_{\infty} \to 0
\quad \textup{as} \quad i \to \infty.$$ Thus $\prod_i x^{q^i}/\tau^i(\alpha)$ converges in ${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$. Fixing an element $\gamma \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ with $\gamma^{q-1} = x$, we define $$\label{E:omega}
\omega(\alpha) := \gamma \prod_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{q^i}}{\tau^i(\alpha)} \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times},$$ and we then see that $$\label{E:tauomegaalpha}
\tau(\omega(\alpha))=\alpha\omega(\alpha).$$ Although it appears that $\omega(\alpha)$ depends on the choice of $x$, the limit is uniquely defined up to a scalar multiple from ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$. Moreover, for $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2 \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, we have $$\label{E:property}
\omega(\alpha_1\alpha_2)=c\omega(\alpha_1)\omega(\alpha_2)$$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$ which depends on the choice of $(q-1)$-st roots.
Twisted polynomials and power series {#SS:TwistedPolys}
------------------------------------
The ring ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ operates on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ by setting for $\Delta = a_r \tau^r + \dots + a_0 \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ and $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, $$\Delta(f) = a_r \tau^r(f) + \dots + a_1\tau(f) + a_0 f = a_r f^{(r)} + \dots + a_1 f^{(1)} + a_0 f.$$
In general ${\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ does not operate on ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ because the desired sum may fail to converge, but as in [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 §3.3], we can define entire operators in ${\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ as follows. A function $f = \sum a_\nu {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ is called an *entire function* if $\lim_{|\nu| \to \infty} \operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(a_\nu)/|\nu| = +\infty$. In this case $f$ then converges on all of ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty^s$. We let ${\mathbb{E}}_s \subseteq {\mathbb{T}_s}$ denote the subring of all entire functions, which contains ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty[{\underline{t}}_s]$ as a subring, and we note that ${\mathbb{E}}_s$ is invariant under $\tau$. Now consider an element $F = \sum_i F_i \tau^i \in {\mathbb{E}}_s[[\tau]]$. If $$\lim_{i \to \infty} q^{-i} \cdot \operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(F_i) = +\infty,$$ we say that $F$ is an *entire operator*. In this case for $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, we have $F(f) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty F_i f^{(i)} \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$.
Let $F \in {\mathbb{E}}_s[[\tau]]$ be an entire operator. Then $F({\mathbb{E}}_s) \subseteq {\mathbb{E}}_s$.
$\tau$-difference equations
---------------------------
We recall some properties of $\tau$-difference equations, and for more detailed information the reader is directed to [@P08 §4.1], [@vdPutSinger97]. Recall also that ${\mathbb{L}}_s$ is the fraction field of ${\mathbb{T}}_s$. For $\Delta \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ we set $$\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta) := \{ f \in {\mathbb{L}}_{s} \mid \Delta(f)=0 \}.$$ If $R \subseteq {\mathbb{L}}_s$ is a subring with $\tau(R)\subseteq R$, then we set $\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta,R) := \operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta) \cap R$. Likewise we similarly define $\operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta)$ and $\operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta,R)$ for $\Delta \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}[\tau]$. For any subring $R \subseteq {\mathbb{L}}_s$ that is invariant under twisting we set $$R^\tau := \operatorname{Sol}_s(\tau -1,R) = \{ f \in R \mid \tau(f) = f \}$$ to be the ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-subalgebra fixed by $\tau$. Then following lemma is fundamental.
\[L:fixed\] We have ${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\tau} = {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$ and ${\mathbb{L}}_s^{\tau} = {\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s)$. Similarly, ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\tau} = {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ and ${\mathbb{L}}_{s,z}^{\tau} = {\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s,z)$.
By this lemma we see that for any $\Delta \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, the space $\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta)$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s)$-vector space. As is well-understood in this situation, the dimension of this vector space is bounded by the degree in $\tau$ of $\Delta$ (see [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 Lem. 5.7], [@P08 Cor. 4.1.5], [@vdPutSinger03 §1.2]).
\[L:Solution\] For $\Delta \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, suppose that $\deg_\tau \Delta = r$. Then $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s)} \bigl( \operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta) \bigr) \leqslant r$.
Now for $\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, we let $\Delta_\alpha = \alpha \tau - 1$. We see from that $\omega(\alpha)^{-1} \in \operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta_{\alpha})$, and moreover, Lemma \[L:Solution\] implies that $\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta_\alpha) = \omega(\alpha)^{-1} \cdot {\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s)$. In fact we have a similar result for $\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta_\alpha,{\mathbb{T}_s})$.
\[P:taudiff\] Let $\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$. Then $$\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta_\alpha,{\mathbb{T}_s}) = \frac{1}{\omega(\alpha)} \cdot {{\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]}.$$
Drinfeld modules over Tate algebras {#S:DrinfeldTate}
===================================
Drinfeld $A[ \protect {\underline{t}}_s]$-modules
-------------------------------------------------
The main objects of study in this paper are *Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$*, which were defined by Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro [@AnglesPellarinTavares16] for the purposes of expressing new results on Pellarin $L$-values, Taelman class modules, and log-algebraicity identities in operator-theoretic language. Such a Drinfeld module, of rank $r \geqslant 1$, is an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-algebra homomorphism $$\phi \colon A[{\underline{t}}_s] \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$$ determined uniquely by $$\label{E:Drinfeld}
\phi_\theta = \theta + A_1 \tau + \dots + A_r \tau^r, \quad A_r \neq 0.$$ If the parameters $A_1, \dots, A_r$ are all in ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, then we say that $\phi$ is a *constant* Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module, and indeed in this case $\phi$ is simply a traditional Drinfeld $A$-module.
A morphism $u \colon \phi \to \psi$ of Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules is a twisted polynomial $u \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ such that for all $f \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, we have $u \phi_f = \psi_f u$. This is equivalent to satisfying the single equation $u \phi_\theta = \psi_\theta u$. If $u \neq 0$, then $\phi$ and $\psi$ must have the same rank. Furthermore, $u$ is an isomorphism if $u \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and in this case we will write $\phi \cong \psi$.
Exponential and logarithm series {#SS:ExpLog}
--------------------------------
For a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$, we can define an exponential series for $\phi$ in the usual way. We take $$\exp_\phi = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \alpha_i \tau^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]],$$ subject to the conditions that $\alpha_0 = 1$ and $$\label{E:exp}
\exp_\phi a = \phi_{a} \exp_\phi, \quad \forall\, a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s].$$ It then suffices to show that there exists a unique normalised formal series $\exp_{\phi}$ such that $\phi_{\theta}\exp_{\phi}=\exp_{\phi}\theta$. The usual argument for constant Drinfeld modules [@Goss Prop. 4.6.7], [@Thakur Thm. 2.4.2], shows that this functional equation produces a recursion on $\{ \alpha_i \}$ that uniquely determines $\exp_\phi$.
Now we recall some terminology from [@EP13 §3], [@EP14 §5]. For $S \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $j\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we define $S+j:=\{k+j \mid k\in S \}$. For $r$, $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ we define the set of *shadowed partitions* $P_r(i)$ as follows. We let $P_r(i) \subseteq \{ (S_1, \dots, S_r) \mid S_k \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, i-1\} \}$ be the set of $r$-tuples $(S_1, \dots, S_r)$ such that $\{S_k + j \mid 1\leqslant k \leqslant r,\, 0\leqslant j \leqslant k-1 \}$ forms a partition of $\{0,1,\ldots, i-1\}$. We set $P_r(0):=\{ \emptyset \}$. For ${\mathbf{S}}= (S_1, \dots, S_r) \in P_r(i)$ and ${\mathbf{A}}= (A_1, \dots, A_r) \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^r$, we set $${\mathbf{A}}^{{\mathbf{S}}} := \prod_{k=1}^r A_i^{S_k}, \quad A_k^{S_k} := \prod_{j \in S_k} \tau^j (A_k),$$ and take ${\mathbf{A}}^{\emptyset} = 1$. Using $[i] = \theta^{q^i} - \theta$, we set $D_{i}({\mathbf{S}}) := \prod_{k \in S_1 \cup \cdots \cup S_r} [i-k]^{q^k}$.
\[P:expentire\] For a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ the exponential $\exp_\phi$ is an entire operator.
Applying the same methods as in the proof of [@EP13 Thm. 3.1], we see that $$\alpha_i = \sum_{{\mathbf{S}}\in P_r(i)} \frac{{\mathbf{A}}^{{\mathbf{S}}}}{D_i({\mathbf{S}})}.$$ Let $\xi=\inf \{\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(A_k) \mid 1\leqslant k \leqslant r\}$. Then by [@EP13 Eq. 28], we find that if $\xi \geqslant 0$, $$\label{bound4}
\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(\alpha_i) \geqslant \frac{q^i-1}{q^r-1}\cdot \xi + \frac{iq^i}{r} \geqslant \frac{iq^i}{r},$$ and if $\xi < 0$, $$\label{bound5}
\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(\alpha_i)\geqslant \frac{q^i-1}{q-1}\cdot \xi + \frac{iq^i}{r} \geqslant q^i \biggl(\frac{i}{r} + \frac{\xi}{q-1}\biggr).$$ Together and imply that $\lim_{i \to \infty} \operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(\alpha_i)/q^i = \infty$, as desired.
Since the constant term of $\exp_\phi$ is $1$, $\exp_\phi$ is a unit in ${\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$, and its inverse $$\label{E:Log}
\log_{\phi} = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \beta_i \tau^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]],$$ is the *logarithm series*, which satisfies $\beta_0 = 1$ and $\log_{\phi}\phi_{a}=a\log_{\phi}$, for all $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. In general $\log_\phi$ is not an entire operator. For ${\mathbf{S}}\in P_r(n)$, if we set $L({\mathbf{S}}) := \prod_{k=1}^r \prod_{j\in S_k}(-[j+k])$, then using the same methods in [@EP13 Thm. 3.3], we find that $$\label{E:logcoeffs}
\beta_i = \sum_{{\mathbf{S}}\in P_r(i)} \frac{{\mathbf{A}}^{{\mathbf{S}}}}{L({\mathbf{S}})}.$$
Uniformizability
----------------
The entire operator $\exp_\phi \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ induces an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear function $$\exp_\phi \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s},$$ which we call the *exponential function* of $\phi$.
\[L:iso\] Given our Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module defined in , there exists $\varepsilon_{\phi} > 0$ such that the open ball $\{f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \|f\|_\infty < \varepsilon_{\phi} \}\subseteq {\mathbb{T}_s}$ is mapped $\|\,\cdot\,\|_{\infty}$-isometrically by $\exp_{\phi}$ to itself.
Since $\exp_{\phi}=\sum \alpha_i\tau^i$ is everywhere convergent, we have that $C:=\sup\{ \|\alpha_j\|_\infty \mid j \geqslant 1 \}$ is bounded. Then take $\varepsilon_{\phi} := (\sup\{ \|\alpha_j\|_\infty^{1/(q^j-1)} \mid j \geqslant 1 \})^{-1}$. For $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ with $\|f\|_\infty < \varepsilon_{\phi}$, we have $$\|f-\exp_{\phi}(f)\|_{\infty}\leqslant \sup_{j=1}^{\infty} \|\alpha_j\|_\infty\|f\|_\infty^{q^j-1}{\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}} < \sup_{j=1}^{\infty} \|\alpha_j\|_\infty \cdot \varepsilon_{\phi}^{q^j-1} \cdot \|f\|_\infty =\|f\|_\infty.$$ If $\|f\|_\infty< \| \exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty$, then $\|\exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty=\|f -\exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty <\|f\|_\infty$, a contradiction. If $\|f\|_\infty>\| \exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty$, then $\|f\|_\infty=\|f -\exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty <\|f\|_\infty$, also a contradiction. Thus $\|f\|_\infty=\|\exp_{\phi}(f)\|_\infty$.
Let $\mathfrak{m}_{{\mathbb{T}}_s}$ be the set of elements $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ such that ${\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}}<1$. An $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-submodule $M$ of ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ is called a discrete $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module if there exists $n\geq 1$ such that $M \cap \mathfrak{m}^n_{{\mathbb{T}}_s} = \{ 0\}$.
The period lattice $\Lambda_{\phi}=\{ \lambda \in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \exp_{\phi}(\lambda)=0\} \subseteq {\mathbb{T}_s}$ of the Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ is discrete. In particular, there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that $\Lambda_{\phi} \cap \{x\in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \|x\|_{\infty} < \epsilon \}=\{0\}$.
Following Anderson [@And86], we say that a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ is *uniformizable* if the induced exponential function $\exp_{\phi} \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ is surjective. Unlike constant Drinfeld modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$, the function $\exp_\phi \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ may not be surjective. For example, it is shown in [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 §3.2] that the exponential function of the Drinfeld $A[t_1]$-module $\phi$ defined by $\phi_{\theta}=\theta + t_1\tau$ is not surjective. For the rank $1$ case, the characterization of uniformizable Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules is given by the following proposition.
\[P:char\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $1$ over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ defined by $\phi_{\theta}=\theta + \alpha \tau$. The following are equivalent.
1. $\phi$ is uniformizable.
2. $\operatorname{Sol}_s(\Delta_\alpha,{\mathbb{T}_s}) = \operatorname{Sol}_s(\alpha \tau -1,{\mathbb{T}_s}) \neq 0$.
3. $\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$.
4. $\phi$ is isomorphic to the Carlitz module over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
Anderson generating functions {#SS:AGF}
-----------------------------
We continue with our Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ of rank $r$ defined as in . For $\lambda \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ we define the Anderson generating function $f_{\lambda}(z)$ as $$\label{E:AGF}
f_{\lambda}(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \exp_{\phi}\biggl(\frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}}\biggr)z^n \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[z]].$$ We fix $\Delta_\phi = A_r \tau^r + \dots + A_1 \tau - (z - \theta) \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[z][\tau]$, and we have the following structural result, which is due to Pellarin for the constant or even isotrivial Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules (see §8.3 for the definition of isotrivial Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules). But the proof is essentially the same for any Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules.
\[P:ResSol\] Let $\exp_{\phi}=\sum_i \alpha_i\tau^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ be the exponential series of a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$.
1. For $\lambda \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, we have $$f_{\lambda}(z)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha_n \lambda^{(n)}}{\theta^{q^n}-z}\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}.$$
2. For any $j\geqslant 1$ and $\lambda \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, $f_{\lambda}^{(j)}(z)\in {\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$.
3. As a function of $z$, $f_{\lambda}(z)$ has poles at the points $z = \theta^{q^n}$, $n=0,1,\dots$, with residues $\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta^{q^n}}f_{\lambda}(z) = -\alpha_n \lambda^{(n)}$. In particular, $\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}f_{\lambda}(z)=-\lambda$.
4. If $\exp_{\phi}(\lambda) = \xi$, then $\Delta_{\phi}(f_{\lambda}(z)) = \xi$.
The proofs of part (a), (c), and (d) follow the same argument in [@Pellarin08 §4.2], and we give only a proof of (b). By Lemma \[L:iso\], for arbitrarily large $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have that ${\lVert \lambda/\theta^{n} \rVert_{\infty}}={\lVert \exp_{\phi}(\lambda/\theta^{n}) \rVert_{\infty}}$. Therefore, for any $j\geqslant 1 $ and large $n$, we have that $${{\lvert \theta^{n} \rvert}_{\infty}} \biggl\lVert \exp_{\phi}\biggl(\frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}}\biggr)^{(j)} \biggr\rVert_{\infty} = {{\lvert \theta^{n} \rvert}_{\infty}}\biggl\lVert \frac{\lambda^{(j)}}{\theta^{q^j(n+1)}} \biggr\rVert_{\infty} = \biggl\lVert \frac{\lambda^{(j)}}{\theta^{n(q^j-1)+q^j}} \biggr\rVert_{\infty},$$ and since the last term goes to $0$ as $n \to \infty$, we see from that $f_{\lambda}^{(j)}(z)\in {\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$.
Frobenius modules and rigid analytic trivializations {#S:Frobenius}
====================================================
In this section we determine results on Frobenius modules for Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules much in line with the theory of dual $t$-motives and pre-$t$-motives associated to abelian $t$-modules (see [@ABP04], [@BPrapid]). In unpublished work Anderson made explicit the connections between periods of abelian $t$-modules and solutions of Frobenius difference equations, such as in [@ABP04], [@CP11], [@CP12], [@P08]. Although unpublished by Anderson, Hartl and Juschka [@HartlJuschka16], [@Juschka10], have written accounts of Anderson’s theory. We follow their exposition but adopt notation that is similar to [@ABP04], [@BPrapid]. As it is unclear to us yet what the proper theory of dual-$t$-motives should be in this setting, we appeal only to the more general “Frobenius modules” (see [@CPY18 §2.2]).
Frobenius modules
-----------------
Similar to ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, the ring ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ is a noncommutative ring in $\sigma=\tau^{-1}$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ so that $\sigma f=f^{(-1)}\sigma$, for $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$. Define $* \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau] \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ by $$f = \sum_i f_i \tau^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau] \quad \mapsto \quad f^{*} := \sum_i f_i^{(-i)} \sigma^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma],$$ which satisfies $(f+g)^* = f^* + g^*$ and $(fg)^* = g^* f^*$. We define a norm ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{\sigma}$ on ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ by setting, for an element $f=\sum f_j \sigma^j \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$, ${\lVert f \rVert}_{\sigma}:=\sup\{{\lVert f_j \rVert_{\infty}} \mid j \geqslant 0\}$.
We now fix a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ of rank $r$ defined by $$\label{E:Ats}
\phi_{\theta}=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots +A_r\tau^r, \quad A_i \in {\mathbb{T}_s},\ A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$$ and set $\Lambda_{\phi}=\ker(\exp_{\phi})$. The condition that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ will be crucial to future considerations. We set $H(\phi):={\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$, on which we define a ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-module structure by setting $$\label{action}
cz\cdot h=ch\phi_{\theta}^{*}=ch \bigl(\theta + A_1^{(-1)}\sigma +\dots +A_r^{(-r)}\sigma^r \bigr), \quad
h \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma],\ c \in {\mathbb{T}_s}.$$ In this way $H(\phi)$ carries compatible structures of left modules over both ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ and ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$, and we call $H(\phi)$ the *Frobenius module corresponding to $\phi$*.
\[L:Hphibasis\] The ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-module $H(\phi)$ is free and finitely generated with basis $1$, $\sigma, \dots, \sigma^{r-1}$.
Since $A_r$ is invertible in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, we can recursively write every element in ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ as a ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-linear combination of $1,\sigma,\dots,\sigma^{r-1}$, using the action defined in . On the other hand, one can see that the set $\{1,\sigma,\dots,\sigma^{r-1}\}$ is a ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-basis for ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ if and only if the set $\{ z^d\cdot \sigma^i \mid d \geqslant 0,\, 0 \leqslant i \leqslant r-1 \}$ is a ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-basis for ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$. If we consider again the action in , we see that $\deg_{\sigma}(z^d\cdot \sigma^i)=rd+i$, for all $d \geqslant 0$ and $0\leqslant i \leqslant r-1$. Moreover, the leading coefficient of $z^d \cdot \sigma^i$ is in ${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and so the set $\{ z^d \cdot \sigma^i \}$ is a ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-basis for ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$.
Operators
---------
Any $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ is necessarily an entire operator and so defines a function $f \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$. We define $f^{\dag} \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma] \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ by $f^{\dag}(m) = mf^*$, and we further define $\delta_0, \delta_1 \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma] \to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ by $$\label{E:delta01}
\delta_0\biggl(\sum_{i\geq 0} a_i \sigma^i \biggr)=a_0, \quad
\delta_1\biggl(\sum_{i\geq 0} a_i \sigma^i \biggr)=\sum_{i\geq 0} a_i^{(i)}.$$ We note that $\delta_0$ is a ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-algebra homomorphism, while $\delta_1$ is ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear. We have the following lemma, inspired by the construction of Anderson for $t$-modules over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ whose proof is found in [@HartlJuschka16] (see also [@Juschka10 Lem. 1.1.21-22]).
\[Lemma5-6\] Let $f=\sum_{j=0}^k f_j\tau^j \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$.
1. Define a function $\partial_0f \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ by $\partial_0f(g) = f_0g$. The following diagram commutes with exact rows: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
0 \arrow{r} &{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma] \arrow{r}{\sigma(\cdot)}\arrow{d}{f^{\dag}}
&{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{\delta_0}\arrow{d}{f^{\dag}}
&{\mathbb{T}_s}\arrow{d}{\partial_0 f}\arrow{r}&0\\
0 \arrow{r} &{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{\sigma(\cdot)}&{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{\delta_0}&{\mathbb{T}_s}\arrow{r}&0
\end{tikzcd}$$
2. The following diagram commutes with exact rows: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
0 \arrow{r} &{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma] \arrow{r}{(\sigma-1)(\cdot)}\arrow{d}{f^{\dag}}
&{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{\delta_1}\arrow{d}{f^{\dag}}
&{\mathbb{T}_s}\arrow{d}{f}\arrow{r}&0\\
0 \arrow{r} &{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{(\sigma-1)(\cdot)}&{\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]\arrow{r}{\delta_1}&{\mathbb{T}_s}\arrow{r}&0
\end{tikzcd}$$ In particular, $\phi_\theta\delta_1=\delta_1\phi_\theta^*$.
Division towers and exponentiation
----------------------------------
For $x\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, suppose we have a sequence $\{f_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ with
- $\lim_{n \to \infty} {\lVert f_n \rVert_{\infty}}=0$;
- $\phi_{\theta}(f_{n+1})=f_n$ for all $n \geqslant 0$;
- $\phi_{\theta}(f_0)=x$.
Such a sequence $\{ f_n \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is called a *convergent $\theta$-division tower above $x$*.
\[Theorem17\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module as in . Let $x\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$. Then there is a canonical bijection $$G \colon \{ \xi \in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \exp_{\phi}(\xi) = x \} \to \{ \textup{convergent $\theta$-division towers above $x$} \},$$ defined by $$G(\xi) := \biggl\{ \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\xi}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr)\biggm| n \geqslant 0 \biggr\}.$$ Furthermore, if $\{ f_n \}_{n=0}^\infty$ is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $x$, then with respect to ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}}$, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \theta^{n+1} f_n = \xi,$$ where $\exp_\phi(\xi) = x$ and $G(\xi) = \{ f_n \}$.
By this theorem, we see that $\phi$ is uniformizable if and only if for any $x\in {\mathbb{T}}_s$, there is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $x$.
We know from that $\phi_{\theta}(\exp_{\phi}(\xi/\theta^{n+1})) = \exp_{\phi}(\xi/\theta^n)$ for all $n\geqslant 0$, and in particular when $n=0$, $\phi_{\theta}\exp_{\phi}(\xi/\theta) = \exp_{\phi}(\xi) = x$. At the same time ${\lVert \exp_{\phi}(\xi/\theta^n) \rVert_{\infty}} \to 0$. Therefore, the map $G$ is well-defined.
To show that $G$ is injective, we suppose that $\xi$, $\xi' \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ satisfy $\exp_{\phi}(\xi) = \exp_{\phi}(\xi') = x$ with $G(\xi) = G(\xi')$. This implies that for all $n \geqslant 0$, $$\exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\xi}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr) = \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\xi'}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr),$$ which implies that $(\xi - \xi')/\theta^{n+1} \in \Lambda_\phi$ for all $n \geqslant 0$. Since $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is discrete, $\xi = \xi'$.
We now show that $G$ is surjective. Suppose that $\{ f_n \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $x$. By its convergence and Lemma \[L:iso\], we see that there exists $n_0 \geqslant 0$ so that $\log_{\phi}(f_n)$ converges in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ for all $n \geqslant n_0$. We let $\xi := \theta^{n+1} \log_{\phi}(f_n)$ for any $n \geqslant n_0$. Noting that by the functional equation for $\log_{\phi}$ and the defining properties of $\{ f_n \}$, $$\theta^{n+2} \log_{\phi}(f_{n+1}) = \theta^{n+1} \log_{\phi}(\phi_{\theta}(f_{n+1})) = \theta^{n+1}\log_{\phi}(f_n), \quad \forall\,n \geqslant n_0,$$ and so our element $\xi$ does not depend on the choice of $n \geqslant n_0$. Thus for $n \geqslant n_0$, $f_n = \exp_{\phi} ( \xi/\theta^{n+1})$. Now for $n < n_0$, we have $$f_n = \phi_{\theta^{n_0-n}}(f_{n_0}) = \phi_{\theta^{n_0-n}} \biggl( \exp_{\phi}\biggl( \frac{\xi}{\theta^{n_0+1}} \biggr)\biggr) = \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\xi}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr),$$ where the last equality follows from , and so $G(\xi) = \{ f_n \}_{n=0}^{\infty}$.
Now given a convergent $\theta$-division tower $\{ f_n \}$ above $x$, we let $\xi \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ be the unique element such that $G(\xi) = \{ f_n \}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \bigl\lVert \xi - \theta^{n+1}f_n \bigr\rVert
&= \lim_{n \to \infty} \biggl\lVert \xi-\theta^{n+1} \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\xi}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr) \biggr\rVert \\
&= \lim_{n \to \infty} \biggl\lVert \theta^{n+1} \sum_{j\geqslant 1}\alpha_j\frac{\xi^{(j)}}{\theta^{q^jn+q^j}} \biggr\rVert \\
&= \lim_{n \to \infty} \biggl\lVert \sum_{j\geqslant 1}\theta^{(1-q^j)(n+1)}\alpha_j\xi^{(j)} \biggr\rVert \\
&\leqslant \lim_{n \to \infty} \biggl\lVert \theta^{(1-q)(n+1)} \exp_{\phi}(\xi) \biggr\rVert =0,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the last assertion.
$z$-frames {#SS:zframes}
----------
Consider now the ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-module action on $H(\phi)$ as defined in . Let ${\mathbf{p}}=[p_1,\dots,p_r]^{{\mathrm{tr}}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r\times 1}(H(\phi))$ be a basis for $H(\phi)$. Let $$\iota \colon \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]) \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$$ be the map defined for ${\mathbf{h}}= [h_1, \dots, h_r] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, by $$\label{E:iotah}
\iota({\mathbf{h}}) = {\mathbf{h}}\cdot {\mathbf{p}}= h_1 \cdot p_1 + h_2 \cdot p_2 + \dots + h_r\cdot p_r.$$ Let $\Phi \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ be the matrix defined by the equation $\sigma {\mathbf{p}}=\Phi{\mathbf{p}}$. We have the following lemma.
\[Lemma14\] For the map $\iota$ and the matrix $\Phi$, the following holds.
1. $\det(\Phi)= c(z-\theta)$ where $c\in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$.
2. For all ${\mathbf{h}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, we have $\iota( {\mathbf{h}}^{(-1)}\Phi)=\sigma \iota({\mathbf{h}})$.
3. For all ${\mathbf{h}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, we have $\iota(z{\mathbf{h}})=\iota({\mathbf{h}})\phi^{*}_{\theta}.$
In the sense of Anderson, a $z$-frame $(\iota,\Phi)$ for $\phi$ is a choice of a basis ${\mathbf{p}}$ for $H(\phi)$ satisfying the statements of Lemma \[Lemma14\]. We now introduce an example of a $z$-frame for $\phi$.
Since $H(\phi) = {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$, we can take ${\mathbf{p}}:= [ 1, \sigma, \dots, \sigma^{r-1} ]^{{\mathrm{tr}}} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r\times 1}(H(\phi))$ as a basis of $H(\phi)$. Note that $\sigma {\mathbf{p}}=\Phi{\mathbf{p}}$, where $\Phi \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ can be defined as $$\label{E:Phidef}
\Phi=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
\dfrac{(z - \theta)}{A_r^{(-r)}} & -\dfrac{A_1^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}} & \cdots & -\dfrac{A_{r-1}^{(-r+1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}} \\
\end{bmatrix}.$$
It is easy to show that $(\iota,\Phi)$ is a $z$-frame for $\phi$. Moreover, this particular choice of the $z$-frame $(\iota,\Phi)$ for $\phi$ will be our main interest throughout the paper.
\[R:extension\] If we consider the map $\delta_0 \circ \iota \colon (\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]),{\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{\theta}) \to ({\mathbb{T}_s},{\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}})$, then for ${\mathbf{h}}= [h_1, \dots, h_r] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, we have $${\lVert \delta_{0}\circ \iota({\mathbf{h}}) \rVert_{\infty}}={\lVert h_1(\theta) \rVert}\leqslant {\lVert h_1 \rVert}_{\theta}\leqslant {\lVert {\mathbf{h}}\rVert}_{\theta},$$ and so the map $\delta_0 \circ \iota$ is bounded. Since $\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ is ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{\theta}$-dense in $\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta \})$, we can extend $\delta_0 \circ \iota$ to a map $$D_0 \colon \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}) \to {\mathbb{T}_s}$$ of complete normed modules, where we recall the definition of ${\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$ from §\[SS:Tatealgebras\]. Furthermore, for ${\mathbf{g}}= [g_1, \dots, g_r] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta\})$ and ${\mathbf{h}}= [h_1, \dots, h_r] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, it follows from that $$D_0({\mathbf{g}}+{\mathbf{h}}) = g_1(\theta)+h_1(\theta) = g_1|_{z=\theta}$$ and $$\delta_1 \circ \iota({\mathbf{h}})=h_1^{(0)}+\dots +h_r^{(r-1)}.$$
\[Theorem18\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module as in , and let $(\iota,\Phi)$ be the $z$-frame for $\phi$ as defined in . Fix ${\mathbf{h}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, and suppose there exists ${\mathbf{g}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta \})$ satisfying the functional equation $${\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}\Phi -{\mathbf{g}}={\mathbf{h}}.$$ Letting $\Xi = \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}})) \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ and $\xi = D_0({\mathbf{g}}+{\mathbf{h}})$, we have $$\exp_{\phi}(\xi) = \Xi.$$
The arguments go back to Anderson, but we follow parts 6 and 7 of the proof of [@HartlJuschka16 Thm. 5.18]. Let ${\mathbf{g}}= \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} {\mathbf{g}}_i z^i$ where ${\mathbf{g}}_i \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s})$. For each $n \geqslant 0$, set ${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n} := \sum_{i \leqslant n} {\mathbf{g}}_i z^i$ and ${\mathbf{g}}_{> n} := \sum_{i > n} {\mathbf{g}}_i z^i$. We let $$\label{E:hn}
{\mathbf{h}}_n:=\frac{ {\mathbf{g}}_{> n}^{(-1)}\Phi - {\mathbf{g}}_{> n}}{z^{n+1}}=\frac{{\mathbf{h}}+ {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}- {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}^{(-1)}\Phi}{z^{n+1}} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]).$$ To justify what is claimed to be true in the definition of ${\mathbf{h}}_n$, we observe that since ${\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}\Phi - {\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{h}}$, the equality in holds. By the definition of ${\mathbf{g}}_{> n}$, we see that the first expression is divisible by $z^{n+1}$ and is a power series in $z$. Since ${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}$ is a polynomial in $z$, the second expression implies that each entry of ${\mathbf{h}}_n$ must then be a polynomial in $z$. Furthermore, $\deg_z ({\mathbf{h}}_n) \leqslant \max \{ \deg_z({\mathbf{h}})-n-1, 0 \} \leqslant \deg_z({\mathbf{h}})$, and so the entries of ${\mathbf{h}}_n$ are polynomials in $z$ of degree bounded independently of $n$. Therefore, the ${\mathbf{h}}_n$’s live in a free and finitely generated sub-${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module $V$ of $\operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$.
We now show that $\{\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n))\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}))$. Note $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n))-\phi_{\theta}(\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n+1}))) &= \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) - \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n+1}) \cdot \phi_{\theta}^{*}) & &\textup{(Lemma~\ref{Lemma5-6}(b)),}\\
&=\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n} - z{\mathbf{h}}_{n+1})) & &\textup{(Lemma~\ref{Lemma14}(c)).} \notag\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $${\mathbf{h}}_n - z {\mathbf{h}}_{n+1} = \frac{{\mathbf{h}}+ {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n} - {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}^{(-1)} \Phi - {\mathbf{h}}- {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n+1} + {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n+1}^{(-1)}\Phi}{z^{n+1}} = \biggl(\frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{n+1}}{z^{n+1}}\biggr)^{(-1)}\Phi - \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{n+1}}{z^{n+1}}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n} - z{\mathbf{h}}_{n+1})) &= \delta_1\biggl( \iota\biggl(\biggl( \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{n+1}}{z^{n+1}} \biggr)^{(-1)}\Phi - \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{n+1}}{z^{n+1}} \biggr)\biggr) & & \\
&=\delta_1((\sigma-1)\iota({\mathbf{g}}_{n+1}/z^{n+1})) & & \textup{(Lemma \ref{Lemma14}(b)),} \\
&=0 & & \textup{(Lemma \ref{Lemma5-6}(b)).}
\end{aligned}$$ That is, for all $n \geqslant 0$, $$\label{55}
\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n))=\phi_{\theta}(\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n+1}))).$$ A similar calculation shows that $\phi_{\theta}(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_0)) = \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}))$. We recall the definition of the norm $ \|\cdot\|_1$ from Section 2.2 and the norm $ \|\cdot\|_{\sigma}$ from Section 4.1 and note that since ${\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_n \rVert_{\infty}} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, we have that ${\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{>n} \rVert}_1 \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Noting that ${\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{>n}^{(-1)}\Phi \rVert}_1 \leqslant {\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{>n} \rVert}^{1/q}_1{\lVert \Phi \rVert}_1$, we see that ${\lVert {\mathbf{h}}_n \rVert}_1 \to 0$. By Lemma \[L:EquivNorms\], the restriction of norms ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_1$ and ${\lVert \iota(\,\cdot\,) \rVert}_{\sigma}$ on $V$ are equivalent. Thus $$\label{E:iotahnlimit}
{\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma} \to 0.$$ Since the degree of ${\mathbf{h}}_n$ in $z$ is bounded independently of $n$, the degree of $\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)$ in $\sigma$ is similarly bounded independently of $n$, say $\deg_\sigma \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \leqslant n_0$. Therefore, for $n$ large enough if we take $\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)=\sum_{j=0}^{n_0} c_j \sigma^j$, then ${\lVert c_j \rVert}_{\sigma}\leqslant 1$, and so $$\label{delta1est}
{\lVert \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) \rVert_{\infty}} = \biggl\lVert \sum_{j=0}^{n_0} c_j^{(j)} \biggr\rVert_{\infty} \leqslant \sup\{{\lVert c_j \rVert_{\infty}} \mid j \geqslant 0\} = {\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma}.$$ Then implies that ${\lVert \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) \rVert_{\infty}} \to 0$, and so $\{\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n))\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $\Xi = \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}))$.
Now let $\xi = D_0({\mathbf{g}}+ {\mathbf{h}})$. We claim that with respect to ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert_{\infty}}$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \theta^{n+1} \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) = \xi,$$ after which by Theorem \[Theorem17\], $\exp_{\phi}(\xi) = \Xi$, and we are done. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\xi &=\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta_0(\iota({\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n} + {\mathbf{h}})) & & \textup{(definition of $\xi$),} \\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta_0\bigl(\iota\bigl(z^{n+1} {\mathbf{h}}_n + {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}^{(-1)}\Phi\bigr)\bigr) & & \textup{(by \eqref{E:hn}),} \\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta_0(\iota(z^{n+1}{\mathbf{h}}_n)) & & \textup{(Lemma~\ref{Lemma14}(b)),} \\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta_0(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)\cdot \phi_{\theta^{n+1}}^{*}) & & \textup{(Lemma~\ref{Lemma14}(c)),} \\
&= \lim_{n \to \infty} \theta^{n+1} \delta_0(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) & & \textup{(Lemma~\ref{Lemma5-6}(a)).}\end{aligned}$$ It thus suffices to show that in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, $$\label{delta1delta0}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \theta^{n+1} (\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) - \delta_0(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n))) = 0.$$ Estimating as in , for $n$ sufficiently large, $${\lVert \delta_1 (\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) - \delta_0(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)) \rVert_{\infty}} \leqslant \biggl\lVert \sum_{j=1}^{n_0} c_j^{(j)} \biggr\rVert_{\infty}
\leqslant \sup \bigl\{ {\lVert c_j \rVert_{\infty}}^{q^j} \bigr\} \leqslant {\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma}^q,$$ and so will follow by showing $\lim_{n\to 0} \bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma}^q = 0$. On the other hand, for $n$ sufficiently large, ${\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma} \leqslant 1$, and so it suffices to show that $\lim_{n\to 0} \lvert \theta^{n+1}\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert \iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) \rVert}_{\sigma} = 0$. Since by Lemma \[L:EquivNorms\], ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{\theta}$ and ${\lVert \iota(\,\cdot\,) \rVert}_\sigma$ are equivalent on $V$, it finally suffices to show that $$\label{E:finalred}
\lim_{n \to 0} \bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert {\mathbf{h}}_n \rVert}_{\theta} = 0.$$ By , ${\mathbf{h}}_n = ({\mathbf{g}}_{>n}^{(-1)} \Phi - {\mathbf{g}}_{>n})/z^{n+1} = \sum_{i=0}^{d_0} a_i z^i$, with $a_i \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s})$ and $d_0$ independent of $n$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert {\mathbf{h}}_n \rVert}_{\theta}
&= \bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \left\lVert \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{>n}^{(-1)} \Phi - {\mathbf{g}}_{>n}}{z^{n+1}} \right\rVert_{\theta} \\
&= \bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot \sup_i \bigl\lvert \theta^{i} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert a_i \rVert}_1 \\
&= \sup_i \bigl\lvert \theta^{n+1+i} \bigr\rvert_{\infty} \cdot {\lVert a_i \rVert}_1 \\
&= \bigl\lVert a_0 z^{n+1} + a_1 z^{n+2} + \cdots + a_d z^{n+d+1} \bigr\rVert_{\theta} \\
&= \bigl\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{>n}^{(-1)} \Phi - {\mathbf{g}}_{>n} \bigr\rVert_{\theta}.\end{aligned}$$ Now since ${\mathbf{g}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r} ({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta\})$, it follows that ${\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{> n} \rVert}_{\theta} \to 0$ and ${\lVert {\mathbf{g}}_{> n}^{(-1)} \Phi \rVert}_{\theta} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, and thus holds.
Rigid analytic trivializations {#SS:rat}
------------------------------
Let $(\iota, \Phi)$ be the $z$-frame as in for the Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ in . Let $\Psi \in \operatorname{GL}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\})$ be a matrix such that $$\Psi^{(-1)} = \Phi \Psi.$$ We say $(\iota,\Phi,\Psi)$ is a *rigid analytic trivialization* of $\phi$.
\[L:Newton\] Let $u\in {\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$. Then there exists $U\in {\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$ such that $U^{(-1)}-U=u$.
Let $u=\sum_{i=0}^k \bigl(\sum_{\nu} u_{\nu,i}{\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \bigr)z^i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$. Thus $u_{\nu,i} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ with, for fixed $i$, $|u_{\nu,i}|_\infty \to 0$ as $|\nu| \to \infty$. Now let $U = \sum_{i=1}^k \bigl( \sum_{\nu} U_{\nu,i}{\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \bigr)z^i \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[[t_1,\dots, t_s]][z]$. If it were the case that $$\label{E:difference}
U^{(-1)}-U=u,$$ then we would need to have $$\label{E:polynomial}
U_{\nu,i}^{1/q} - U_{\nu,i} = u_{\nu,i}, \quad \forall\, i,\, \forall\,\nu \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geqslant 0}^s.$$ This equation can be solved in ${\mathbb{C}}_\infty$, and so we can solve in ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[[t_1,\dots, t_s]][z]$. We claim that we can find a solution $U$ of that is in ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$. For fixed $i$, and for fixed $\nu$ large enough so that $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(u_{\nu,i}) > 0$, the Newton polygon of the polynomial $X^q - X + u_{\nu,i}$ indicates that there is a solution $U_{\nu,i}$ ($=X^{1/q}$) of such that $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(U_{\nu,i}) = \operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(u_{\nu,i})/q$. If for $\nu$ sufficiently large we pick all $U_{\nu,i}$ in this way, then $U \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$.
\[T:uniformizability\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module defined as in . If $\phi$ has a rigid analytic trivialization $(\iota,\Phi,\Psi)$, then $\phi$ is uniformizable.
We remark that the result in the above theorem is inspired by Anderson’s construction for dual $t$-motives over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$. The generalized version of Anderson’s original result is used by Hartl and Juschka in [@HartlJuschka16 Thm. 5.28] to give the characterization of uniformizable dual $t$-motives. We also note that the theorem will be also reinforced later by Theorem \[T:characterization\].
Let $h_0 \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, and let ${\mathbf{h}}=[h_0, 0, \dots, 0] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s})$. Using the fact that $\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ is ${\lVert \,\cdot\, \rVert}_{\theta}$-dense in $\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\})$, write $${\mathbf{h}}\Psi = {\mathbf{u}}+ {\mathbf{v}},$$ where ${\mathbf{u}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ and ${\lVert {\mathbf{v}}\rVert}_{\theta} <1$. Because ${\lVert {\mathbf{v}}^{(n)} \rVert}_{\theta} < {\lVert {\mathbf{v}}\rVert}_{\theta}^{q^n}$ for all $n \geqslant 0$, the series $V := \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {\mathbf{v}}^{(n)}$ converges in $\operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\})$. Moreover, $V^{(-1)} - V={\mathbf{v}}$. By Lemma \[L:Newton\], we pick $U \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ such that $U^{(-1)} - U={\mathbf{u}}$. Letting ${\mathbf{g}}:=(U+V)\Psi^{-1}$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}\Phi - {\mathbf{g}}= (U^{(-1)} + V^{(-1)})(\Psi^{(-1)})^{-1} \Phi - (U + V)\Psi^{-1} \\
= (U^{(-1)}-U+H^{(-1)}-H)\Psi^{-1} = ({\mathbf{u}}+{\mathbf{v}})\Psi^{-1} = {\mathbf{h}}.\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, we have that $\delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}))=h_0$, and so by Theorem \[Theorem18\], $\exp_{\phi}(D_0({\mathbf{g}}+{\mathbf{h}}))=\delta_1(\iota(h)) = h_0$. Since the element $h_0 \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ was arbitrary, $\exp_{\phi}$ is surjective.
\[C:periods\] For any $\lambda \in \Lambda_{\phi}$, there exists ${\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z / \theta \} )$ such that $${\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}^{(-1)}\Phi={\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}
\quad \text{and} \quad
D_0({\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda})=\lambda.$$
Let $\lambda \in \Lambda_\phi$, and let $f_{\lambda}(z) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ be its Anderson generating function as in §\[SS:AGF\]. Let ${\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ be the vector $$\label{E:glambda}
{\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}=- [f_{\lambda}^{(1)}(z), f_{\lambda}^{(2)}(z), \dots, f_{\lambda}^{(r)}(z)]\cdot \begin{bmatrix}
A_1 & A_2^{(-1)} & A_3^{(-2)} & \cdots & A_r^{(-r + 1)} \\
A_2 & A_3^{(-1)}& A_4^{(-2)} & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \vdots \\
\vdots & A^{(-1)}_{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
A_r & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ By Proposition \[P:ResSol\](b), ${\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta\})$. Then by Proposition \[P:ResSol\](c) and some calculation, ${\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}^{(-1)}\Phi = {\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}$. Finally by Proposition \[P:ResSol\](b) and Remark \[R:extension\], $D_0({\mathbf{g}}_{\lambda}) = \lambda$.
\[P:Vphi\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module as in . Suppose that $(\iota, \Phi, \Psi)$ is a rigid analytic trivialization of $\phi$, and set $$\label{E:Vphi}
V_{\phi} := \{ {\mathbf{g}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}) \mid {\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}\Phi={\mathbf{g}}\}.$$ The following hold.
1. $V_{\phi} = \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s][z])\Psi^{-1}$.
2. $V_{\phi}$ is a free ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s][z]$-module of rank $r$.
3. $V_{\phi} \cap \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]) = \{ 0\}$.
We let ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r$ be the rows of $\Psi^{-1}$, and since $(\Psi^{-1})^{(-1)} \Phi = \Psi^{-1}$, we see that ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r \in V_{\phi}$. We claim that $$\label{E:V}
V_{\phi} = {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s][z] \cdot {\mathbf{g}}_1 + \cdots + {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s][z] \cdot {\mathbf{g}}_r.$$ Certainly the right-hand side is contained in $V_{\phi}$, so let ${\mathbf{g}}\in V_{\phi}$ be arbitrary. Since ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r$ form a ${\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$-basis of $\operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}\{ z/\theta\})$, we can find $\beta_1, \dots, \beta_r\in {\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$ so that ${\mathbf{g}}= \beta_1 {\mathbf{g}}_1 + \cdots + \beta_r {\mathbf{g}}_r$. As ${\mathbf{g}}$, ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r \in V_{\phi}$, $$0 = {\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)} \Phi - {\mathbf{g}}= \sum_{i=1}^r \beta_i^{(-1)} {\mathbf{g}}_i^{(-1)} \Phi - \sum_{i=1}^r \beta_i {\mathbf{g}}_i = \sum_{i=1}^r \bigl( \beta_i^{(-1)} - \beta_i \bigr) {\mathbf{g}}_i,$$ and by the linear independence of ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r$, it follows that for each $i$, $\beta_i^{(-1)} - \beta_i = 0$. Thus for each $i$, Lemma \[L:fixed\] implies that $\beta_i \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s][z]$, which finishes the claim in . Thus (a) holds, and since ${\mathbf{g}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{g}}_r$ are ${\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\}$-linearly independent, (b) also follows.
For part (c), let ${\mathbf{g}}= [g_1, \dots, g_r] \in V_{\phi} \cap \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$. Then since ${\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}\Phi-{\mathbf{g}}= 0$, substituting in the definition of $\Phi$ from provides $$\label{injectivity5}
g_1 = \frac{z-\theta}{A_r^{(-r)}}g_r^{(-1)}, \quad
g_2 = g_1^{(-1)}-\frac{A_1^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}g_r^{(-1)}, \quad \ldots, \quad
g_r = g_{r-1}^{(-1)}-\frac{A_{r-1}^{(-r+1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}g_r^{(-1)}.$$ Applying $\tau^{j-1}$ to the $j$-th equation in and then writing each $g_i$ in terms of $g_r$, the last equation yields $$\label{injectivity6}
g_r^{(r-1)}=\frac{z-\theta}{A_r^{(-r)}}g_r^{(-1)}-\frac{A_1}{A_r^{(-(r-1))}}g_r -\dots - \frac{A_{r-1}}{A_r^{(-1)}}g_r^{(r-2)}.$$ We observe that the left-hand side of is a polynomial in $z$ of degree $\deg_z g_r$ and that the right-hand side is a polynomial in $z$ of degree $\deg_z g_r + 1$. This is a contradiction unless $g_r=0$. But if $g_r=0$, then implies $g_1 = \dots = g_{r-1}=0$, and thus ${\mathbf{g}}=0$.
\[T:periods\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module as in . Suppose $(\iota,\Phi,\Psi)$ is a rigid analytic trivialization of $\phi$, and let $V_{\phi}$ be defined as in . Then the restriction $$D_0|_{V_\phi} \colon V_{\phi} \to \Lambda_\phi$$ is a bijection, and moreover, $\Lambda_\phi$ is a free $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$.
Once we show that $D_0|_{V_{\phi}}$ is a bijection, then it follows from Proposition \[P:Vphi\](b) that $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$. We note that Corollary \[C:periods\] implies $$\Lambda_{\phi} = D_0(V_{\phi}),$$ and so $D_0|_{V_{\phi}}$ is surjective. To consider injectivity, let $C$ be the set of convergent $\theta$-division towers above $0$, and let $G \colon C \to \Lambda_{\phi}$ be the bijection given in Theorem \[Theorem17\]. By the proof of Theorem \[Theorem18\], we know that for any ${\mathbf{g}}\in V_\phi$ there exists a convergent $\theta$-division tower $\{\delta_{1}(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n}))\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ above $0$. Now let $$F \colon V_{\phi} \to C$$ be the map defined by $F({\mathbf{g}}) = \{\delta_{1}(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n}))\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$. Again by Theorem \[Theorem18\], we see that $D_0({\mathbf{g}})$ is the unique period corresponding to the $\theta$-division sequence $\{\delta_{1}(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n}))\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$. Therefore, $D_0|_{V_{\phi}}=G\circ F$. Since $G$ is a bijection, in order to show the injectivity of $D_0|_{V_{\phi}}$, it is enough to prove that $F$ is injective. Suppose that there exists ${\mathbf{g}}\in V_{\phi}$ such that $F({\mathbf{g}})= \{ \delta_1(\iota({\mathbf{h}}_{n})) \}_{n=0}^{\infty}= ( 0,0,0,\ldots)$. Since $\ker(\delta_1)=(\sigma-1){\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ and the map $\iota \colon \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]) \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ is an isomorphism, there exist ${\mathbf{k}}_n\in \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ such that for all $n \geqslant 0$, $\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n)=(\sigma-1)\iota({\mathbf{k}}_n)$. By the definition of ${\mathbf{h}}_n$ in , we have that $$\iota({\mathbf{h}}_n) = \iota\biggl( \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}- {\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}_{\leqslant n}\Phi}{z^{n+1}} \biggr)=(\sigma-1)\iota({\mathbf{k}}_n) = \iota({\mathbf{k}}_n^{(-1)}\Phi)-\iota({\mathbf{k}}_n),$$ where the last equality follows from Lemma \[Lemma14\](b). Since $\iota$ is a ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-linear map, $$\iota\biggl( \frac{{\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}- {\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}_{\leqslant n} \Phi - z^{n+1} {\mathbf{k}}_n^{(-1)} \Phi+z^{n+1} {\mathbf{k}}_n}{z^{n+1}}\biggr)=0.$$ Moreover, since $\iota$ is an isomorphism, we find that ${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}- {\mathbf{g}}^{(-1)}_{\leqslant n}\Phi-z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n^{(-1)}\Phi +z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n=0$, and so $$({\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}+z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n)^{(-1)}\Phi= {\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}+z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n.$$ Therefore, ${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}+z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n \in V_{\phi}\cap \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$, and so by Proposition \[P:Vphi\](c), for all $n \geqslant 0$, $${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}=-z^{n+1}{\mathbf{k}}_n.$$ Note that the left-hand side is a polynomial in $z$ of degree at most $n$, whereas the right-hand side has degree in $z$ at least $n+1$, unless ${\mathbf{g}}_{\leqslant n}={\mathbf{k}}_n=0$. Therefore, ${\mathbf{h}}_n=0$ for all $n\geqslant 0$, and so by Theorem \[Theorem17\], we have ${\mathbf{g}}= 0$. Thus $F$ is injective.
The de Rham isomorphism {#S:deRhamiso}
=======================
The theory of biderivations and quasi-periodic extensions of Drinfeld modules was originally explored by Anderson, Deligne, Gekeler, and Yu (see [@Brownawell93], [@Brownawell96], [@BP02], [@Gekeler89], [@Gekeler90], [@Gekeler11], [@Goss94], [@PR03], [@Yu90], for various treatments). Our focus in this section is to prove the de Rham isomorphism for Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules with invertible leading coefficient. The de Rham isomorphism for constant Drinfeld modules was proved by Gekeler [@Gekeler89 Thm. 5.14] using quasi-periodic functions, whereas Anderson gave a different proof using rigid analytic trivializations and Anderson generating functions (see Goss [@Goss94 [§1.5]{}]). Our treatment follows a hybrid argument, since the analytic arguments of Gekeler over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ do not completely transfer to the theory of entire operators over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
Biderivations {#SS:biderivations}
-------------
We fix a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ of rank $r$ as in , defined by $\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$, with $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$.
A *biderivation* is a map $\eta\colon A[{\underline{t}}_s] \to \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ such that
1. $\eta$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear homomorphism;
2. $\eta_{ab}=a\eta_b + \eta_a \phi_{b}$ for all $a$, $b\in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
For fixed $m\in {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ and for all $a\in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, we say a biderivation $\eta^{\{m\}}$ defined by $$\label{inner}
\eta^{\{m\}}_{a} = m\phi_{a} - am$$ is an *inner biderivation*. As an example, taking $\delta^0 = \eta^{\{ 1 \}}$, we have $\delta^0_a = \phi_a - a$ for all $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. If furthermore $m \in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, then we say $\eta^{\{ m \}}$ is a *strictly inner biderivation*. Note that implies that for any inner biderivation $\eta^{\{ m \}}$, $$\deg_{\tau}\eta^{\{m\}}_{\theta}=\deg_{\tau}(m \phi_{\theta})=r+\deg_{\tau}(m)\geqslant r.$$ Moreover, if $\eta^{\{ m \}}$ is strictly inner, then $\deg_{\tau}\eta^{\{m\}}_{\theta} > r$. We let $\operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ be the set of all biderivations for $\phi$, and we let $$\operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi) \subseteq \operatorname{Der}_{in}(\phi) \subseteq \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$$ denote the subsets of all strictly inner and inner biderivations. Each of these sets possesses the structure of a left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module, by setting for $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ and $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ that $(f \cdot \eta)_{\theta} := f\eta_{\theta}$. Finally, we let $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$ be the *de Rham module* for $\phi$, which is the ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module $$H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) := \operatorname{Der}(\phi) / \operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi).$$
\[L:valueofti\] Let $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$. For $1\leqslant i \leqslant s$, we have $\eta_{t_i} = 0$. Moreover, $\eta$ is uniquely determined by the value $\eta_{\theta}$, and the map $$I \colon \operatorname{Der}(\phi) \to \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau],$$ defined by $I(\eta) = \eta_{\theta}$, is an isomorphism of left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-modules.
Fix $i$ with $1 \leqslant i \leqslant s$. Since $\theta t_i=t_i\theta$, the definition of biderivation yields that $\eta_{\theta t_i}=\theta \eta_{t_i} + \eta_{\theta} \phi_{t_i} = \theta \eta_{t_i} + \eta_{\theta} t_i$ and $\eta_{t_i\theta}=t_i \eta_{\theta} + \eta_{t_i} \phi_{\theta}$ are equal. Since each $t_i$ is in the center of ${\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, we obtain that $$\label{bider1}
\theta \eta_{t_i} = \eta_{t_i} \phi_{\theta}.$$ Taking the degree with respect to $\tau$, we have $\deg_{\tau} \eta_{t_i} = \deg_{\tau} \eta_{t_i} + r$, which implies $\eta_{t_i}=0$.
It is straightforward to check that $I$ is a left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module homomorphism. By the product formula for $\eta$, we see that it is uniquely determined by its values on $t_1, \dots, t_s$ and $\theta$, and since $\eta_{t_i}=0$ for all $i$, $\eta$ is thus determined solely by $\eta_{\theta}$. Thus $I$ is injective. Now for any $m \in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$, we construct $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ with $I(\eta) = m$. We set $\eta_{\theta} := m$, and then define recursively $\eta_{\theta^{j+1}} := \theta \eta_{\theta^{j}} + m \phi_{\theta^j}$. By routine argument we can extend $\eta$ to a well-defined biderivation $\eta \colon A[{\underline{t}}_s] \to \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$.
\[L:free\] For any $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ there exist unique $\eta^{*} \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ and $m\in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ such that $\eta = \eta^{*} + \eta^{\{ m \}}$ and $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta} \leqslant r$.
We first show existence. We fix $\eta^{*} \in \eta + \operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$ such that $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta}$ is minimal. It suffices to show that $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta} \leqslant r$. Suppose instead that $\eta^{*}_{\theta} = c_1\tau + \dots + c_{r+s} \tau^{r+s}$ for $s \geqslant 1$ and $c_{r+s} \neq 0$. Then letting $m_1 = (c_{r+s}/A_r^{(s)})\tau^s $, $$\eta^{\{m_1\}}_{\theta} = m_1 \phi_{\theta} - \theta m_1 = -\frac{\theta c_{r+s}}{A_r^{(s)}}\tau^s + \dots + c_{r+s}\tau^{r+s},$$ and so if we take $\eta' = \eta^{*} - \eta^{\{m_1\}} \in \eta + \operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$, then the degree in $\tau$ of $\eta'_{\theta} = \eta^{*}_{\theta}-\eta_{\theta}^{\{m_1\}}$ in $\tau$ is strictly less than $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta} = r+s$. By the minimality of $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta}$, we must have $\deg_{\tau} \eta^{*}_{\theta} \leqslant r$.
For uniqueness, let $\eta^{*}_1$, $\eta^{*}_2 \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ and $m_1$, $m_2 \in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ satisfy the conclusions of the lemma. Then we have that $$(\eta_{1}^{*})_{\theta}-(\eta_{2}^{*})_{\theta} = \eta^{\{ m_1-m_2\}}_{\theta}.$$ If $m_1\neq m_2$, then the degree in $\tau$ of the left-hand side $\leqslant r$, whereas the degree in $\tau$ of the right-hand side is $>r$. This is a contradiction, and so $\eta_1^{*}=\eta_2^{*}$ and $m_1=m_2$.
\[free2\] The de Rham module $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) = \operatorname{Der}(\phi)/\operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$ is a free ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-module of rank $r$ with basis elements represented by $\delta^0$, $\delta^1 ,\dots ,\delta^{r-1} \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$, where $\delta^0 = \eta^{\{1\}}$ and for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant r-1$, $\delta^i$ is determined by $\delta^i_{\theta} = \tau^i$.
Suppose that there exist $b_i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ such that $\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} b_i \delta^{i} = \eta^{\{m\}} \in \operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$ (and so $m \in \tau {\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$). Evaluating both sides at $\theta$, we have $$b_0 \eta^{\{1\}}_{\theta} + b_1 \tau + \cdots + b_{r-1}\tau^{r-1} = \eta^{\{m\}}_{\theta}.$$ The degree in $\tau$ of the left-hand side is $\leqslant r$, while the degree in $\tau$ of the right is $>r$. The only way for this to occur is if $b_i=0$ for all $i$ and $m=0$. Thus $\delta^{0}$, $\delta^{1}, \dots, \delta^{r-1}$ represent ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-linearly independent classes in $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$.
Now let $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$. By Lemma \[L:free\], the class of $\eta$ in $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$ is represented by unique $\eta^* \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$ with $\eta_{\theta}^{*} = \sum_{i=1}^{r} c_i\tau^i$. Since $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, we also have $$\eta_{\theta}^{*}=\sum_{i=1}^r c_i\tau^i =
-\frac{c_r}{A_r}\delta^{0}_{\theta} + \biggl(c_1 - \frac{c_r A_1}{A_r}\biggr)\delta^{1}_{\theta}
+ \dots + \biggl(c_{r-1} - \frac{c_r A_{r-1}}{A_r}\biggr)\delta^{r-1}_{\theta}.$$ Thus the classes of $\delta^0$, $\delta^1, \dots, \delta^{r-1}$ span $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$ over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, and the result follows.
Quasi-periodic operators
------------------------
Let $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$, with $\eta_\theta = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} c_j \tau^j$. We claim that there is a unique series $F_{\eta} = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} f_i\tau^i \in \tau{\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$ that satisfies the equation $$\label{E:quasiperiodicfunc}
F_\eta \theta-\theta F_\eta=\eta_{\theta}\exp_{\phi}.$$ Recalling that $\exp_{\phi}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \alpha_i \tau^i$, if we compare the coefficients of $\tau^i$ on both sides of , then we see that for all $i\geqslant 1$, we would require $$\label{E:quasipercoeffs}
f_i = \frac{1}{\theta^{q^i}-\theta} \sum_{j=1}^{i} c_j\alpha^{(j)}_{i-j},$$ where we utilize the convention that $\alpha_{i-j} = 0$ if $i-j < 0$. This sequence of coefficients $\{ f_i \}$ is uniquely determined by $\eta_\theta$ and $\exp_{\phi}$, and so has a unique solution. We call $F_{\eta}$ the *quasi-periodic operator associated to $\eta$*. Since $\lim_{i\to \infty} \operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(\alpha_i) = \infty$, it follows that $$\lim_{i\to \infty} q^{-i} \operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(f_i) \geqslant \lim_{i\to \infty} q^{-i} \cdot q^i \cdot \min_{j=1}^{i} \bigl( \operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(c_j\alpha^{(j)}_{i-j}) \bigr) = \infty.$$ That is, $F_{\eta}$ is an entire operator and so induces a continuous function $F_{\eta} \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$.
As an example, the quasi periodic operator $F_{\delta^{0}}$ corresponding to the biderivation $\delta^{0}$ is $$\label{deltazero}
F_{\delta^{0}} = \exp_{\phi} - 1.$$ Furthermore, if $\eta_{\theta}=\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} a_i\delta^i_{\theta}$, then for any $f\in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, we have $$\label{combination1}
F_{\eta}(f)=a_0F_{\delta^0}(f) +a_1F_{\delta^{1}}(f) + \dots + a_{r-1}F_{\delta^{r-1}}(f).$$
\[P:Fetafneq\] Let $F_{\eta}$ be the quasi-periodic operator corresponding to $\eta \in \operatorname{Der}(\phi)$. Then for all $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, we have $F_\eta a-a F_\eta=\eta_{a}\exp_{\phi}$.
By a straightforward induction on $j\geqslant 1$, using , we find $$\label{E:linearity2}
F_\eta \theta^j-\theta^j F_\eta=\eta_{\theta^j}\exp_{\phi}.$$ Furthermore, we know from Lemma \[L:valueofti\] that $\eta_{t_i}=0$ for $1\leqslant i \leqslant s$. Therefore, for any monomial $v\in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$, $\eta_{v}=0$. Thus, for $j\geqslant 1$, we have $$\label{linearity3}
\eta_{v\theta^{j}}\exp_{\phi}=v\eta_{\theta^j}\exp_{\phi}=vF_{\eta}\theta^{j} - v\theta^{j}F_{\eta}=F_{\eta}v\theta^{j} - v\theta^{j}F_{\eta}.$$ Finally, the result follows from and for any $a\in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
The de Rham map
---------------
We define the *de Rham map* $$\operatorname{DR}\colon H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$$ by $\operatorname{DR}([\eta])=F_{\eta }|_{\Lambda_{\phi}}$ where $[\eta]$ is an equivalence class in $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) = \operatorname{Der}(\phi)/\operatorname{Der}_{si}(\phi)$ and $F_{\eta}$ is the quasi-periodic operator associated to $\eta$.
\[L:DRwelldefined\] The map $\operatorname{DR}$ is well-defined and ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-linear.
We first show the map is well-defined. Observe from Proposition \[P:Fetafneq\] that for any $[\eta]\in H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$, $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, and $\lambda \in \Lambda_{\phi}$, we have $F_{\eta}(a\lambda) - a F_{\eta}(\lambda)=\eta_{a}(\exp_{\phi}(\lambda)) = 0$. Therefore, $F_{\eta}(a\lambda)=a F_{\eta}(\lambda)$, which implies that the map $$F_{\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}} \colon \Lambda_{\phi} \to {\mathbb{T}_s}$$ is $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linear. Now assume that $[\eta_1]=[\eta_2]$. Then there exists $m\in \tau{\mathbb{T}_s}[\tau]$ such that $\eta_1-\eta_2=\eta^{\{m\}}$. Using , one shows that $F_{\eta^{\{m\}}} = m\exp_{\phi}$, and thus for any $\lambda \in \Lambda_{\phi}$, $$F_{\eta_1-\eta_2}(\lambda) = F_{\eta_1}(\lambda)-F_{\eta_2}(\lambda) = F_{\eta^{\{m\}}}(\lambda) = m(\exp_{\phi}(\lambda)) = 0.$$ Therefore, $\operatorname{DR}([\eta_1])=\operatorname{DR}([\eta_2])$. Now for $[\eta] \in H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)$ and $a\in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, implies $$\operatorname{DR}(a[\eta])=\operatorname{DR}([a\eta])=F_{a\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}}=aF_{\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}}=a\operatorname{DR}([\eta])$$ which proves the $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linearity of $\operatorname{DR}$.
\[P:AndGenFunc\] Let $\lambda$ be an element of $\Lambda_{\phi}$, and let $f_{\lambda}(z) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ be its associated Anderson generating function from §\[SS:AGF\].
1. $F_{\delta^0}(\lambda)=\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}f_{\lambda}(z)=-\lambda$.
2. For any $1\leqslant j \leqslant r-1$, we have $$F_{\delta^j}(\lambda)=\sum_{n\geqslant 0} \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr)^{(j)} \theta^{n}=f^{(j)}_{\lambda}(z)\big|_{z=\theta}.$$
Part (a) follows from and Proposition \[P:ResSol\](b). To prove part (b), note that for all $n\geqslant 0$, and the definition of $\delta^{j}$ imply $$\theta^nF_{\delta^j} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^n} \biggr) = \theta^{n+1} F_{\delta^j} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr) + \theta^{n}\exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr)^{(j)}.$$ Therefore, by resubstituting these expressions for $n$ increasing, $$F_{\delta^j}(\lambda) = \theta F_{\delta^j} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta} \biggr) + \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta} \biggr)^{(j)}
= \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta} \biggr)^{(j)} + \theta^2 F_{\delta^j} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^2} \biggr) + \theta\exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^2} \biggr)^{(j)},$$ and moreover for any $N \geqslant 0$, $$F_{\delta^j}(\lambda) = \theta^{N+1} F_{\delta^j} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^{N+1}} \biggr) + \sum_{n=0}^{N} \exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda}{\theta^{n+1}} \biggr)^{(j)} \theta^n.$$ As $N \to \infty$, we have $\theta^{N+1} F_{\delta^j}( \lambda/\theta^{N+1}) \to 0$ in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$, and so taking $N \to \infty$ we are done.
\[T:derhamisomorphism\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module defined by $\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$, such that $A_r\in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free and finitely generated $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$. We define the ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-linear de Rham map $$\operatorname{DR}\colon H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$$ by $\operatorname{DR}([\eta])=F_{\eta}|_{\Lambda_{\phi}}$. Then $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism of left ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-modules.
We note that Theorem \[T:periods\] asserts that if $\phi$ is rigid analytically trivial, then $\Lambda_\phi$ will be free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, and we will verify the converse in Corollary \[C:rigidanalyticityrank\].
We explain the idea of the proof of Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\], which is an adaptation of the method of Anderson (see [@Goss94 §1.5] for details). Observe that since by hypothesis $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free and finitely generated over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$ of rank $r$, then $\operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$ is free and finitely generated over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ of rank $r$. Fixing an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-basis $\{ \lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r \}$ for $\Lambda_\phi$ gives rise to the dual ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-basis $\{ \Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_r \}$ for $\operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$. Thus we see that $$\label{E:periodmatrix}
\Pi := \begin{bmatrix}
-\lambda_1 & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_1}(z)|_{z=\theta} & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_1}(z)|_{z=\theta} \\
-\lambda_2 & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_2}(z)|_{z=\theta} & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_2}(z)|_{z=\theta} \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
-\lambda_r & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_{r}}(z)|_{z=\theta} & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_{r}}(z)|_{z=\theta}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\mathbb{T}_s})$$ is the matrix representing $\operatorname{DR}$ with respect to the ${\mathbb{T}_s}$-bases $\{[\delta^0], \dots, [\delta^{r-1}]\}$ and $\{\Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_r\}$. Now define the matrix $$\label{E:Upsilondef}
\Upsilon := \begin{bmatrix}
f_{\lambda_1}(z) & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_1}(z) & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_1}(z) \\
f_{\lambda_2}(z) & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_2}(z) & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_2}(z) \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
f_{\lambda_{r}}(z) & f^{(1)}_{\lambda_{r}}(z) & \dots & f^{(r-1)}_{\lambda_{r}}(z)\\
\end{bmatrix}
\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}).$$ Since ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ is a commutative ring, $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism if and only if the matrix $\Pi$ is in $\operatorname{GL}_r({\mathbb{T}_s})$. By Proposition \[P:AndGenFunc\], we see that $$\label{E:PiRes}
\det(\Pi) = \operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}\det(\Upsilon),$$ and so to prove Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\] it is then enough to show that $\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}\det(\Upsilon) \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$.
Proof of the de Rham isomorphism {#S:deRhamisoProof}
================================
This section provides the proof of Theorem \[T:derhamisomorphism\]. As in the previous section, we fix a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ of rank $r$ defined by $\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$ such that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free and finitely generated $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$ with basis $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r$.
The matrices $\Upsilon$ and $\Theta$ {#SS:UpsilonTheta}
------------------------------------
We recall the matrices $\Phi \in \operatorname{Mat}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}[z])$ from and $\Upsilon \in \operatorname{Mat}_r({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ from associated to $\phi$, and following a similar construction in [@CP12 § 3.4], we let $$V=\begin{bmatrix}
A_1 & A_2^{(-1)} & A_3^{(-2)} & \cdots & A_r^{(-r + 1)} \\
A_2 & A_3^{(-1)}& A_4^{(-2)} & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \vdots \\
\vdots & A^{(-1)}_{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
A_r & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix} \in \operatorname{Mat}_{r}({\mathbb{T}_s}).$$ Now by setting $\Theta = \Upsilon^{(1)}V$, Proposition \[P:ResSol\](c) implies that $$\label{E:Thetafunc}
\Theta^{(-1)}\Phi=\Theta.$$ We note that under the condition that $\Theta$ is invertible, the matrix $\Psi = \Theta^{-1}$ is a natural candidate to be a rigid analytic trivialization for $\phi$; we investigate this possibility in Corollary \[C:rigidanalyticityrank\]. Recall now from §\[SS:ATelements\] that for any $\alpha\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$, we have the Anderson-Thakur element $\omega(\alpha)\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$.
\[L:unit\] For some $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$, $$\det(\Theta) = \gamma\omega \left( \frac{(-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)}}{(z-\theta^q)} \right)^{-1}.$$
Note that applying $\tau$ to both sides of and using Lemma \[Lemma14\](a) yields $$\label{Thetaequation}
\det(\Theta) \cdot (-1)^{r-1}\frac{(z-\theta^q)}{A_r^{(-r+1)}}=\tau(\det(\Theta)).$$ Letting $\Delta = A_r^{(-r+1)}/(z-\theta^q) \cdot \tau - 1$, then shows that $\det(\Theta) \in \operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta,{\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$. Since $A_r^{(-r+1)}/(z-\theta^q) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$, the result follows from Proposition \[P:taudiff\].
Now we need a lemma to show that $\det(\Theta)$ is nonzero.
\[L:indepen\] For any $k \geqslant 0$, the functions $f_{\lambda_1}^{(k)}(z), \dots, f_{\lambda_r}^{(k)}(z)$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s,z)$.
For the case $k=0$, we adapt the ideas of the proof of [@CP12 Lem. 3.4.4]. Assume to the contrary that there exists $c_1(z),\dots,c_r(z)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s,z)$, not all of zero, so that $$c_1(z)f_{\lambda_1}(z) + \dots + c_r(z)f_{\lambda_r}(z)=0.$$ Then by Proposition \[P:ResSol\](b), we have that $$\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta} \bigl( c_1(z)f_{\lambda_1}(z) + \dots+ c_r(z)f_{\lambda_r}(z) \bigr)
= -c_1(\theta)\lambda_1 - \dots - c_r(\theta)\lambda_r=0.$$ But we know that $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(\theta,{\underline{t}}_s)$, and so $c_1(z) = \dots = c_r(z) = 0$, which contradicts the choice of $c_i$’s. For $k \geqslant 1$, assume that there exists $d_1(z),\dots,d_r(z)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s,z)$, not all of zero, so that $d_1(z)f^{(k)}_{\lambda_1}(z) + \dots + d_r(z)f^{(k)}_{\lambda_r}(z)=0$. Since the elements of ${\mathbb{F}}_q({\underline{t}}_s,z)$ are fixed under twisting, we have that $(d_1(z)f_{\lambda_1}(z) + \dots + d_r(z)f_{\lambda_r}(z))^{(k)}=0$, and so the result follows from the $k=0$ case.
Note that ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ is a difference algebra with the infinite order automorphism $\tau$ (see [@Cohn], [@vdPutSinger97] and [@vdPutSinger03] for details about difference algebras). Recall that by Lemma \[L:fixed\], the polynomial ring $\mathbb{F}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ is the set of elements of ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ which are fixed by the automorphism $\tau$. Using Lemma \[L:indepen\], next proposition will be a standard fact in difference algebras.
\[P:nonvanish\] The determinants $\det(\Upsilon)$ and $\det(\Theta)$ are nonzero.
Invertibility of $\Theta$ over ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$
---------------------------------------------------
\[AndTha\] Let $\Delta=A_r\tau^r + \dots + A_1\tau - (z -\theta) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}[\tau]$. Then $\operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta,{\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ is a free and finitely generated ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-module of rank $r$ with basis $f_{\lambda_1}(z), \dots , f_{\lambda_r}(z)$.
By Lemma \[L:indepen\], we know that $f_{\lambda_1}(z), \dots, f_{\lambda_r}(z)$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-linearly independent. On the other hand, by Proposition \[P:ResSol\](c), $\Delta(f_{\lambda_i}(z))=0$ for $1\leqslant i \leqslant r$. Now let $Y=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i z^i$, $a_i \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, be in $\operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta,{\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$. This implies that $$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \bigl(\theta a_i + A_1 a^{(1)}_i + \dots + A_ra_i^{(r)} \bigr) z^i=
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i z^{i+1}.$$ If we compare coefficients of $z^i$ on both sides, we see that $\phi_{\theta}(a_i)=a_{i-1}$ for all $i \geqslant 1$ and $\phi_{\theta}(a_0)=0$. Since $Y\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$, we know that ${\lVert a_i \rVert_{\infty}} \to 0$ as $i \to \infty$. Therefore, the sequence $ \{ a_i \}_{i=0}^{\infty}$ is a convergent $\theta$-division tower above $0$, and so by Theorem \[Theorem17\], there exists unique $\lambda \in \Lambda_{\phi} $ such that $\exp_{\phi}( \lambda/\theta^{i+1}) = a_i$ for all $i \geqslant 0$. Thus if $\lambda = c_1\lambda_1 + \cdots + c_r \lambda_r$, for $c_i \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, then $Y= c_1|_{\theta=z} \cdot f_{\lambda_1}(z) + \dots + c_r|_{\theta=z}\cdot f_{\lambda_r}(z)$.
Our goal now is to show that $\det(\Theta) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$. Let ${\mathbf{p}}\in \operatorname{Mat}_{r \times 1}({\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma])$ be the column vector ${\mathbf{p}}= [1, \sigma, \dots, \sigma^{r-1}]^{{\mathrm{tr}}}$ used in defining the $z$-frame of $\phi$ in §\[SS:zframes\]. We also let $\iota \colon \operatorname{Mat}_{1\times r}({\mathbb{T}_s}[z]) \to {\mathbb{T}_s}[\sigma]$ be the associated isomorphism of ${\mathbb{T}_s}[z]$-modules defined in . We let $${\mathbf{P}}:= {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}\otimes_{{\mathbb{T}_s}[z]} H(\phi),$$ which is a free ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$-module, and we define the $\sigma$-action diagonally on the elements of ${\mathbf{P}}$. In what follows we identify $H(\phi)$ with its image $1 \otimes H(\phi) \subseteq {\mathbf{P}}$. Finally, letting $${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma} := \{ \mu \in {\mathbf{P}}\mid \sigma \mu = \mu \}$$ be the set of $\sigma$-invariant elements of ${\mathbf{P}}$, we note that ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-module.
\[L:inv\] The ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-module ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$ is free and finitely generated of rank $r$, and the entries of the column vector $\Theta {\mathbf{p}}$ form a basis.
By Proposition \[P:nonvanish\], we know that $\det(\Theta) \neq 0$, and so the entries of $\Theta {\mathbf{p}}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-linearly independent. On the other hand, by and , $$\sigma(\Theta {\mathbf{p}}) = \Theta^{(-1)}\sigma({\mathbf{p}})=\Theta^{(-1)} \Phi {\mathbf{p}}=\Theta {\mathbf{p}}.$$ Therefore, each entry of $\Theta {\mathbf{p}}$ is an element of ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$. Moreover, for any $Q \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ such that $Q{\mathbf{p}}\in {\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$, we have that $
\sigma(Q {\mathbf{p}})=Q^{(-1)}\sigma({\mathbf{p}})=Q^{(-1)} \Phi {\mathbf{p}}=Q {\mathbf{p}},
$ and so $ Q=Q^{(-1)}\Phi.$ Letting $Q=[Q_1, \dots, Q_r]$, this implies $$\label{E:basis}
Q_1=\frac{z-\theta}{A_r^{(-r)}}Q_r^{(-1)}, \quad
Q_2=Q_1^{(-1)}-\frac{A_1^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}Q_r^{(-1)}, \quad
\ldots, \quad
Q_r =Q_{r-1}^{(-1)}-\frac{A_{r-1}^{(-r+1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}Q_r^{(-1)}.$$ If we apply $\tau^{j-1}$ to the $j$-th equation in and then write each $Q_i$ in terms of $Q_r$, we find from the last equation that $$Q_r^{(r-1)} = A_r\biggl(\frac{Q_r^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}\biggr)^{(r)} = (z-\theta) \frac{Q_r^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}-A_1 \biggl(\frac{Q_r^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}}\biggr)^{(1)} - \cdots - A_{r-1} \biggl( \frac{Q_r^{(-1)}}{A_r^{(-r)}} \biggr)^{(r-1)}.$$ In other words, $Q_r^{(-1)}/A_r^{(-r)}$ is an element of $\operatorname{Sol}_{s,z}(\Delta,{\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$. Thus by Lemma \[AndTha\], for some $c_i \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$, we have $Q_r^{(-1)}=A_r^{(-r)}\sum_{i=1}^r c_if_{\lambda_i}(z)$ and therefore $Q_r=A_r^{(-r+1)}\sum_{i=1}^r c_if^{(1)}_{\lambda_i}(z)$. Similarly, using the first equation above and Proposition \[P:ResSol\](c), we find that $$Q_1=\frac{z-\theta}{A_r^{(-r)}}Q_r^{(-1)}= \sum_{i=1}^r c_i(z-\theta)f_{\lambda_i}(z)=\sum_{i=1}^r c_i(A_1f^{(1)}_{\lambda_i}(z)+\dots+A_rf^{(r)}_{\lambda_i}(z)).$$ Continuing in this manner using , we conclude that $
Q{\mathbf{p}}=[c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_r]\Theta {\mathbf{p}}.
$ Therefore, every element in ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$ is in the ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-linear span of the entries of $\Theta {\mathbf{p}}$.
\[P:unit2\] The determinant $\det(\Theta)$ is in ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$.
Let $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ be as in Lemma \[L:unit\], and moreover $\gamma \neq 0$ by Proposition \[P:nonvanish\]. It then suffices to show that $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$. To do this we modify ideas in [@P08 Prop. 3.3.9], and assume to the contrary that $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z] \setminus {\mathbb{F}}_q$. By Lemma \[L:unit\], we have that $\det(\Theta) \equiv 0 \pmod{\gamma}$. Now, there exists a nonzero ${\mathbf{f}}=[f_1,\dots, f_r] \in \operatorname{Mat}_{1 \times r}({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ such that ${\mathbf{f}}\Theta \equiv 0 \pmod \gamma$. Dividing ${\mathbf{f}}$ by a suitable element in ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$, without loss of generality, we can assume that ${\lVert f_i \rVert_{\infty}}\leqslant 1$ for all $i$ and for at least one $i$, ${\lVert f_i \rVert_{\infty}}=1$.
For any given $h\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$, let us denote $h=\sum_{ \underline{\nu} \in {\mathbb{N}}^{s+1}} h_{ \underline{\nu}}({\underline{t}}_s z)^{ \underline{\nu}}$ where $({\underline{t}}_s z)^{\underline{\nu}}:=t_1^{\nu_1}\dots t_s^{\nu_s}z^{\nu_{s+1}}$ and $h_{ \underline{\nu}}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ with ${{\lvert h_{ \underline{\nu}} \rvert}_{\infty}} \to 0$ as $\nu_1+\dots +\nu_s+\nu_{s+1} \to \infty$. For any $h\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ with ${\lVert h \rVert_{\infty}}\leqslant 1$, there exist only finitely many multi-indices $ \underline{\nu}_1, \dots, \underline{\nu}_m$ whose corresponding coefficients have norm $1$. Now, fix a lexicographic order with respect to $t_1, \dots, t_s,z$ on ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$. Let $ \underline{\nu}_j$ be the multi-index among $ \underline{\nu}_1, \dots, \underline{\nu}_m$ such that its corresponding monomial is greatest with respect to the lexicographic order. Then we can write $h = v + g$ such that $v:=h_{ \underline{\nu}_1}({\underline{t}}_s z)^{ \underline{\nu}_1}+\dots + h_{ \underline{\nu}_m}({\underline{t}}_s z)^{ \underline{\nu}_m} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ and $g:=\sum_{\nu \not\in \{ \underline{\nu}_1,\dots, \underline{\nu}_m\}}h_{ \underline{\nu}}({\underline{t}}_s z)^{ \underline{\nu}} \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ satisfy the following properties: (i) the monomial corresponding to $ \underline{\nu}_j$ in $v$ is its leading monomial with respect to the lexicographic order, and (ii) ${\lVert g \rVert_{\infty}} < 1$. By the multivariable division algorithm [@CoxLittleOShea Chap. 2, Thm. 3], there exist $v_{h}$, $r_{h} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ such that $v = v_{h}\gamma + r_{h}$ and that none of the monomials of $r_h$ are divisible by the leading term of $\gamma$. Thus we have $h=v_{h}\gamma + r_{h} +g \equiv r_{h} + g \pmod{\gamma}$.
Therefore, without loss of generality, we can further assume that for all $i$, $f_i=r_i + g_i $, where (i) $r_i \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ satisfies that none of its monomials are divisible by the leading term of $\gamma$, and (ii) $g_i\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ with ${\lVert g_i \rVert_{\infty}} < 1$. Now by we have $$\label{finallemma1}
{\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-1)}\Phi = {\mathbf{f}}\Theta\equiv 0 \pmod \gamma.$$ Since by Lemma \[Lemma14\](a), $\det(\Phi)$ is invertible in ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$, implies that ${\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-1)} \equiv 0 \pmod \gamma$. Moreover, for any $n\geqslant 2$, we have by induction that $$\label{finallemma2}
{\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-n)}\equiv {\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-n)}\Phi^{(-(n-1))}={\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-(n-1))} \equiv 0 \pmod \gamma.$$ Since $\gamma$ is invariant under twisting, implies that $$\label{finallemma3}
{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}\Theta=({\mathbf{f}}\Theta^{(-n)})^{(n)} \equiv 0 \pmod \gamma.$$ Define ${\mathbf{v}}:= [v_1, \dots, v_n]:=\Theta {\mathbf{p}}$ and observe that by Lemma \[L:inv\], the entries of ${\mathbf{v}}$ form ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-basis for ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$. Since ${\mathbf{f}}\Theta \equiv 0 \pmod \gamma$, we have that $$\frac{1}{\gamma}{\mathbf{f}}{\mathbf{v}}=\frac{1}{\gamma}{\mathbf{f}}\Theta {\mathbf{p}}\in {\mathbf{P}}.$$ Furthermore, implies for all $n\geqslant 0$, $$\frac{{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}}{\gamma}\Theta {\mathbf{p}}=\frac{{\mathbf{f}}^{(n)}}{\gamma}{\mathbf{v}}\in {\mathbf{P}}.$$ Now, define a norm ${\lVert \, \cdot \, \rVert}_{{\mathbf{P}}}$ on ${\mathbf{P}}$ by $
\bigl\lVert\sum h_i\sigma^i\bigr\rVert_{{\mathbf{P}}}=\sup {\lVert h_i \rVert_{\infty}}$ where $h_i \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$. Since ${\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ is complete with respect to ${\lVert \, \cdot \, \rVert_{\infty}}$, ${\lVert \, \cdot \, \rVert}_{{\mathbf{P}}}$ is a complete norm on ${\mathbf{P}}$, and for all $g\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}$ and $\beta \in {\mathbf{P}}$, we have ${\lVert g\beta \rVert}_{{\mathbf{P}}} = {\lVert g \rVert_{\infty}}{\lVert \beta \rVert}_{{\mathbf{P}}}$. By Lemma \[L:limit\], there exists $m>0$ such that with respect to the ${\lVert \, \cdot \, \rVert}_{{\mathbf{P}}}$-metric, $$\label{polynomials}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum f_i^{(mn)}v_i= \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum (r_i+g_i)^{(mn)}v_i= \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum r_i^{(mn)}v_i=\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum c_iv_i \in {\mathbf{P}}.$$ where $c_i \in \overline{{\mathbb{F}}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$ with $c_j \neq 0$. (We have used the fact that ${\lVert g_i \rVert_{\infty}}<1$ for the second equality in .) For some $l\geqslant 1$, we have each $c_{i} \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^l}[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$, and we set $d_i:=c_i +c_i^{(-1)}+ \dots + c_i^{(1-l)}$. Since the image of the trace map $\operatorname{Tr}\colon {\mathbb{F}}_{q^{l}} \to {\mathbb{F}}_q$ is non-trivial, we can divide $c_j$ by a suitable element of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^l}^{\times}$ and assume that $d_j \neq 0$. Using the fact that $\sigma({\mathbf{v}})={\mathbf{v}}$, we have $$\mu := \sum_{k=0}^{l-1}\sigma^{k} \biggl( \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum_{i=1}^{r} c_i v_i\biggr) = \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum_{i=1}^{r} \biggl(\sum_{k=0}^{l-1} c_i^{(-k)} \biggr) v_i = \frac{1}{\gamma}\sum_{i=1}^r d_i v_i\in {\mathbf{P}}.$$ Since $d_i \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q}[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$, $\mu$ is invariant under $\sigma$, and so $\mu \in {\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$. Now since none of the monomials of $r_i$ are divisible by the leading term of $\gamma$ for $1\leqslant i \leqslant r$, it follows that $\gamma$ does not divide $d_j$. This contradicts the fact that by the construction of ${\mathbf{v}}$, its entries comprise an ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s,z]$-basis for ${\mathbf{P}}^{\sigma}$. Thus $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, and therefore $\det(\Theta) \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times} .$
Fixing a $(q-1)$-st root $(-\theta)^{1/(q-1)}$ of $-\theta$, we define the Carlitz period $\tilde{\pi}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}^{\times}$ by $${\widetilde{\pi}}= \theta(-\theta)^{1/(q-1)}\prod_{i=1}^{\infty} \Bigl(1- \theta^{1-q^i}\Bigr)^{-1}$$ and define $\Omega(z) \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}\{ z /\theta\}$ by $$\label{E:Omega}
\Omega(z)=(-\theta)^{-q/(q-1)}\prod_{i=1}^{\infty} \biggl(1-\frac{z}{\theta^{q^i}}\biggr).$$ By choosing $x=-1/\theta^q$ in , we see that $\omega(1/(z-\theta^q)) = -\Omega(z)$.
\[C:rigidanalyticityrank\] For a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$ defined by $\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$ with $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$ if and only if $\phi$ is rigid analytically trivial.
Suppose that $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$. Let $\Theta \in \operatorname{Mat}_r({\mathbb{T}_{s,z}})$ be defined as in §\[SS:UpsilonTheta\]. By Proposition \[P:ResSol\](b), $\Theta \in \operatorname{Mat}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\})$. By , Lemma \[L:unit\], and Proposition \[P:unit2\], it follows that for some $d\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, $$\det(\Theta) = d\omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)})^{-1}\omega(1/(z-\theta^q))^{-1} = d\omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)})^{-1}\Omega(z)^{-1}.$$ Since $\Omega(z)^{-1}$ has poles at $z=\theta^{q^n}$ for $n\geqslant 1$, we find $\Theta \in \operatorname{GL}_r({\mathbb{T}_s}\{z/\theta\})$. Moreover by , $(\Theta^{-1})^{(-1)}=\Phi\Theta^{-1}$. Therefore, $(\iota,\Phi,\Theta^{-1})$ is a rigid analytic trivialization of $\phi$. The opposite direction follows from Theorem \[T:periods\].
Completion of the proof
-----------------------
Observe that $\Omega(z)$ satisfies the identities $\Omega(\theta) = -\tilde{\pi}^{-1}$ and $\Omega^{(-1)}(z)=(z-\theta)\Omega(z)$. Thus, $$\label{Omega3}
\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}\frac{1}{\omega(1/(z-\theta^q))^{(-1)}}=\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta} \frac{-1}{\Omega(z)^{(-1)}} = {\widetilde{\pi}}.$$
Lemma \[L:unit\] and Proposition \[P:unit2\] imply that for some $c \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, $$\label{determinant}
\det(\Theta) = \det(\Upsilon)^{(1)} (-1)^{r-1} \prod_{i=0}^{r-1} A_r^{(-i)} = c\omega \biggl( \frac{(-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)}}{(z-\theta^q)} \biggr)^{-1}.$$ Since $A_r\in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ by assumption, implies that $\det(\Upsilon)\in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}^{\times}$. Using , , and , we have for some $d \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, $$\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}\det(\Upsilon) = d {\widetilde{\pi}}\biggl( \omega\bigl( (-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)} \bigr)^{(-1)} \prod_{i=1}^r A_r^{(-i)} \biggr)^{-1} \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times},$$ which completes the proof by .
Uniformizability Criteria {#S:Uniformizability}
=========================
Uniformizability of Drinfeld $A[ \protect {\underline{t}}_s]$-modules
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\phi$ be an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of arbitrary rank $r \geqslant 1$, and set $\Lambda_{\phi}:=\operatorname{Ker}(\exp_{\phi})$. We set $\phi[\theta] := \{f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid \phi_{\theta}(f)=0\}$.
\[T:characterization\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$ defined by $$\phi_\theta=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$$ such that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$, and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free and finitely generated $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
2. $\phi$ has a rigid analytic trivialization.
3. The de Rham map $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism.
4. $\phi$ is uniformizable, and $\phi[\theta]$ is free of rank $r$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
Note that (a) $\Leftrightarrow$ (b) follows from Corollary \[C:rigidanalyticityrank\]. We first prove (a) $\Leftrightarrow$ (c). Observe that Theorem \[T:uniformizability\] together with Corollary \[C:rigidanalyticityrank\] yields (a) $\Rightarrow$ (c). On the other hand, if $\operatorname{DR}$ is an isomorphism, then by Corollary \[free2\], we have that $H_{\operatorname{DR}}^*(\phi)\cong {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\oplus r}\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})$. But by the assumption, $\Lambda_{\phi}\cong A[{\underline{t}}_s]^{\oplus x}$ for some $x\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we see that $${\mathbb{T}_s}^{\oplus r}\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(\Lambda_{\phi},{\mathbb{T}_s})\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}(A[{\underline{t}}_s]^{\oplus x},{\mathbb{T}_s})\cong {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\oplus x} .$$ Thus $x=r$, which proves (c) $\Rightarrow$ (a). Now we prove (a) $\Rightarrow$ (d). If $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, then Theorem \[T:uniformizability\] and Corollary \[C:rigidanalyticityrank\] imply that $\phi$ is uniformizable. Moreover, uniformizability implies that $
\phi[\theta] \cong \Lambda_{\phi}/\theta \Lambda_{\phi} \cong {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]^{\oplus r}.$ Finally, we prove (d) $\Rightarrow$ (a). By uniformizability, we have $\Lambda_{\phi}/\theta\Lambda_{\phi}\cong \phi[\theta]$. Therefore, $$\operatorname{rank}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]}\Lambda_{\phi} = \operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]} \Lambda_{\phi}/\theta\Lambda_{\phi} =\operatorname{rank}_{{\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]} \phi[\theta] =r.$$ Thus $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
Applications and examples {#S:Applications}
=========================
Analogue of the Legendre relation in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
------------------------------------------------------
Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$ defined by $\phi_{\theta}=\theta + A_1\tau + \dots + A_r \tau^r$ such that $A_r \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ and $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is a free $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module with basis elements $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r$. Using , Lemma \[L:unit\], and Proposition \[P:unit2\], we find $$\det(\Upsilon) = c \Bigl( A_r^{(-r)} A_r^{(r-1)}\cdots A_r^{(-1)} \omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)}/(z-\theta^q))^{(-1)} \Bigr)^{-1},$$ for some $c\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$. On the other hand, observe that $$\label{A2}
A_r^{(-r)}A_r^{(r-1)}\dots A_r^{(-1)} \omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r^{(-r+1)})^{(-1)}=\omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r).$$ Finally, using , , and , for some $d \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, we have $$\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta}\det(\Upsilon) = \det(\Pi)= d {\widetilde{\pi}}\bigl( \omega((-1)^{r-1}A_r) \bigr)^{-1},$$ where $\Pi$ is the matrix defined as in .
When $r=2$, we recover the usual Legendre relation: by Proposition \[P:AndGenFunc\](b), $$\operatorname{Res}_{z=\theta} \det(\Upsilon) = \det(\Pi)= \lambda_2 F_{\delta^1}(\lambda_1) - \lambda_1 F_{\delta^1}(\lambda_2) = \frac{d {\widetilde{\pi}}}{\omega(-A_2)}$$ for some $d\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{\times}$, which can be seen as the analogue of the Legendre relation in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
Constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules
------------------------------------------------
Suppose that we have a constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$, i.e., $\phi_{\theta} = \theta + A_1 \tau + \dots + A_r \tau^r$ with each $A_i \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ and $A_r \neq 0$. Naturally we can restrict $\phi$ to $A$ and obtain a traditional Drinfeld $A$-module over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$, and we can ask to what extent do the fundamental properties of traditional Drinfeld modules, in terms of uniformizability and period lattices, translate into properties of the constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $\phi$. The answers are satisfactory.
\[P:constant\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r\geqslant 1$ which is isomorphic to a constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module. Then the equivalent statements of Theorem \[T:characterization\] all hold. In particular, $\phi$ is uniformizable, and its period lattice $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
If $\phi$ is isomorphic to the constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module $D$, then there exists $u \in {\mathbb{T}_s}^{\times}$ so that for all $a \in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, $\phi_a = uD_a u^{-1}$. Moreover, the uniqueness of the exponential function and readily imply that $\exp_\phi = u \exp_D u^{-1}$. Since the properties in Theorem \[T:characterization\] are invariant under isomorphism, it suffices to assume that $\phi$ itself is constant.
In this case, by we see that $\exp_{\phi} \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty} [[\tau]]$ (in fact we obtain the same series while considering $\phi$ as a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$ or as a Drinfeld $A$-module over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$). By fundamental theory of Drinfeld $A$-modules (see [@Goss Ch. 4]), the induced function $\exp_\phi \colon {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty} \to {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ is surjective, and its kernel $\widetilde{\Lambda}_{\phi}$ is rank $r$ over $A$, say with basis $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$.
Now for $f = \sum_{\nu} a_\nu {\underline{t}}_s^\nu \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, we see that $$\label{E:expconstant}
\exp_{\phi}(f) = \sum_{\nu} \exp_{\phi}(a_\nu) {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu},$$ and since $\exp_{\phi}(a_\nu) \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$, we see that the surjectivity of $\exp_{\phi} \colon {\mathbb{T}_s}\to {\mathbb{T}_s}$ follows from the surjectivity of $\exp_{\phi} \colon {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty} \to {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$. Thus $\phi$ is uniformizable.
Clearly, $\Lambda_{\phi} \supseteq \operatorname{Span}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]} (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r)$, and we prove the reverse containment. Suppose that $\lambda = \sum_{\nu} \ell_{\nu} {\underline{t}}_s^{\nu} \in \Lambda_{\phi}$. Then by , for each $\nu$, $\exp_{\phi}(\ell_\nu) = 0$, and so $\ell_{\nu} \in \widetilde{\Lambda}_{\phi} = \operatorname{Span}_A(\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r)$. However, since $\lambda \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$, we must have $|\ell_{\nu}|_{\infty} \to 0$ as $|\nu| \to \infty$, and since $\widetilde{\Lambda}_{\phi} \subseteq {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ is discrete, we see that for $|\nu|$ sufficiently large, $\ell_{\nu} = 0$. Thus $\lambda \in \operatorname{Span}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]} (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r)$. Therefore, $\Lambda_{\phi} = \operatorname{Span}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]} (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r)$. Furthermore, as $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules $\operatorname{Span}_{A[{\underline{t}}_s]} (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r) \cong A[{\underline{t}}_s] \otimes_{A} \widetilde{\Lambda}_{\phi}$, and so $\Lambda_\phi$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$.
\[C:constant\] Suppose that $\phi$ is a constant Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r \geqslant 1$, and suppose that $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ form an $A$-basis of the period lattice of $\phi$, when considered as a Drinfeld $A$-module over ${\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$. Then $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r$ form an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-basis for $\Lambda_{\phi} \subseteq {\mathbb{T}_s}$.
Examples of non-isotrivial uniformizable Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we saw in Proposition \[P:char\] (due to Anglès, Pellarin, and Tavares Ribeiro [@AnglesPellarinTavares16 Prop. 6.2]), for rank $1$ Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules, uniformizability is equivalent to being isomorphic to the Carlitz module over ${\mathbb{T}_s}$. In light of Proposition \[P:constant\] and Corollary \[C:constant\], in this section we investigate examples of uniformizable Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules of rank $r \geqslant 2$ that are not isomorphic to constant Drinfeld modules.
We will say that a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module is *isotrivial* if it is isomorphic to a constant Drinfeld module. The following theorem provides a way to construct uniformizable non-isotrivial Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules. We recall from Lemma \[L:iso\] that there exists $\varepsilon_{\phi} > 0$ such that $\exp_{\phi}$ is an isometric automorphism with its inverse $\log_{\phi}$ on the set $\{f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}\mid {\lVert f \rVert_{\infty}} < \varepsilon_{\phi}\}$.
\[T:RANKROC\] Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r \geqslant 1$. Suppose that for some $m \geqslant 1$, $\phi[\theta]$ is free of rank $m$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$ with basis elements $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_m$. Suppose further that for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant m$, we have ${\lVert \gamma_i \rVert_{\infty}} < \varepsilon_{\phi}$. Then $\Lambda_{\phi}$ is free of rank $m$ over $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, and $\theta \log_{\phi}(\gamma_1), \dots, \theta \log_{\phi}(\gamma_m)$ form an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-basis.
For $1\leqslant i \leqslant m$, set $\lambda_i := \theta \log_{\phi}(\gamma_i)$. We claim that $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$ are $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linearly independent. Suppose that there exist $a_i = a_{i,0} + a_{i,1}\theta + \dots + a_{i,k_i}\theta^{k_i}\in A[{\underline{t}}_s]$, where $a_{i,j}\in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$, such that $a_1 \lambda_1 + \cdots + a_m \lambda_m = 0$. For all $j\geqslant 0$, by , we have $$\exp_{\phi}(\theta^{j}\lambda_i) = \phi_{\theta^{j+1}} \biggl(\exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{\lambda_i}{\theta} \biggr)\biggr) = \phi_{\theta^{j+1}} (\gamma_i)=\phi_{\theta^{j}}(\phi_{\theta}(\gamma_i)) = 0.$$ Therefore, considering $\exp_\phi(a_1 \lambda_1/\theta + \cdots + a_m\lambda_m/\theta) = 0$, we find $a_{1,0}\gamma_1 + \cdots + a_{m,0}\gamma_m =0$. Since $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_m$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linearly independent, it follows that $a_{i,0}=0$ for all $i$. Inductively, we find that $a_{i,k}=0$ for all $k\geqslant 0$ and $1\leqslant i \leqslant m$. Thus the claim follows.
Now we show that $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$ generate $\Lambda_{\phi}$ as an $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module. Let $X_0 \in \Lambda_{\phi}$. If $X_0=0$, then we are done. If not, the discreteness of $\Lambda_{\phi}$ allows us to pick $n_0 \geqslant 1$ such that $\exp_{\phi}(X_0/\theta^{n_0-1})= 0$ and $\exp_{\phi}(X_0/\theta^{n_0})\neq 0$. Since $\exp_{\phi}(X_0/\theta^{n_0}) \in \phi[\theta]$, $$\label{E:x0kernel}
\exp_{\phi} \biggl( \frac{X_0}{\theta^{n_0}} \biggr) = \sum b_{0,i} \exp_{\phi}\biggl( \frac{\lambda_i}{\theta} \biggr)$$ for some $b_{0,i}\in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$. Collecting all of the terms of to the left-hand side and using the ${\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$-linearity of $\exp_{\phi}$, we see that $X_0/\theta^{n_0} - \sum_{i=1}^m b_{0,i}\lambda_i/\theta = X_1$ for some $X_1\in \Lambda_{\phi}$ and ${\lVert X_1 \rVert_{\infty}}\leqslant \sup\{{\lVert X_0/\theta^{n_0} \rVert_{\infty}}, {\lVert \lambda_1/\theta \rVert_{\infty}}, \dots, {\lVert \lambda_m/\theta \rVert_{\infty}} \}$. If $X_1=0$, then we are done. Otherwise, we continue in a similar fashion to produce $X_1, \dots, X_k \in \Lambda_{\phi}$, together with $n_1, \dots, n_k \geqslant 1$ and $b_{j,i} \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[{\underline{t}}_s]$ for $1 \leqslant j \leqslant k$, $1 \leqslant i \leqslant m$, so that $$\label{E:partialsums}
X_0=\theta^{n_0+n_1+\dots + n_k}X_{k+1}+ \theta^{n_0+n_1+\dots + n_k-1}\sum_{i=1}^m b_{k,i}\lambda_i + \dots + \theta^{n_0-1} \sum_{i=1}^m b_{0,i}\lambda_i,$$ and $$\label{E:normbound}
{\lVert X_{k+1} \rVert_{\infty}}\leqslant \sup \biggl\{ \biggl\lVert \frac{X_0}{\theta^{n_0+n_1+\dots+n_k}} \biggr\rVert_{\infty}, \biggl\lVert\frac{\lambda_1}{\theta}\biggr\rVert_{\infty}, \dots, \biggl\lVert\frac{\lambda_m}{\theta}\biggr\rVert_{\infty} \biggr\}.$$ Eventually we will find $k \geqslant 1$ so that for all $1 \leqslant i \leqslant m$, $$\label{E:rofconv}
\biggl\lVert \frac{X_0}{\theta^{n_0+n_1+\dots+n_k}}\biggr\rVert_{\infty} \leqslant \biggl \lVert \frac{\lambda_i}{\theta}\biggr\rVert_{\infty} < \varepsilon_{\phi}.$$ In this case and imply that $\log_{\phi}$ converges at $X_{k+1}$. Since $X_{k+1}\in \Lambda_{\phi}$, we have that $\exp_{\phi}(X_{k+1})=0$, but Lemma \[L:iso\] implies that $\exp_{\phi}$ is injective on the open disk of radius $\varepsilon_{\phi}$, and so $X_{k+1}=0$.
To produce non-isotrivial uniformizable Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-modules, we appeal to techniques in [@EP14 §6]. Let $\phi$ be a Drinfeld $A[{\underline{t}}_s]$-module of rank $r$ defined by $\phi_{\theta}=\theta+A_1\tau + \dots + A_r\tau^r$ and let $k_{\phi}$ be the smallest index such that $$\frac{\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(A_{k_{\phi}})+q^{k_{\phi}}}{q^{k_{\phi}}-1} \leqslant \frac{\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(A_j)+q^j}{q^j-1}$$ for all $j$ such that $A_j\neq 0$. For any $n\geqslant 0$, we recall the set $P_r(n)$ from §\[SS:ExpLog\] and define $$\gamma_n(z) = \sum_{(S_1, \dots, S_r) \in P_r(n)} \prod_{i=1}^r \prod_{j \in S_i} \frac{\tau^j(A_i)}{z-\theta^{q^{i+j}}} \in {\mathbb{T}_{s,z}}.$$ These functions serve similar purposes as the functions $\mathcal{B}_n(t)$ in [@EP14 Eq. (6.4)], and in particular via they specialize at $z=\theta$ as logarithm coefficients: that is, $\gamma_n(\theta) = \beta_n$, where $\log_{\phi} = \sum_{n \geqslant 0} \beta_n \tau^n \in {\mathbb{T}_s}[[\tau]]$. Similar calculations as in [@EP14 Lem. 6.7(b)], yield that for $f \in {\mathbb{T}_s}$ with $\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(f) > -q$, $$\label{order}
\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(\gamma_n(f)) \geqslant \frac{q^n-1}{q^{k_{\phi}}-1}(\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(A_{k_{\phi}})+q^{k_{\phi}}).$$
\[P:logarithm\] Let $C_{\phi}=-(\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(A_{k_{\phi}})+q^{k_{\phi}})/(q^{k_{\phi}}-1)$ and $f\in{\mathbb{T}_s}$. If $\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(f)>C_{\phi}$, then $\log_{\phi}(f)$ converges in ${\mathbb{T}_s}$.
We combine the above considerations with the property that $\log_{\phi}(f)=\sum_{n \geqslant 0} \beta_n f^{(n)}$ converges if and only if $\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(\beta_n f^{(n)}) \to \infty$ as $i \to \infty$.
We now produce a class of non-isotrivial uniformizable Drinfeld $A[t_1]$-modules. However, it should be noted that the same techniques can be used to produce additional examples in more variables. The proof of Proposition \[P:finalresult\] occupies the rest of this section.
\[P:finalresult\] For the Drinfeld $A[t_1]$-module $\phi$ defined by $\phi_{\theta}=\theta + t_1\tau +\tau^r$ for $r\geqslant 2$,
1. $\phi$ is non-isotrivial,
2. $\phi$ is uniformizable,
3. $\Lambda_\phi$ is free of rank $r$ over $A[t_1]$.
Moreover, the equivalent statements of Theorem \[T:characterization\] all hold for $\phi$.
\[elements\] If $g\in \phi[\theta] \subseteq {\mathbb{T}}_1$, then $g$ is within the radius of convergence of $\log_{\phi}$.
Let $g=\sum_{i \geqslant 0} b_i t_1^i \in \phi[\theta]$. Then $$\label{E:radofconv}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \bigl(\theta b_i+b_i^{q^r} \bigr) t_1^i + \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} b_{i-1}^{q}t_1^{i} = 0.$$ Observing that $k_{\phi}=r$, Proposition \[P:logarithm\] implies that it suffices to show that $\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(g) > -q^r/(q^r-1)$. If we compare coefficients of $t_1$ on both sides of , then we have that $b_0$ is a root of the polynomial $v_0(x)=\theta x + x^{q^r}$. The Newton polygon of $v_0$ shows that it has $q^r-1$ non-zero roots with valuation $-1/(q^r-1)$, and thus all roots have valuations greater than $-q^r/(q^r-1)$. Consider the polynomial $v_1(x) := b_0^q + \theta x + x^{q^r}$, which has $b_1$ as a root by . If we choose $b_0=0$, then $v_1$ turns out to be the polynomial $v_0$. Letting $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(b_0) = -1/(q^r-1)$, the Newton polygon of $v_1$ shows that it has $1$ root with valuation $-q/(q^r-1)+1$ and $q^r-1$ roots with valuation $-1/(q^r-1)$. Again, every root has valuation greater than $-q^r/(q^r-1)$. Proceeding by induction, we find that for $i \geqslant 0$, we always have $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(b_i) > -q^r/(q^r-1)$. Thus, $\operatorname{ord_{\infty}}(g) = \inf(\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(b_i)) > -q^r/(q^r-1)$.
Let $D$ be the constant Drinfeld module defined by $D_{\theta} = \theta + \tau^r$, and let ${\widetilde{\pi}}_1, \dots, {\widetilde{\pi}}_r \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ form an $A$-basis for $\Lambda_D$. For $1\leqslant j \leqslant r$, let $a_{j,0} = \exp_{D} (\tilde{\pi}_j/\theta)$, and for all $i\geqslant 0$, let $a_{j,i+1}$ be the root of the polynomial $a_{j,i}^{q} + \theta X + X^{q^r}$ that has the maximum valuation among all its roots. That is, for $i\geqslant 0$, we find $\operatorname{ord}_{\infty}(a_{j,i+1}) = -q^{i+1}/(q^r-1) + 1+q+q^2 + \dots + q^i$. We remark that for $i \geqslant 0$ and $1\leqslant j \leqslant r$, the existence and uniqueness of $a_{j,i+1}$ are guaranteed by considering Newton polygons. Now set $F_j := \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}a_{j,i}t_1^i \in {\mathbb{T}}_1$.
\[P:rank\] The ${\mathbb{F}}_q[t_1]$-module $\phi[\theta]$ is free of rank $r$ with basis $F_1,\dots, F_r$.
Note that for $1\leqslant j \leqslant r$, $F_j \in \phi[\theta]$ by the construction. Moreover, $F_1, \dots, F_r$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q[t_1]$-linearly independent because any linear dependency would contradict the fact that $\exp_{D}(\tilde{\pi}_1/\theta),\dots ,\exp_{D}(\tilde{\pi}_r/\theta)$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent.
Let $g = \sum b_i t_1^i \in \phi[\theta] \subseteq {\mathbb{T}}_1$. Thus, the coefficients $b_i$ satisfy the same recursions as in . As in that case $D_{\theta}(b_0) = \theta b_0 + b_0^{q^r} = 0$. Since $b_0\in D[\theta]$, there exists $c_{j,0}\in {\mathbb{F}}_q$ for $1\leqslant j\leqslant r$ such that $b_0 = \sum_j c_{j,0}a_{j,0}$. Moreover, comparing coefficients of $t_1$ on both sides of implies that $\theta b_1 + b_1^{q^r} + b_0^q=0$. Since the polynomial $\theta X + X^{q^r} + b_0^q$ has no repeated roots, each root can be written as $y+w$, where $y\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ is the root which has the maximum valuation among the other roots and $w\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\infty}$ is any root of the polynomial $\theta X + X^{q^r}$. Therefore, there exist $c_{j,1} \in {\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that $b_1=\sum_j (c_{j,0}a_{j,1} + c_{j,1}a_{j,0})$. Similarly, using we find for all $n \geqslant 0$ that there exist $c_{j,n} \in {\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that $$\label{E:generates2}
b_n = \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{j=1}^r c_{j,n-k} a_{j,k}.$$ We find after some calculation that $$g = \sum_{j=1}^r \biggl( \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{j,k} t_1^k \biggr) \biggl( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_{j,n} t_1^n \biggr)
= \sum_{j=1}^r \biggl( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_{j,n} t_1^n \biggr) F_j \in \operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{F}}_q[[t_1]]}(F_1, \dots, F_r).$$ If for arbitrarily large $n$ we can always find $c_{j,n} \neq 0$, then after a short argument implies that $|b_n|_{\infty} \nrightarrow 0$ as $n \to \infty$. This contradicts the choice of $g \in {\mathbb{T}}_1$, and so we find that $\phi[\theta] \subseteq \operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{F}}_q[t_1]} ( F_1, \dots, F_r)$.
First, we see that $\phi$ is non-isotrivial because $t_1 \notin {\mathbb{T}}_1^{\times}$. Second, by Lemma \[elements\], all of $\phi[\theta]$ is within the radius of convergence of $\log_{\phi}$, and by Proposition \[P:rank\], we know that $\phi[\theta]$ is a free ${\mathbb{F}}_q[t_1]$-module of rank $r$. Therefore, the result follows from Theorem \[T:characterization\] and \[T:RANKROC\].
[99]{}
G. W. Anderson, *$t$-motives*, Duke Math. J. **53** (1986), no. 2, 457–502.
G. W. Anderson, *Log-algebraicity of twisted $A$-harmonic series and special values of $L$-series in characteristic $p$*, J. Number Theory **60** (1996), no. 1, 165–209.
G. W. Anderson, W. D. Brownawell, and M. A. Papanikolas, *Determination of the algebraic relations among special $\Gamma$-values in positive characteristic*, Ann. of Math. (2) **160** (2004), no. 1, 237–313.
G. W. Anderson and D. S. Thakur, *Tensor powers of the Carlitz module and zeta values*, Ann. of Math. (2) **132** (1990), no. 1, 159–191.
B. Anglès, T. Ngo Dac, and F. Tavares Ribeiro, *Stark units in positive characteristic*, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) **115** (2017), no. 4, 763–812.
B. Anglès, F. Pellarin, and F. Tavares Ribeiro, *Arithmetic of positive characteristic $L$-series values in Tate algebras. With an appendix by F. Demeslay*, Compos. Math. **152** (2016), no. 1, 1–61.
B. Anglès, F. Pellarin, and F. Tavares Ribeiro, *Anderson-Stark units for $\mathbb{F}_q[\theta]$*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **370** (2018), no. 3, 1603–1627.
B. Anglès and F. Tavares Ribeiro, *Arithmetic of function field units*, Math. Ann. **367** (2017), no. 1–2, 501–579.
S. Bosch, U. Güntzer, and R. Remmert, *Non-Archimedian Analysis*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
W. D. Brownawell, *Algebraic independence of Drinfeld exponential and quasi-periodic functions*, in: Advances in Number Theory (Kingston, ON, 1991), Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993, pp. 341–365.
W. D. Brownawell, *Submodules of products of quasi-periodic modules*, Rocky Mountain J. Math. **26** (1996), no. 3, 847–873.
W. D. Brownawell and M. A. Papanikolas, *Linear independence of Gamma-values in positive characteristic*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **549** (2002), 91–148.
W. D. Brownawell and M. A. Papanikolas, *A rapid introduction to Drinfeld modules, $t$-modules, and $t$-motives*, arXiv:1806.03919, 2018.
C.-Y. Chang and M. A. Papanikolas, *Algebraic relations among periods and logarithms of rank $2$ Drinfeld modules*, Amer. J. Math. **133** (2011), no. 2, 359–391.
C.-Y. Chang and M. A. Papanikolas, *Algebraic independence of periods and logarithms of Drinfeld modules. With an appendix by B. Conrad*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **25** (2012), no. 1, 123–150.
C.-Y. Chang, M. A. Papanikolas, and J. Yu, *An effective criterion for Eulerian multizeta values in positive characteristic*, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 2018, to appear.
R. M. Cohn, *Difference algebra*, Interscience Publishers John Wiley $\&$ Sons, New York-London-Sydney, 1965.
D. A. Cox, J. Little, and D. O’Shea, *Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms*, 3rd Ed., Springer, New York, 2007.
F. Demeslay, *A class formula for $L$-series in positive characteristic*, arXiv:1412.3704, 2014.
A. El-Guindy and M. A. Papanikolas, *Explicit formulas for Drinfeld modules and their periods*, J. Number Theory **133** (2013), no. 6, 1864–1886.
A. El-Guindy and M. A. Papanikolas, *Identities for Anderson generating functions for Drinfeld modules*, Monatsh. Math. **173** (2014), no. 3–4, 471–493.
J. Fresnel and M. van der Put, *Rigid Analytic Geometry and its Applications*, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2004.
E.-U. Gekeler, *On the de Rham isomorphism for Drinfeld modules*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **401** (1989), 188–208.
E.-U. Gekeler, *de Rham cohomology and the Gauss-Manin connection for Drinfeld modules*, in: $p$-adic Analysis (Trento, 1989), Lect. Notes Math., vol. 1454, Springer, Berlin, 1990, pp. 223–255.
E.-U. Gekeler, *Frobenius actions on the de Rham cohomology of Drinfeld modules*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **363** (2011), no. 6, 3167–3183.
D. Goss, *Drinfeld modules: cohomomology and special functions*, in: Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 55, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 309–362.
D. Goss, *Basic Structures of Function Field Arithmetic*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
U. Hartl and A.-K. Juschka, *Pink’s theory of Hodge structures and the Hodge conjecture over function fields*, arXiv:1607.01412, 2016.
A.-K. Juschka, *The Hodge conjecture for function fields*, Diploma Thesis, Universität Münster, 2010.
S. Lang, *Algebra*, Revised 3rd Ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
M. A. Papanikolas, *Tannakian duality for Anderson-Drinfeld motives and algebraic independence of Carlitz logarithms*, Invent. Math. **171** (2008), no. 1, 123–174.
M. A. Papanikolas and N. Ramachandran, *A Weil-Barsotti formula for Drinfeld modules*, J. Number Theory **98** (2003), no. 2, 407–431.
F. Pellarin, *Aspects de l’indépendance algébrique en caractéristique non nulle*, Sém. Bourbaki, vol. 2006/2007. Astérisque **317** (2008), no. 973, viii, 205–242.
F. Pellarin, *Values of certain $L$-series in positive characteristic*, Ann. of Math. (2) **176** (2012), no. 3, 2055–2093.
F. Pellarin and R. B. Perkins, *Vectorial Drinfeld modular forms over Tate algebras*, Int. J. Number Theory **14** (2018), no. 6, 1729–1783.
M. van der Put and M. F. Singer, *Galois Theory of Difference Equations*, Lect. Notes Math., vol. 1666, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
M. van der Put and M. F. Singer, *Galois Theory of Linear Differential Equations*, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
L. Taelman, *A Dirichlet unit theorem for Drinfeld modules*, Math. Ann. **348** (2010), no. 4, 899–907.
L. Taelman, *Special $L$-values of Drinfeld modules*, Ann. of Math. (2) **175** (2012), no. 1, 369–391.
D. S. Thakur, *Function Field Arithmetic*, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2004.
J. Yu, *On periods and quasi-periods of Drinfeld modules*, Compositio Math. **74** (1990), no. 3, 235–245.
[^1]: This project was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-1501362
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the classical capacity of quantum states, as quantified by its ability to perform dense coding, respects an exclusion principle, for arbitrary pure or mixed three-party states in any dimension. This states that no two bipartite states which are reduced states of a common tripartite quantum state can have simultaneous quantum advantage in dense coding. The exclusion principle is robust against noise. Such principle also holds for arbitrary number of parties. This exclusion principle is independent of the content and distribution of entanglement in the multipartite state. We also find a strict monogamy relation for multi-port classical capacities of multi-party quantum states in arbitrary dimensions. In the scenario of two senders and a single receiver, we show that if two of them wish to send classical information to a single receiver independently, then the corresponding dense coding capacities satisfy the monogamy relation, similar to the one for quantum correlations.'
author:
- 'R. Prabhu, Arun Kumar Pati, Aditi Sen(De), and Ujjwal Sen'
title: Exclusion Principle for Quantum Dense Coding
---
Introduction
============
Quantum correlations play an important role in quantum communication protocols [@comm-review]. Specifically, entangled states have been used to transfer classical bits encoded in a quantum state beyond the classical limit (quantum dense coding) [@BW], for transferring an unknown quantum state by using just two bits of classical communication (quantum teleportation) [@teleportation], and for preparing a known quantum state at a remote location (remote state preparation) [@arun]. Such protocols were initially introduced for the case of a single sender and a single receiver, and have also been experimentally realized [@exp]. However, for a fruitful application of such communication schemes, it is of vital importance to consider an information transmission network that involves several senders and receivers.
Study of correlations between separated physical systems is an important quantity in all areas of science. Such correlations can be classical as well as quantum. An important property of quantum correlations [@HHHH-RMP] in multipartite states is that they tend to be “monogamous” in nature [@Ekert; @Wootters; @Wintermono; @monogamyN], in the sense that if two physical systems are highly quantum correlated, they cannot be correlated, individually or as a whole, with any third party. Monogamy of quantum correlations, therefore, restricts the sharability of quantum correlations between three or more parts of a quantum system. Classical correlations of quantum states are certainly not monogamous, and an arbitrarily large number of physical systems can share the same amount of classical correlations with a single system.
In this paper, we address the question whether there are restrictions on our ability to send classical information through quantum states used as quantum channels in a multipartite scenario (three or more parties). As noted above, there are no such restrictions on *classical correlations* of quantum states. More precisely, for a three-party quantum state shared between Alice ($A$), Bob ($B$), and Charu ($C$), classical correlations between Alice and Bob, and between Alice and Charu can be both maximal. However, we show here that the *classical capacity*, as quantified by the dense coding capacity, of an arbitrary (pure or mixed) three-party quantum state of arbitrary dimensions satisfies a strict monogamy relation that can be viewed as an exclusion principle: If Alice has a quantum advantage in transferring classical information to Bob, she must necessarily have no quantum advantage in transferring the same to Charu. This result is independent of whether the quantum channel by which the quantum state of the sender is sent to the receiver in a dense coding protocol is noiseless or noisy. Note that this is stricter than the monogamy of quantum correlations (of quantum states): There exists quantum states for which Alice can have quantum correlations with Bob, and quantum correlations with Charu, i.e., the $AB$ and the $AC$ reduced quantum densities can both be quantum correlated, an example being the well-known three-party $W$ state [@Wstate]. We go on to show that the exclusion principle holds for an arbitrary number of parties having an arbitrary amount of entanglement.
Within the realm of tripartite states, we connect the monogamy of dense coding capacity to the monogamy relations known for quantum correlations. In particular, in the scenario of two senders and a single receiver, we show that if Bob and Charu wish to send classical information to Alice, then the corresponding dense coding capacities obeys the monogamy relation in the same spirit as for quantum correlations. We subsequently generalize the monogamy relation to a multi-port scenario, involving multi-port channel capacities of multi-party (more than three-party) quantum states. We also establish a relation between the sum of the capacities of dense coding in the $AB$ and $AC$ channels with the corresponding entanglements of formation [@EoF], as well as their quantum discords [@discord]. This provides lower bounds to the sum of the capacities, complementary to the upper bounds obtained in the monogamy relations.
The paper is organized as follows. For completeness, we begin with a discussion of the quantum dense coding capacity in Sec. II. Next, in Sec. III, we first prove the exclusion principle for dense coding capacity in the tripartite scenario. It holds for both the noiseless and noisy cases. We subsequently consider, in Sec. IV, the multi-sender single-receiver scenario, and find a monogamy relation in that case. The case of multi-port channel capacities is considered in Sec. V and it is found that it also satisfies a strict monogamy. We present a conclusion in Sec. VI.
Quantum dense coding capacity
=============================
Quantum dense coding is a quantum communication protocol that uses a shared quantum state between two distant observers, and a noiseless quantum channel [@dharma-versus-giraffe] to send classical information beyond the classical capacity of the quantum channel [@BW]. Let the observers, Alice and Bob, share the quantum state $\varrho_{AB}$. Alice wishes to use this quantum state as a channel for sending classical information to Bob. Let the Hilbert space which are in possession of Alice and Bob, and which supports the quantum state $\varrho_{AB}$, be ${\cal H}_A \otimes {\cal H}_B$. Suppose that Alice receives a classical message $i$, which is known to happen with probability $p_i$. She encodes this classical message in a unitary operator $U_i$ on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_A$, and applies it to her part of $\varrho_{AB}$ to obtain $\varrho_{AB}^i = U_i\otimes \openone_B \varrho_{AB} U_i^\dagger \otimes \openone_B$, where $\openone_B$ is the identity operator on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_B$. She then sends her part of $\varrho_{AB}^i$, through a noiseless quantum channel [@dharma-versus-giraffe] between Alice and Bob that can noiselessly transfer $d_A$-dimensional quantum states, to Bob. Here, $d_A = \dim {\cal H}_A$. After this, Bob is in possession of the quantum ensemble $\{p_i,\varrho_{AB}^i\}$, and his task is to perform a quantum measurement on this ensemble so as to obtain as much information as possible about the classical index $i$.
After the quantum measurement by Bob, suppose that the post-measurement quantum ensemble is $\{p_{i|m},\varrho_{AB}^{i|m}\}_i$, and also suppose that this ensemble appears with probability $q_m$. The amount of classical information gained by Bob due to his measurement can be quantified by the mutual information [@eitaCoverThomas] between the index $i$ and the measurement index $m$, and is given by $$I(i:m) = H(\{p_i\}) - \sum_m q_m H(\{p_{i|m}\}_i)$$ bits, where $H(\cdot)$ denotes the Shannon entropy of the probability distribution in its argument. The unit of mutual information is taken here to be “bits”, a result of the fact that we are using the logarithms with base 2 in this paper, for both Shannon and von Neumann entropy. Henceforth, all the entropic quantities are defined in bits.
Now Bob has to perform a measurement that maximizes his information gain, and this information is the “accessible information” defined as $$I_{acc}(\{p_i,\varrho_{AB}^i\}) = \max I(i:m),$$ where the maximization is over all measurement strategies that Bob is able to implement on his ensemble.
This maximization turns out to be hard to implement. However, an useful upper bound, called the Holevo bound [@Holevo; @see-also-Holevo], exists, and is given by $$\chi(\{p_i,\varrho_{AB}^i\}) = S(\overline{\varrho}_{AB}) - \sum_ip_iS(\varrho^i_{AB}),$$ where $S(\cdot)$ is the von Neumann entropy of the quantum state in its argument, and $\overline{\varrho}$ is the average ensemble state $\sum_ip_i \varrho^i_{AB}$. This quantity is asymptotically achievable [@Holevo-ananta], and therefore the following quantity is termed the dense coding capacity of the quantum state $\varrho_{AB}$: $${\cal C}(\varrho_{AB}) = \max_{\{p_i, U_i\}} \chi (\{p_i,\varrho_{AB}^i\}).$$
It is possible to perform this optimization [@dcgeneral; @dcamader], and one obtains $$\label{eq:capdefi}
{\cal C}_{AB} \equiv {\cal C}(\varrho_{AB}) = \log_2 d_A + S(\varrho_B) - S(\varrho_{AB}),$$ where $\varrho_B = \mbox{tr}_A[\varrho_{AB}]$. It is to be noted that the conditional entropy $S(\varrho_{AB}) - S(\varrho_B)$ can be of both signs. If it is positive, one may not use the shared quantum state, but use the noiseless quantum channel to transfer $\log_2 d_A$ bits of classical information. In case the conditional entropy is negative, Alice will be able to use the shared quantum state to send classical information, beyond the “classical limit” of $\log_2 d_A$ bits, to Bob. We term this as a “quantum advantage” for Alice in sending classical information to Bob. So in general, the dense coding capacity is given by $\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB}\equiv\overline{{\cal C}}(\varrho_{AB})=\mbox{max}[\log_2 d_A,\, {\cal C}(\varrho_{AB})]$, and we term ${\cal C}_{AB}$ as the quantum part of the dense coding capacity.
Exclusion Principle for dense coding capacity for three-party states
====================================================================
In this section, we will begin by presenting the exclusion principle for an arbitrary (pure or mixed) three-party quantum state of arbitrary dimensions.
[**Theorem 1:**]{} (“Exclusion Principle”) *Given an arbitrary (pure or mixed) three-particle quantum state $\varrho_{ABC}$, no two bipartite states shared with any one of the parties can have a quantum advantage in dense coding capacity simultaneously.*\
`Proof.` Let us assume the contrary and suppose that both $\varrho_{AB}$ and $\varrho_{AC}$ have quantum advantages in dense coding, where $\varrho_{AB} = \mbox{tr}_{C}[\varrho_{ABC}]$ and $\varrho_{AC} = \mbox{tr}_{B}[\varrho_{ABC}]$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC} = {\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC} \phantom{aaaaaaaaaa}\nonumber \\
= 2\log_2 d_A + S(\varrho_B) + S(\varrho_C) - S(\varrho_{AB}) - S(\varrho_{AC}),\end{aligned}$$ with $\varrho_C = \mbox{tr}_{AB} [\varrho_{ABC}]$, and similarly for $\varrho_A$ and $\varrho_B$. Strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy [@ekhane-NC] for the tripartite system between $A$, $B$, and $C$ implies that $$S(\varrho_B) + S(\varrho_C) - S(\varrho_{AB}) - S(\varrho_{AC}) \leq 0.$$ Therefore, we get $$\label{eq:main}
\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC} \leq 2\log_2 d_A.$$ Equality sign will be satisfied by all pure three-party states.
But, if both $\varrho_{AB}$ and $\varrho_{AC}$ have quantum advantages, then by definition of the dense coding capacity, $\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC}$ must be strictly greater than $2\log_2 d_A$, contradicting our assumption. $\blacksquare$
*Remark:* Note that Theorem 1 can also be interpreted as a strict monogamy relation of the dense coding capacity: If Alice has a quantum advantage in sending classical information to Bob (i.e. if ${\cal C}_{AB} > \log_2 d_A$), then Alice cannot have a quantum advantage with Charu (i.e., ${\cal C}_{AC}$ must necessarily be strictly less than $\log_2 d_A$), so that Alice will be forced to send classical information at the classical limit rate to Charu which is equal to $\log_2 d_A$.
[*Corollary 1:*]{} In a tripartite quantum state $\varrho_{ABC}$, if $\varrho_{AB}$ and $\varrho_{AC}$ are two reduced quantum states through which Alice wants to send classical information to Bob and Charu, then the sum of the dense coding capacities of the reduced states $\varrho_{AB}$ and $\varrho_{AC}$ is bounded above by $3\log_2 d_A$. The bound can be saturated.\
`Proof.` From Theorem 1, it follows that the two channels cannot have quantum advantages simultaneously. Hence there are two possibilities – (i) both of them are classical, which implies $\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC} =2\log_2 d_A$, and (ii) one of the channels is classical and the other quantum (i.e. has a quantum advantage). In the case (ii), without loss of generality, we assume that the $AB$ channel is quantum. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC} = 2\log_2 d_A + S(\varrho_B) - S(\varrho_{AB}).
\label{optimalcap}\end{aligned}$$ The strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy implies that $$S(\varrho_B) - S(\varrho_{AB}) \leq S(\varrho_{AC}) - S(\varrho_{C}).
$$ On the other hand, the nonnegativity of quantum mutual information implies that $$S(\varrho_{AC}) - S(\varrho_{C}) \leq S(\varrho_A),$$ so that we have $$S(\varrho_B) - S(\varrho_{AB}) \leq S(\varrho_{A}) \leq \log_2 d_A.
$$ Using this relation in Eq. (\[optimalcap\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\cal C}}_{AB} + \overline{{\cal C}}_{AC} \leq 3\log_2 d_A
$$ The proof follows by combining the cases (i) and (ii). $\blacksquare$
We now generalize our findings to states of more than three parties.
[**Theorem 2:**]{} *For an arbitrary (pure or mixed) multiparty state $\varrho_{AB_1B_2\ldots B_N}$, shared between $(N+1)$ parties, in arbitrary dimensions, only at most a single reduced density matrix among $\varrho_{AB_i}$ $(i=1,2,\ldots,N)$ can have quantum advantage in dense coding.*\
`Proof.` Suppose, if possible, that $\varrho_{AB_{k_1}}$ and $\varrho_{AB_{k_2}}$ have quantum advantages in dense coding. However, in that case, the reduced states $\varrho_{AB_{k_1}}$ and $\varrho_{AB_{k_2}}$ of the tripartite quantum state $\varrho_{AB_{k_1}B_{k_2}}$ violates Theorem 1. $\blacksquare$
[*Corollary 2:*]{} In an $(N+1)$-party quantum state $\varrho_{AB_1B_2\ldots B_N}$, the sum of the dense coding capacities in the cases where $A$ is the sender and $B_i, i= 1, 2, \ldots, N$ are the receivers, is bounded above $ (N+1) \log_2 d_A$.\
Until now, we have considered the situation where the quantum channel, carrying Alice’s part of the states to the receivers as noiseless. It turns out that the exclusion principle holds also in a more general scenario, when the aforementioned quantum channel is noisy. This is due to the fact that the capacities will be non-increasing in the presence of noise. Therefore, the upper bound, obtained in Theorems 1 and 2 also hold for any noisy channel. Henceforth, we consider only noiseless channels.
Reveiver Monogamy for dense coding capacities {#bhalo}
=============================================
For quantum correlations, to check for the status of monogamy for a particular measure, one usually considers inequalities where the sum of the Alice-Bob and Alice-Charu quantum correlations is compared with that share by Alice with the Bob-Charu pair. We now consider the status of such relations, when taken over to the case of dense coding capacities. We begin with the case where two senders (Bob and Charu) wish to send information to Alice by using the three-party quantum state $\rho_{ABC}$. Again the state can be either pure or mixed, and in arbitrary dimensions.
Let ${\cal C}_{BA}$ be the quantum part of the dense coding capacity when Bob wants to send classical information to Alice by using the reduced density state $\varrho_{AB}$. Let ${\cal C}_{CA}$ be similarly defined. Let ${\cal C}_{BC:A}$ be the quantum part of the dense coding capacity when Bob and Charu sends classical information to Alice by using the quantum state $\varrho_{ABC}$. [**Theorem 3:**]{} (“Receiver Monogamy”) *For an arbitrary tripartite pure or mixed quantum state $\varrho_{ABC}$, shared between $A$, $B$, and $C$ in arbitrary dimensions, the dense coding capacities are such that the monogamy* $${\cal C}_{BA} + {\cal C}_{CA}\leq {\cal C}_{BC:A},$$ *is satisfied, even when $B$ and $C$ are far apart.*\
`Proof:` We have ${\cal C}_{BA} = \log_2 d_B + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{AB})$ and and ${\cal C}_{CA} = \log_2 d_C + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{AC})$, where $d_B$ and $d_C$ are the dimensions of the Hilbert spaces in possession of Bob and Charu respectively. Now, using strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy [@ekhane-NC] for a tripartite system between $A$, $B$, and $C$, we have $$S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{AB}) + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{AC}) \leq S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{ABC})$$ so that $${\cal C}_{BA} + {\cal C}_{CA} \leq \log_2 (d_B d_C) + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{ABC}).
\label{eq:main1}$$ However, the quantum part of the dense coding capacity of $BC$ to $A$ is ${\cal C}_{BC:A} = \log_2 (d_B d_C) + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{ABC})$. Note here that for Bob and Charu to attain a dense coding capacity of $\log_2 (d_B d_C) + S(\varrho_A) - S(\varrho_{ABC})$ for sending classical information to Alice, it is not necessary for Bob and Charu to come together, as the dense coding capacity is attained by local encodings [@dcamader] (cf. [@Michal-general]). Hence, the theorem. $\blacksquare$
We now consider the relation stated in Theorem 3 in the situation when Alice is the sender, instead of being the receiver of the dense coding channels. Let us therefore compare the sum of the quantities ${\cal C}_{AB}$ and ${\cal C}_{AC}$ with the quantum part of the dense coding capacity, ${\cal C}_{A:BC}$, when Alice wants to send classical information to Bob and Charu (who are together) by using a shared quantum state between the three parties.
*Corollary 3:* A tripartite pure state $|\psi_{ABC}\rangle$ satisfies the relation ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}\leq {\cal C}_{A:BC}$, only if it possesses maximal entanglement between Alice and the Bob-Charu pair.\
`Proof.` For a pure three-party state $|\psi_{ABC}\rangle$, Theorem 1 implies that ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}= 2\log_2 d_A$. The quantum part of the dense coding capacity when $A$ is sending to the $BC$ pair (with the latter being together) is given by ${\cal C}_{A:BC}=\log_2 d_A + S(\varrho_{BC})$. Therefore, the relation ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}\leq {\cal C}_{A:BC}$ for the quantum parts of the capacities reduces to $\log_2 d_ A \leq S(\varrho_{BC}) = S(\varrho_{A})$. But the entropy of a system cannot be more than the logarithm of its dimension, i.e., $S(\varrho_A) \geq \log_2 d_A$. Therefore, $\log_2 d_A = S(\varrho_{BC}) = S(\varrho_{A})$. Also, maximal local entropy for a pure bipartite state implies that it is maximally entangled. Therefore, the entanglement in the $A:BC$ bi-partition has to be maximum, if the dense coding capacities satisfies the relation in the premise of the theorem. $\blacksquare$
Note that in the case of three-qubit pure states, the relation ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}\leq {\cal C}_{A:BC}$ is satisfied only when the state has one ebit of entanglement in its $A:BC$ partition.
*Corollary 4:* If a tripartite pure or mixed state $\varrho_{ABC}$ satisfies the monogamy relation ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}\leq {\cal C}_{A:BC}$, then the state should satisfy the following inequality: $$\label{eq:mixedP}
\log_2 d_A- S(\varrho_{A}) \leq \sum_{i=A,B,C} S(\varrho_{i}) -S(\varrho_{ABC}).$$\
`Proof.` For an arbitrary tripartite pure or mixed state $\varrho_{ABC}$, the monogamy relation ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}\leq {\cal C}_{A:BC}$ can be written by using Eq. (\[eq:capdefi\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\log_2 d_A + S(\varrho_{B}) + S(\varrho_{C}) \leq S(\varrho_{AB}) + S(\varrho_{BC}) \nonumber\\
+ S(\varrho_{AC})- S(\varrho_{ABC}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the subadditivity of entropy [@ekhane-NC], i.e., $S(\varrho_{AB}) \leq S(\varrho_{A}) + S(\varrho_{B})$, and after rearrangement, we obtain the stated sufficient condition. $\blacksquare$
We will now derive a lower bound on the sum, ${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC}$, of the quantum parts of the capacities, in terms of measures of quantum correlations. Let the entanglements of formation [@EoF] between Alice and Bob, and between Alice and Charu be $E_{AB}$ and $E_{AC}$ respectively. Also, suppose that the quantum discords [@discord] between Alice and Bob, and between Alice and Charu are $D_{AB}$ and $D_{AC}$ respectively.
*Corollary 5:* The sum of the quantum parts of the capacities, ${\cal C}_{AB}$ and ${\cal C}_{AC}$, of a tripartite pure state $|\psi_{ABC}\rangle$ is bounded below by $D_{AB}+D_{AC} = E_{AB} + E_{AC}$.\
`Proof.` In case of a pure tripartite state $|\psi_{ABC}\rangle$, Koashi and Winter [@monogamyN] have found a relation between the bipartite entanglement of formation and bipartite quantum discord, which reads $E_{AB}=D_{AC}+S(\varrho_{A|C}),$ where $S(\varrho_{A|C}) = S(\varrho_{AC})- S(\varrho_{C})$ is the conditional entropy. By using Eq. (\[eq:capdefi\]), one obtains ${\cal C}_{AB} = D_{AB} - E_{AC} + \log_2 d_A$, and the quantum part of the capacity between $A$ and $C$ is ${\cal C}_{AC}=D_{AC}-E_{AB}+\log_2 d_A$. The sum of these two quantities will then give $$\label{eq:kirchoff}
{\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC} = D_{AB} + D_{AC} - E_{AB}- E_{AC} + 2\log_2 d_A.$$ Moreover, the sum of the entanglements of formation of $AB$ and $AC$ are bounded above by $2 \log_2 d_A$ [@EoF], i.e. $E_{AB}+E_{AC} \leq 2\log_2 d_A$. This immediately implies that $${\cal C}_{AB} + {\cal C}_{AC} \geq D_{AB}+D_{AC} = E_{AB} + E_{AC}.
\label{eq:capdisrel}$$ To obtain the last equality, we use Theorem 1 in Eq. (\[eq:kirchoff\]) which leads to $D_{AB} + D_{AC} - E_{AB} - E_{AC}=0$. $\blacksquare$
Monogamy of multi-port dense coding capacities
==============================================
In this section, we generalize the strict monogamy relations to an arbitrary number of parties for the case of multi-port capacities. Let us consider a situation where there are $N$ observers, whom we call Alices ($A_1$, $A_2$, $\ldots$, $A_N$), and who share an $N$-party quantum state $\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N}$. Let ${\cal C}_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}$ denote the quantum part of the “distributed” or “multi-port” dense coding capacity in the case when all Alices except $A_{N-1}$ and $A_{N}$ are senders, and $A_{N-1}$ is the receiver. Let ${\cal P}_{N-1}^N$ denote a periodic shift operator that takes $N-1$ elements from the ordered periodic collection $A_1 A_2 \ldots A_N$, so that ${\cal P}_{N-1}^N A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1} = A_2A_3\ldots A_{N-1}A_{N}$, $({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^2 A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1} = A_3A_4\ldots A_{N}A_{1}$, etc. Therefore, we can visualize the $N$ Alices as situated on different points in a ring. We suppose that they are ordered and we assume that the ordering has been performed in the clockwise direction. Any consecutive $N-2$ of them are acting as senders, and they are trying to send classical information to the Alice who is situated just beside them in a clockwise direction.
[**Theorem 4:**]{} (“Strict Monogamy for Multi-port Capacities”) *For an arbitrary pure or mixed quantum state $\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N}$ in arbitrary dimensions, the quantum parts of the distributed dense coding capacities satisfy the following strict monogamy relation:* $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maingeneral}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} {\cal C}_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}
\leq (N-2) \sum_{j=1}^N \log_2 d_{{A}_{j}}, \quad\end{aligned}$$ *where $d_{A_j}$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space in possession of $A_j$.*\
`Proof.` The quantum part of the distributed dense coding capacity ${\cal C}_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}$ is given by [@dcamader] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:capgen}
{\cal C}_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}} = \sum_{i=1}^{N-2} \log_2 d_{A_i} \phantom{aaaaaaaaaaaaaa} \nonumber \\ + S(\varrho_{A_{N-1}}) - S(\varrho_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}),\end{aligned}$$ in which the senders are allowed to perform unitary encoding. Here, $\varrho_{A_{N-1}} = \mbox{tr}_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_N} \varrho_{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_N}$ and $\varrho_{A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}} = \mbox{tr}_{A_N}\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N}$. Below, the local densities are defined similarly. Using Eq. (\[eq:capgen\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} {\cal C}_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}
= (N-2)\sum_{j=1}^N \log_2 d_{A_j} \nonumber\\
+ \sum_{j=1}^{N} S(\varrho_{A_j}) - \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} S(\varrho_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}),
\label{eq:proof}\end{aligned}$$ To prove the nonpositivity of the last line in the above equation (Eq. (\[eq:proof\])), we will need the strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy involving $N$ parties, which we now establish, for completeness. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{N} S(\varrho_{A_j}) - \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} S(\varrho_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}) \nonumber \\
= - \sum S(\varrho_{R_j|({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}) \nonumber \\
\equiv {\cal Q}(\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $R_j$ is the observer which is left out from the $N$ Alices in the collection $({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}$, and $S(\varrho_{R_j|({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}})$ is the conditional entropy defined as $S(\varrho_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}) - S(\varrho_{R_j})$. Since the conditional entropies are convex, $ {\cal Q}(\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N})$ is also a convex function. Moreover $\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N }$ can be written in a spectral decomposition as $ \sum p_k |K\rangle \langle K|$. So, $ {\cal Q}(\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N }) \leq \sum p_k {\cal Q}(|K\rangle \langle K|)$. However, $ {\cal Q}(\varrho_{A_1A_2 \ldots A_N}) =0$ for pure states. Therefore, $$\sum_{j=1}^{N} S(\varrho_{A_j}) - \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} S(\varrho_{({\cal P}_{N-1}^N)^j A_1A_2\ldots A_{N-2}A_{N-1}}) \leq 0.$$ Hence the theorem. $\blacksquare$
*Remark:* Theorem 4 implies that not all groups of $N-2$ senders can get a quantum advantage in sending classical information to the corresponding receiver. They must respect the monogamy relation, given in Eq. (\[eq:maingeneral\]). There are $N$ such sender groups and at most $N-1$ sender groups can have quantum advantages. In other words, if $N-1$ sender groups have quantum advantages, the $N$th sender group must necessarily have no quantum advantage in sending classical information to their intended receiver. In this sense, the monogamy for multi-port capacities is again strict.
Conclusion
==========
Usually, *quantum* correlations are expected to obey monogamy. However, in this paper, we have found that *classical* capacity of a quantum channel obeys an extreme form of monogamy, which we refer as an exclusion principle. Specifically, we have shown that in a tripartite scenario, if Alice, Bob, and Charu share an arbitrary tripartite (pure or mixed) state in arbitrary dimensions, and Alice wishes to send classical information, encoded in a quantum state, to Bob and Charu independently, then quantum protocols can give advantage over classical ones either in the Alice-Bob protocol or in the Alice-Charu protocol. This is also true for an arbitrary number of parties in arbitrary dimensions. This exclusion principle is independent of the shared entanglement between the parties. The principle also holds in the case when the quantum channel carrying the post-encoding quantum states from the sender to the receiver is noisy. In the opposite scenario, where Bob and Charu are the senders, we find that the dense coding capacity also follow the usual monogamy relation of quantum correlations. We subsequently proved that a strict monogamy holds for the case when there are an arbitrary number of senders and a single receiver in arbitrary dimensions. This has potential applications in quantum networks, involving several senders and several receivers.
[999]{}
For a recent review, see e.g. A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Physics News **40**, 17 (2010) (arXiv:1105.2412).
C.H. Bennett and S.J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 2881 (1992).
C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr[é]{}peau, R. Josza, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 1895 (1993).
A.K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 014302 (2000); C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, P.W. Shor, J.A. Smolin, B.M. Terhal, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 077902 (2001).
J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, M. Żukowski, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, arXiv:0805.2853 \[quant-ph\]. H. H[ä]{}ffner, C.F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rep. **469**, 155 (2008); L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 1209 (2010); K. Singer, U. Poschinger, M. Murphy, P. Ivanov, F. Ziesel, T. Calarco, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 2609 (2010); D. Jaksch, Contemp. Phys. **45** 367 (2004); D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, Ann. Phys. **315** 52 (2005); L.M.K. Vandersypen and I.L. Chuang, Rev. Mod. Phys. **76**, 1037 (2005); Y. Makhlin, G. Sch[ö]{}n, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. **73**, 357 (2001); J.M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. **73**, 565 (2001).
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 865 (2009).
A.K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett **67**, 661 (1991).
V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 052306 (2000).
M. Koashi and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A **69**, 022309 (2004).
See also T.J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 220503 (2006); G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 032345 (2006); T. Hiroshima, G. Adesso, and F. Illuminati, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 050503 (2007); M. Seevinck, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 012106 (2007); S. Lee and J. Park, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 054309 (2009); A. Kay, D. Kaszlikowski, and R. Ramanathan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 050501 (2009); M. Hayashi and L. Chen, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 012325 (2011), and references therein.
A. Zeilinger, M.A. Horne, and D.M. Greenberger, in *Proc. Squeezed States & Quantum Uncertainty*, eds. D. Han, Y.S. Kim, and W.W. Zachary, NASA Conf. Publ. 3135 (1992); W. D[ü]{}r, G. Vidal, and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 062314 (2000).
C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **54**, 3824 (1996).
L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A **34**, 6899 (2001); H. Ollivier and W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 017901 (2001); K. Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral, and M. Williamson, arXiv:1112.6238.
Below, we also consider the case when the quantum channel that takes the Alice’s part of the ensemble states $\varrho^i_{AB}$ is noisy.
T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas, *Elements of Information Theory* (Wiley, New Jersey, 2006).
J.P. Gordon, in *Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course XXXI*, edited by P. A. Miles (Academic Press, New York, 1964), p. 156; L.B. Levitin, in *Proceedings of the VI National Conference Information Theory*, Tashkent, 1969, p. 111; A.S. Holevo, Prob. Peredachi Inf. **9**, 3 (1973) \[Probl. Infor. Transm. **9**, 110 (1973)\].
R. Jozsa, D. Robb, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **49**, 668 (1994); A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A **74**, 052332 (2006).
B. Schumacher and M.D. Westmoreland, Phys. Rev. A **56**, 131 (1997); A.S. Holevo, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory **44**, 269 (1998).
S. Bose, M.B. Plenio, and V. Vedral, J. Mod. Optics. **47**, 291 (2000); T. Hiroshima, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **34**, 6907 (2001); G. Bowen, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 022302 (2001); M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, D. Leung, and B. Terhal, Quantum Information and Computation **1**, 70 (2001); M. Ziman and V. Bu[ž]{}ek, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 042321 (2003).
D. Bru[ß]{}, G.M. D’Ariano, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 210501 (2004); D. Bru[ß]{}, M. Lewenstein, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, G.M. D’Ariano, and C. Macchiavello, Int. J. Quant. Inf. **4**, 415 (2006).
E.H. Lieb and M.B. Ruskai, J. Math. Phys. **14**, 1938 (1973). M. Horodecki and M. Piani, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **45**, 105306 (2012).
R. Prabhu, A.K. Pati, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, arXiv:1109.1696; G.L Giorgi, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 054301 (2011).
D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in *Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe*, ed. M. Kafatos (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989).
W.H. Zurek, in *Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation and Measurement Theory*, eds. P. Meystre and M.O. Scully (Plenum, New York, 1983); S.M. Barnett and S.J.D. Phoenix, Phys. Rev. A **40**, 2404 (1989).
N.J. Cerf and C. Adami, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 5194 (1997).
B. Schumacher and M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A **54**, 2629 (1996); B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, *ibid.* **72**, 032317 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Generation of zonal flow (ZF) by energetic particle (EP) driven toroidal Alfvén eigenmode (TAE) is investigated using nonlinear gyrokinetic theory. It is found that, nonlinear resonant EP contribution dominates over the usual Reynolds and Maxwell stresses due to thermal plasma nonlinear response. ZF can be forced driven in the linear growth stage of TAE, with the growth rate being twice the TAE growth rate. The ZF generation mechanism is shown to be related to polarization induced by resonant EP nonlinearity. The generated ZF has both the usual meso-scale and micro-scale radial structures. Possible consequences of this forced driven ZF on the nonlinear dynamics of TAE are also discussed.'
author:
- 'Z. Qiu$^{1}$, L. Chen$^{1, 2}$ and F. Zonca$^{3, 1}$'
title: Effects of energetic particles on zonal flow generation by toroidal Alfvén eigenmode
---
Understanding the nonlinear dynamics of shear Alfvén waves (SAW) is of crucial importance to future burning plasmas with energetic particle (EP) population such as fusion-$\alpha$s significantly contributing to the overall plasma energy density [@LChenRMP2016]. With frequency comparable to the characteristic frequencies of EPs, and group velocities mainly along magnetic field lines, SAWs are expected to be driven unstable by resonant EPs [@YKolesnichenkoVAE1967; @AMikhailovskiiSPJ1975; @MRosenbluthPRL1975; @LChenPoP1994]; leading to EP transport and degradation of overall confinement, as reviewed in Ref. . Toroidal Alfvén eigenmode (TAE) [@CZChengAP1985; @GFuPoFB1989], excited inside the toroidicity-induced SAW continuum gap to minimize continuum damping, is one of most dangerous candidates for effectively scattering EPs.
There are two routes for the nonlinear saturation of TAEs, i.e., nonlinear wave-particle and nonlinear wave-wave interactions [@LChenPoP2013]. Wave-particle phase space nonlinearity [@FZoncaNJP2015], e.g., wave-particle trapping, describes the nonlinear distortion of the EP distribution function; and leads to SAW saturation as the wave-particle trapping frequency, proportional to square root of the mode amplitude, is comparable with linear growth rate [@TOneilPoF1965; @HBerkPoFB1990a; @HBerkPoFB1990c; @JZhuNF2014]. On the other hand, wave-wave coupling accounts for the transfer of TAE wave energy away from the most unstable modes. Among various wave-wave nonlinearities, generation of zonal structures (ZS) is of particular importance. Chen et al [@LChenPRL2012] investigated the nonlinear excitation of zero frequency zonal structure (ZFZS) by TAE with a prescribed amplitude, and found that finite amplitude TAE can excite ZFZS via modulational instability at a rate proportional to the amplitude of the pump TAE. Meanwhile, zonal current with lower excitation threshold could be preferentially excited in specific plasma equilibria, which, however, do not reflect typical experimental tokamak plasmas [@LChenPRL2012]. Numerical simulations of nonlinear dynamics of EP driven TAE are carried out by both hybrid code [@YTodoNF2010] and PIC code [@ZWang2016], and found that zonal flow (ZF) is excited by forced driven process, with the ZF growth rate being twice of TAE growth rate. In this paper, we will clarify the “discrepancies" between analytical theory and simulation, with emphasis on the important role played by EPs [@FZoncaVarenna2000; @LChenRMP2016]. Our results indicate that there is no conflict between analytical theory [@LChenPRL2012] and numerical simulations [@YTodoNF2010; @ZWang2016]; in fact, they describe two nonlinear processes that occur at different stages of the TAE nonlinear dynamics.
To derive the fully nonlinear equations describing nonlinear ZFZS generation by TAE, we take $\delta\phi$ and $\delta A_{\parallel}$ as the field variables. Here, $\delta\phi$ and $\delta A_{\parallel}$ are the scalar potential and parallel component of vector potential to the equilibrium magnetic field, respectively. An alternative field variable $\delta\psi\equiv \omega\delta A_{\parallel}/(ck_{\parallel})$ is also adopt here, and one has $\delta\psi=\delta\phi$ in the ideal MHD limit. For the nonlinear interactions between TAE and ZFZS, we take $\delta\phi=\delta\phi_Z+\delta\phi_T$, with $\delta\phi_T=\delta\phi_0+\delta\phi_{0}^*$. We assume the well-known ballooning-mode decomposition in the $(r,\theta,\phi)$ field-aligned toroidal flux coordinates: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\phi_0=A_0e^{i(n\phi-m_0\theta-\omega_0t)}\sum_j e^{-ij\theta}\Phi_0(x-j).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $n$ is the toroidal mode number, $(m=m_0+j)$ is the poloidal mode number with $m_0$ being its reference value satisfying $nq(r_0)=m_0$, $q(r)$ is the safety factor, $x=nq-m_0\simeq nq'(r-r_0)$, $\Phi_0$ is the fine scale structure associated with $k_{\parallel}$ radial dependence and magnetic shear, and $A_0$ is the radial envelope $$\begin{aligned}
A_0=\hat{A}_0e^{i\int \hat{k}_{0,r} dr}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{A}_0$ being the envelope amplitude and $\hat{k}_{0,r}\equiv nq'\theta_k$ being the radial envelope wavenumber in the ballooning representation. For ZFZS, we take $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\phi_Z=A_Ze^{-i\omega_Z t}\sum_m\Phi_Z \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi_Z$ being the fine radial structure [@ZQiuNF2016], and $A_Z$ being the usual “meso"-scale structure $$\begin{aligned}
A_Z=\hat{A}_Ze^{i\int \hat{k}_Zdr}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The nonlinear equation for ZF can be derived from nonlinear vorticity equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&(e^2/T_i)\langle(1-J^2_k)F_0\rangle\delta\phi_Z-\sum_s\left\langle(e_s/\omega)J_k\omega_d\delta H\right\rangle_Z\nonumber\\
&=&-ic\Lambda_Z\left[ c^2k''^2_{\perp}\partial_l\delta\psi_{k'}\partial_l\delta\psi_{k''}/(4\pi\omega_{k'}\omega_{k''})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left\langle e(J_kJ_{k'}-J_{k''})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}\right\rangle\right]/(\omega_ZB_0),
\label{vorticityequation}\end{aligned}$$ where the two explicitly nonlinear terms on the right hand side are, respectively, Maxwell and Reynolds stresses, the subscripts $s=i, e, E$ denotes particle species, and $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_k\equiv \sum_{\mathbf{k}'+\mathbf{k}''=\mathbf{k}}\hat{\mathbf{b}}\cdot\mathbf{k}''\times\mathbf{k}'.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathbf{k}$ are defined as the operators for spatial derivatives, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{k} \delta\phi &\equiv&[k_{\parallel}\mathbf{b}+ k_{\theta}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}+\left(\hat{k}_r-inq'\partial_x \ln\Phi\right)\hat{\mathbf{r}}]\delta\phi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We note that EPs, with $|k_{\perp}\rho_{d,E}|\gg1$ in the inertial layer, do not contribute to Reynolds or Maxwell stresses. Here, $\rho_d$ is the magnetic drift orbit width. EP nonlinearity enters implicitly in the curvature coupling term (CCT, second term on the left hand side of equation (\[vorticityequation\])) in the ideal region via nonlinear EP response. The nonadiabatic EP response to ZF $\delta H^{NL}_Z$, is derived from the nonlinear gyrokinetic equation [@EFriemanPoF1982]: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(-i\omega+v_{\parallel}\partial_l+i\omega_d\right)\delta H&=&-i\frac{e_s}{m}QF_0J_k\delta L_k\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{c}{B_0}\Lambda_kJ_{k'}\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}\label{NLgyrokinetic}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $QF_0=(\omega\partial_E-\omega_*)F_0$ with $E=v^2/2$, $\omega_*F_0=\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{b}\times\nabla F_0/\Omega$, $\omega_d=(v^2_{\perp}+2
v^2_{\parallel})/(2 \Omega R_0)\left(k_r\sin\theta+k_{\theta}\cos\theta\right)$, $l$ is the length along the equilibrium magnetic field line, $J_k=J_0(k_{\perp}\rho)$ with $J_0$ being the Bessel function accounting for finite Larmor radius effects, $\langle\cdots\rangle$ indicates velocity space integration, $\delta L=\delta\phi-v_{\parallel}\delta A_{\parallel}/c$; and other notations are standard.
Linear EP response to TAE can be derived by transforming into drift orbit center coordinates. Assuming well circulating EPs for simplicity, taking $\delta H^L_0=e^{i\lambda_{d0}}\delta H^L_{d0}$, with $\lambda_{d0}=\hat{\lambda}_{d0}\sin(\theta-\theta_0)=k_{\perp,0}\hat{\rho}_d\sin(\theta-\theta_0)$, $k_{\perp,0}=\sqrt{k^2_{\theta}+k^2_{0,r}}$, $\theta_0=\tan^{-1}(k_{0,r}/k_{\theta})$, $\hat{\rho_d}=qR_0\hat{v}_d/v_{\parallel}$, $\hat{v}_d=(v^2_{\perp}+2
v^2_{\parallel})/(2 \Omega R_0)$ and noting $\exp(ia\cos\theta)=\sum_l J_l(a)\exp(il\theta)$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta H^L_0&=&-\frac{e}{m}Q_0F_0e^{i\lambda_{d0}}J_0(\gamma_0)\delta L_0\nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_l\frac{J_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0})e^{il(\theta-\theta_0)}}{\omega_0-k_{\parallel,0}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $e^{i\lambda_{d,0}}$ is the generator of coordinate transformation from drift orbit center to particle gyro center, $\omega_{tr}\equiv v_{\parallel}/(qR_0)$ is the transit frequency and $J_0(\gamma_0)=J_0(k_{\perp,0}\rho_L)$. EP response to $\delta\phi^*_{0}$ can be derived similarly $$\begin{aligned}
\delta H^L_{0^*}&=&-\frac{e}{m}Q_{0^*}F_0e^{i\lambda_{d0^*}}J_0(\gamma_{0^*})\delta L_{0^*}\nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_l\frac{(-1)^lJ_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0^*})e^{il(\theta+\theta_{0^*})}}{\omega_{0^*}-k_{\parallel,0^*}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\lambda_{d0^*}=\hat{\lambda}_{d0^*}\sin(\theta+\theta_{0^*})=k_{\perp,0^*}\hat{\rho}_d\sin(\theta+\theta_{0^*})$, with $k_{\perp,0^*}=\sqrt{k^2_{\theta}+k^2_{0^*,r}}$ and $\theta_{0^*}=\tan^{-1}(k_{0^*,r}/k_{\theta})$.
Taking $\delta H^{NL}_Z=e^{i\lambda_{dZ}}\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}$ with $\lambda_{dZ}=\hat{\lambda}_{dZ}\cos\theta=k_Z\hat{\rho}_d\cos\theta$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_t+\omega_{tr}\partial_{\theta}\right)\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}=-\frac{c}{B}e^{-i\lambda_{dZ}}\Lambda_Z J_0(\gamma_{k'})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}.\end{aligned}$$ Separating $\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}=\overline{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}+\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}$, with $\overline{(\cdots)}$ and $\widetilde{(\cdots)}$ denoting surface averaged and poloidally varying components, respectively; and noting $|\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}/\overline{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}|\sim |\omega_Z/\omega_{tr}|\ll1$, we then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\overline{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}&=&-\frac{c}{B_0}\overline{e^{-i\lambda_{dZ}}\Lambda_Z J_0(\gamma_{k'})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}},\label{NLdc}\\
\omega_{tr}\partial_{\theta}\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}&=&-\frac{c}{B_0}\left[e^{-i\lambda_{dZ}}\Lambda_Z J_0(\gamma_{k'})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}\right]_{AC}\label{NLac}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the subscript “AC" denotes $m\neq0$ component, and $(\cdots)_{AC}=\widetilde{(\cdots)}$.
Nonlinear EP response enters vorticity equation via surface averaged CCT contribution in the ideal region. Noting that $\omega_{dZ}=\omega_{tr}\partial_{\theta}\lambda_{dZ}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{CCT}&=&\left\langle\overline{\frac{e}{\omega}J_0(\gamma_Z)\omega_d\delta H^{NL}}\right\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{i}{2\pi}\frac{e}{\omega}\left\langle J_Z\int d\theta e^{i\lambda_{dZ}}\omega_{tr}\partial_{\theta}\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}\right\rangle.\label{CCT1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $J_Z=J_0(k_Z\rho)$. It is readily obtained from equation (\[CCT1\]) that, despite $|\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}/\overline{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}|\ll1$, the contribution of EPs to CCT in the vorticity equation for the ZFZS comes only from $\widetilde{\delta H^{NL}_{dZ}}$. Meanwhile, the flux surface averaged response, $\overline{\delta H_{dZ}^{NL}}$, would dominate the EP nonlinear wave-particle response in the TAE vorticity equation [@LChenRMP2016; @FZoncaVarenna2000]. This is not the subject of the present work and will be treated elsewhere. Substituting equation (\[NLac\]) into equation (\[CCT1\]), and noting that $\overline{A \widetilde{B}}=\overline{\widetilde{A}B}$ and $\widetilde{e^{i\lambda_{dZ}}}=e^{i\lambda_{dZ}}-J_0(\hat{\lambda}_{dZ})$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{CCT}&=&\frac{i}{2\pi}\frac{c}{B_0}\frac{e}{\omega}\left\langle J_Z\left[\underbrace{\int d\theta\Lambda_ZJ_0(\gamma_{k'})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}}_{\mathscr{A}}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&-&\left.\left.J_0(\hat{\lambda}_{dZ})\underbrace{\int d\theta e^{-i\lambda_{dZ}}\Lambda_ZJ_0(\gamma_{k'})\delta L_{k'}\delta H_{k''}}_{\mathscr{B}}\right]\right\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ terms will be treated separately.
Using linear EP responses in the nonlinear terms (i.e., the linear expression for $\delta H_{k''}$ in the nonlinear term), ignoring the weak tunneling coupling between two poloidal harmonics located at different radial positions, and noting that $Q_{0^*}\simeq -Q_0$ due to $|\omega_{*,E}|\gg|\omega_0|$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{A}&=&-\hat{H}\int d\theta\left[J_0(\gamma_{0^*})\delta L_{0^*}\delta H_0-J_0(\gamma_0)\delta L_0\delta H_{0^*}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&2\pi \hat{H}\frac{e}{m}J_0(\gamma_0)J_0(\gamma_{0^*})\hat{A}_0\hat{A}_{0^*}\nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2
\left(1-\frac{k_{\parallel}v_{\parallel}}{\omega}\right)_0\left(1-\frac{k_{\parallel}v_{\parallel}}{\omega}\right)_{0^*} Q_0F_0 \nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_l\left[\frac{J^2_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0})}{\omega_0-k_{\parallel,0}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}+\frac{J^2_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0^*})}{\omega_{0^*}-k_{\parallel,0^*}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}\right].\nonumber\\
\label{eq:A1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{H}=k_{\theta}(k_{r,0}+k_{r,0^*})$. In deriving equation (\[eq:A1\]), we have applied ideal MHD condition ($\delta\phi^L\simeq\delta\psi^L$) for TAEs to simplify $\delta L_0$ and $\delta L_{0^*}$ [@ZQiuEPL2013].
Assuming that dominant contribution comes from resonant EPs, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{A}&=&2i\pi^2\hat{H}\frac{e}{m}J_0(\gamma_0)J_0(\gamma_{0^*})Q_0F_0\frac{\omega^2_{tr}}{\omega^2_0}\nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_l l^2\left(J^2_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0})-J^2_l(\hat{\lambda}_{d0^*})\right)\delta (\omega_0-k_{\parallel,0}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr})\nonumber\\
&&\times|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2.\label{eq:A}\end{aligned}$$ In deriving equation (\[eq:A\]), the resonance condition is applied to simplify $\delta L_k$ (i.e., $\omega-k_{\parallel,0}v_{\parallel}=l\omega_{tr}$). The contribution to the nonlinear term, comes from the finite orbit width (FOW) effects induced $k_{\perp}$-spectrum asymmetry, with an interesting analogue to the well-known polarization nonlinearity induced by the finite Larmor radius effect [@AHasegawaPoF1978]. One would then expect, comparing to the well-circulating EPs assumed here, trapped EPs may enhance the nonlinear couplings even stronger due to their large bounce orbits. This will be discussed in a future publication.
$\mathscr{B}$ can be derived similarly. Substituting linear EP response ($\delta H_{k''}$) into $\mathscr{B}$, and noting $k_Z=k_{r,0}+k_{r,0^*}$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{B}&=&\hat{H}\frac{e}{m}J_0(\gamma_0)J_0(\gamma_{0^*})\int d\theta e^{-i\lambda_{dZ}}\delta L_0\delta L_{0^*}Q_0F_0\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[e^{-i\lambda_{d0}}\sum_l\frac{J_l(k_{\perp,0}\hat{\rho}_d)e^{il(\theta-\theta_0)}}{\omega_0-k_{\parallel,0}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace*{1.5em}\left.+e^{i\lambda_{d0^*}}\sum_l\frac{(-1)^lJ_l(k_{\perp,0^*}\hat{\rho}_d)e^{il(\theta+\theta_{0^*})}}{\omega_{0^*}-k_{\parallel,0^*}v_{\parallel}-l\omega_{tr}}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Assuming $|k_{\perp}\rho_{d,E}|\ll1$, and keeping only $l=\pm1$ transit resonances, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{CCT}&=&\frac{i}{4}\pi\frac{c}{B_0}\frac{e^2}{m}\frac{n_{0E}}{\omega_Z}\frac{k_{\theta}}{\omega^2_0}\hat{G}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}\hat{F}|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{F}\equiv i(\hat{k}_{r,0}-\hat{k}_{r,0^*})+\partial_r\ln\Phi_0-\partial_r\ln\Phi_{0^*}$, with $\hat{k}_{r,0}-\hat{k}_{r,0^*}$ from radial envelope modulation and $\partial_r\ln\Phi_0-\partial_r\ln\Phi_{0^*}$ related with fine radial structures of TAE [@ZQiuNF2016]. $\hat{G}$ comes from resonant EP, and is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}&\equiv&\left\langle \omega_{*,E}\hat{v}^2_d(F_{0E}/n_{0E})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\times\left(\delta(\omega_0-k_{\parallel}v_{\parallel}-\omega_{tr})+\delta(\omega_0-k_{\parallel}v_{\parallel}+\omega_{tr})\right)\right\rangle\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ In the expression of $\hat{G}$, the FLR effects are ignored in consistency with the $k_{\perp}\rho_{d,E}\ll1$ assumption.
Thermal plasma contribution to nonlinearity comes from Reynolds (RS) and Maxwell (MX) stresses in the inertial layer. We have, following Ref. [^1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{RS+ MX}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\frac{c}{B_0}\frac{n_0e^2}{T_i}k_{\theta}\rho^2_i\frac{1}{\omega_Z}\left(1-\frac{k^2_{\parallel}v^2_A}{\omega^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}\hat{F}|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2.\end{aligned}$$
Noting that the EP induced nonlinearity dominates over Reynolds and Maxwell stresses by order $O(n_{0E}\hat{\omega}_{*E}q^2/(n_0\omega_0\epsilon))$, the nonlinear vorticity equation for ZF then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\noindent\omega_Z\hat{\chi}_{iZ}\delta\phi_Z=i\frac{\pi}{4}\frac{c}{B_0}\frac{n_{0E}}{n_0}\frac{T_i}{T_E}\frac{k_{\theta}}{\rho^2_i\omega^2_0}\hat{G}\hat{F}|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2.\label{ZFVorticity}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{\chi}_{iZ}\equiv\chi_{iZ}/(k^2_r\rho^2_i)\simeq 1.6q^2/\sqrt{\epsilon}$ with $\chi_{iZ}$ being the neoclassical polarization [@MRosenbluthPRL1998], $\hat{\omega}_{*E}\equiv T_E \mathbf{k}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{b}}\times\nabla\ln F_{0E}/(m_i\Omega_i)$ and $\epsilon\equiv r/R_0\ll1$ being the inverse aspect ratio [^2].
For $\Phi_0$ being purely real, the ZF generation rate is dominated by the first term of $\hat{F}$ (i.e. $\hat{k}_{r,0}-\hat{k}_{r,0^*}$), which corresponds to radial envelope modulation. This is the typical case for fixed shear Alfvén waves with a prescribed amplitude [@LChenPRL2012] (the nonlinear term in equation (\[ZFVorticity\]) should be replaced by RS and MX, but the structure of the nonlinear term is not changed) and/or drift waves [@LChenPoP2000]. On the other hand, for the case of EP driven TAE discussed here, $\Phi_0$ is complex due to wave-particle interactions, and thus, the second term (i.e., $\partial_r\ln\Phi_0-\partial_r\ln\Phi_0^*$) is finite, and dominates. In this case, the generation rate is enhanced by $O(1/\hat{k}_{Z}\Delta_s)$, with $\Delta_s$ being the scale of the fine structure which is, typically, distance between mode rational surfaces. The generated ZF, in addition to the usual “meso"-scale, also has a fine-scale radial structure [@ZQiuNF2016].
Keeping only the dominant term associated with TAE fine radial structure, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\hat{\chi}_{iZ}\delta\phi_Z=i\frac{\pi}{2}\hat{K}\hat{G}\mathbb I{\rm m}(\partial_r\ln\Phi_0)|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2,\label{eq:ZFtemporal}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{K}\equiv cn_ET_ik_{\theta}/(B_0n_0T_E\rho^2_i\omega^2_0)$ defined consistently with equation (\[ZFVorticity\]) by direct inspection. For TAE with a finite growth rate $\gamma_L$ due to EP resonant drive, we then have, $\partial_t|_Z=2\gamma_{\scriptsize L}$. The generation of ZF discussed here is a typical forced driven process, consistent with simulation results [@YTodoNF2010; @ZWang2016]. This process is different from that of modulational instability [@LChenPRL2012], which, dubbed as “secondary instability", becomes important as the pump wave reaches a certain amplitude to overcome the threshold condition for reinforcement by nonlinearity of its deviation from periodic behavior; while the forced driven process studied here, occurs while the pump wave is still in the linear growth stage. The forced driven process is, thus, expected to have potentially significant consequences on TAE nonlinear dynamics.
Noting again $\partial_t|_Z=2\gamma_L$, the generated ZF can then be derived $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\phi_Z=i\frac{\pi}{4}\frac{\hat{K}\hat{G}}{\gamma_{\scriptsize L}\hat{\chi}_{iZ}}\mathbb I{\rm m}(\partial_r\ln\Phi_0)|\hat{A}_0|^2\sum_m|\Phi_0|^2.\label{eq:ZF}\end{aligned}$$ It is clear from equation (\[eq:ZF\]) that ZF has both a meso-scale and a fine-scale radial structure, with the fine structure $\Phi_Z$ related to $|\Phi_0|^2$. Taking $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_Z\equiv|\Phi_0|^2,\end{aligned}$$ the meso-scale structure of ZF is then $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_Z=i\frac{\pi}{4} \frac{\hat{K}\hat{G}}{\gamma_{\scriptsize L}\hat{\chi}_{iZ}} \mathbb I{\rm m}(\partial_r\ln\Phi_0)|\hat{A}_0|^2.\end{aligned}$$
In conclusion, the nonlinear excitation of ZF by EP driven TAE is studied, and it is found that EP contribution in the ideal region may dominates over the usual Reynolds and Maxwell stresses in the layer region. In addition to the secondary modulational process discussed in Ref. , ZF can also be excited by forced driven process in the linear growth stage of TAE [@YTodoNF2010; @ZWang2016]. The growth rate of the forced driven ZF is twice of TAE growth rate, and the generated ZF has both the usual meso scale and fine radial structure, due to the fact that AEs are typically weak or moderate ballooning [@ZQiuNF2016]. The nonlinear coupling effect between AEs is of order $O(1/\hat{k}_Z\Delta_s)$ stronger comparing to envelope modulation, when the anti-Hermitian response due to EP resonant drive (more generally, wave-particle interaction) and the corresponding complex fine radial TAE structure is properly taken into account. The mechanism for ZF drive here, is polarization induced by resonant EP nonlinearity.
We note that the forced driven mechanism for ZF generation, discussed here, is very different from that of spontaneous excitation via modulational instability. Modulational instability becomes important when the amplitude of the pump wave (TAE here) is large enough to overcome the threshold condition due to, e.g., frequency mismatch [@LChenPRL2012] and/or dissipations. On the other hand, the forced driven process, being essentially thresholdless, takes place in the initial linear growth stage of the pump wave ($|\omega_{B}|<|\gamma_L|$, with $\omega_{B}$ being the wave particle trapping frequency, proportional to the square root of mode amplitude), and may have significant consequences on the nonlinear dynamics of the pump TAE. First of all, with the growth rate being twice TAE linear growth rate, EP resonance detuning by ZF may compete with phase space wave-particle nonlinearities. Second, the forced driven ZF may regulate the saturation level of TAE. Equation (\[eq:ZFtemporal\]) shows that, after the initial exponential growth and as TAE saturates with $\gamma_{TAE}\rightarrow0$, the temporal evolution of ZF becomes algebraic, which can be suppressed by, e.g., collisional damping. If the saturation level of TAE determined by forced driven ZF exceeds the threshold condition for modulational instability, ZF and TAE upper/lower sidebands can be generated with growth rate proportional to pump TAE amplitude [@LChenPRL2012]. Vice-versa, if the saturation level of TAE due to regulation by the forced driven ZF is below the modulational instability threshold, the spontaneous excitation process can be completely suppressed [^3]. To correctly understand the nonlinear dynamics of Alfvén waves, all these mechanisms, including nonlinear wave-particle interactions [@HBerkPoFB1990c; @FZoncaNJP2015; @LChenRMP2016] and nonlinear mode-mode couplings [@LChenPRL2012; @LChenRMP2016], should be taken into account on the same footing. The formulation of such general problem and the derivation of the governing nonlinear equations will be reported in a future publication.
This work is supported by US DoE GRANT, the ITER-CN under Grants Nos. 2013GB104004 and 2013GB111004, the National Science Foundation of China under grant Nos. 11575157 and 11235009, Fundamental Research Fund for Chinese Central Universities under Grant No. 2016FZA3003 and EUROfusion Consortium under grant agreement No. 633053.
[22]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, **** ().
, **** ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ().
, , , , , (, ).
, , , , , ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: Note that in Ref. , the fine structure of ZF is not considered, such that there is no $\partial_r\ln\Phi_0-\partial_r\ln\Phi_{0^*}$ term.
[^2]: Note that in deriving equation (\[ZFVorticity\]), we assumed small EP drift orbit in the ideal region. The same equation can be obtained by assuming that EP response is dominated by the $l=\pm 1$ transit resonances, while no assumptions on EP drift orbit is needed.
[^3]: Note that phase space wave-particle nonlinearities is not included in the present system yet [@LChenRMP2016; @FZoncaNJP2015], as anticipated in our comments following equation (\[CCT1\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Most Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) approaches are supervised methods which require a significant amount of annotated corpus, and the annotation requires linguistic expertise. In this paper, we propose a Multi-Task Active Learning framework for Semantic Role Labeling with Entity Recognition (ER) as the auxiliary task to alleviate the need for extensive data and use additional information from ER to help SRL. We evaluate our approach on Indonesian conversational dataset. Our experiments show that multi-task active learning can outperform single-task active learning method and standard multi-task learning. According to our results, active learning is more efficient by using 12% less of training data compared to passive learning in both single-task and multi-task setting. We also introduce a new dataset for SRL in Indonesian conversational domain to encourage further research in this area[^1].'
author:
- |
Fariz Ikhwantri$^1$ Samuel Louvan$^{1,2}$ Kemal Kurniawan$^1$ Bagas Abisena$^1$\
**Valdi Rachman$^{3}$** **Alfan Farizki Wicaksono$^3$ Rahmad Mahendra$^3$**\
$^1$Kata.ai, Jakarta, Indonesia\
$^2$Fondazione Bruno Kessler/University of Trento, Trento, Italy\
$^3$Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia\
[{fariz,kemal,bagas}@kata.ai, [email protected]]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
[{alfan,rahmad.mahendra}@cs.ui.ac.id]{}
bibliography:
- 'acl2018.bib'
title: 'Multi-Task Active Learning for Neural Semantic Role Labeling on Low Resource Conversational Corpus'
---
Introduction
============
Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) extracts predicate-argument structures from sentences [@Jurafsky2006SpeechAL]. It tries to recover information beyond syntax. In particular, information that can answer the question about “who did what to whom, when, why and so on” [@Johansson:2008:DSR:1613715.1613726; @CHOI10.73].
There have been many proposed SRL techniques, and the high performing models are mostly supervised [@Akbik2016KSRLIL; @Punyakanok2004SemanticRL]. As they are supervised methods, the models are trained on a relatively large annotated corpus. Building such corpus is expensive as it is laborious, time-consuming, and usually requires expertise in linguistics. For example, PropBank annotation guideline by @CHOI10.73 is around 90 pages so it can be a steep learning curve even for annotators with a linguistic background. This difficulty makes reproducibility hard for creating annotated data especially in low resource language or different domain of data. Several approaches have been proposed to reduce the effort of annotation. @He2015QuestionAnswerDS introduced a Question Answering-driven approach by casting a predicate as a question and its thematic role as an answer in the system. @Wang2017ActiveLF used active learning using semantic embedding. @Akbik2017 utilized Annotation Projection with hybrid crowd-sourcing to route between hard instances for linguistic experts and easy instances for non-expert crowds.
Active Learning is the most common method to reduce annotation by using a model to minimize the amount of data to be annotated while maximizing its performance. In this paper, we propose to combine active learning with multi-task learning applied to Semantic Role Labeling by using a related linguistic task as an auxiliary task in an end-to-end role labeling. Our motivation to use a multi-task method is in the same spirit as [@Gormley2014] where they employed related syntactic tasks to improve SRL in low-resource languages as multi-task learning. Instead, we used Entity Recognition (ER) as the auxiliary task because we think ER is semantically related with SRL in some ways. For example, given a sentence: *Andy gives a book to John*, in SRL context, *Andy* and *John* are labeled as AGENT and PATIENT or BENEFACTOR respectively, but in ER context, they are labeled as PERSON. Hence, although the labels are different, we hypothesize that there is some useful information from ER that can be leveraged to improve overall SRL performance.
Our contribution in this paper consists of two parts. First, we propose to train multi-task active learning with Semantic Role Labeling as the primary task and Entity Recognition as the auxiliary task. Second, we introduce a new dataset and annotation tags for Semantic Role Labeling from conversational chat logs between a bot and human users. While many of the previous work studied SRL on large scale English datasets in news domain, our research aims to explore SRL in Indonesian conversational language, which is still under-resourced.
Related Work
============
##### Active learning
(AL) [@Settles:10] is a method to improve the performance of a learner by iteratively asking a new set of hypotheses to be labeled by human experts. A well-known method is Pool-Based AL, which selects the hypotheses predicted from a pool of unlabeled data [@Lewis1994ASA]. The most informative instance from hypotheses is selected and added into labeled data. The informativeness of an instance is measured by its uncertainty, which is inversely proportional to the learner’s confidence of its prediction for that instance. In other words, the most informative instance is the one which the model is least confident with.
There are two well-studied methods of sequence labeling with active learning. The first one is maximum entropy: given an input sentence $x$, the probability of word $x_t$ having tag $y_t$ is given by
$$\label{eq:softmax}
p_\theta(y_t|x_t) = \frac{exp(~a^{y_t}_t(x_t|\theta))}{\sum_{j=1}^{K}exp(~a_t^j(x_t|\theta))}$$
Where $\theta$ denotes a model parameters and $K$ is the number of tags. Uncertainty in maximum entropy can be defined using Token Entropy (TE) as described in [@Settles:2008:AAL:1613715.1613855; @Marcheggiani2014AnEC]. $$\label{eq:token-log-entropy}
\phi_{t}^{\mathrm{TE}} = - \sum_{j \in K}p(y_t=j|x_t)\log p(y_t=j|x_t)$$ $$\label{eq:instance-token-entropy}
x_{\mathrm{TE}}=\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x} \sum_{t=1}^T -\phi_t^{\mathrm{TE}}$$
From token level entropy ($\mathrm{TE}$) in , we used a simple aggregation such as summation to select an instance. So that instance $x$ is selected by Equation as least confident sample, where $\sum_{t=1}^T (.)$ is a summation term for greedy aggregation of sentence level entropy. Another well-studied sequence labeling method with active learning is Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) by @Lafferty2001ConditionalRF, where the probability of a sequence label $\mathbf{y}=\{y_1,y_2,..,y_T\}$ given a sequence of observed vectors $\mathbf{x} =\{x_1,x_2,..,x_T\}$ and a joint log-likelihood function of unary and transition parameter $\psi(y_{t-1}, y_t, x_t)$ is defined as $$\label{eq:crf}
p_\psi(y|x) = \frac{\prod_{t=1}^T \psi(y_{t-1}, y_t, x_t)}{\sum_{y \in Y} \prod_{t=1}^T \psi(y_{t-1}, y_t, x_t)}$$
Uncertainty in conditional random fields can be obtained by Viterbi decoding by selecting instance with maximum $p(y|x)$ from a pool of unlabeled instances as defined below. $$x_{\mathrm{VE}} = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{x}p_{\psi}(y^{\star}|x)
\label{eq:min-viterbi}$$ where $p(y^{\star}|.)$ is a probability assigned by Viterbi inference algorithm [@Marcheggiani2014AnEC].
##### Multi-Task Learning
Instead of training one task per model independently, one can use related labels to optimize multiple tasks in a learning process jointly. This method is commonly known as Multi-Task learning (MTL) or as Parallel Transfer Learning [@Caruana1997MultitaskL]. Our motivation to use multi-task learning is to leverage “easier” annotation than Semantic Roles to regularize model by using related tasks. Previous work on Multi-Task learning on Semantic Role Labeling by @Collobert:2011:NLP:1953048.2078186 did not report any significant improvement for SRL task. A recent work [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1711-00768] used SRL as the auxiliary task with Opinion Role Labeling as the main task.
##### Multi-Task Active Learning
Previous work on multi-task active learning (MT-AL) [@reichart-EtAl:2008:ACLMain] was focused on formulating a method to keep the performance across a set of tasks instead of a single task. In multi-task active learning scenario, optimizing a set of task classifiers can be regarded as a meta-protocol by combining each task query strategy into a single query method. In one-sided task query scenario settings, one selected task classifier uncertainty strategy is used to query unlabeled samples. In multiple task scenario, the uncertainty of an instance is the aggregate of classifier’s uncertainties for all tasks.
![Model Overview. Four layers Highway LSTM. SRL task used Conditional Random Fields (CRF) for sequence labeling output.[]{data-label="fig:model"}](multi-task.png)
Proposed Method
===============
In this section, we explain on how we incorporated both the AL and MTL in our neural network architecture. We used the state-of-the-art SRL model from @he2017deep as our base model as shown in Figure \[fig:model\].
Our model is a modification of @he2017deep’s work. Our first adjustment is to use CRF as the last layer instead of softmax because of its notable superiority found by @Reimers2017ReportingSD for both role labeling and entity recognition. In this scenario, we used CRF layer for the primary task (SRL) [@zhou-xu:2015:ACL-IJCNLP] and softmax layer for the auxiliary task. The auxiliary task acts as a regularization method [@Caruana1997MultitaskL]. Second, we used character embedding with Convolutional Neural Networks as Characters Encoder [@Ma2016EndtoendSL], to handle out-of-vocabulary problem caused by misspelled words, slangs, and abbreviations common in informal chatting, as well as word embedding and predicate indicator feature embedding as the input features for a Highway LSTM.
In multi-task learning configuration, we used parameter sharing in embedding and sequence encoder layers except for the outermost module which is used for prediction for each specific task. We optimized the parameters jointly by minimizing the sum loss of $L(y_{s}, y_{e}| x, \theta, \psi) =L(\hat{y_{s}}, y_{s}|x, \theta) + L(\hat{y_{e}}, y_{e}| x, \psi)$, where the first part of the equation is the SRL loss and the second part is the entity loss. SRL loss is computed by joint log-likelihood of emissions with transition parameters in CRF from Equation \[eq:crf\] and entity loss is computed using standard cross-entropy loss from softmax output in Equation \[eq:softmax\].
##### Multi-Task Active Learning
In multiple task scenario, we used the rank combination by @reichart-EtAl:2008:ACLMain that combines each task query strategy into an overall $\mathrm{rank}(x^{i}) = \mathrm{rank}(x_{\mathrm{VE}}^{i}) + \mathrm{rank}(x_{\mathrm{TE}}^{i})$. Note that in both training one-sided and combined rank multi-task active learning, we returned all task gold labels to be trained in multi-task models.
As a multi-task active learning baseline, instead of one-sided AL which queries a pre-determined task for all-iteration, we used random task selection to draw which task to use as the query strategy in the $i$-th iteration. Random task selection is implemented using random multinomial sampling. The selected task is used for the query instances using standard uncertainty sampling.
Dataset & Experiment
====================
Dataset
-------
This research presents the dataset of human users conversation with virtual friends bot[^2]. The annotated messages are user inquiries or responses to the bot. Private information in the original data such as name, email, and address will be anonymized. Three annotators with a linguistic background performed the annotation process. In this work, we used a set of semantic roles adapted for informal, conversational language. Table \[tab:semantic\_roles\] shows some examples of the semantic roles. The dataset consists of 6057 unique sentences which contain predicates.
Semantic Roles Count Example
----------------- ------- ---------------------------
AGENT (A) 2843 *I* brought you a present
PATIENT (PS) 3040 I brought you *a present*
BENEFACTOR (BN) 293 I brought *you* a present
GREET (G) 572 Hi *Andy*!
I brought you a present
LOCATION (L) 183 I can eat at *home* today
TIME (T) 399 I can eat at home *today*
: Semantic Roles dataset for conversational language statistics and examples[]{data-label="tab:semantic_roles"}
The semantic roles used are a subset of PropBank [@Palmer2005ThePB]. Also, we added a new role, GREET. In our collected data, Indonesian people tend to call the name of the person they are talking to. Because such case frequently co-occurs with another role, we felt the need to differentiate this previously mentioned entity as a new role. For example, in the following sentence: ”*Hi Andy! I brought you a present*” can help refers “*you*” role as PATIENT to “*Andi*” role as GREET instead of left unassigned.
In our second task, which is Entity Recognition (ER), we annotated the same sentence after the SRL annotation. We used common labels such as `PERSON`, `LOCATION`, `ORGANIZATION`, and `MISC` as our entity tags. Different from Named Entity Recognition (NER), ER also tag nominal objects such as *“I”*, *“you”* and referential locations like *“di sana (over there)”*. While this tagging might raise a question whether there are overlapping tags with SRL, we argue that entity labels are less ambiguous compared to role arguments which are dependent on the predicate. An example of this case can be seen in Table \[tab:semantic\_roles\], where both of *I* and *you* are tagged as PERSON whereas the roles are varied. In this task, we used semi-automatic annotation tools using `brat` [@stenetorp2012]. These annotation were checked and fixed by four people and one linguistic expert.
Experiment Scenario
-------------------
The purpose of the experiment is to understand whether multi-task learning and active learning help to improve SRL model performance compared to the baseline model (SRL with no AL scenario). In this section, we focus on several experiment scenarios: single-task SRL, single-task SRL with AL, MTL, and MTL with AL.
##### Model Architecture
Our model architecture consists of word embedding, character 5-gram encoder using CNN and predicate embedding as inputs, with 50, 50, and 100 dimension respectively. These inputs are concatenated into a 200-dimensional vector which then fed into two-layer Highway LSTM with 300 hidden units.
##### Initialization
The word embedding were initialized with unsupervised pre-trained values obtained from training word2vec [@mikolov2013efficient] on the dataset. Word tokens were lowercased, while characters were not.
##### Training Configurations
For training configurations, we trained for 10 epochs using AdaDelta [@Zeiler2012ADADELTAAA] with $\rho=0.95$ and $\epsilon=1.\mathrm{e}{-6}$. We also employed early stopping with patience set to 3. We split our data using 80% training, 10% validation, and 10% test for the fully supervised scenario. For the active learning scenario, we further split the training data into labeled and unlabeled data. We used two kinds of split, 50:50 and 85:15. For the 50:50 scenario, we queried 100 sentences for each epoch. For the 85:15 scenario, we used a smaller query of 10 sentences in an epoch to keep the number of queries less than the number of available fully supervised training data in 10 epochs. This number of queried sentences was obtained by tuning on the validation set.
As for the AL query method, in the single-task SRL, we used random and uncertainty sampling query. SRL with 100% training data and SRL with random query serve as baseline strategies. In the MTL SRL, we employed random task and ranking.
Results & Analysis
==================
-------- ----------- ---------- ------- ------- -----------
Task Active Data (%) P R F1
SRL - 100 75.12 75.49 75.30
SRL Random 50 75.50 74.01 74.75
SRL Random 85 78.83 71.91 75.21
SRL Uncertain 50 76.67 74.01 75.32
SRL Uncertain 85 78.35 75.25 76.77
SRL+ER - 100 76.88 74.50 75.67
SRL+ER RandTask 50 77.31 71.28 74.18
SRL+ER RandTask 85 76.59 74.50 75.53
SRL+ER Ranking 50 78.94 71.90 75.25
SRL+ER Ranking 85 78.18 75.87 **77.01**
-------- ----------- ---------- ------- ------- -----------
: Experiment results, Scenario Active means the query strategy used to sort instance informativeness, RandTask = Random Task Selection, Data scenario are initial percentage of labeled data, 50% means the 50:50 split, 85% means 85:15 split, and 100% means use all training data. P (Precision), R (Recall), F1 (F1 Score)[]{data-label="tab:experiment"}
![Comparison of experiment scenarios in validation set. Multi-Task AL using Ranking Combination with initial 85% labeled training data achieve best F1 score[]{data-label="fig:plot-compare"}](plot-compare-2)
We experimented with a low-resource conversational language by varying the task scenario, active learning query strategy, and outset percentage of data seed from training data. We report our results using Precision (P), Recall (R), and the F1 score (F1) computed by exact matching of gold and predicted role spans. The report can be seen in Table \[tab:experiment\]. Our baseline multi-task (SRL+ER with no AL scenario) learning model in this experiment has a higher precision compared to the single-task (SRL) model. From the initial 85% of labeled training data scenario, our model in total requested 87% of the training data in 10 epochs. In this scenario, our proposed method for multi-task active learning using ranking combination can outperform the single-task active learning models. Figure \[fig:plot-compare\] presents the F1 score learning curve for each model.
------------ ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Label
P R F1 P R F1
AGENT 87.03 83.43 85.196 86.68 85.85 86.26
PATIENT 72.80 69.64 71.19 74.00 70.76 72.34
BENEFACTOR 60.53 76.67 67.65 38.10 42.11 40.00
GREET 75.81 65.28 70.15 83.05 76.56 79.66
LOCATION 50.00 34.62 40.91 60.00 65.22 62.50
TIME 66.67 61.11 63.76 72.73 65.31 68.82
------------ ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
: Detailed scores of Multi-Task Active Learning performance with 85% initial data. P (Precision), R (Recall), F1 (F1 Score)[]{data-label="per-label"}
![Confusion matrix for Multi-Task Active Learning Model using 85% initial labeled data.[]{data-label="fig:confusion-mat"}](confusion.jpg)
##### Significance test
We performed two tails significance test (t-test) by using 5-fold cross validation from the training and the test parts of the corpus. The multi-task learning model is better compared to the single-task learning one $(p<0.05)$. However, the single-task and the multi-task learning scenario are not significantly better than both multi-task active learning from 85% and 50% training data scenario, since the $p$-value between model pairs are greater than 0.05. Therefore, accepting the null hypothesis indicate that performances between multi-task active learning with 50%/85% initial data and multi-task or single-task with full dataset are comparable.
We draw a confusion matrix of the multi-task active learning model with 85% initial training data in Figure \[fig:confusion-mat\] to analyze our model performance. We observe several common errors made by the model. The largest mistakes from the matrix are PATIENT false positive. The model incorrectly detected 59% of non-roles as PATIENT. Another prominent error is 21% false negative of total gold roles. The model primarily failed to tag 37% of gold BENEFACTOR and 35% of gold TIME. Quite different from the English SRL, we found that labels confusion happens less frequently than other error types. Based on this percentage, we investigated the error by drawing samples. In general, we broke down the incorrect predictions into several types of error.
False Negative Spans {#false-negative-spans .unnumbered}
--------------------
False negatives in semantic role labeling are defined as the number of roles in the gold data that do not have the corresponding span matches in the model prediction. False negative for AGENT encompasses 69% of errors from the total of 45 AGENT gold span role errors, while the errors in TIME roles all occur in this error type. In Table \[add-roles\], the left example shows that, the model failed to tag “*ini komputer*” (EN: This is a computer). In the right example, the model did not recognize “*get rick nya*[^3]” as PATIENT. An interesting remark is perhaps how the model failed to tag because the predicate is an unknown word in the training vocabulary despite the use of characters encoder to alleviate the out-of-vocabulary problem. While in the left example, predicate *“menjawab”* is also an unknown word in the vocabulary but not a mistyped word, the right sample’s predicate “*di donlot*” is an informal writing of the word “download”.
In the 50% training data scenario, we found that multi-task active learning model achieves less recall compared to the single-task active learning model. The multi-task active learning with 50% initial training data performance suffers from failing to tag 53% of BENEFACTOR label.
Boundary Error {#boundary-error .unnumbered}
--------------
Overall, we found that boundary errors contribute to 22% of the total span exact match errors. For example, we found that PATIENT boundary errors mostly occurred because predicted role spans do not match the continuation of subsequent role. As shown in Table \[fix-boundary\], the model failed to recognize *makanan* (EN: food) as the continuation of *info* (EN: info) from the top example. In the bottom example, the model failed to predict the continuation of a mistyped role “*sahabar*”.
Role Confusion {#role-confusion .unnumbered}
--------------
Role confusion is defined as the matching between gold span and predicted span, but they have different labels. This error typically occurs the least compared to the false negatives and boundary errors. In total, it is only 7% of the total errors. The most common incorrect prediction is between gold PATIENT and prediction AGENT. As shown in Table \[role-confusion\] in the top sentence, the model incorrectly labeled a PATIENT (Jemma) as an AGENT. Additionally, the model also incorrectly tagged BENEFACTOR as PATIENT. In the bottom sentence, the word “*Aku*” (EN: I) is not annotated as any roles but detected as an AGENT by the model.
Conclusion & Future Work
========================
In this paper, we applied previous state-of-the-art deep semantic role labeling models on a low resource language in a conversational domain. We propose to combine multi-task and active learning methods into a single framework to achieve competitive SRL performance with less training data, and to leverage a semantically related task for SRL.
Our primary motivation is to apply the framework for low resource languages in terms of dataset size and domains. Our experiments demonstrate that active learning method performs comparably well to the single-task baseline using 30% fewer data by querying a total of 3483 from 4845 sentences. This result can be increased further marginally to outperform the baseline using 87% of the training data. Our error analysis reveals some different obstacles from English SRL to work on in the future.
While @he2017deep’s model of deep layers of highway LSTM allows learning the relation between a predicate and arguments explicitly, not all tasks in multi-task learning have equal complexity that needs deep layers. @lower-level-mt proposed a method to allow a model to predict tasks with different complexities at different layer depths. For example, predicting entity recognition tag at lower layers or inserting predicate features at higher layers in an LSTM, because entity recognition does not need predicates as features and is considered as a lower-level task compared to SRL.
Combining multi-task learning with an unsupervised task such as language modeling [@Rei2017SemisupervisedML] is also a possible improvement in multi-task active learning settings as a semi-supervised variant. Analyzing other active learning methods such as query by committee, variance reduction [@Settles:2008:AAL:1613715.1613855], and information density [@Wang2017ActiveLF] in multi-task settings are also a promising path in deep learning architectures.
[^1]: request to <[email protected]>
[^2]: https://kata.ai/case-studies/jemma
[^3]: mistyped application name
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that for a self-morphism of an abelian variety defined over an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic, the second cohomological dynamical degree coincides with the first numerical dynamical degree.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, 1984 Mathematics Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences, 2207 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada'
author:
- Fei Hu
title: Cohomological and numerical dynamical degrees on abelian varieties
---
[^1]
Introduction {#section-intro}
============
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety defined over an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$, and $f$ a surjective morphism of $X$ to itself. Inspired by Esnault–Srinivas [@ES13] and Truong [@Truong1611], we associate to this map two dynamical degrees as follows. Let $\ell$ be a prime different from the characteristic of ${\mathbf{k}}$. As a consequence of Deligne [@Deligne74] and Katz–Messing [@KM74], the characteristic polynomial of $f$ on the $\ell$-adic étale cohomology group $H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ is independent of $\ell$, and has integer coefficients, and algebraic integer roots (cf. [@ES13 Proposition 2.3]; see also [@Kleiman68]). The [*$i$-[th]{} cohomological dynamical degree*]{} $\chi_i(f)$ of $f$ is then defined as the spectral radius of the pullback action $f^*$ on $H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$, i.e., $$\chi_i(f) = \rho\big(f^* \big|_{H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)}\big).$$ Alternatively, one can also define dynamical degrees using algebraic cycles. Indeed, let $N^k(X)$ denote the group of algebraic cycles of codimension $k$ modulo numerical equivalence. Note that $N^k(X)$ is a finitely generated free abelian group (cf. [@Kleiman68 Theorem 3.5]), and hence the characteristic polynomial of $f$ on $N^k(X)$ has integer coefficients and algebraic integer roots. We define the [*$k$-[th]{} numerical dynamical degree*]{} $\lambda_k(f)$ of $f$ as the spectral radius of the pullback action $f^*$ on $N^k(X)_{\mathbf{R}}\coloneqq N^k(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{R}}$, i.e., $$\lambda_k(f) = \rho\big(f^* \big|_{N^k(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}\big).$$
When ${\mathbf{k}}\subseteq {\mathbf{C}}$, we may associate to $(X, f)$ a projective (and hence compact Kähler) manifold $X_{\mathbf{C}}$ and a surjective holomorphic map $f_{\mathbf{C}}$. Then by the comparison theorem and Hodge theory, it is not hard to show that $\chi_{2k}(f) = \lambda_k(f)$; both of them also agree with the usual dynamical degree defined by the Dolbeault cohomology group $H^{k,k}(X_{\mathbf{C}}, {\mathbf{C}})$ in the context of complex dynamics (see e.g. [@DS17 §4]).
For an arbitrary algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$ (in particular, of positive characteristic), Esnault and Srinivas [@ES13] proved that for an automorphism of a smooth projective surface, the second cohomological dynamical degree coincides with the first numerical dynamical degree. Their proof relies on the Enriques–Bombieri–Mumford classification of surfaces in arbitrary characteristic. In general, Truong [@Truong1611] raised the following question (among many others).
\[qn:est\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety defined over an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$, and $f$ a surjective morphism of $X$ to itself. Then is $\chi_{2k}(f) = \lambda_k(f)$ for any $1\le k\le \dim X$?
The above question turns out to be related to Weil’s Riemann hypothesis (proved by Deligne in the early 1970s). More precisely, when $X_0$ is a smooth projective variety defined over a finite field ${\mathbf{F}}_q$, we let $X$ denote the base change of $X_0$ to the algebraic closure ${\overline{{\mathbf{F}}}}_q$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_q$ and let $F$ denote the Frobenius endomorphism of $X$ (with respect to ${\mathbf{F}}_q$). Then Deligne’s celebrated theorem asserts that all eigenvalues of $F^*|_{H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)}$ are algebraic integers of modulus $q^{i/2}$ (cf. [@Deligne74 Théorème 1.6]). In particular, we have $\chi_i(F) = q^{i/2}$. On the other hand, the $k$-[th]{} numerical dynamical degree $\lambda_k(F)$ of $F$ is equal to $q^k$. See [@Truong1611 §4] for more details.
Truong proved in [@Truong1611] a slightly weaker statement that $$h_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(f) \coloneqq \max_{i} \log \chi_i(f) = \max_{k} \log \lambda_k(f) \eqqcolon h_{{{\rm alg}}}(f),$$ which is enough to conclude that the (étale) entropy $h_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(f)$ coincides with the algebraic entropy $h_{{{\rm alg}}}(f)$ in the sense of [@ES13 §6.3]. As a consequence, the spectral radius of the action $f^*$ on the even degree étale cohomology $H^{2\bullet}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ is the same as the spectral radius of $f^*$ on the total cohomology $H^{\bullet}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$.[^2] Note that when ${\mathbf{k}}\subseteq {\mathbf{C}}$, by the fundamental work of Gromov [@Gromov03] and Yomdin [@Yomdin87], the algebraic entropy is also equal to the topological entropy $h_{\textrm{top}}(f_{\mathbf{C}})$ of the topological dynamical system $(X_{\mathbf{C}}, f_{\mathbf{C}})$; see [@DS17 §4] for more details.
In this article, we give an affirmative answer to \[qn:est\] in the case that $X$ is an abelian variety and $k=1$.
\[thmA\] Let $X$ be an abelian variety defined over an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$, and $f$ a surjective self-morphism of $X$. Then $\chi_2(f) = \lambda_1(f)$.
\[rmkA\]
(1) When $f$ is an automorphism of an abelian surface $X$, the theorem was already known by Esnault and Srinivas (cf. [@ES13 §4]). Even in this two dimensional case, their proof is quite involved. Actually, after a standard specialization argument, they applied the celebrated Tate theorem [@Tate66] (see also [@Mumford Appendix I, Theorem 3]), which asserts that the minimal polynomial of the geometric Frobenius endomorphism is a product of distinct monic irreducible polynomials. Then they had four cases to analyze according to its irreducibility and degree. Our proof is more explicit in the sense that we will eventually determine all eigenvalues of $f^*|_{N^1(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$.
(2) Because of the lack of an explicit characterization of higher-codimensional cycles (up to numerical equivalence) like the Néron–Severi group ${\operatorname{NS}}(X)$ sitting inside the endomorphism algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$, it would be very interesting to consider the case $k\ge 2$ next.
Preliminaries on abelian varieties {#section-prelim}
==================================
We refer to [@Mumford] and [@Milne86] for standard notation and terminologies on abelian varieties.
\[notation\] The following notation remains in force throughout the rest of this article unless otherwise stated.
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathbf{k}}$ an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic
$\ell$ a prime different from ${\operatorname{char}}{\mathbf{k}}$
$X$ an abelian variety of dimension $g$ defined over ${\mathbf{k}}$
${\widehat{X}}$ the dual abelian variety ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(X)$ of $X$
$\alpha, \ \psi$ endomorphisms of $X$
${\widehat{\alpha}}, \ {\widehat{\psi}}$ the induced dual endomorphisms of ${\widehat{X}}$
${\operatorname{End}}(X)$ the endomorphism ring of $X$
${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ ${\operatorname{End}}(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}$, the endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra of $X$
${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ ${\operatorname{End}}(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{R}}= {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}$, the endomorphism ${\mathbf{R}}$-algebra of $X$
${\operatorname{M}}_n(R)$ the ring of all $n\times n$ matrices with entries in a ring $R$
$\phi_{\mathscr{L}}$ the induced homomorphism of a line bundle ${\mathscr{L}}$ on $X$:
$\phi_{\mathscr{L}}\colon X {\longrightarrow}{\widehat{X}}, \ \ x \longmapsto t_x^*{\mathscr{L}}\otimes {\mathscr{L}}^{-1}$
$\phi = \phi_{{\mathscr{L}}_0}$ a fixed polarization of $X$ induced from some ample line bundle ${\mathscr{L}}_0$
$^\dagger$ the Rosati involution on ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ defined in the following way:
$\psi \longmapsto \psi^\dagger \coloneqq \phi^{-1}\circ {\widehat{\psi}} \circ \phi$, for any $\psi \in {\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$
${\operatorname{NS}}(X)$ ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)/{\operatorname{Pic}}^0(X)$, the Néron–Severi group of $X$
${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$ ${\operatorname{NS}}(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}= N^1(X)_{\mathbf{Q}}= {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{Q}}$ (see \[rmk:div-equiv-relation\])
${\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ ${\operatorname{NS}}(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{R}}= {\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}= N^1(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$
$N^k(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ $N^k(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{R}}$, the ${\mathbf{R}}$-vector space of numerical equivalent classes of
codimension-$k$ cycles (with $0\le k\le g = \dim X$)
$H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ $H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell} {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell$, the $\ell$-adic étale cohomology group of degree $i$
$T_\ell X$ the Tate module $\varprojlim_n X_{\ell^n}({\mathbf{k}})$ of $X$, a free ${\mathbf{Z}}_\ell$-module of rank $2g$
$T_\ell \alpha$ the induced endomorphism on $T_\ell X$
$A$ a simple abelian variety defined over ${\mathbf{k}}$
$D$ ${\operatorname{End}}^0(A)$, the endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra of $A$
$K$ the center of the division ring $D = {\operatorname{End}}^0(A)$
$K_0$ the maximal totally real subfield of $K$
${\mathbf{H}}$ the standard quaternion algebra over ${\mathbf{R}}$
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the convenience of the reader, we include several important structure theorems on the étale cohomology groups, the endomorphism algebras and the Néron–Severi groups of abelian varieties. We refer to [@Mumford §19-21] for more details.
First, the étale cohomology groups of abelian varieties are simple to describe.
\[thm:etale-coh\] Let $X$ be an abelian variety of dimension $g$ defined over ${\mathbf{k}}$, and let $\ell$ be a prime different from ${\operatorname{char}}{\mathbf{k}}$. Let $T_\ell X \coloneqq \varprojlim_n X_{\ell^n}({\mathbf{k}})$ be the Tate module of $X$, which is a free ${\mathbf{Z}}_\ell$-module of rank $2g$.
- There is a canonical isomorphism $$H^1_{\emph{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell) {\simeq}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell}(T_\ell X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell).$$
- The cup-product pairing induces isomorphisms $$\bigwedge\nolimits^i H^1_{\emph{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell) {\simeq}H^i_{\emph{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell),$$ for all $i$. In particular, $H^i_{\emph{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell)$ is a free ${\mathbf{Z}}_\ell$-module of rank $\displaystyle \binom{2g}{i}$.
Furthermore, the functor $T_\ell$ induces an $\ell$-adic representation of the endomorphism algebra. In general, we have:
\[thm:l-adic-rep\] For any two abelian varieties $X$ and $Y$, the group ${\operatorname{Hom}}(X,Y)$ of homomorphisms of $X$ into $Y$ is a finitely generated free abelian group, and the natural homomorphism of ${\mathbf{Z}}_\ell$-modules $${\operatorname{Hom}}(X, Y) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell}(T_\ell X, T_\ell Y)$$ induced by $T_\ell \colon {\operatorname{Hom}}(X, Y) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell}(T_\ell X, T_\ell Y)$ is injective.
For a homomorphism $f \colon X {\longrightarrow}Y$ of abelian varieties, its [*degree*]{} $\deg f$ is defined to be the order of the kernel $\ker f$, if it is finite, and $0$ otherwise. In particular, the degree of an isogeny is always a positive integer.
\[thm:char-poly\] For any $\alpha \in {\operatorname{End}}(X)$, there is a unique monic polynomial $P_\alpha(t) \in {\mathbf{Z}}[t]$ of degree $2g$ such that $P_\alpha(n) = \deg(n_X - \alpha)$ for all integers $n$. Moreover, $P_\alpha(t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$ acting on $T_\ell X$, i.e., $P_\alpha(t) = \det(t - T_\ell \alpha )$, and $P_\alpha(\alpha) = 0$ as an endomorphism of $X$.
We call $P_\alpha(t)$ as in \[thm:char-poly\] the [*characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$*]{}. On the other hand, we can assign to each $\alpha$ the characteristic polynomial $\chi_\alpha(t)$ of $\alpha$ as an element of the semisimple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$. Namely, we define $\chi_\alpha(t)$ to be the characteristic polynomial of the left multiplication $\alpha_L \colon \beta \mapsto \alpha \beta$ for $\beta \in {\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ which is a ${\mathbf{Q}}$-linear transformation on ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$. Note that the above definition of $\chi_\alpha(t)$ makes no use of the fact that ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ is semisimple. Actually, for semisimple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebras, it is much more useful to consider the so-called reduced characteristic polynomials.
We recall some basic definitions on semisimple algebras (see [@Reiner03 §9] for more details).
\[def:red-char\] Let $R$ be a finite-dimensional semisimple algebra over a field $F$ with ${\operatorname{char}}F = 0$, and write $$R = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{k} R_i,$$ where each $R_i$ is a simple $F$-algebra. For any element $r \in R$, as above, we denote by $\chi_r(t)$ the [*characteristic polynomial of $r$*]{}. Namely, $\chi_r(t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of the left multiplication $r_L \colon r' \mapsto rr'$ for $r' \in R$. Let $K_i$ be the center of $R_i$. Then there exists a finite field extension $E_i/K_i$ splitting $R_i$ (cf. [@Reiner03 §7b]), i.e., we have $$h_i \colon R_i \otimes_{K_i} E_i \xrightarrow{\ \ \sim\ \ } {\operatorname{M}}_{d_i}(E_i), \text{ where } [R_i:K_i] = d_i^2.$$ Write $r = r_1 + \cdots + r_k$ with each $r_i \in R_i$. We first define the [*reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{r_i}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ of $r_i$*]{} as follows (cf. [@Reiner03 Definition 9.13]): $$\chi_{r_i}^{{{\rm red}}}(t) \coloneqq {\operatorname{N}}_{K_i/F} \big(\det(t \, {\mathbf{I}}_{d_i} - h_i(r_i \otimes_{K_i} \! 1_{E_i})) \big) \in F[t].$$ It turns out that $\det(t \, {\mathbf{I}}_{d_i} - h_i(r_i \otimes_{K_i} \! 1_{E_i}))$ lies in $K_i[t]$, and is independent of the choice of the splitting field $E_i$ of $R_i$ (cf. [@Reiner03 Theorem 9.3]). The [*reduced norm of $r_i$*]{} is defined by $${\operatorname{N}}_{R_i/F}^{{{\rm red}}}(r_i) \coloneqq {\operatorname{N}}_{K_i/F} \big(\det (h_i(r_i \otimes_{K_i} \! 1_{E_i})) \big) \in F.$$ Finally, as one expects, the [*reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{r}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$*]{} and the [*reduced norm ${\operatorname{N}}_{R/F}^{{{\rm red}}}(r)$ of $r$*]{} are defined by the products: $$\label{eq:def-red-char}
\chi_{r}^{{{\rm red}}}(t) \coloneqq \prod_{i=1}^{k} \chi_{r_i}^{{{\rm red}}}(t) \ \text{ and } \
{\operatorname{N}}_{R/F}^{{{\rm red}}}(r) \coloneqq \prod_{i=1}^{k} {\operatorname{N}}_{R_i/F}^{{{\rm red}}}(r_i).$$
\[rmk:red-char\]
(1) It follows from [@Reiner03 Theorem 9.14] that $$\label{eq:Rei03-Thm9.14}
\chi_r(t) = \prod_{i=1}^{k} \chi_{r_i}(t) = \prod_{i=1}^{k} \chi_{r_i}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^{d_i}.$$
(2) Note that reduced characteristic polynomials and norms are not affected by change of ground field (cf. [@Reiner03 Theorem 9.27]).
We now apply the above algebraic setting to $R = {\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$. For any $\alpha \in {\operatorname{End}}(X)$, let $\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ denote the reduced characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$ as an element of the semisimple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$. For simplicity, let us first consider the case when $X=A$ is a simple abelian variety and hence $D\coloneqq {\operatorname{End}}^0(A)$ is a division ring. Let $K$ denote the center of $D$ which is a field, and $K_0$ the maximal totally real subfield of $K$. Set $$d^2 = [D:K], \ e = [K:{\mathbf{Q}}] \ \text{ and } \ e_0 = [K_0:{\mathbf{Q}}].$$ Then the equality reads as $$\chi_\alpha(t) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^d.$$ The lemma below shows that the two polynomials $P_\alpha(t)$ and $\chi_{\alpha}(t)$ are closely related. Its proof relies on a characterization of normal forms of $D$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$.
For convenience, we include the following definition. Let $R$ be a finite-dimensional associative algebra over an infinite field $F$. A [*norm form*]{} on $R$ over $F$ is a non-zero polynomial function $$N_{R/F} \colon R {\longrightarrow}F$$ (i.e., in terms of a basis of $R$ over $F$, $N_{R/F}(r)$ can be written as a polynomial over $F$ in the components of $r$) such that $N_{R/F}(rr') = N_{R/F}(r) N_{R/F}(r')$ for all $r,r'\in R$.
\[lemma:red-char-I\] Using notation as above, for any $\alpha\in {\operatorname{End}}(A)$, we have $$P_\alpha(t) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^m,$$ where $m = 2g/(ed)$ is a positive integer. In particular, the two polynomials $P_\alpha(t)$ and $\chi_\alpha(t)$ have the same complex roots (apart from multiplicities).[^3]
By the lemma in [@Mumford §19] (located between Corollary 3 and Theorem 4, p. 179), any norm form of $D$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ is of the following type $$({\operatorname{N}}_{K/{\mathbf{Q}}} \circ {\operatorname{N}}^{{{\rm red}}}_{D/K})^k \colon D {\longrightarrow}{\mathbf{Q}}$$ for a suitable nonnegative integer $k$, where ${\operatorname{N}}^{{{\rm red}}}_{D/K}$ is the reduced norm (aka canonical norm form in the sense of Mumford) of $D$ over $K$. Now for each $n\in {\mathbf{Z}}$, we have $$\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(n) = {\operatorname{N}}_{K/{\mathbf{Q}}} \circ {\operatorname{N}}^{{{\rm red}}}_{D/K}(n_A - \alpha).$$ On the other hand, the action of $D$ on $V_{\ell} A \coloneqq T_{\ell} A \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}} {\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell}$ defines the determinant map $$\det \colon D {\longrightarrow}{\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell},$$ which actually takes on values in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and is a norm form of degree $2g$. Indeed, let $V_\ell \alpha$ denote the induced map of $\alpha$ on $V_\ell A$, then $P_\alpha(n) = \deg(n_A - \alpha) = \det(n_A - \alpha) = \det(n - V_\ell \alpha)$ for all integers $n$ (see \[thm:char-poly\]). Applying the aforementioned lemma in [@Mumford §19] to this $\det$, we obtain that for a suitable $m$, $$\det(\psi) = ({\operatorname{N}}_{K/{\mathbf{Q}}}\circ {\operatorname{N}}^{{{\rm red}}}_{D/K}(\psi))^m$$ for all $\psi \in D$. It is easy to see that $m$ is $2g/(ed)$. Then by taking $\psi = n_A - \alpha$, we have that $P_\alpha(n) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(n)^m$ for all integers $n$. This yields that $P_\alpha(t) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^m$.
It is straightforward to generalize \[lemma:red-char-I\] to the case that $X$ is the $n$-[th]{} power $A^n$ of a simple abelian variety $A$ since ${\operatorname{End}}^0(A^n) = {\operatorname{M}}_n({\operatorname{End}}^0(A))$ is still a simple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra.
\[lemma:red-char-II\] Let $A$ be a simple abelian variety and $X = A^n$. Let $\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ denote the reduced characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$ as an element of the simple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X) = {\operatorname{M}}_n(D)$ with $D = {\operatorname{End}}^0(A)$. Then $$\chi_{\alpha}(t) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^{dn} \text{ and } P_\alpha(t) = \chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)^m,$$ where $m = 2g/(edn)$ is a positive integer. In particular, these two polynomials $P_\alpha(t)$ and $\chi_\alpha(t)$ have the same complex roots (apart from multiplicities).
We recall the following useful structure theorems on ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$ which play a crucial role in the proof of our main theorem.
\[thm:NS\] Fix a polarization $\phi \colon X {\longrightarrow}{\widehat{X}}$ that is an isogeny from $X$ to its dual ${\widehat{X}}$ induced from some ample line bundle ${\mathscr{L}}_0$ (we suppress this ${\mathscr{L}}_0$ since it does not make an appearance here henceforth). Then the natural map $${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \quad \text{via} \quad {\mathscr{L}}\longmapsto \phi^{-1} \circ \phi_{\mathscr{L}}$$ is injective and its image is precisely the subspace $\big\{ \psi \in {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \mid \psi^{\dagger} = \psi \big\}$ of symmetric elements of ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ under the Rosati involution $^\dagger$ which maps $\psi$ to $\psi^{\dagger} \coloneqq \phi^{-1} \circ {\widehat{\psi}} \circ \phi$.
\[thm:NS-matrix-form\] The endomorphism ${\mathbf{R}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}\coloneqq {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}$ is isomorphic to a product of copies of ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{R}})$, ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{C}})$ and ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{H}})$. Moreover, one can fix an isomorphism so that it carries the Rosati involution into the standard involution ${\mathbf{A}}\longmapsto {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}^{\mathsf{T}}$. In particular, ${\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}\coloneqq {\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}$ is isomorphic to a product of Jordan algebras of the following types: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{R}}) &= r \times r \text{ symmetric real matrices,} \\
{\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{C}}) &= r \times r \text{ Hermitian complex matrices,} \\
{\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{H}}) &= r \times r \text{ Hermitian quaternionic matrices.}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[thmA\] {#section-proof}
=========================
Some results on dynamical degrees {#subsec-prelim-dyn-deg}
---------------------------------
We first prepare some results used later to prove our main theorem. Recall that in the complex dynamics, the dynamical degrees are bimeromorphic invariants of the dynamics system (see e.g. [@DS17 Theorem 4.2]). We have also shown the birational invariance of numerical dynamical degrees in arbitrary characteristic (cf. [@Hu19 Lemma 2.8]). Below is a similar consideration which should be of interest in its own right. Note, however, that we have not shown the birational invariance of cohomological dynamical degrees, which is actually one of the questions raised by Truong (see [@Truong1611 Question 5]).
\[lemma:bir-inv\] Let $\pi \colon X {\longrightarrow}Y$ be a surjective morphism of smooth projective varieties defined over ${\mathbf{k}}$. Let $f$ (resp. $g$) be a surjective self-morphism of $X$ (resp. $Y$) such that $\pi \circ f = g \circ \pi$. Then $\chi_i(f) \ge \chi_i(g)$ for any $0\le i\le 2 \dim Y$ and $\lambda_k(f) \ge \lambda_k(g)$ for any $0\le k\le \dim Y$.
We have the following commutative diagram of ${\mathbf{Q}}_\ell$-vector spaces: $$\begin{tikzcd}
H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(Y, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \arrow{r}{\pi^*} \arrow{d}[swap]{g^*} & H^{i}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \arrow{d}{f^*} \\
H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(Y, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \arrow{r}{\pi^*} & H^{i}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell).
\end{tikzcd}$$ The first part follows readily from [@Kleiman68 Proposition 1.2.4] which asserts that the pullback map $\pi^*$ on $\ell$-adic étale cohomology is injective and hence $\pi^*H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(Y, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ is an $f^*$-invariant subspace of $H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$. The second part is similar; see also [@Hu19 Lemma 2.8] for a stronger version.
The following useful inequality was already noticed by Truong [@Truong1611]. We provide a proof for the sake of completeness.
\[lemma:dyn-deg-ineq\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective varieties defined over ${\mathbf{k}}$, and $f$ a surjective self-morphism of $X$. Then we have $\lambda_k(f) \le \chi_{2k}(f)$ for any $0\le k \le \dim X$.
Note that the $\ell$-adic étale cohomology $H^{\bullet}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ is a Weil cohomology after the non-canonical choice of an isomorphism ${\mathbf{Z}}_\ell(1) {\simeq}{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell$ (cf. [@Kleiman68 Example 1.2.5]). So we have the following cycle map $$\gamma_X^k \colon {\operatorname{CH}}^k(X) {\longrightarrow}H^{2k}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell),$$ where the $k$-th Chow group ${\operatorname{CH}}^k(X)$ of $X$ denotes the group of algebraic cycles of codimension $k$ modulo linear equivalence, i.e., ${\operatorname{CH}}^k(X) \coloneqq {Z}^k(X)/ \!\sim$. Recall that a cycle $Z\in {Z}^k(X)$ is homologically equivalent to zero if $\gamma_X^k(Z) = 0$. Also, it is well-known that homological equivalence $\sim_{\rm hom}$ is finer than numerical equivalence ${\equiv}$ (cf. [@Kleiman68 Proposition 1.2.3]). Hence we have the following diagram of finite-dimensional ${\mathbf{Q}}_\ell$-vector spaces (respecting the natural pullback action $f^*$ by the functoriality of the cycle map): $$\label{eq:num-coh}
\begin{tikzcd}
({\operatorname{CH}}^k(X)/ \!\sim_{\rm hom}) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}_\ell \arrow[r, hook] \arrow[d, two heads] & H^{2k}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \\
({\operatorname{CH}}^k(X)/ \!{\equiv}) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}_\ell = N^k(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}_\ell. &
\end{tikzcd}$$ Thus \[lemma:dyn-deg-ineq\] follows.
\[rmk:div-equiv-relation\] When $k=1$, by a theorem of Matsusaka [@Matsusaka57], homological equivalence coincides with numerical equivalence (in general, Grothendieck’s standard conjecture $D$ predicts that they are equal for all $k$). Furthermore, after tensoring with ${\mathbf{Q}}$, both of them are also equivalent to algebraic equivalence $\approx$. Namely, we have $${\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{Q}}= ({\operatorname{CH}}^1(X)/ \!\approx) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}{\simeq}({\operatorname{CH}}^1(X)/ \!\sim_{\rm hom}) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}{\simeq}N^1(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}.$$ In particular, the cycle map $\gamma_X^1$ induces an injection $$N^1(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}{\mathbf{Q}}_\ell {\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}H^{2}_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell).$$
Extension of the pullback action to endomorphism algebras {#subsec-extension}
---------------------------------------------------------
For an endomorphism $\alpha$ of an abelian variety $X$, the following easy lemma sheds the light on the connection between the first numerical dynamical degree $\lambda_1(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ and the induced action $\alpha^*$ on the endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$, while the latter is closely related to the matrix representation of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ or ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}$ (see e.g. \[lemma:Kronecker\]).
\[lemma:NS-End\] Fix a polarization $\phi \colon X {\longrightarrow}{\widehat{X}}$ as in \[thm:NS\]. For any endomorphism $\alpha$ of $X$, we can extend the pullback action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$ to ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ as follows: $$\alpha^* \colon {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \quad \text{via} \quad \psi \longmapsto \alpha^*\psi \coloneqq \alpha^{\dagger} \circ \psi \circ \alpha.\footnote{Here by abuse of notation, we still denote this action by $\alpha^*$.
We would always write $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{End}}^0(X)}$ to emphasize the acting space in practice.}$$
We shall identify ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) \ni {\mathscr{L}}$ with the subspace of symmetric elements $\phi^{-1}\circ\phi_{\mathscr{L}}$ of the endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ in virtue of \[thm:NS\]. Then the natural pullback action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$ could be reinterpreted in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^* \colon {\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) & {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{NS}}^0(X) \\
\phi^{-1} \circ \phi_{\mathscr{L}}& \longmapsto \phi^{-1} \circ \phi_{\alpha^* \! {\mathscr{L}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\phi^{-1} \circ \phi_{\alpha^* \! {\mathscr{L}}} = \phi^{-1} \circ {\widehat{\alpha}} \circ \phi_{\mathscr{L}}\circ \alpha = \alpha^{\dagger} \circ \phi^{-1} \circ \phi_{\mathscr{L}}\circ \alpha$, where ${\widehat{\alpha}}$ is the induced dual endomorphism of ${\widehat{X}}$ and $\alpha^\dagger = \phi^{-1} \circ {\widehat{\alpha}} \circ \phi$ is the Rosati involution of $\alpha$; for the first equality, see [@Mumford §15, Theorem 1]. This gives rise to an action of $\alpha$ on the whole endomorphism algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ by sending $\psi\in {\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ to $\alpha^{\dagger} \circ \psi \circ \alpha$. It is easy to see that the restriction of $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{End}}^0(X)}$ to ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$ is just the natural pullback action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{NS}}^0(X)$.
The lemma below plays a crucial role in the proof of our main theorem by giving a characterization of the above induced action $\alpha^*$ on certain endomorphism algebras of abelian varieties. Here we consider a more general version from the aspect of linear algebra.
\[lemma:Kronecker\]
1. \[lemma:Kronecker1\] If ${\mathbf{A}}\in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}})$, then the linear transformation $$f_{\mathbf{A}}\colon {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}}) \quad \text{via} \quad {\mathbf{B}}\longmapsto {\mathbf{A}}\!^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{A}}$$ of $n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{R}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}})$ could be represented by ${\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\mathbf{A}}$, the Kronecker product of ${\mathbf{A}}$ and itself.
2. \[lemma:Kronecker2\] If ${\mathbf{A}}\in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$, then the following linear transformation $$f_{\mathbf{A}}\colon {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \quad \text{via} \quad {\mathbf{B}}\longmapsto {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{A}}$$ of $n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{C}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$ could be represented by ${\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}$, the Kronecker product of ${\mathbf{A}}$ and its complex conjugate ${\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}$.
3. \[lemma:Kronecker3\] If ${\mathbf{A}}\in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$, then the following linear transformation $$f_{\mathbf{A}}\colon {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \quad \text{via} \quad {\mathbf{B}}\longmapsto {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{A}}$$ of $2n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{R}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$ could be represented by the block diagonal matrix $({\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}) \oplus ({\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}\otimes {\mathbf{A}})$.
We first prove the assertion since the proof of the first one is essentially the same. Choose the standard ${\mathbf{C}}$-basis $\{{\mathbf{e}}_{ij}\}$ of ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$, where ${\mathbf{e}}_{ij}$ denotes the $n\times n$ complex matrix whose $(i,j)$-entry is $1$, and $0$ elsewhere. We also adopt the standard vectorization $${\operatorname{vec}}\colon {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \xrightarrow{\ \ \sim\ \ } {\mathbf{C}}^{n^2}$$ of ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$, which converts $n\times n$ matrices into column vectors so that $$\label{eq:basis}
\{ {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{11}), {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{21}), \dots, {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{n1}), {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{12}), \dots, {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{n2}), \dots, {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{1n}), \dots, {\operatorname{vec}}({\mathbf{e}}_{nn}) \}$$ forms the standard ${\mathbf{C}}$-basis of ${\mathbf{C}}^{n^2}$. Write ${\mathbf{A}}= (a_{ij})_{n\times n}$ with $a_{ij}\in {\mathbf{C}}$. Then we have $${\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}^{\mathsf{T}}\cdot {\mathbf{e}}_{ij} = {\overline{a}}_{i1} {\mathbf{e}}_{1j} + {\overline{a}}_{i2} {\mathbf{e}}_{2j} + \cdots + {\overline{a}}_{in} {\mathbf{e}}_{nj}.$$ Hence under the basis , it is easy to verify that the left multiplication by ${\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}^{\mathsf{T}}$ on the ${\mathbf{C}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}}) {\simeq}{\mathbf{C}}^{n^2}$ is represented by the block diagonal matrix ${\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}} \oplus {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}} = {\mathbf{I}}_n \otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}$. Similarly, since ${\mathbf{e}}_{ij} \cdot {\mathbf{A}}= a_{j1} {\mathbf{e}}_{i1} + a_{j2} {\mathbf{e}}_{i2} + \cdots + a_{jn} {\mathbf{e}}_{in}$, one can check that under the basis , the right multiplication by ${\mathbf{A}}$ is represented by ${\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\mathbf{I}}_n$. Therefore, our linear map $f_{\mathbf{A}}$ is represented by the matrix product $({\mathbf{I}}_n \otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}) \cdot ({\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\mathbf{I}}_n) = {\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}$. Thus the assertion follows.
For the last assertion, we just need to combine the assertion with the following general fact: if ${\mathbf{M}}\in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$, then the associated $2n\times 2n$ real matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
{\operatorname{Re}}{\mathbf{M}}& -{\operatorname{Im}}{\mathbf{M}}\\
{\operatorname{Im}}{\mathbf{M}}& {\operatorname{Re}}{\mathbf{M}}\end{pmatrix}$$ is similar to the block diagonal matrix ${\mathbf{M}}\oplus {\overline{{\mathbf{M}}}}$. Indeed, one can easily verify that $$\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{I}}_n & -i \, {\mathbf{I}}_n \\
-i \, {\mathbf{I}}_n & {\mathbf{I}}_n
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
{\operatorname{Re}}{\mathbf{M}}& -{\operatorname{Im}}{\mathbf{M}}\\
{\operatorname{Im}}{\mathbf{M}}& {\operatorname{Re}}{\mathbf{M}}\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{I}}_n & -i \, {\mathbf{I}}_n \\
-i \, {\mathbf{I}}_n & {\mathbf{I}}_n
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{M}}& \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & {\overline{{\mathbf{M}}}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Applying the above fact to the complex matrix ${\mathbf{A}}\otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}$ coming from the assertion , one gets the assertion and hence \[lemma:Kronecker\] follows.
Several standard reductions towards the proof {#subsec-reductions}
---------------------------------------------
Before proving our main \[thmA\], we start with some standard reductions. The lemma below reduces the general case to the splitting product case.
\[lemma:reduction-product\] In order to prove \[thmA\], it suffices to consider the following case:
- the abelian variety $X = A_1^{n_1} \times \cdots \times A_s^{n_s}$, where the $A_j$ are mutually non-isogenous simple abelian varieties, and
- the surjective self-morphism $f$ of $X$ is a surjective endomorphism $\alpha$ which can be written as $\alpha_1 \times \cdots \times \alpha_s$ with $\alpha_j \in {\operatorname{End}}(A_j^{n_j})$.
We claim that it suffices to consider the case when $f = \alpha$ is a surjective endomorphism. Indeed, any morphism (i.e., regular map) of abelian varieties is a composite of a homomorphism with a translation (cf. [@Milne86 Corollary 2.2]). Hence we can write $f$ as $t_x \circ \alpha$ for a surjective endomorphism $\alpha\in {\operatorname{End}}(X)$ and $x\in X({\mathbf{k}})$. Note however that $t_x\in {\operatorname{Aut}}^0(X) {\simeq}X$ acts as identity on $H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ and hence on $H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ for all $i$. It follows from the functoriality of the pullback map on $\ell$-adic étale cohomology that $\chi_i(f) = \chi_i(\alpha)$. Similarly, we also get $\lambda_k(f) = \lambda_k(\alpha)$ for all $k$. So the claim follows, and from now on our $f = \alpha$ is an isogeny.
We then make another claim as follows.
\[claim:reduction\] Towards the proof of \[thmA\], we are free to replace our pair $(X, \alpha)$ by any of the following pairs:
1. \[claim:reduction1\] $(X, \alpha^m)$, for any positive integer $m$;
2. \[claim:reduction2\] $(X, m\alpha)$, for any positive integer $m$;
3. \[claim:reduction3\] $(X', \alpha' \coloneqq g \circ \alpha \circ h)$, where $g \colon X \to X'$ and $h \colon X' \to X$ are isogenies such that $h\circ g = m_X$ and $g \circ h = m_{X'}$ with $m = \deg g$.
The first part follows from the functoriality of the pullback map. For the second one, we note that $m\alpha = m_X \circ \alpha = \alpha \circ m_X$, where $m_X$ is the multiplication by $m$ map. Using the isomorphism $H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell) {\simeq}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}_\ell}(T_\ell X, {\mathbf{Z}}_\ell)$, one can easily see that the induced pullback map $m_X^*$ on $H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)$ is also the multiplication by $m$ map, and hence $m_X^*|_{H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)}$ is represented by the diagonal matrix $m^i \cdot {\operatorname{id}}_{H^i_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell)}$; see e.g. \[thm:etale-coh\]. It follows from the diagram in the proof of \[lemma:dyn-deg-ineq\] that the pullback map $m_X^*$ on each $N^k(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ is also represented by the diagonal matrix $m^{2k} \cdot {\operatorname{id}}_{N^k(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$. In particular, we have $\chi_i(m\alpha) = m^i \chi_i(\alpha)$ and $\lambda_k(m\alpha) = m^{2k} \lambda_k(\alpha)$, which yields the part .
For the last part, it is easy to verify that $\alpha' \circ g = g \circ (m\alpha)$ and $h \circ \alpha' = (m\alpha) \circ h$. By applying \[lemma:bir-inv\] to the isogenies $g$ and $h$, we have $\chi_i(\alpha') = \chi_i(m\alpha)$ and $\lambda_k(\alpha') = \lambda_k(m\alpha)$. Then combining with the second part, the third one follows. So we have proved \[claim:reduction\].
Let us go back to the proof of \[lemma:reduction-product\]. By Poincaré’s complete reducibility theorem (cf. [@Mumford §19, Theorem 1]), we know that $X$ is isogenous to the product $A_1^{n_1} \times \cdots \times A_s^{n_s}$, where the $A_j$ are mutually non-isogenous simple abelian varieties. Then $${\operatorname{End}}^0(X) {\simeq}\bigoplus_{j=1}^s {\operatorname{End}}^0(A_j^{n_j}),$$ so that we can write $\alpha$ as $\alpha_1 \times \cdots \times \alpha_s$ with $\alpha_j \in {\operatorname{End}}^0(A_j^{n_j})$. Using the reductions and in \[claim:reduction\], we only need to consider the case when $X$ itself is the product variety and each $\alpha_j$ belongs to ${\operatorname{End}}(A_j^{n_j})$, as stated in the lemma.
\[rmk:reduction-simple\] We are keen to further reduce the situation of \[lemma:reduction-product\] to the case when $X = A^n$ is a power of some simple abelian variety $A$, as Esnault and Srinivas did in the proof of [@ES13 Proposition 6.2]. However, to the best of our knowledge, it does not seem to be straightforward. More precisely, let $X$ and $\alpha$ be as in \[lemma:reduction-product\]. Suppose that \[thmA\] holds for every $A_j^{n_j}$ and surjective endomorphism $\alpha_j \in {\operatorname{End}}(A_j^{n_j})$, i.e., $\lambda_1(\alpha_j) = \chi_2(\alpha_j)$ for all $j$. We wish to show that \[thmA\] also holds for $X$ and $\alpha$. Note that $${\operatorname{NS}}(X) {\simeq}\bigoplus_{j=1}^s {\operatorname{NS}}(A_j^{n_j}).\footnote{In general, one has ${\operatorname{NS}}(X \times_{\mathbf{k}}Y) {\simeq}{\operatorname{NS}}(X) \oplus {\operatorname{NS}}(Y) \oplus {\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}}({\operatorname{Alb}}(X), {\operatorname{Pic}}^0(Y))$; see e.g. \cite[the proof of Theorem~3]{Tate66}. See also \cite[\S3.2]{BC16-Crelle} and references therein for more details about the divisorial correspondences.}$$ It follows that $$\label{eq:reduction-simple-1}
\lambda_1(\alpha) = \max_j \{ \lambda_1(\alpha_j)\} = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\}.$$ On the other hand, by the Künneth formula, we have $$\begin{gathered}
H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) {\simeq}\bigoplus_j H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(A_j^{n_j}, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell), \text{ and } \\
H^2_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(X, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) {\simeq}\bigoplus_j H^2_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(A_j^{n_j}, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \bigoplus \bigoplus_{j < k} \big(H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(A_j^{n_j}, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \otimes H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}(A_k^{n_k}, {\mathbf{Q}}_\ell) \big).
\end{gathered}$$ However, we are not able to deduce that $\chi_2(\alpha) = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\}$ due to the appearance of the tensor product of the $H^1_{{{\textrm{\'et}}}}$.
For the sake of completeness, let us explain this obstruction in a more precise way. We denote by $P_{\alpha_j}(t) \in {\mathbf{Z}}[t]$ the characteristic polynomial of $\alpha_j$ (or equivalently $T_\ell \alpha_j$, by \[thm:char-poly\]). Set $g_j = \dim A_j^{n_j}$. Denote all complex roots of $P_{\alpha_j}(t)$ by $\omega_{j,1}, \ldots, \omega_{j,2g_j}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $$\label{eq:reduction-simple-2}
|\omega_{j,1}| \ge \cdots \ge |\omega_{j,2g_j}| \text{ for all $1\le j \le s$, and }
|\omega_{1,1}| \ge \cdots \ge |\omega_{s,1}|.$$ It follows from \[thm:etale-coh\] that $\chi_2(\alpha_j) = |\omega_{j,1}| \cdot |\omega_{j,2}|$ for all $j$. Suppose that $$\label{eq:reduction-simple-3}
\max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\} = \chi_2(\alpha_{j_0}) = |\omega_{j_0,1}| \cdot |\omega_{j_0,2}| \text{ for some $j_0$}.$$ Note that $j_0$ may not be $1$. If $|\omega_{2,1}| \le |\omega_{1,2}|$ (in particular, $j_0$ is $1$), then $$\chi_2(\alpha) = |\omega_{1,1}| \cdot |\omega_{1,2}| = \chi_2(\alpha_1) = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\} = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$ So we are done in this case. However, if $|\omega_{2,1}| > |\omega_{1,2}|$, then $$\chi_2(\alpha) = |\omega_{1,1}| \cdot |\omega_{2,1}| \ge |\omega_{j_0,1}| \cdot |\omega_{j_0,2}| = \chi_2(\alpha_{j_0}) = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\} = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$ There is no obvious reason to exclude the worst case $j_0=1$ which yields that $$\chi_2(\alpha) = |\omega_{1,1}| \cdot |\omega_{2,1}| > |\omega_{1,1}| \cdot |\omega_{1,2}| = \chi_2(\alpha_1) = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\} = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$
To proceed, we observe that over complex number field ${\mathbf{C}}$, the above pathology does not happen because each eigenvalue $\omega_{j,2}$ turns out to be the complex conjugate of $\omega_{j,1}$. This fact follows from the Hodge decomposition $H^1(X, {\mathbf{C}}) = H^{1,0}(X) \oplus {\overline{H^{1,0}(X)}}$, which does not seem to exist in étale cohomology as far as we know. But we still believe that $\omega_{j,2} = {\overline{\omega_{j,1}}}$ for all $j$. (As a consequence of our main theorem, we will see that this is actually true; see \[final-remark\].) The following lemma makes use of this observation to reduce the splitting product case as in \[lemma:reduction-product\] to the case when $X = A^n$ for some simple abelian variety $A$.
\[lemma:reduction-simple\] In order to prove \[thmA\], it suffices to show that if $A^n$ is a power of a simple abelian variety $A$ and $\alpha \in {\operatorname{End}}(A^n)$ is a surjective endomorphism of $A^n$, then $\lambda_1(\alpha) = |\omega_1|^2$, where $\omega_1$ is one of the complex roots of the characteristic polynomial $P_\alpha(t)$ of $\alpha$ with the maximal absolute value.
Thanks to \[lemma:reduction-product\], let us consider the case when the abelian variety $X = A_1^{n_1} \times \cdots \times A_s^{n_s}$, where the $A_j$ are mutually non-isogenous simple abelian varieties, and $\alpha = \alpha_1 \times \cdots \times \alpha_s$ is a surjective endomorphism of $X$ with $\alpha_j \in {\operatorname{End}}(A_j^{n_j})$. We assume that the reader has been familiar with the notation introduced in \[rmk:reduction-simple\], in particular, \[eq:reduction-simple-1,eq:reduction-simple-2,eq:reduction-simple-3\]. Applying the hypothesis of \[lemma:reduction-simple\] to each $A_j^{n_j}$ and $\alpha_j$, we have $\lambda_1(\alpha_j) = |\omega_{j,1}|^2$. It follows from \[lemma:dyn-deg-ineq\] and \[thm:etale-coh\] that $\lambda_1(\alpha_j) \le \chi_2(\alpha_j) = |\omega_{j,1}| \cdot |\omega_{j,2}|$. Hence $\lambda_1(\alpha_j) = \chi_2(\alpha_j)$ and $|\omega_{j,1}| = |\omega_{j,2}|$ for all $j$ which tells us $j_0=1$. This yields that $$\chi_2(\alpha) = |\omega_{1,1}| \cdot |\omega_{1,2}| = \chi_2(\alpha_1) = \max_j \{ \chi_2(\alpha_j)\} = \max_j \{ \lambda_1(\alpha_j)\} = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$ The first and second equalities follow again from \[thm:etale-coh\], the third one holds because $j_0=1$, \[eq:reduction-simple-1\] gives the last one.
Proof of Theorem \[thmA\] {#subsec-proof}
-------------------------
We are now ready to prove the main theorem.
By \[lemma:reduction-simple\], we can assume that $X = A^n$ for some simple abelian variety $A$ and $\alpha \in {\operatorname{End}}(X)$ is a surjective endomorphism of $X$. Let $P_\alpha(t) \in {\mathbf{Z}}[t]$ be the characteristic polynomial of $\alpha$ (see \[thm:char-poly\]). Set $g = \dim X$. Denote all complex roots of $P_\alpha(t)$ by $\omega_1, \ldots, \omega_{2g}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $$|\omega_1| \ge \cdots \ge |\omega_{2g}|.$$ We shall prove that $$\label{eq:key}
\lambda_1(\alpha) = |\omega_1|^2,$$ which will conclude the proof of the theorem by \[lemma:reduction-simple\].
Under the above assumption, the endomorphism algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ is the simple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{M}}_n(D)$ of all $n\times n$ matrices with entries in the division ring $D \coloneqq {\operatorname{End}}^0(A)$. Let $K$ denote the center of $D$, and $K_0$ the maximal totally real subfield of $K$. As usual, we set $$d^2 = [D:K], \ e = [K:{\mathbf{Q}}] \ \text{ and } \ e_0 = [K_0:{\mathbf{Q}}].$$ Note that by \[lemma:NS-End\], the natural pullback action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{NS}}^0$ can be extended to an action $\alpha^*$ on the whole endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}^0(X)$ as follows: $$\alpha^* \colon {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \quad \text{via} \quad \psi \longmapsto \alpha^{\dagger} \circ \psi \circ \alpha.$$ On the other hand, by tensoring with ${\mathbf{R}}$, we know that $${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}= {\operatorname{End}}^0(X) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_n(D) \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_n(D \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}})$$ is either a product of ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{R}})$, ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{C}})$ or ${\operatorname{M}}_r({\mathbf{H}})$ with ${\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ being a product of ${\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{R}})$, ${\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{C}})$ or ${\mathscr{H}}_r({\mathbf{H}})$, the corresponding subspace of symmetric/Hermitian matrices (see \[thm:NS-matrix-form\]). When there is no risk of confusion, for simplicity, we still denote the induced action $\alpha^* \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}1_{\mathbf{R}}$ by $\alpha^*$. In particular, we would write $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ and $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ to emphasize the acting spaces.
According to Albert’s classification of the endomorphism ${\mathbf{Q}}$-algebra $D$ of a simple abelian variety $A$ (cf. [@Mumford §21, Theorem 2]), we have the following four cases.
\[case-I\] $D$ is of Type I$(e)$: $d=1$, $e=e_0$ and $D=K=K_0$ is a totally real algebraic number field and the involution (on $D$) is the identity. In this case, $${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}}) \ \text{ and } \ {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\mathscr{H}}_n({\mathbf{R}}).$$ For our $\alpha \in {\operatorname{End}}(X)$, let us denote its image $\alpha \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}1_{\mathbf{R}}$ in ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ by the block diagonal matrix $
{\mathbf{A}}_\alpha = {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0}
$ with each ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i} \in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}})$. Then the Rosati involution $\alpha^\dagger$ of $\alpha$ could be represented by the transpose ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha^{\mathsf{T}}= {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1}^{\mathsf{T}}\oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0}^{\mathsf{T}}$ (see \[thm:NS-matrix-form\]). Hence we can rewrite the induced action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ in the following matrix form: $${\mathbf{B}}= {\mathbf{B}}_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbf{B}}_{e_0} \longmapsto {\mathbf{A}}_\alpha^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{A}}_\alpha = {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1}^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}_1 {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0}^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}_{e_0} {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0}.$$ Thanks to \[lemma:Kronecker\] , for each $i$, the linear transformation defined by the mapping $${\mathbf{B}}_i \in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}}) \mapsto {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{B}}_i {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i} \in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{R}}),$$ can be represented by the Kronecker product ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$. Hence the above linear transformation $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ on the $e_0 n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{R}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ is represented by the block diagonal matrix $$({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1}) \oplus \cdots \oplus ({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,e_0}).$$
For each $1\le i\le e_0$, denote all eigenvalues of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$ by $\pi_{i,1}, \ldots, \pi_{i,n}$. It thus follows from the above discussion that all eigenvalues of the linear transformation $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ are exactly $\pi_{i,j}\pi_{i,k}$ with $1\le j, k\le n$ and $1\le i\le e_0$. In particular, if ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j}$ and ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k}$ denote eigenvectors of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$ corresponding to $\pi_{i,j}$ and $\pi_{i,k}$, respectively, then $${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k} = {\operatorname{vec}}({\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k}) = {\operatorname{vec}}({\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j}^{\mathsf{T}}) = {\operatorname{vec}}({\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k} \cdot {\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j}^{\mathsf{T}})$$ is the eigenvector of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$ corresponding to $\pi_{i,j}\pi_{i,k}$.[^4] Now, according to \[rmk:red-char\], the reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ of $\alpha$ is independent of the change of the ground field, and hence equal to the reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{\alpha \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}1_{\mathbf{R}}}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ of $\alpha \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}1_{\mathbf{R}}\in {\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$, while the latter by \[def:red-char\] is just the characteristic polynomial $\det(t \, {\mathbf{I}}_{e_0n} - {\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ of ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha$. Hence, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\omega_1 = \pi_{1,1}$ by \[lemma:red-char-II\].
We now have two subcases to consider. If $\pi_{1,1} \in {\mathbf{R}}$ so that ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}$ is also a real eigenvector, then ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}$ is a real eigenvector of $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_{1,1}^2$. The associated column vector of this eigenvector is the real symmetric matrix ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}= {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}$. Next, let us assume that $\pi_{1,1} \in {\mathbf{C}}\setminus {\mathbf{R}}$. Then ${\overline{\pi}}_{1,1}$ is another eigenvalue of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1}$ with the corresponding eigenvector ${\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1}$, since ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,1}$ is defined over ${\mathbf{R}}$. It follows that ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1} \otimes {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1} + {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}$ is a real eigenvector of $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_{1,1} {\overline{\pi}}_{1,1} = |\pi_{1,1}|^2$; moreover, it is the associated column vector of the real symmetric matrix $${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1} + {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1} = {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}+ {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_{1,1}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{1,1}.$$ In either case, we have shown that the spectral radii of $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ and $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ coincide, both equal to $|\pi_{1,1}|^2$. In summary, we have $$|\omega_1|^2 = |\pi_{1,1}|^2 = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}) = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}) = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$ For the last equality, see \[rmk:div-equiv-relation\]. So we conclude the proof of the equality in this case.
\[case-II\] $D$ is of Type II$(e)$: $d=2$, $e=e_0$, $K=K_0$ is a totally real algebraic number field and $D$ is an indefinite quaternion division algebra over $K$. Hence $${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{R}}) \ \text{ and } \ {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\mathscr{H}}_{2n}({\mathbf{R}}).$$ The rest is exactly the same as \[case-I\].
\[case-III\] $D$ is of Type III$(e)$: $d=2$, $e=e_0$, $K=K_0$ is a totally real algebraic number field and $D$ is a definite quaternion division algebra over $K$. In this case, $${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{H}}) \ \text{ and } \ {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\mathscr{H}}_n({\mathbf{H}}),$$ where ${\mathbf{H}}= \big(\frac{-1, \, -1}{{\mathbf{R}}} \big)$ is the standard quaternion algebra over ${\mathbf{R}}$. Clearly, ${\mathbf{H}}$ can be embedded, in a standard way (see e.g. [@Reiner03 Example 9.4]), into ${\operatorname{M}}_2({\mathbf{C}}) {\simeq}{\mathbf{H}}\otimes_{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{C}}$. This induces a natural embedding of ${\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{H}})$ into ${\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}}) {\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{H}}) \otimes_{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{C}}$ as follows (cf. [@Lee49 §4]): $$\iota \colon {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{H}}) {\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}}) \quad \text{via} \quad {\mathbf{A}}= {\mathbf{A}}_1 + {\mathbf{A}}_2 \, \mathbf{j} \longmapsto \iota ({\mathbf{A}}) \coloneqq
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{A}}_1 & {\mathbf{A}}_2 \\
-\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}_2 & \overline{{\mathbf{A}}}_1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In particular, a quaternionic matrix ${\mathbf{A}}$ is Hermitian if and only if its image $\iota({\mathbf{A}})$ is a Hermitian complex matrix.
For brevity, we only consider the case $e_0 = 1$ (to deal with the general case, the only cost is to introduce an index $i$ as we have done in \[case-I\] since the matrices involved are block diagonal matrices). Denote the image $\alpha \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}1_{\mathbf{R}}$ of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname{M}}_{n}({\mathbf{H}})$ by ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha = {\mathbf{A}}_1 + {\mathbf{A}}_2 \, \mathbf{j}$ with ${\mathbf{A}}_1, {\mathbf{A}}_2 \in {\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{C}})$. Then the Rosati involution $\alpha^\dagger$ of $\alpha$ could be represented by the quaternionic conjugate transpose ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha^* = {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}_\alpha^{\mathsf{T}}$ (see \[thm:NS-matrix-form\]), whose image under $\iota$ is just the complex conjugate transpose $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)^*$ (aka Hermitian transpose) of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$. Similar as in \[lemma:NS-End\], the action $\alpha^*$ on ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_n({\mathbf{H}})$ can be extended to ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}\coloneqq {\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}\otimes_{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{C}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}})$. By abuse of notation, we still denote this induced action by $\alpha^* \colon {\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}})$, which maps ${\mathbf{B}}$ to $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)^* \cdot {\mathbf{B}}\cdot \iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$. It follows from \[lemma:Kronecker\] that $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}})}$ could be represented by the Kronecker product $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha) \otimes {\overline{\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)}}$.
Note that our ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_{2n}({\mathbf{C}})$ is a central simple ${\mathbf{C}}$-algebra. Then by \[def:red-char,rmk:red-char\], the reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ of $\alpha$ is equal to the characteristic polynomial $\det(t \, {\mathbf{I}}_{2n} - \iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha))$ of the complex matrix $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$. Thanks to [@Lee49 Theorem 5], the $2n$ eigenvalues of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ fall into $n$ pairs, each pair consisting of two conjugate complex numbers; denote them by $\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_{n}, \pi_{n+1} = \overline{\pi}_1, \ldots, \pi_{2n} = \overline{\pi}_{n}$. In fact, it is easy to verify that if $\pi_i \in {\mathbf{C}}$ is an eigenvalue of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ so that $$\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha) \begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{u}}_i \\
{\boldsymbol{v}}_i
\end{pmatrix}
= \pi_i \begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{u}}_i \\
{\boldsymbol{v}}_i
\end{pmatrix},
\ \text{ then } \
\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha) \begin{pmatrix}
-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_i \\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_i
\end{pmatrix}
= {\overline{\pi}}_i \begin{pmatrix}
-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_i \\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_i
\end{pmatrix},$$ i.e., ${\overline{\pi}}_i$ is also an eigenvalue of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ corresponding to the eigenvector $(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_i^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_i^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\omega_1 = \pi_1$ by \[lemma:red-char-II\].
Let $({\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}$ denote an eigenvector of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_1$. Then $(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}$ is an eigenvector of $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue ${\overline{\pi}}_1$. Since the linear transformation $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}$ can be represented by $\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha) \otimes {\overline{\iota({\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)}}$ (cf. \[lemma:Kronecker\] ), we see that both $({\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes ({\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}$ and $(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes (-{\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})^{\mathsf{T}}$ are eigenvectors of $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}$, corresponding to the same eigenvalue $\pi_1{\overline{\pi}}_1$. Recall that these two eigenvectors are the associated column vectors of the Hermitian complex matrices $$\begin{pmatrix}
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1 \\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\otimes
({\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1 \\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
({\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}})
\text{ and }
\begin{pmatrix}
-{\boldsymbol{v}}_1 \\
{\boldsymbol{u}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\otimes
(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
-{\boldsymbol{v}}_1 \\
{\boldsymbol{u}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}),$$ respectively. It is then easy to verify that $$\begin{pmatrix}
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1 \\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
({\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}) +
\begin{pmatrix}
-{\boldsymbol{v}}_1 \\
{\boldsymbol{u}}_1
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
(-{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}, {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1{\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}+ {\boldsymbol{v}}_1{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}& {\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1{\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}- {\boldsymbol{v}}_1{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}\\
{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1{\boldsymbol{u}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}- {\boldsymbol{u}}_1{\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}& {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1{\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}+ {\boldsymbol{u}}_1{\overline{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}\end{pmatrix}$$ is a Hermitian complex matrix lying in the image of $\iota$. In other words, this sum belongs to ${\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}$. Hence, similar as in \[case-I\], the spectral radii of $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}$ and $\alpha^*|_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}$ coincide, both equal to $|\pi_1|^2$. Overall, we have $$|\omega_1|^2 = |\pi_1|^2 = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}) = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{C}}}) = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}) = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$ We thus conclude the proof of the equality in this case.
\[case-IV\] $D$ is of Type IV$(e_0, d)$: $e=2e_0$ and $D$ is a division algebra over the CM-field $K \supsetneq K_0$ (i.e., $K$ is a totally imaginary quadratic extension of a totally real algebraic number field $K_0$). Then $${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}}) \ \text{ and } \ {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{e_0} {\mathscr{H}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}}).$$ For simplicity, we just deal with the case $e_0=1$. Denote the image of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ by the matrix ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha \in {\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}})$. Again, the Rosati involution $\alpha^\dagger$ of $\alpha$ could be represented by the complex conjugate transpose ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha^* = {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}_\alpha^{\mathsf{T}}$ (see \[thm:NS-matrix-form\]). It follows from \[lemma:Kronecker\] that the induced linear map $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}})}$ on the $d^2n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{C}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}})$ is represented by the Kronecker product ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha} \otimes \overline{{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}$; however, the induced linear map $\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}$ on the $2d^2n^2$-dimensional ${\mathbf{R}}$-vector space ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$ is represented by the block diagonal matrix $({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha} \otimes \overline{{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}) \oplus ({\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}_{\alpha} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha})$ by \[lemma:Kronecker\] , though we do not need this fact later.
Note that the center of our ${\mathbf{R}}$-algebra ${\operatorname{End}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}{\simeq}{\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}})$ is ${\mathbf{C}}$. Then by \[def:red-char,rmk:red-char\], the reduced characteristic polynomial $\chi_{\alpha}^{{{\rm red}}}(t)$ of $\alpha$ is equal to the product of the characteristic polynomial $\det(t \, {\mathbf{I}}_{dn} - {\mathbf{A}}_\alpha)$ of ${\mathbf{A}}_\alpha$ and its complex conjugate. We denote all of its complex roots by $\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_{dn}, \overline{\pi}_1, \ldots, \overline{\pi}_{dn}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\omega_1 = \pi_1$ by \[lemma:red-char-II\]. Let ${\boldsymbol{v}}_1$ be a complex eigenvector of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_1$. Then ${\boldsymbol{v}}_1 \otimes {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1$ is an eigenvector of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha} \otimes {\overline{{\mathbf{A}}}}_{\alpha}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pi_1 {\overline{\pi}}_1 = |\pi_1|^2$. Note that ${\boldsymbol{v}}_1 \otimes {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1$ is the associated column vector of the Hermitian complex matrix ${\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1 \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}= {\boldsymbol{v}}_1^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes {\overline{{\boldsymbol{v}}}}_1 \in {\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}$. Hence, in this last case, we also have $$|\omega_1|^2 = |\pi_{1}|^2 = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{M}}_{dn}({\mathbf{C}})}) = \rho(\alpha^* |_{{\operatorname{NS}}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}}) = \lambda_1(\alpha).$$
We thus finally complete the proof of \[thmA\].
\[final-remark\]
(1) It follows from our proof, in particular from the key equality , as well as Birkhoff’s generalization of the Perron–Frobenius theorem, that either $\omega_2 = \omega_1 \in {\mathbf{R}}$ or $\omega_2 = {\overline{\omega}}_1 \neq \omega_1$. This is true for any complex torus $X$ because by the Hodge decomposition we have $H^1(X, {\mathbf{C}}) = H^{1,0}(X) \oplus {\overline{H^{1,0}(X)}}$, where $H^{1,0}(X) = H^0(X, \Omega_X^1)$. A natural question is whether it is true for all $\omega_i$ in general, i.e., either $\omega_{2i} = \omega_{2i-1} \in {\mathbf{R}}$ or $\omega_{2i} = {\overline{\omega}}_{2i-1} \neq \omega_{2i-1}$ for any $2 \le i \le g = \dim X$.
(2) If our self-morphism $f$ is not surjective or $\alpha$ is not an isogeny, one can also proceed by replacing $X$ by the image $\alpha(X)$, which is still an abelian variety of dimension less than $\dim X$.
**Acknowledgments.** I would like to thank Dragos Ghioca and Zinovy Reichstein for their constant support, Yuri Zarhin and Yishu Zeng for helpful discussions, Tuyen Trung Truong for reading an earlier draft of this article and for his inspiring comments. Special thanks go to the referees of my another paper [@Hu19] since one of their comments motivates this article initially. Finally, I am grateful to the referee for his/her many helpful and invaluable suggestions which significantly improve the exposition of the paper.
[Mum70]{}
Jean-Benoît Bost and François Charles, *Some remarks concerning the [G]{}rothendieck period conjecture*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **714** (2016), 175–208. [MR ]{}[3491887]{}
Pierre Deligne, *La conjecture de [W]{}eil. [I]{}*, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. **43** (1974), 273–307. [MR ]{}[0340258]{}
Tien-Cuong Dinh and Nessim Sibony, *Equidistribution problems in complex dynamics of higher dimension*, Internat. J. Math. **28** (2017), no. 7, 1750057, 31 pp. [MR ]{}[3667901]{}
H[é]{}l[è]{}ne Esnault and Vasudevan Srinivas, *Algebraic versus topological entropy for surfaces over finite fields*, Osaka J. Math. **50** (2013), no. 3, 827–846. [MR ]{}[3129006]{}
Mikha[ï]{}l Gromov, *On the entropy of holomorphic maps*, Enseign. Math. (2) **49** (2003), no. 3-4, 217–235. [MR ]{}[2026895]{}
Fei Hu, *A theorem of [T]{}its type for automorphism groups of projective varieties in arbitrary characteristic (with an appendix by [T]{}omohide [T]{}erasoma)*, to appear in Math. Ann., 30 pp., [[[arXiv:1801.06555]{}]{}]{}, [[[doi:10.1007/s00208-019-01812-9]{}]{}]{}.
Steven L. Kleiman, *Algebraic cycles and the [W]{}eil conjectures*, Dix exposés sur la cohomologie des schémas, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., vol. 3, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 359–386. [MR ]{}[292838]{}
Nicholas M. Katz and William Messing, *Some consequences of the [R]{}iemann hypothesis for varieties over finite fields*, Invent. Math. **23** (1974), 73–77. [MR ]{}[0332791]{}
Hwa-Chung Lee, *Eigenvalues and canonical forms of matrices with quaternion coefficients*, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. Sect. A. **52** (1949), 253–260. [MR ]{}[0036738]{}
Teruhisa Matsusaka, *The criteria for algebraic equivalence and the torsion group*, Amer. J. Math. **79** (1957), 53–66. [MR ]{}[0082730]{}
James S. Milne, *Abelian varieties*, Arithmetic geometry ([S]{}torrs, [C]{}onn., 1984), Springer, New York, 1986, pp. 103–150. [MR ]{}[861974]{}
David Mumford, *Abelian varieties*, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Studies in Mathematics, No. 5, Published for the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay; Oxford University Press, London, 1970. [MR ]{}[0282985]{}
Irving Reiner, *Maximal orders*, London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series, vol. 28, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, Corrected reprint of the 1975 original, With a foreword by M. J. Taylor. [MR ]{}[1972204]{}
Kadattur V. Shuddhodan, *Constraints on the cohomological correspondence associated to a self map*, Compos. Math. **155** (2019), no. 6, 1047–1056. [MR ]{}[3949925]{}
John Tate, *Endomorphisms of abelian varieties over finite fields*, Invent. Math. **2** (1966), 134–144. [MR ]{}[0206004]{}
Tuyen Trung Truong, *Relations between dynamical degrees, [W]{}eil’s [R]{}iemann hypothesis and the standard conjectures*, preprint (2016), 20 pp., [[[arXiv:1611.01124]{}]{}]{}.
Yosef Yomdin, *Volume growth and entropy*, Israel J. Math. **57** (1987), no. 3, 285–300. [MR ]{}[889979]{}
[^1]: The author was partially supported by a UBC-PIMS Postdoctoral Fellowship.
[^2]: Recently, this was reproved by Shuddhodan [@Shuddhodan19] using a number-theoretic method, where the author introduced a zeta function $Z(X,f,t)$ for a dynamical system $(X, f)$ defined over a finite field.
[^3]: I would like to thank Yuri Zarhin for showing me an argument using the canonical norm form to prove this Lemma \[lemma:red-char-I\].
[^4]: Note that due to multiplicities of eigenvalues, ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$ does not necessarily have $n$ distinct eigenvalues. Thus, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j}$ and ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k}$ may be the same for different $j$ and $k$. Also, not all eigenvectors of ${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i} \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha,i}$ have to arise in this way, namely, being the tensor products ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,j} \otimes {\boldsymbol{v}}_{i,k}$. For instance, one could consider a Jordan block $J_{\lambda,2} \in {\operatorname{M}}_2({\mathbf{R}})$ with the eigenvalue $\lambda$, but $J_{\lambda,2} \otimes J_{\lambda,2} \sim J_{\lambda^2,1} \oplus J_{\lambda^2,3}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work discusses results of experimental investigations of the specific heat, $C$, of apple in a wide interval of moisture contents ($W=0-0.9$) and temperatures ($T = 283-363$ K). The obtained data reveal the important role of the bound water in determination of $C(W,T)$ behaviour. The additive model for description of $C(W)$ dependence in the moisture range of $0.1<W<1.0$ was applied, where the apple was considered as a mixture of water and hydrated apple material (water plasticised apple) with specific heat $C_h$. The difference between $C_h$ and specific heat of dry apple, $\Delta Cb=C_h-C_d$, was proposed as a measure of the excess contribution of bound water to the specific heat. The estimated amounts of bound water $W_b$ were comparable with the monolayer moisture content in apple. The analytical equation was proposed for approximation of $C(W,T)$ dependencies in the studied intervals of moisture content and temperature.'
author:
- Viacheslav Mykhailyk
- 'Nikolai I. Lebovka'
title: Specific heat of apple at different moisture contents and temperatures
---
\[sec:introduction\]Introduction
================================
The knowledge of thermo-physical characteristics of fruit and vegetable tissues is very important for control and evaluation of the quality of foods during their storage and processing. The main thermo-physical characteristics are thermal conductivity $K$, thermal diffusivity $D$ and apparent specific heat $C$. These values are interrelated as $C=K/D\rho$ , where $\rho$ is the density of material [@Incropera1996].
Many previous works were devoted to the study of different thermo-physical characteristics of apples and their dependences on the temperature and moisture content [@Gane1936; @Sweat1974; @Lozano1979; @Ramaswamy1979; @Ramaswamy1981; @Singh1985; @Mattea1986; @Ginzburg1987; @Mattea1990; @Bozikova2006; @Bozikova2007; @Bozikova2009; @Huang2009; @Lisowa2000; @Lisowa2002; @Lisowa2003]. Detailed investigations have shown that temperature and moisture content have significant influence on thermal conductivity $K$, thermal diffusivity $D$ [@Riedel1949; @Sweat1974; @Bozikova2006; @Bozikova2007; @Bozikova2009; @Lisowa2003; @Lozano1979; @Ramaswamy1981].
The number of publications, where investigations of the apparent specific heat $C$ of apples are presented, is more limited. The temperature dependence of the apparent specific heat $C$ (kJ kg$^{-1} $K$^{-1}$) in the range of $272$ K$<T<363$ K was approximated by linear relation [@Ramaswamy1981; @Ramaswamy1979] $$C=a+b(T-273), \label{eq:rel1}\\$$ where $a=3.36$, $b=0.0075$ for Golden Delicious apples and $a=3.40$, $b=0.0049$ for Granny Smith apples. In general, the moisture dependence of specific heat C may be evaluated from the data on total solids and fat content using the additive model [@Charm1971] $$C = C_w + (C_w-C_d)(W-1), \label{eq:rel2}\\$$ where $W$ is the moisture content (g H$_2$O/g total), $C_w$ and $C_d$ are specific heats of water ($W=1$, $C_w\thickapprox 4.187$ kJ kg$^{-1}$Ê$^{-1}$ at $T=273-373$ Ê) and dry matter ($W=0$), respectively.
This approximation can be true when the water and dry matter are inert to each other and their mixing or separation is not accompanied by the thermal effects. On the basis of such estimations, the following linear relation was obtained for the moisture dependence of $C$ (kJ kg$^{-1} $K$^{-1}$) at temperatures close to ambient [@Singh1985] $$C=1.414+0.0272W. \label{eq:rel3}\\$$
Here, $W$ is the moisture content (g H$_2$O/g total). The most problematic in this estimation is the calculation of specific heat of dry matter, $C_d$. Note that typically apples contain water (85.56%), carbohydrates (11.42%), and unessential quantity of fibres (2.4%), proteins (0.26%), fats (0.17%) and ashes (0.19%) [@Srikiatden2005]. The temperature dependencies of specific heat $C$ in different constituents of apples may be found in [@Chio2003; @Lin2009]. Using the data on specific heat of fresh apples [@Ginzburg1987] and of apple juice [@Raichkov1983], the dependence of specific heat $C$ (kJ kg$^{-1} $K$^{-1}$) versus temperature $T$ (within 303-363Ê) and moisture content $W$ (0.3-0.9) was approximated using the Eq. (1). It was assumed that specific heat of completely dried apple $C_d$ linearly increases with temperature, i.e. $$C_d(T)=-0.3218+0.00367T. \label{eq:rel4}\\$$
However, approaches, previously applied for estimation of $C$, are indirect and require the precise data on the content of constituents and studies in the limited ranges of moisture content and temperature.
The purpose of this work was to study the dependencies of the specific heat of apples $C$ in the wide interval of moisture content ($W=0-0.9$) and temperature ($T$=283-263 K). Relations between $C$, $W$ and $T$ and role of the bound water in determination of $C(W,T)$ behaviour are discussed. The analytical equation for approximation of $C(W,T)$ dependencies in the studied intervals of moisture content and temperature is also proposed.
\[sec:MM\]Materials and methods
===============================
\[sec:Mat\]Materials
--------------------
Fresh “Delikates” apples, obtained from the local market (Kyiv, Ukraine), were used throughout this study. The round slices of 6 mm in diameter and thickness 1-2 mm were cut parallel to the apple axis. Then they were sealed into hermetic aluminium pans. Moisture content was determined after calorimetric measurements. For this purpose, the pans were decapsulated and placed in an oven, where they were kept at 378 K until consecutive weightings, made at 1 h intervals, gave less than 0.5% variation.
\[htbp\]
\[!htbp\]
\[sec:model3\]Determination of specific heat
--------------------------------------------
The specific heat was measured using the differential scanning calorimeter DSM-2M, equipped with data logger and software for treatment of data (Specialized Design Office of Instrument Making, Pushchino, Russia). The measuring unit was blown using the drained helium to avoid moisture condensation in the calorimetric cells. The measurements were done using the step-by-step protocols for DSC [@Mykhailyk2002]. Such protocol is schematically presented in Fig.1, which includes comparison of deviations of the DSC-curves from the base line during the transition from the scanning regime to the isothermal regime, observed for different samples. The measurements were done using the empty container in the comparison cell and the empty container (a), container with the reference specific heat measure (b) and container with investigated sample (c), in the operating cell. Samples were heated at 8 K/min in the temperature range of 283 to 363 K. The instrument was calibrated before measurement using synthetic sapphire $\alpha$-Al2O3 as a specific heat standard reference material [@Sabbah1999]. The specific heat of the sample $C_s$ was calculated from the equation $$C_s=C_r[(Y_s-Y)m_r]/[(Y_r-Y)m_s], \label{eq:rel5}\\$$ where $C_r$ is the specific heat of the reference, $m_s$ and $m_r$ are the masses of the sample and reference, respectively, $Y$, $Y_r$ and $Y_s$ are the corresponding deviations of DSC curves from the base lines for the experiments a), b), and c).
The measurement accuracy was estimated by application of the step-by-step protocols for determination of specific heat of the reference sample (sapphire). The mean square error and relative error were 0.155 J kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ and 0.67 %, respectively.
\[sec:stat\]Statistical analysis
--------------------------------
Each experiment was repeated, at least, three times. One-way analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis of the data with the help of Statgraphics plus (version 5.1, Statpoint Technologies Inc., Warrenton, VA). Significance level of 5 % was assumed for each analysis. The error bars, presented on the figures, correspond to the standard deviations.
\[sec:results\]Results and their discussion
===========================================
$W$,(g H$_2$O/g total) $283 $K $293 $K $303 $K $313 $K $323$ K $333$K $343$ K $353$ K $363$ K
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
0.000 0.841 1.086 1.189 1.375 1.594 1.844 2.014 2.108 2.140
0.025 1.076 1.267 1.869 1.982 2.086 2.206 2.266 2.287 2.294
0.043 1.385 1.642 1.983 2.060 2.169 2.294 2.322 2.384 2.399
0.068 1.806 1.958 2.053 2.144 2.279 2.370 2.410 2.441 2.478
0.115 1.941 2.061 2.163 2.245 2.397 2.494 2.508 2.547 2.603
0.226 2.265 2.326 2.427 2.562 2.621 2.644 2.687 2.728 2.780
0.415 2.731 2.816 2.885 2.982 3.027 3.052 3.110 3.169 3.208
0.544 2.971 3.053 3.105 3.144 3.215 3.247 3.286 3.320 3.359
0.711 3.493 3.522 3.544 3.560 3.588 3.610 3.647 3.663 3.690
0.900 4.038 4.038 4.018 4.022 4.024 4.020 4.056 4.071 4.104
1.0 (water) 4.192 4.182 4.179 4.179 4.181 4.184 4.190 4.196 4.205
Table 1 presents the measured data of the specific heat of apple $C$ versus water content, $W$, and temperature, $T$. For the sake of clarity, some of these data are presented in the form of $C(W)$ (Fig. 2a) and $C(T)$ (Fig. 2b) dependencies. It is remarkable that $C(W)$ dependencies were practically linear at $W>0.1$ and non-linear at small humidity ($W< 0.1$). The linear contribution to the specific heat, $C_l$, may be described as $$C_l = C_w + (C_w-C_h(T))(W-1), \label{eq:rel6}\\$$ where, $C_h$ is the value of $C_l(W)$ intercept (See, insert in Fig. 2a).
The observed behaviour is not surprising accounting for the fact that water in apples has heterogeneous structure and can be divided into intercellular or capillary water (free water), multilayer water (weakly bound water), and monolayer water (tightly bound to the polar sites of apple tissues) [@Okos1992]. The studies of moisture sorption isotherms evidence that the water content, associated with the monolayer moisture content of fresh apple, varies from $W$= 0.039 to 0.084 [@Mrad2012]. The maximum moisture content, corresponding to the monolayer moisture in fruits, ranges from 0.1 to 0.17 [@Lim1995], which is in accordance with transition between linear and non-linear dependence $C(W)$, observed at $W\approx 0.1$. It is remarkable also that a characteristic jump in $C(T)$ was observed at certain critical temperature, $T\approx 290$ K, at small water content (including 0.02-0.03 of bound water) (Fig. 2b). Such behaviour is similar to that of temperature dependence of specific heat in denatured biopolymers and may be identified as glass transition [@Tsereteli1989; @Tsereteli1990]. It reflects the transition from a relatively stable glassy state to a metastable rubbery state [@Rahman2006]. The glass transition temperature $T_g$ increases with decrease of moisture content and the value of $T_g\approx 290$ K at $W=0.023$ is in correspondence with $T_g(W)$ dependencies, previously reported for apple [@Mrad2012]. If water content is small, the apple is in an amorphous metastable state, which is very sensitive to changes in moisture content.
The observed linear behaviour of specific heat in the moisture range of $0.1< W<1$ evidences applicability of the additive model for the mixtures of water and hypothetic hydrated apple material (water plasticised apple) with the specific heat $C_h$. At small moisture content, the systematic deviation between linear contribution $C_l(W)$ and measured value of $C(W)$ was observed. It reached maximum, $\Delta C= \Delta C_b=C_h-C_d$, in completely dried apple (at $W=0$, see, insert in Fig. 2a).
The measured values of $C$ always noticeably exceeded the prediction of the additive model, Eq.(2), (see, deviations between data point and solid line for $T=283$ K in Fig. 2a). It evidences the supplementary contribution of the, so called, bound water to the specific heat of hydrated apple. The value of $C_b$ characterises the excess contribution of interactions between water and dry matter and the effect of water confinement in pores of apples. The concept of bound water is widely accepted and accounts for the possibility of structural changes in the regular structure of water in hydration shells [@Galamba2013; @Li2007] and anomalous behaviour of the specific heat of water confined to pores [@Nagoe2010].
\[htbp\]
The temperature dependences of the specific heat components $C_h$, $C_d$ and $C_b$ are shown in Fig. 3. Note that contributions $C_h$, $C_d$ grow and the excess contribution $\Delta C_b$ decreases as temperature $T$ increases. The observed decrease of $\Delta C_b$ with temperature evidences diminution of the excess contribution of bound water and may be explained by the damage of the specific structure of bound water. The excess values of $\Delta C_b$ were rather small (0.25-0.8 kJ kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) in comparison to that of free H$_2$O ($C_w =4.187$ kJ kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$). However, the contribution of bound water was crucial for violation of the additive model, Eqs. (2,6).
Usually, the additive model (Eq. 2) is applied for estimation of the effective specific heat of bound water $C_b^e$ [@Bull1968; @Suurkuusk1974; @White1960]. The additive approximation for evaluation of $C_b^e$ may be rewritten as $$C/(1-W)=C_d +C_b^e(W/(1-W)). \label{eq:rel7}\\$$
The plot of experimental data presented as $C/(1-W)$ against $W/(1-W)$ gives the $C_b^e$ value as a slope.
$ $ $C_w$ $C_h$ $C_b$ $W_b$ $C_d$
-------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -- -- -- --
$a$ 8.5834614350E+00 -6.2058771600E+00 -1.1766931000E+02 3.1565498570E+00 9.8574175420E+01
$b$ -3.7897960000E-02 3.6690250000E-02 1.1233533270E+00 -2.2407320000E-02 -9.6523008000E-01
$c$ 1.0704300000E-04 -1.6304000000E-05 -3.5194100000E-03 4.8544900000E-05 3.1232050000E-03
$d$ -9.8822000000E-08 -5.3715000000E-08 3.6355500000E-06 -2.8809000000E-08 -3.2946000000E-06
$\rho$ 0.9937 0.9976 0.9773 0.8607 0.9950
The contribution of bound water to the specific heat was previously observed in hydrated state of different materials, e.g., poly(acrylic acid) [@Xu2011], proteins [@Gasan1994; @Yang1979], various foods [@Riedel1966], food gels [@Cornillon1995], and concretes [@Bentz2011; @Tatro2006; @Waller1996]. The obtained data were rather divergent and evidenced that contribution of the bound water to the specific heat was dependent upon the nature of hydrated materials. E.g., it was demonstrated that the most tightly bound water in lysozyme was characterized by the specific heat of 2.3 kJ kg$^-1$ K$^-1$ , a value close to the specific heat of ice [@Yang1979]. For bound water, incorporated into the product of concrete hydration, the estimates gave significantly reduced value of specific heat, approximately 0.91-2.2 kJ kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ [@Bentz2011; @Tatro2006; @Waller1996]. However, the contribution of bound water in collagen to the specific heat was approximately 5.35 kJ kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ (i.e., higher than that of free water) over the entire range of water content from 1 to 100% [@Hoeve1976]. According to predictions of computer simulations, specific heat of water hydration shells in peptides exceeds C value in bulk and decreases upon heating [@Oleinikova2010].
\[htbp\]
Figure 4 present the experimental data of this work in coordinates $C/(1-W)$ against $W/(1-W)$. These dependencies were noticeably nonlinear at small moisture content (See insert in Fig. 4). So, it is evident that results of $C_b^e$ estimation can be strongly dependent on the choice of interval of moisture content. In principle, the direct calculation of the effective specific heat of water $C_b^e$ using the additive model can result in significant overestimation or underestimation of the specific heat of bound water.
\[htbp\]
Figure 5 compares the temperature dependencies of the specific heat of pure water $C_w$ and different estimations of $C_b^e$, and $C_b=C_w+ \Delta C_b$. The estimation of $C_b^e$ using the experimental data within the interval of small moisture content ($W=0-0.115$) results in larger values of specific heat as compared with $C_b=C_w+ \Delta C_b$. However, the difference between $C_b^e$ and $C_b=C_w+ \Delta C_b$ becomes smaller with temperature increase, and both estimations give approximately the same result at $T>340$ K. For wider interval of moisture content ($W=0-0.9$), the effective specific heat of water $C_b^e$ was insignificantly larger than that of pure water $C_w$. However, it is remarkable that temperature dependence of $C_b^e$ demonstrated the presence of a rather deep minimum at $T\approx 330-340$ K. The similar minimum in pure water is observed at $T \approx 310.7$ K.
\[htbp\]
The amount of bound water $W_b$ can be estimated from analysis of $\Delta C/\Delta C_b$ versus moisture content $W$ dependencies at different temperatures $T$ (Fig. 6). The value $\Delta C/\Delta C_b$ rapidly decreases as $W$ increases and approaches zero at $T> 0.1-0.15$. These dependencies can be used for estimation of the amount of bound water $W_b$ in the apple tissue. The value of $W_b$ can be roughly estimated from fitting of $\Delta C/\Delta C_b$ using the exponential function: $$\Delta C/\Delta C_b=\exp(-W/W_b). \label{eq:rel8}\\$$
Insert in Fig. 4 shows the temperature dependence of bound water content $W_b$. The estimated values of $W_b$ are comparable with those corresponding to the monolayer moisture content of fresh apple, $W$= 0.039 to 0.084 [@Mrad2012], and pass through the minimum as the temperature increases. The decrease of $W_b$ above $T_g=290$ K, possibly, reflects the presence of glass transition, at which a solid ”glass“ transforms into a liquid-like ”rubber” [@Rahman2006]. It can be speculated that extend of water structure perturbation by the apple is higher in the glass state. Note that decrease of the monolayer moisture content with temperature increase in the interval of $T=303-333$ K was observed earlier [@Mrad2012]. From the other side, the observed increase of $W_b$ above $T_s\approx 330$ K can reflect the thermally induced softening of apple tissue at elevated temperatures. However, the precise mechanism of such behaviour is still unclear and requires supplementary investigations.
Finally, from the practical point of view, the following approximation for the moisture and temperature dependencies of the specific heat of apple fulfils:
$$C=C_w(T)+(C_w(T)-C_h(T))*(W-1)- C_b(T)*\exp(-W/W_b(T)), \label{eq:rel9}\\$$
where all the temperature dependencies $C_w(T)$,$C_h(T)$, $C_b(T)$,$W_b(T)$ and $C_d(T)$ can be roughly approximated using the polynomials: $$y(T) = a+bT+cT^2+dT^3, \label{eq:rel10}\\$$ where values of $a, b, c, d$ and of the coefficients of determination $\rho$ are presented in Table 2. The dashed lines in Figures 2, 3 and 6 were obtained using the Eq. 8, Eq. 9 and coefficients presented in Table 2. It can be seen that Eqs. (9)-10 allow satisfactory approximation of the experimentally observed $C(W,T)$ dependencies with exception of $C(T)$ dependence for $W=0.025$ in the vicinity of glass transition temperature, $T_g\approx 290$ K.
\[sec:concl\]Conclusion
=======================
The detailed study of specific heat at different water contents, $W$, and temperatures, $T$ revealed the important role of bound water in determination of the thermal properties of apple. The observed $C(W)$ dependencies were practically linear at $W> 0.1$ and non-linear at small humidities ($W<0.1$). The nonlinear dependencies reflected the specific heat behaviour at monolayer and sub-monolayer moisture contents, where the effects of bound water were pronounced. The characteristic jump in $C(T)$ behaviour at small water content ( 0.02-0.03 of bound water), probably, reflects glass transition in water plasticised apple material. The additive model can be satisfactory applied for description of C(W) dependence in apple in the moisture range of $0.1<W<1$ considering apple as a mixture of water and hydrated apple material (water plasticised apple) with the specific heat $C_h$. The difference between $C_h$ and specific heat of dry apple, $\Delta C_b=C_h-C_d$, can be treated as a measure of the excess contribution of bound water to the specific heat. The observed decrease of $\Delta C_b$ with temperature increase evidences diminution of the excess contribution of bound water and may be explained by the damage of specific structure of bound water. Analysis of the data has shown that commonly applied direct calculations, based on the additive model, can result in significant errors in estimation of the specific heat of bound water. The estimated amounts of bound water $W_b$ were comparable with the monolayer moisture content in apple and were passing through the minimum as the temperature was increasing. Such behaviour can be explained accounting for the glass transition at $T_g\approx290$ K and thermal softening of apple tissue at $T>T_s=330$ K. The proposed Eqs. (9) and (10) can be useful for analytical calculation of $C(W,T)$ in the wide interval of moisture content ($W=0-0.9$) and temperature ($T=283-363$ K).
The authors appreciate the financial support from the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Authors also thank Dr. N. S. Pivovarova for her help with the preparation of the manuscript.
[10]{}
D P Bentz, M A Peltz, A Duran-Herrera, P Valdez, and C A Juarez. Thermal properties of high-volume fly ash mortars and concretes. , 34(3):263–275, 2011.
M. Bozikova. Thermophysical parameters of apple flesh. , 10(1-2):53–56, 2006.
M. Bozikova. Thermophysical parameters of selected fruit and fruit products. , 11(1-2):19–23, 2007.
M. Bozikova. Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity values of foods. , 13:274–279, 2009.
H. B. Bull and K. Breese. Protein hydration. i. bonding sites. , 128:488–496, 1968.
S. E. Charm. . Avi Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut, 2nd edit. edition, 1971.
Y. Chio and M. Okos. Thermal conductivity of food. In D. Heldman, editor, [*Encyclopedia of Agriculture, Food and Biological Engineering*]{}, pages 1004–1010. Marcel Dekker: New York, 2003.
P. Cornillon, J. Andrieu, J.-C. Duplan, and M. Laurent. Use of nuclear magnetic resonance to model thermophysical properties of frozen and unfrozen model food gels. , 25(1):1 – 19, 1995.
N Galamba. Water’s structure around hydrophobic solutes and the iceberg model. , 117(7):2153–2159, 2013.
R. Gane. The thermal conductivity of the tissue of fruits. , pages 211–212, 1936.
A I Gasan, V A Kashpur, and V Ya. Maleev. Thermal transformations and hydration of serum albumin. , 39(4):588–593, 1994.
A. S. Ginzburg and M. A. Gromov. . Agropromizdat, Moscow, USSR, 1987.
C A J Hoeve and S R Kakivaya. On the structure of water absorbed in collagen. , 80(7):745–749, 1976.
Lihan Huang and Lin-Shu Liu. Simultaneous determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of food and agricultural materials using a transient plane-source method. , 95:179–185, 2009.
F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt. . John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY., fourth ed. edition, 1996.
Zheng Li and Themis. Lazaridis. Water at biomolecular binding interfaces. , 9(5):573–581, 2007.
Loong Tak Lim, Jlumlng Tang, and Jianshan He. Moisture sorption characteristics of freeze dried blueberries. , 60(4):810–814, 1995.
Y. L. Lin, S. J. Li, Y. Zhu, G. Bingol, Z. Pan, and Tara H. McHugh. Heat and mass transfer modeling of apple slices under simultaneous infrared dry blanching and dehydration process. , 27:1051–1059, 2009.
H. Lisowa, M. Wujec, and T. Lis. Changes in the thermophysical properties of apples in the process of drying. , 2(1):105–115, 2000.
H. Lisowa, M. Wujec, and T. Lis. Influence of temperature and variety on the thermal properties of apples. , 16(1):43–52, 2002.
H. Lisowa, M. Wujec, and T. Lis. Influence of relative humidity on the thermal properties of apples. , N95:127–137, 2003.
J.E. Lozano, M.J. Urbicain, and E. Rotstein. Thermal conductivity of apples as a function of moisture content. , 44(1):198–199, 1979.
M. Mattea, M.J. Urbicain, and E. Rotstein. Prediction of thermal conductivity of vegetable foods by the effective medium theory. , 51(1):113–115, 1986.
M. Mattea, M.J. Urbicain, and E. Rotstein. Prediction of thermal conductivity of cellular tissues during dehydration by a computer model. , 45(11):3227–3232, 1990.
N.D. Mrad, C. Bonazzi, N. Boudhrioua, N. Kechaou, and F. Courtois. Moisture sorption isotherms, thermodynamic properties, and glass transition of pears and apples. , 30(13):1397–1406, 2012.
V.A. Mykhailyk, Y.F. Snezhkin, A.F. Nemchin, and E.O. Davydova. Determination of the heat capacity of water-containing materials using scanning calorimetry. , 24(5):92–96, 2002.
Atsushi Nagoe, Yasuhiro Kanke, Masaharu Oguni, and Seitaro. Namba. Findings of cp maximum at 233 k for the water within silica nanopores and very weak dependence of the tmax on the pore size. , 114(44):13940–13943, 2010.
M. R. Okos, G. Narsimhan, R. K. Singh, and A. C. Weitnauer. Food dehydration. In D. R. Heldman and D. B. Lund, editors, [*Handbook of Food Engineering*]{}, pages 437–562. New York, N.Y.: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1992.
A Oleinikova, I Brovchenko, and G Singh. The temperature dependence of the heat capacity of hydration water near biosurfaces from molecular simulations. , 90(3):36001/1–36001/6, 2010.
Mohammad Shafiur Rahman. State diagram of foods: Its potential use in food processing and product stability. , 17:129–141, 2006.
G. Raichkov and G. Kimenov. Thermophysical characteristics of apple concentrate. , 30(1):309–314, 1983.
H. S. Ramaswamy. Thermo-physical properties of apples and prediction of freezing times. Food science, Graduate Theses, Master of Science, University of British Columbia, 1979.
H. S. Ramaswamy and M. A. Tung. Thermophysical properties of apples in relation to freezing. , 46(3):724–728, 1981.
L. Riedel. Thermal conductivity measurement on sugar solutions, fruit juices and milk. , 21:340–341., 1949.
L Riedel. The specific heat of bound water. , 18(5):193–195, 1966.
R. Sabbah, An Xu-wu, J.S. Chickos, M.L. Planas Leitao, M.V. Roux, and L.A. Torres. Reference materials for calorimetry and differential thermal analysis. , 331:93–204, 1999.
R.K. Singh and D.B. Lund. Mathematical modelling of heat and moisture transfer-related properties of intermediate moisture applies. , 8(3-4):191–210, 1985.
J. Srikiatden and J.S. Roberts. Moisture loss kinetics of apple during convective hot air and isothermal drying. , 8 (3):493–512., 2005.
J. Suurkuusk. Specific heat measurements on lysozyme, chymotrypsinogen, and ovalbumin in aqueous solution and in solid state. , 28b:409–417, 1974.
V.E. Sweat. Experimental values of thermal conductivity of selected fruits and vegetables. , 39:1080–1089, 1974.
S.B. Tatro. Thermal properties. In Joseph F. Lamond and James H. Pielert, editors, [*Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials. STP 169D*]{}, pages 226–237. West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM International, 2006.
G I Tsereteli and O I Smirnova. Jump-like change in the heat capacity of denatured biological macromolecules. , 34(5):905–906, 1989.
G I Tsereteli and O I Smirnova. Calorimetric study of the glass transition of denatured collagen. , 35(2):217–221, 1990.
V. Waller, F. De Larrard, and P. Roussel. Modelling the temperature rise in massive hpc structures. In [*In 4th International Symposium on Utilization of HighStrength/High-Performance Concrete, RILEM, Paris, France*]{}, pages 415–421, 1996.
P. White and G. C. Benson. The heat capacity of aqueous potassium octanoate solutions. , 64(5):599–601, 1960.
Hongyan Xu and Lan. Guan. Investigation on the heat capacity of water in poly(acrylic acid)/water mixtures through stepscan method. , 50(5):956–966, 2011.
P H Yang and J A Rupley. Protein-water interactions. heat capacity of the lysozyme-water system. , 18(12):2654–2661, 1979.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gas flows in and out of galaxies through their circumgalactic medium (CGM) are poorly [constrained]{} and direct observations of this faint, [diffuse]{} medium remain challenging. We use a sample of five $z$ $\sim$ 1-2 galaxy counterparts to Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbers (DLAs) to combine data on cold gas, metals and stellar content of the same galaxies. We present new HST/WFC3 imaging of these fields in 3-5 broadband filters and characterise the stellar properties of the host galaxies. By fitting the spectral energy distribution, we measure their stellar masses to be in the range of log($M_*$/$\text{M}_{\odot}$) $\sim$ 9.1$-$10.7. Combining these with IFU observations, we find a large spread of baryon fractions inside the host galaxies, between 7 and 100 percent. Similarly, we find gas fractions between 3 and 56 percent. Given their star formation rates, these objects lie on the expected main sequence of galaxies. Emission line metallicities indicate they are consistent with the mass-metallicity relation for DLAs. We also report an apparent anti-correlation between the stellar masses and $N$(), which could be due to a dust bias effect or lower column density systems tracing more massive galaxies. We present new ALMA observations of one of the targets leading to a molecular gas mass of log($M_{\rm mol}$/M$_{\odot}$) < 9.89. We also investigate the morphology of the DLA counterparts and find that most of the galaxies show a clumpy structure and suggest ongoing tidal interaction. Thanks to our high spatial resolution HST data, we gain new insights in the structural complexity of the CGM.'
author:
- |
Ramona Augustin$^{1,2}$[^1], C[é]{}line P[é]{}roux$^{2}$, Palle M[ø]{}ller$^{1}$, Varsha Kulkarni$^{3}$, Hadi Rahmani$^{4}$, Bruno Milliard$^{2}$, Matthew Pieri$^{2}$, Donald G. York$^{5}$, Giovanni Vladilo$^{6}$, Monique Aller$^{7}$, Martin Zwaan$^{1}$\
$^{1}$European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschildstrasse 2, D-85748 Garching bei M[ü]{}nchen, Germany\
$^{2}$Aix Marseille Universit[é]{}, CNRS, LAM (Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille) UMR 7326, 13388, Marseille, France\
$^{3}$Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA\
$^{4}$GEPI, Observatoire de Paris, PSL Research University, CNRS, Place Jules Janssen, 92190 Meudon, France\
$^{5}$Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Univ. of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, USA\
$^{6}$Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste - INAF, Via Tiepolo 11 34143 Trieste, Italy\
$^{7}$Georgia Southern University, Dept. of Physics, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA\
bibliography:
- 'hstpaper.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Characterising the Circum-Galactic Medium of Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: evolution – galaxies: stellar content – galaxies: structure – quasars: absorption lines
Introduction
============
Tremendous progress has been made over the last decade in establishing a broad cosmological framework in which galaxies and large-scale structure develop hierarchically over time, because of gravitational instability of material dominated by dark matter (e.g., @springel03). The next challenge is to understand the physical processes of the formation of galaxies and their interactions with the medium surrounding them. However, details of the cycling of gas into, through, and out of galaxies are currently poorly [constrained]{}. The missing link is information about gas in the circum-galactic medium (CGM). The CGM is loosely defined in the literature [(e.g. @tumlinson17)]{} but we use it as a description of the vicinity around galaxies where all the gas flows and interactions between the galaxy itself and the primordial gas from the cosmic web take place. The extent of the CGM can reach out to $\sim$ 300 kpc from the center of the galaxy [@steidel10; @prochaska11]. The CGM is believed to be both the repository of the inflowing gas and the receptacle of the feedback of energy and metals generated inside the galaxy [@tumlinson17]. Since outflows can also leave the halo and mix with the primordial gas in the cosmic web, we further restrict the definition of what we consider CGM to the halo in which the gas is gravitationally bound to the central galaxy. [Results from the FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments) simulation [@muratov15; @muratov17; @angles-alcazar17] suggest that the CGM at late times is mainly a repository for the metal enriched gas from outflows, and in this stage forms the major contribution to feeding the galaxy. The observational signature of this transition from ’infall dominated’ to ’closed box evolution’, i.e. a steepening of the cosmic evolution of the mass to metal relation, has already been reported to take place at the time of Cosmic Noon [@moller13].]{} @rahmati14 [used cosmological simulations at z=3 to show]{} that at impact parameters larger than the virial radius of a single galaxy, galaxy clustering starts to play a role and that single absorption features are associated to groups of galaxies. [They also find that depending on the star formation rate of the central galaxy, clustering can already become significant even within the virial radius.]{}
To reach understanding of the interplay of gas flows and galaxy evolution, it is essential to relate [the cold gas and metals in the CGM to the stellar content of the central galaxy.]{} The cold gas and metals in galaxies can be efficiently probed using absorption lines in the spectra of background quasars. [These quasar absorbers offer powerful redshift-independent tools to investigate galaxy evolution.]{} The quasar absorbers with the strongest absorption lines are the Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems (DLAs). They are defined to have neutral gas column density log($N$()/cm$^{-2}$)$>$20.3, matching the detection threshold of in local disks [@wolfe86]. [@peroux03] showed that by extending this definition to log($N$())$>$19.0, all the significant contributors to the neutral gas mass density would be taken into account (see also [@zafar13]). They coined the term sub-Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems (sub-DLAs) for these absorbers [with lower column densities]{}. [These DLAs and sub-DLAs are, due to their strong absorption features, probably linked to galaxies and are the preferred targets to study the CGM in absorption.]{}
[ While the number of quasar absorption line systems now amount to hundreds of thousands (e.g. @prochaska05 [@york06; @noterdaeme09; @noterdaeme12; @zhu13; @khare14; @pieri14; @quiret16]), the number of counterpart, visible objects attributed to DLAs (and thus termed “DLA galaxies”) remains small [@krogager17]. This implies that many counterparts remain under the detection limit (see e.g. @peroux11a) and makes the analysis of those counterparts that are being discovered even more precious. ]{}
[ Traditionally, people have used imaging and follow-up spectroscopy [@steidel97] or narrow-band imaging [@rauch08; @ogura17]. ]{} [To find the counterparts of DLAs in a more systematic way, a strategy using triangulation of the X-Shooter slit has been developed. This observational strategy resulted in many new discoveries of DLA galaxies [@noterdaeme12a; @krogager17; @zafar17]. ]{} The use of IFUs such as SINFONI and MUSE as well as KCWI has turned out to be very powerful in detecting faint galaxies in the vicinity of bright quasars [@bouche12; @peroux11a; @rahmani18; @fumagalli17; @bielby17; @rubin17]. This technique allows one to identify emission lines which in turn give constraints on the redshift, metallicity and star formation rates of the host galaxies. However, it provides only limited information on the stellar continuum of the host galaxies[, depending on the wavelength coverage of the IFU and the detection limit of the instrument]{}. [Recent studies show that absorbers are generally not to be associated to isolated galaxies. Some absorbers are found towards groups of galaxies, suggesting that they probe some common inter-group material [@peroux16; @rahmani18; @klitsch18].]{}
[With the counterpart galaxies that were detected, there]{} has been much progress constraining their physical properties. [The best way to constrain these physical properties is to infer and analyse scaling relations between the gas in absorption and the emission properties from the host galaxy. These scaling relations include a luminosity-metallicity relation [@moller04] or the mass-metallicity relation [@ledoux06; @prochaska08; @arabsalmani18].]{} Especially the mass-metallicity relation of DLA counterparts, and its redshift evolution, has been studied in great detail recently (e.g. [@moller13; @neeleman13; @christensen14]). [In these relations, the metallicity is inferred from the absorption features in the quasar spectrum and found to be in correlation with the luminosity or the mass of the galaxy counterpart. ]{} However, due to the proximity of the usually faint DLA host galaxy to a bright background quasar, direct imaging and discovery of the DLA hosts has proven to be challenging (e.g. [@lebrun97; @moller02; @chen03; @rao03; @kulkarni06; @fumagalli14; @fumagalli15]). According to the known scaling relations, metal rich, and therefore luminous and massive systems, have the highest chance of being detected as galaxy counterparts (e.g. [@fynbo10; @peroux11a; @bouche12; @krogager13; @zafar17; @rudie17]). [Even though there has been enormous progress in developing these detection techniques, the total number of detected (sub-)DLA counterparts remains relatively small and further searches for counterparts are needed in order to fully understand quasar absorbers.]{}
To constrain the stellar content of DLA counterparts, we acquired new broad-band HST/WFC3 observations with high spatial resolution to image five $z\sim$1-2 DLAs in three to five different filters. These new data provide the possibility to study the stellar continuum light of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxies. [We combine our data with archival data and estimate the galaxies’ masses]{}, test their scaling relations and use the high resolution of the data to investigate the morphology of the counterparts.
We structure the presentation of our work as follows: in section 2 we present the HST data set of our sample of galaxies and in section 3 the new ALMA observations. We show the details of our data analysis in section 4. In section 5 we present and discuss our results, and we describe our conclusions in section 6.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
HST Broad-band Observations of Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies
================================================================
A Sample of five DLA Counterparts
---------------------------------
The data set is composed of five $z\sim$1-2 DLAs with well-determined gas and metal properties and galaxy counterparts identified from ground-based observations (see table \[tab:knowndata\]). [The properties of these galaxies were previously published in a series of papers [@peroux11a; @peroux11b; @peroux12; @peroux13]. @peroux11a presented the VLT/SINFONI IFU survey in which these sources were included. They targeted quasar fields with known DLAs in order to look for H-$\rm \alpha$ emission in these fields at the redshift of the absorption, and thereby identified galaxy counterparts. In @peroux11b the kinematics of two of these counterparts were analysed. @peroux12 introduced three more counterpart detections and summarised the emission metallicites from the N2-parameter, which is based on the $\rm \lambda$6585 / H-$\rm \alpha$ ratio [@pettini04]. Later, @peroux13 provided dynamical masses, gas masses and halo masses from 3D morphokinematics modelling for these DLA galaxies and @peroux14 used VLT/X-Shooter data to estimate the metallicity of the gas also from R23 [@kobulnicky04]. Their parameters that are relevant for this work are presented in table \[tab:knowndata\], and include accurate sky positions, impact parameters, the redshift of the DLA galaxy, emission line metallicities, kinematics and H-$\rm \alpha$ star formation rates. ]{}
[ The SINFONI data of these objects did not reveal the galaxies in continuum, only in emission lines and in order to analyse the stellar continuum, an HST follow-up has been undertaken. ]{}
Quasar Field $z_{\rm QSO}$ R.A. Dec UVIS $n \ \times \ \Delta t \ [{\rm s}]$ IR $n \ \times \ \Delta t \ [{\rm s}]$
-------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -- --
Q0302$-$223 1.409 03:04:49.79 $-$22:11:53.17 WFPC2/F450W [^2] 4 $\times$ 500 WFC3/F105W [^3] 4 $\times$ 653
WFPC2/F702W [@xdefthefnmark[\[5351\]]{}footnotemark]{} 6 $\times$ 600 WFC3/F160W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
Q0452$-$1640 2.679 04:52:14.19 $-$16:40:17.07 WFPC2/F814W [^4] 4 $\times$ 400 WFC3/F105W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
WFC3/F606W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 626 WFC3/F140W [^5] 4 $\times$ 203
WFC3/F160W [^6] 9 $\times$ 899
Q1009$-$0026 1.242 10:09:30.46 $-$00:26:18.97 WFC3/F606W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 624 WFC3/F105W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
WFC3/F160W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
Q2222$-$0946 2.927 22:22:56.11 $-$09:46:36.35 WFC3/F606W [^7] 4 $\times$ 629 WFC3/F105W [@xdefthefnmark[\[12553\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
WFC3/F160W [@xdefthefnmark[\[12553\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
Q2352$-$0028 1.624 23:52:53.54 $-$00:28:50.57 WFC3/F606W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 624 WFC3/F105W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
WFC3/F160W [@xdefthefnmark[\[13733\]]{}footnotemark]{} 4 $\times$ 653
![[A worst case example]{} of our quasar PSF subtraction method in the case of Q2352$-$0028 in WFC3/F606W. Top left: cutout of one of the four individual exposures. Bad pixels and cosmic rays are masked [(white spots)]{}. Every frame is shifted to correct for sub-pixel offsets and resample (10$\times$10 pixels) for alignment. Top right: Median stack of all the aligned individual images. Bottom left: Model PSF obtained from median stacking the other fields [(Q0452$-$1640, Q1009$-$0026 and Q2222$-$0946)]{} in our sample in the appropriate filter after masking objects which do not belong to the quasar PSF [and scaling the them to one another]{}. Bottom right: Resulting final PSF-subtracted image [of Q2352$-$0028 after scaling the model PSF in the lower left panel to the QSO in Q2352$-$0028]{}. This method provides in a good correction of the quasar PSF. In particular, the diffraction spikes, which are spreading over several arcsec and as such are more likely to affect the detection of the absorbing galaxies, are robustly removed.[]{data-label="fig:psfsub"}](plots/psf_sub.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
HST WFPC2 and WFC3 Observations
-------------------------------
To study the stellar properties [such as the stellar mass]{} of these galaxies, [which requires knowledge of the underlying stellar continuum,]{} we combined imaging data from the HST archive with new WFC3/UVIS and IR channel observations. Thereby, we obtain broad-band fluxes and the morphology of all the objects in the sample. [We use the high spatial resolution of HST data to resolve the morphology of the (sub-)DLA counterparts.]{}
The new data were observed during Cycle 22 (ID: 13733; PI: P[é]{}roux) with the Wide Field Camera 3 in both the optical (UVIS) and infrared (IR) detectors, using the three broadband filters F606W, F105W and F160W. The observations took place between 13 January and 13 October 2015. We aimed at setting the roll-angle of the telescope such that the [known]{} galaxy counterpart of the quasar absorbers lies at 45 degrees from the diffraction spikes of the Point Spread Function (PSF). We use a dithering pattern in four individual exposures to help with removal of cosmic rays and hot pixels. The UVIS observation was taken using the WFC3-UVIS-DITHER-BOX pattern. The two observations with the IR detector were taken using the WFC3-IR-DITHER-BOX-MIN pattern providing an optimal 4-point sampling of the PSF. A summary of the observational set-up is given in table \[tab:dataset\]. A minimum of three broad-band filters is available for each field to probe either side of their 4000Å Balmer break. Using additional data available in the archive, we end up with 4 filters for Q0302-223 and 5 filters for Q0452-1640. The available F606W, F105W and F160W images are displayed in figure \[fig:sample\].
HST/WFC3 Data Processing
------------------------
We perform the data reduction with the [*calwf3*]{} pipeline. This includes corrections for bias and dark as well as flat fielding. We then multiply each individual exposure by the pixel area map provided by the HST/WFC3 photometry website[^8] to do the flux calibration in the individual science frames. All bad pixels, including cosmic rays and saturated pixels are masked using the data quality file that comes with each science frame (Fig. \[fig:psfsub\], upper left). We create a subpixel grid on the individual exposures of 10$\times$10 per pixel and shift the individual frames on top of each other to align them. Thereby we correct for the offset from the dithering. The individual images are sky subtracted and then combined in a median stack after alignment. This stacked image results in the science image that we are using for our analysis (figure \[fig:psfsub\], upper right).\
Quasar Point Spread Function Subtraction
----------------------------------------
In order to detect the faint continuum emission from the foreground Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxy near the bright quasar, we need to subtract the quasar continuum. To this end, we create a model of the point spread function (PSF) directly from our data for each QSO field. The QSO PSF is dependent on the filter in which the observations were taken and the position of the QSO on the detector plane. Since we have taken our observations in the same three filters for every field and positioned the QSO close to the center of the detector plane, we can combine different quasar images in identical filters to create a model PSF. We proceed as follows: For each QSO field, we combine all other [QSO fields]{} in the identical filter in a median stack (figure \[fig:psfsub\], lower left). Before the stacking we take care to mask all the objects that do not belong to the QSO PSF [(e.g. small galaxies, artifacts, etc.)]{} and subtract the sky. We also scale the individual PSFs so that their flux profiles in the outer wings match. This resulting model PSF is then scaled to the quasar field under study. We take care to combine all fields but the one to be PSF subtracted, to reveal objects under the QSO PSF. Using this model, we apply the PSF correction on the science frame (figure \[fig:psfsub\], lower right). This method results in a good correction of the quasar PSF. In particular, the diffraction spikes which are spreading over several arcsec and as such are more likely to affect the detection of the absorbing galaxies are robustly removed. For the two archival images in Q0452$-$1640 (F814W and F140W) we simply use an isolated star in the field as the model PSF.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
----------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quasar Field UVIS AB $mag$ IR AB $mag$
[(Object ID)]{}
Q0302-223 F450W 24.01 $ \pm $ 0.34[^9] F105W 22.6 $ \pm $ 0.2
[(3+4)]{} F702W 23.25 $ \pm $ 0.06[@xdefthefnmark[\[chen03tab\]]{}footnotemark]{} F160W 22.4 $ \pm $ 0.2
Q0452-1640 F606W 23.5 $ \pm $ 0.4 F105W 22.9 $ \pm $ 0.2
[(1+2)]{} F814W 23.2 $\pm$ 0.3 F140W 23.0 $ \pm $ 0.2
F160W 23.2 $ \pm $ 0.3
Q1009-0026 F606W 22.1 $\pm$ 0.2 F105W 20.30$ \pm $ 0.07
[(1)]{} F160W 19.82 $\pm$ 0.06
Q2222-0946 F606W 24.29 $ \pm $ 0.04[^10] F105W 24.51 $ \pm $ 0.21[@xdefthefnmark[\[krogager13tab\]]{}footnotemark]{}
[(1)]{} F160W 23.94 $ \pm $ 0.19[@xdefthefnmark[\[krogager13tab\]]{}footnotemark]{}
Q2352-0028 F606W 24.5 $\pm$ 0.6 F105W 23.4 $ \pm $ 0.3
[(1+2)]{} F160W 23.2 $\pm$ 0.3
----------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
New ALMA Observations
=====================
The field of Q2222$-$0946 was observed with ALMA to cover the CO(3-2) emission line at the redshift of the $z_{\rm abs}$=2.354 absorber in band 3 on the 10 August 2016 (under program 2015.1.01130.S, PI: C. Péroux) using a compact antenna configuration. One of the four spectral windows was centered at the redshifted CO(3-2) line frequency of 103.22326 GHz, while the three other spectral windows were used for continuum observations of the field. The blazars J2224$-$1126 and J2148$+$0657 were used as calibrators. Full imaging pipeline products are generated by the observatory using the Common Astronomy Software Applications (CASA) software package version 4.7.0. The final beam size is 1.04$\times$0.78 arcseconds. No emission lines are detected at the expected frequency. The resulting RMS at the observed frequency is 0.139 mJy in 150 km/s channel width. Assuming a line width of 200 km/s, we derive a 5-sigma limit on the integrated flux density of <140 mJy km/s. Converting to CO(1-0), we get a flux density of <58 mJy km/s assuming a Milky-Way like J-transition ratio [@carilli13]. [In line with previous works, we choose to use a galactic H2-CO conversion factor of 4.6 M$_{\odot}$ (K km/s pc$^2$)$^{-1}$, although this assumption has been challenged by recent findings (e.g. @klitsch18).]{} The corresponding CO luminosity is $1.7 \times 10^9$ (K km/s pc$^2$)$^{-1}$ leading to a 5-sigma limit on the molecular mass of log($M_{\rm mol}$/M$_{\odot}$) < 9.89.
Analysis
========
Magnitude Measurements
----------------------
We perform aperture photometry to determine the magnitudes of the DLA counterparts. We carefully choose elliptical apertures (major axis lengths between 0.4 and 1.7 arcsec, depending on apparent size of the galaxy) around the objects we identify as DLA counterparts. The visible counterpart should lie completely within the aperture. If there are several individual sub-structures (hereafter referred to as ’clumps’ [and labeled in Figure \[fig:label\]]{}), we pay attention to include them all [when]{} detected in all filters. [What]{} we identify as the DLA counterpart may not be a single object but actually several clumps that we treat as a single galaxy due to their spatial proximity and lack of further spectral information. Also, because the area in the center of the QSO is highly contaminated, [we take care]{} not to include such pixels in the aperture. In some cases, when [faint and minor]{} clumps show in the infrared that were not detected in the optical filter, we choose to only analyse those [major]{} clumps that we can see in all filters. Therefore we will either mask those objects in the infrared or choose such an aperture that those clumps are [excluded]{}. We convert the flux within this aperture to an AB magnitude using the respective zeropoints of each filter. The error on the magnitude within this aperture is dominated by the Poisson noise on the pixels.
Since the galaxies are extended objects we need to correct these magnitudes for the missing flux of the galaxies outside the aperture. To do this we model Sersic profiles to each of the visible clumps and galaxies, using the software GALFIT [@peng02]. Assuming that the galaxy profile looks the same in all filters outside the chosen aperture, we do this modeling [in the filter with the best spatial resolution]{} (F606W for all but Q0302-223, where we choose F160W). This model is then scaled to the resolution and pixel sampling of the other filters and used to determine the IR aperture correction. Indeed, clumps that are not detected in the optical might show in the infrared. [These could be unrelated to the galaxy we are studying and therefore have an effect on the fit, but we find that including these regions has no impact on the derived magnitudes within our conservative errors. The clumpy residuals shown in Figure \[fig:morphologyandgalfit\] are not related to such “infrared-only” clumps and instead show the deviation of the observed galaxies from the ideal Sersic model (see section 5.4). We used the best fit of the model excluding the infrared-only clumps]{} to determine the integrated flux outside the previously chosen aperture. This gives us the aperture correction.
The error on this aperture correction is estimated from 1000 random realisations of the model galaxy. The Sersic profile that we fit depends on seven parameters (the center (x,y), the integrated magnitude, the effective radius, the Sersic index, the ellipticity and the position angle). Assuming that they are independent - in reality they are not, but for our purposes this approximation is good enough - we let each parameter vary within a normal distribution around its best value and with their fitting errors as the sigma. Taking random values within these distributions we create the 1000 realisations of the galaxy model. Again, we measure the flux outside the chosen aperture and determine the standard deviation of this flux. This gives us the error on the aperture correction. Adding now the aperture correction and its error onto the flux within the aperture we obtain the magnitudes as given in table \[tab:magnitudes\].
[For comparison we]{} also use the GALFIT modeling on all filters to compute the magnitudes and find them to be consistent within the errors with the magnitudes that we obtain from aperture photometry. One object in our sample (Q2222-0946) overlaps with the study from @krogager13. Although we use their estimates for the [remainder]{} of our analysis, we perform our magnitude measurement procedure also on their original data and find that the magnitudes for this object also agree within the errors.
Morphology Characterisation
---------------------------
![Galaxy models with GALFIT. These models were used to determine the morphological parameters given in table \[tab:galfitparameters\]. These models were also used to determine the aperture correction for the magnitudes. From left to right: the observed, modeled and residual from our GALFIT modeling. The enhanced spatial resolution provided by HST imaging reveals the complexity of the morphology of these objects. See section 5.4 for the discussion of the morphology of each of these objects. []{data-label="fig:morphologyandgalfit"}](plots/newgalfitfigure.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In addition, the GALFIT models [(see figure \[fig:morphologyandgalfit\])]{} allow us to characterise the morphology of the DLA counterparts. In three of the targeted fields (Q0302$-$223, Q0452$-$1640 and Q2352$-$0028), the enhanced spatial resolution provided by the HST/WFC3 images reveals distinct structure within the absorbing galaxies. Figure \[fig:label\] provides the nomenclature for each of these clumps. For the other two fields, no additional structure is found within the galaxy counterpart [itself, although we find quite a lot of structure around the quasar in the field of Q1009-0026 (see figure \[fig:1009field\])]{}. We note that in the field of Q0302$-$223, previous HST/WFPC2 observations had already provided evidence of two separate objects associated with the absorbing-galaxy [@lebrun97; @peroux11b]. From GALFIT we obtain two parameters, the ellipticity and the effective radius, that tell us quantitatively about the size and morphology of these DLA counterparts. We list the morphological parameters in table \[tab:galfitparameters\].
Object filter AB $mag$ $R_{\rm e}$ \[px\] $R_{\rm e}$ \[kpc\] $n$ $b/a$
------------------ -------- ------------------ -------------------- --------------------- ----------------- -----------------
Q0302$-$223 (4) F160W 23.98 $\pm$ 0.12 2.14 $\pm$ 0.25 2.3 $\pm$ 0.3 0.62 $\pm$ 0.13 0.5 $\pm$ 0.05
Q0302$-$223 (3) F160W 22.77 $\pm$ 0.06 2.29 $\pm$ 0.12 2.4 $\pm$ 0.1 0.86 $\pm$ 0.08 0.82 $\pm$ 0.04
Q0452$-$1640 (1) F606W 24.01 $\pm$ 0.12 7.60 $\pm$ 0.56 2.5 $\pm$ 0.2 0.50 $\pm$ 0.11 0.36 $\pm$ 0.04
Q0452$-$1640 (2) F606W 25.14 $\pm$ 0.17 2.40 $\pm$ 0.45 0.8 $\pm$ 0.1 0.56 $\pm$ 0.26 0.83 $\pm$ 0.17
Q1009$-$0026 F606W 22.46 $\pm$ 0.05 9.95 $\pm$ 0.35 3.1 $\pm$ 0.1 0.47 $\pm$ 0.04 0.88 $\pm$ 0.03
Q2222$-$0946 F606W 24.21 $\pm$ 0.16 4.62 $\pm$ 0.39 1.5 $\pm$ 0.1 0.81 $\pm$ 0.21 0.38 $\pm$ 0.06
Q2352$-$0028 (1) F606W 25.05 $\pm$ 0.18 5.79 $\pm$ 0.69 1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 0.55 $\pm$ 0.19 0.49 $\pm$ 0.08
Q2352$-$0028 (2) F606W 26.60 $\pm$ 0.35 3.32 $\pm$ 0.65 1.1 $\pm$ 0.2 0.34 $\pm$ 0.27 0.43 $\pm$ 0.13
-------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------
Quasar Field log($M_*$) $f_{\rm baryons}$ $f_{\rm gas}$
\[$\text{M}_{\odot}$\] \[percent\] \[percent\]
Q0302$-$223 9.5$\pm$0.2 22$\pm$8 28$\pm$30
Q0452$-$1640 9.1$\pm$0.2 7$\pm$2 56$\pm$20
Q1009$-$0026 10.7$\pm$0.2 65$\pm$30 3$\pm$50
Q2222$-$0946 9.7$\pm$0.3 $>$100 50$\pm$40
Q2352$-$0028 9.4$\pm$0.3 13$\pm$7 20$\pm$60
-------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------
: Derived stellar physical properties of the Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxies from SED fitting. The second column provides the stellar masses. The third and fourth columns provide the baryonic mass fraction, $f_{\rm baryons}$, and the gas fraction, $f_{\rm gas}$, for these objects [as defined in section 5.2]{}.[]{data-label="tab:physprop"}
Spectral Energy Distribution Fit
--------------------------------
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We use the derived broad-band magnitudes [in table \[tab:magnitudes\]]{} which cover the 4000 Å Balmer break of the object to constrain the mass, SFR, and age of the stellar population in the galaxy with a spectral energy distribution (SED) fit to the integrated light of the galaxies. We utilised the photometric-redshift code [*LE PHARE*]{} [@arnouts99; @ilbert06] available as part of the [*GAZPAR*]{} suite of software[^11]. We used the code with a single burst of star formation, templates from @bruzual03 stellar population models, a Calzetti extinction law and a @chabrier03 initial mass function. The spectroscopic redshifts derived from our SINFONI spectra are used as an input to the code, thus allowing us to constrain the stellar mass of the object with relatively high confidence. Based on previous experience [@peroux11b; @ilbert06], we know that the derived stellar masses are reliable, while the age of the stellar population and the SFR are less robustly determined. [Figure \[fig:sed\] shows the best fit template for each of the counterpart objects, based on the averaged magnitude from the template spectrum in the range of the respective bandwidths, convolved with the throughput. Note that, while the measured F105W magnitude for Q1009-0026 is noticeably offset from the continuum, this band contains a number of strong emission lines that are taken into account to determine the best fit template.]{}
We note that three of our galaxies (Q0302$-$223(3+4), Q1009$-$0026 and Q2222$-$0946) already have previously published mass estimates from SED fitting. @christensen14 used a variety of magnitudes available in literature and the code HYPERZ [@bolzonella00] to perform an SED fitting and obtain stellar masses. For the DLA counterpart towards Q0302$-$223 we find log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) = 9.5 $\pm$ 0.2, which is consistent with @christensen14 who found 9.65 $\pm$ 0.08. In Q1009$-$0026 they find log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) = 11.06 $\pm$ 0.03, which [is somewhat]{} higher than our result of 10.7$\pm$ 0.2. Our result for Q2222$-$0946 (log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) = 9.7$\pm$0.3) is consistent within the errors with their result of 9.62 $\pm$ 0.12. [@krogager13 have found (log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) = 9.3$\pm$0.2) for Q2222$-$0946, which is in agreement within the errors.]{} In contrast to @christensen14 we have a homogeneous data set with space based observations in three filters that cover the 4000 Å Balmer break, which is critical for the SED fitting. In addition we apply to the high spatial resolution data a consistent magnitude and aperture correction estimation method. For these reasons, we focus on the results from our new HST magnitude measurements in the following analysis.
Results and Discussion
======================
The Stellar Mass of Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies
-----------------------------------------------------
We have measured the stellar mass of the five DLA counterparts in our sample [(see table \[tab:physprop\])]{}. Together with the objects from literature, about 15 absorbing galaxies have now their stellar mass measured ([@christensen14; @krogager17]; Rhodin et al. in prep.). Figure \[fig:massnhi\] shows the resulting distribution of stellar masses as a function of $N$() column density. Absorbers with log($N$()/cm$^{-2}$) > 20.3 have smaller masses than Milky-Way-like galaxies, [which is expected for most galaxies at z$\sim$1]{}. The absorbing galaxies stellar masses appear to be weakly anti-correlated with $N$() column densities (Spearman rank correlation coefficient: $-$0.6), where higher stellar masses are traced by lower -absorbers. This is in line with results from @kulkarni10 who use independent arguments based on metallicity to show that on average sub-DLAs might arise from more massive galaxies than DLAs. Galaxies with higher metallicity would have undergone a more rapid star formation and gas consumption, leaving them with lower $N$() in their vicinity. On the other hand, detection of high mass - high column density systems could suffer from dust extinction within the galaxy itself [@vladilo05], thus affecting the magnitude of the background quasar. This observational bias could also explain the lack of systems in the right top corner in the figure \[fig:massnhi\].
We note one apparent outlier in this relation, which is Q2352$-$0028. This object lies slightly below the main relation that is formed by the remaining data points. An explanation is an ongoing interaction in this system (see also discussion about morphology later). We would expect a more massive counterpart for the measured $N$(). The tidal interaction in this system could have deposited some gas on top of the quasar sight line and cause the apparent deviation from the $N$()-$M_*$ relation.
The stellar masses we report here span an interval from 9<log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$)<11. However, it is important to bear in mind that many DLAs and sub-DLAs counterparts still remain undetected to date, so that the sample might not be representative of the population of absorbers as a whole. Recent findings by @krogager17 and the study by @moller13 indicate that DLAs trace a large range of stellar masses with an estimated average stellar mass of log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) $\sim$ 8.5.
It is interesting to compare these measurements with the most recent simulations of cold gas. Clearly, resolving these mass scales in a cosmological context is a challenge to hydrodynamical simulations, as sub-grid physics are not properly simulated. [@pontzen08] estimate that DLAs are dominated by galaxies with 7$<$log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$)$<$8. [@tescari09] and [@rahmati14], find that most absorbers with $N$() < 10$^{21}$cm$^{-2}$ are associated with very low mass galaxies, log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) < 8. [However]{}, [@rahmati14] found that at higher column densities the contribution of haloes with log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) > 9 increases rapidly. [@rahmati14] use the EAGLE simulations to show that at z$\sim$3, sub-DLAs are dominated by systems of 7.0$<$log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$)$<$8.5, while at log $N$()>20.7, objects with 8.5$<$log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$)$<$10 progressively dominate. Based on precursors of the Illustris simulations, [@bird14] find that the DLA population probes a wide range of halo masses, but that the cross-section is dominated by haloes of mass 10$<$log($M_{\rm halo}/\text{M}_{\odot}$)$<$11 solar masses. Overall, the simulations predict lower stellar masses than found in our study. [This illustrates the many challenges in reproducing this cold phase of the gas in an cosmological context.]{}
[On the other hand it might also indicate a detection bias of DLA counterparts.]{} Massive galaxies are on average more luminous and easier to detect in the vicinity of a bright background quasar than low mass objects that are fainter on average. The more massive a galaxy, the larger also its extent and the possible impact parameter of a QSO sight line. [Also, the more massive a galaxy, the higher its metallicity (see e.g. Figure \[fig:mass\_metal\_corr\]). @krogager17 have shown a trend between impact parameter and metallicity in DLAs which can be translated into a trend between impact parameter and mass. ]{} [There is a possibility that some [observations]{} are biased to detecting systems with larger impact radii because they are easier to separate from the QSO.]{} [ However, we detect DLA counterparts down to impact parameters of $\sim$ 6 kpc.]{} [Still, the lowest stellar mass we measure in our sample is $\sim 10^9 \text{M}_{\odot}$, which is higher than the bulk of the population predicted by simulations.]{}
The Baryonic and Gas Fractions of Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the wealth of data available for this unique sample, we are able to measure the dynamical, halo, gas and stellar masses of these absorbing galaxies [(see tables \[tab:knowndata\] and \[tab:physprop\])]{}. The dynamical masses are calculated from the virial theorem or from the enclosed mass if the system is found to be rotating using a converged $V_{\rm max}$ derived from a 3D fit to the IFU H-$\alpha$ observations (see [@peroux11a] for more details). The halo masses are computed from the H-$\alpha$ emission widths and assuming a spherical virialised collapse model. The gas masses are indirectly derived from the observed H-$\alpha$ surface brightness using an ’inverse’ Schmidt-Kennicutt relation [@peroux14].
The molecular gas component is often found to be considerably lower than the gas, typically 20 percent of the total gas mass [@lelli16]. [This gas component has been studied in absorption [@noterdaeme15a; @noterdaeme15b; @balashev17] towards DLAs. These studies imply that molecular gas is preferentially found in high column density DLAs (log($\rm N_{\ion{H}{i}}$) > 20.7) and makes up a few percent of the total gas content. ]{}
Recently, there have [also]{} been searches for CO emission with ALMA in DLA counterparts as a tracer for molecular gas. While there were a number of non detections, @neeleman16 report a molecular gas mass of log($M_{\rm mol}$/M$_{\odot}$) = 9.6 for one of the objects in the @christensen14 sample at low redshift (PKS 0439$-$433, $z$=0.101, log(N()/\[cm$^{-2}$\])=19.63, log($M_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$)=10.01). Similarly @moller18 report a molecular gas mass in a redshift 0.7 DLA (log($M_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$)=10.80) of log(($M_{\rm mol}$/M$_{\odot}$) = 10.37. @klitsch18 report several [galaxies]{} associated with a $z$=0.633 Lyman Limit System (LLS). One of these is detected in multiple CO lines leading to log($M_{\rm mol}$/M$_{\odot}$) = 10.1. The non-detections, given their stellar masses (10.2 $<$ log($M_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 11.2), indicate that the molecular gas mass makes up only a small fraction of the total baryonic mass in these galaxies. For one of the absorbing galaxies studied here (Q2222-0946) we have a direct 5-sigma upper limit on the molecular mass from CO(3-2) ALMA non-detection of log($M_{\rm mol}$/$M_{\odot}$) < 9.89, which corresponds to < 50 percent of the gas being molecular.
The available mass estimates allow us to put constraints on the baryonic mass fraction in the DLA galaxies:
$$f_{\rm baryons}=(M_{\rm gas}+M_{*})/M_{\rm dyn}$$
The baryonic fractions are tabulated in table \[tab:physprop\] and are found to vary vastly from one object to another. @lelli15 find high values (60 $-$ 100 percent) for local tidal dwarf galaxies (log($M_*$/M$_{\odot}$) $\sim$ 8). The two objects for which we measure baryon fractions in this range, have relatively large stellar masses of log($M_*$/M$_{\odot}$) = 9.7 and log($M_*$/M$_{\odot}$) = 11.6. It is unexpected that the two most massive systems in our sample fall into the baryonic fraction range of tidal dwarf galaxies, while the other systems that are closer to tidal dwarfs in terms of their masses and their morphology (see also section 5.4) appear to have much lower baryon fractions.
Similarly to the baryonic fractions, we can estimate the gas fraction in these absorbing galaxies:
$$f_{\rm gas}=M_{\rm gas}/(M_{\rm gas}+M_{*})$$
We derive gas fractions ranging from a few percent (in the case of the absorbing-galaxy in the field of Q1009$-$0026) to 56 percent (for Q0452$-$1640). Such gas fractions are in the low range of the typical values derived in $z\sim$2-3 galaxies by others (e.g. @erb06gas [@law09]). [@bahe16] make predictions of the neutral gas fraction as a function of stellar mass at $z$=0 (10 $< M_*$/M$_{\odot}$ $<$ 11.5). Our most massive galaxy (Q1009$-$0026) is the only one from our sample that falls into their mass range. It agrees with their predictions, although it falls into the lower range of the predicted neutral gas fraction.
![Neutral gas column density, N() as a function of Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxies stellar masses. When the absorbing galaxies have been detected and their stellar masses have been measured, DLA and sub-DLAs appear to have stellar masses ranging from 8$<$log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$)$<$11 solar masses. We find an apparent anti-correlation between log($M_*/\text{M}_{\odot}$) and $N$(). We obtain a Spearman rank correlation coefficient of -0.6 for these data points. [The literature points for the high and low redshift samples are taken from @krogager17. The one point from our data, which seems to be an outlier in the lower left, is Q2352$-$0028.]{} []{data-label="fig:massnhi"}](plots/mass-nhi.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![H-$\alpha$ star formation rates of our targeted absorbing galaxies as a function of their stellar masses. We compare our results with the predictions for the main sequence (MS) of star forming galaxies from the Illustris simulation [@tomczak16] as well as with the main sequence found from SDSS [@lee15]. Except for the most massive one, our data points are broadly speaking in line with these relations, implying that DLA counterparts are normal star forming galaxies and do not form a special group of galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:mainsequence"}](plots/mass-sfr-illustris-sdss_new_ha.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![Mass-metallicity relation for absorbing galaxies. The metallicities of the literature samples [(compilation from @christensen14)]{} in green and blue are neutral gas metallicities measured in [absorption]{}. [They are corrected for the impact parameter to be comparable to emission metallicities.]{} Here, we have been able to measure [*directly*]{} both the stellar masses and emission metallicities of the absorbing galaxies [for our sample in red]{}, so that assumptions on metallicity gradients are not required. [We plot the emission metallicities from R23 to be comparable to @maiolino08 except for the cases of Q2352$-$0028, for which the R23 metallicity could not be determined, and Q1009$-$0026, which was not observed with X-Shooter [@peroux14]. In those two cases we plot the metallicity from N2 (see also table \[tab:knowndata\]).]{} []{data-label="fig:mass_metal_corr"}](plots/mass-metal_bcorr_maiolino_em_neu.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies Scaling Relations
---------------------------------------------------
In this section we will investigate some stellar-mass scaling relations.
[*The Star-Forming Sequence:*]{} Figure \[fig:mainsequence\] shows the H-$\alpha$ star formation rates of our targeted absorbing galaxies as a function of their stellar masses. For comparison, we plot the SDSS Main Sequence at $z$=1 from [@lee15] as well as results from the Illustris simulations at $z$=1 and $z$=2 [@tomczak16]. Our data points are broadly speaking in line with these relations, except for the most massive object in our sample. They do not systematically deviate from the expected relation for star forming galaxies. This implies that DLA counterparts do not form a special group of galaxies, but follow the relations of normal star forming galaxies. [The most massive galaxy seems to fall below the main sequence although the star formation rates are not dust corrected.]{}\
[*The Mass-Metallicity Relation:*]{} [@peroux03] reported a correlation between the absorption metallicity of the absorber and the absorption profile velocity spread along the quasar line of sight, $\Delta v$. [@ledoux06] later argued that $\Delta v$ could be a proxy for the mass of the systems and advocate that the relation is an analogue of the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) of normal galaxies. [@moller13] further used this relation to predict the stellar mass of absorbing galaxies based on their metallicities, while [@christensen14] assumed a perfect MZR to derive the metallicity gradients of these systems. Figure \[fig:mass\_metal\_corr\] shows where our data points lie on this relation. We plot the emission metallicities for the objects in our sample and the impact-parameter-corrected absorption metallicities for the literature sample [@christensen14]. [This impact-parameter-correction assumes a constant metallicity gradient from the center of the galaxy outwards such that absorption metallicities can be related to a central emission metallicity. This enables one to compare absorption selected samples with emission selected samples.]{} For comparison, we have plotted as solid lines fits for star-forming galaxies at $z$=0.7 and 2.2 [@maiolino08]. We find our data points in agreement with the previously determined MZR for DLAs.
Here, we have been able to measure [*directly*]{} both the stellar masses and emission metallicities of the absorbing galaxies, so that assumptions on the relation between $\Delta v$ and mass on one hand and metallicity gradients are not required.
![Field of Q1009$-$0026 (Proposal ID: 13733, PI: P[é]{}roux): The prominent spiral galaxy on the [west side of the quasar]{} is the object that we identify as the DLA counterpart. [The clumpy spiral structure which is very obvious in the optical band (see figures \[fig:sample\] and \[fig:morphologyandgalfit\]) is less prominent in this near-IR image.]{} Besides this counterpart galaxy we find a lot of structure around the quasar line of sight after PSF subtraction. See text for further discussion. North is up and East is left. The filter shown here is F105W.[]{data-label="fig:1009field"}](plots/1009_field_wocb.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The Morphological Complexity of Lyman-$\alpha$ Absorbing Galaxies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we provide further details on the morphology of the Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxies that have become obvious with the high spatial resolution provided by the HST imaging. Figure \[fig:morphologyandgalfit\] provides for each field, the observed, modeled and residual from our detailed GALFIT modeling in the optical filter F606W or for F160W in the case of Q0302$-$223. The discussion is mainly based on these, as we have the highest sampling with a pixel scale of 0.04 arcsec/px in the optical filter F606W and the best detection of Q0302$-$223 in F160W. [The residuals in Figure \[fig:morphologyandgalfit\] show the deviation of the observed galaxies/clumps from the ideal Sersic profile and provide evidence for sub-structure within the observed object. The appearance of clumps within galaxies is generally related to either some external disturbance such as interactions or due to instabilities within a disk and is dependent of the spatial resolution of the observations. The extreme examples in terms of resolution are Q1009$-$0026 at the lowest redshift of $\sim$0.9, which shows a lot of clumpy residuals and Q2222$-$0946 at the highest redshift of $\sim$2.4, which presents the smoothest profile. In the following, we discuss the morphology of the galaxies in each individual field: ]{}
[*The Q0302$-$223 Field:*]{} In this field we find two close galaxies at the position of the H-$\alpha$ emission (3+4, [see figure \[fig:label\])]{}. These two galaxies had already been found previously as well as two other clumps (1+2) that are even closer to the quasar sight line. Since the later two (1+2) did not show any H-$\alpha$ emission at the redshift of the absorber in the SINFONI IFU data, we assume that the galaxies responsible for the Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption are objects 3 and 4. Due to their proximity we may assume that they are in an interaction with each other although we do not see any features that hint at some interaction like tidal streams. We can not see anything fainter than a magnitude of $\sim$ 26, so if there are some very faint tidal streams, we might miss them in our observations. It should be noted at this point that we discuss the morphology for this field in a different filter (F160W) than the other objects in our sample (F606W) and might therefore probe slightly different stellar populations. For the scope of this qualitative discussion we ignore the expected minor changes in morphology due to different stellar populations.
[*The Q0452$-$1640 Field:*]{} [This galaxy has the clear profile of a single rotating disc in the SINFONI data.]{} The HST images of this target show an elongated and a compact object. This might hint at two merging objects but since we see a clear disc in the infrared and in H-$\alpha$ there is a strong possibility for this object to be an edge-on disc [(b/a=0.36)]{} galaxy with two separate clumps of star formation or a patch of dust that absorbs the emission in the optical. @elmegreen12 have investigated so-called tadpole galaxies that typically have a strongly off-centered region of star formation and an elongated intensity profile. The DLA counterpart that we find here might be an example for such a tadpole galaxy.
[*The Q1009$-$0026 Field:*]{} The HST images show the presence of clumps and spiral arms. After quasar PSF subtraction, we also note a number of smaller objects at small impact parameters to the quasar (see figure \[fig:1009field\]). We measured the magnitudes for these but due to their proximity to the quasar, the errors are large and we cannot get a constraint of the redshift of these clumps from SED fitting. @meiring11, [who had evidence for two absorption systems towards this quasar,]{} were looking for a second sub-DLA counterpart in this field but could only identify a faint cloud south of the QSO. In our high-resolution imaging data we can see that there are in fact several objects both south as well as in the vicinity of the QSO. Lacking further information on the redshift of these objects we cannot identify the second sub-DLA counterpart at $z$=0.8426 .
[*The Q2222$-$0946 Field:*]{} We find this object to be the most compact and isolated within our sample. It does not show any companions or a specific structure. It might therefore be a fully evolved field galaxy, [although it lies at high redshift]{}. Since it is also the one with the highest redshift ($z$=2.35) it is not as highly resolved as the other ones at lower redshift and we might not be able to resolve individual components. [It is also possible that we probe sightly different stellar populations in this galaxy than in the others due to its higher redshift and therefore more redshifted spectra.]{}
[*The Q2352$-$0028 Field:*]{} The HST images show a disturbed morphology pointing towards the quasar. We discover clear tidal streams connecting the two clumps and also stretching towards the QSO sight line. This larger sky coverage of [tidally stripped gas favours detecting interacting systems in absorption]{}. Some tidal streams stretch out from the host galaxies and cause the strong absorption feature in the QSO spectrum. Without these tidal features, the CGM around galaxies [could]{} be less extended. [As @hani18 have shown, galaxy mergers can enhance the extent of the CGM.]{}
When comparing the clumpiness to the baryon fractions presented in table \[tab:physprop\], we find an apparent dependence of the baryon fraction on the structure of the galaxy. For those with only a single galaxy (Q1009$-$0026 and Q2222$-$0946) we find extremely large baryon fractions (65-100 percent). The DLA counterparts that show a clumpy structure that might hint at an ongoing merging are found to have low baryon fractions (7-22 percent). These might in fact be a further indication of ongoing merging as the tidal interaction between the clumps might cause the baryonic matter to be scattered throughout the halo out to large radii, leading to lower baryon fractions in the central part of the halo. The fully evolved galaxies on the other hand accumulate all of their stars and gas in the central region of the dark matter halo and have therefore a core that is dominated by baryonic matter.
The absorption reaches up to 40 kpc outside the galaxy center. This means that some processes must drive this gas far out of the galaxy and keep it there. In the framework where many of these DLA galaxies actually consist of interacting clumps, some of them are maybe filaments that were created by [tidal interactions between clumps]{}. This means that the gas we see in absorption is rather associated to a group of smaller clumps than to a single galaxy, [which is in line with findings from simulations [@rahmati14].]{} The observations from @fumagalli14b and @cantalupo14 also suggest that the CGM [around quasars]{} is composed of streams and filaments.
[ Already the first identified DLA galaxy [@moller93] was found in a group comprising at least 3 galaxies. Later, spectroscopy [@warren96] revealed the tight kinematics of this group with an estimated merging timescale of $\rm < 10^{9}$ years. Later work has confirmed that absorption selected galaxies often are found in similar tight group environments, or even in the process of active merging. In the sample of @christensen14 at least five of the 12 DLA galaxies are either in groups or parts of actively merging systems. More recent work [@peroux16; @bielby17; @fumagalli17; @rahmani18; @klitsch18] has confirmed the high fraction of group environments encountered in the search for galaxies with strong absorption features. While our ground based SINFONI data originally suggested that these five DLA counterparts are isolated galaxies, we found that three out of five of our objects have substructure in the HST data, which we call clumps. This further suggests that the strong absorption that we see towards quasars are preferentially caused by some group-like structure that contains interacting objects and intergalactic material. ]{}
In conclusion, the enhanced spatial resolution provided by HST imaging reveals the complexity of the morphology of these Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbing galaxies. We find that the DLAs and sub-DLAs are associated with isolated, [clumpless]{} galaxies only in a few cases. More often, the absorbing galaxies are within group structures or show indications of interacting clumps (Q0302$-$223, Q0452$-$1640, Q2352$-$0028). These results have important consequences for the interpretation of the gas content and metallicity gradient of the circum-galactic medium of galaxies selected by their absorption signature.
Conclusion
==========
We have analysed the stellar continuum of five DLA counterpart galaxies using HST broad-band imaging in the optical and near infrared (F606W, F105W, F160W). We measured the stellar masses of these galaxies from an SED fit to the magnitudes we obtained from the HST data. From our results presented in section 5, we draw the following conclusions:
- We find an anti-correlation between $N$() and the stellar masses. @kulkarni10 proposed that sub-DLAs trace more massive galaxies than DLAs. The former could have undergone more rapid star formation and gas consumption leading to lower $N$() in their surrounding medium. This anti-correlation could also be due to an observational bias as high-mass-high-$N$() systems could be more difficult to detect because of dust obscuration.
- Using these stellar masses and the estimates available for the gas mass and the dynamical mass (see table \[tab:knowndata\]), we calculate the gas fraction and the baryonic fraction within the observed galaxies. We find a large spread [(7-100% for baryon fractions, 3-56% for gas fractions)]{} in these values among our sample.
- Combining these observations with emission spectra, we investigated the scaling relations of DLAs. [The majority]{} of our Lyman$-\alpha$ counterparts follow the main sequence of star forming galaxies, given their stellar masses. They also follow the Mass-Metallicity Relation for DLAs.
- Making use of the high spatial resolution offered by the HST imaging, we investigate the morphology of these DLA counterparts. [Most are not fully]{} evolved disk galaxies, but rather composed of individual star forming clumps that are in close interaction. Especially in the optical broadband filter F606W which has the highest spatial resolution among our data sets, individual clumpy structures instead of a single disk galaxy are found. [Three out of five galaxies show clumpy structure, while the remaining two could be disks.]{} When fitting Sersic models to the observed galaxies we find residuals that show filamentary structure, indicating gas flows due to interaction of different clumpy components.
Taking these points together, the circum-galactic medium of DLA galaxies appears complex. A larger sample of DLA counterparts combining absorption observations with CGM in emission are required to gain a complete understanding of the gas flowing processes in and around galaxies.
[In addition to the optical searches such as the one described here, there are on-going campaigns detecting with ALMA molecular emission lines from absorption selected galaxies [@neeleman16; @neeleman18; @klitsch18; @moller18; @kanekar18]. Combining optical and sub-mm wavelengths observations of absorber host galaxies will bring new insights into the role of molecular gas in the CGM of galaxies.]{}
Acknowledgements
================
RA acknowledges the ESO and CNES studentships. CP thanks the ESO science visitor programme and the DFG cluster of excellence ‘Origin and Structure of the Universe’. VPK acknowledges partial support from (NASA) grant NNX14AG74G and NASA/Space Telescope Science Institute support for Hubble Space Telescope program GO-13733 and 13801. The data presented in this paper were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NNX09AF08G and by other grants and contracts. This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2015.1.01131.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), MOST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: PI: Bergeron, Proposal ID: 5351, @lebrun97 \[5351\]
[^3]: PI: Péroux, Proposal ID: 13733, this work \[13733\]
[^4]: PI: Surdej, Proposal ID: 5958, @surdej97 \[5958\]
[^5]: PI: Erb, Proposal ID: 12471 \[12471\]
[^6]: PI: Law, Proposal ID: 11694, @erb10 \[11694\]
[^7]: PI: Fynbo, Proposal ID: 12553, @krogager13 \[12553\]
[^8]: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfc3/pam/pixel\_area\_maps
[^9]: [@chen03]\[chen03tab\]
[^10]: \[krogager13tab\][@krogager13]
[^11]: https://gazpar.lam.fr/home
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Machine learning algorithms for prediction are increasingly being used in critical decisions affecting human lives. Various fairness formalizations, with no firm consensus yet, are employed to prevent such algorithms from systematically discriminating against people based on certain attributes protected by law. The aim of this article is to survey how fairness is formalized in the machine learning literature for the task of prediction and present these formalizations with their corresponding notions of distributive justice from the social sciences literature. We provide theoretical as well as empirical critiques of these notions from the social sciences literature and explain how these critiques limit the suitability of the corresponding fairness formalizations to certain domains. We also suggest two notions of distributive justice which address some of these critiques and discuss avenues for prospective fairness formalizations.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Discrimination refers to unfavourable treatment of people due to the membership to certain demographic groups that are distinguished by the attributes protected by law (henceforth, *protected attributes*). Discrimination, based on many attributes and in several domains, is prohibited by international legislation. Nowadays, machine learning algorithms are increasingly being used in high-impact domains such as credit, employment, education, and criminal justice which are prone to discrimination. The goal of fairness in prediction with machine learning is to design algorithms that make *fair* predictions devoid of discrimination.
**The aim of this article is to survey how fairness is *formalized* in the machine learning literature and present these formalizations with their corresponding notions from the social sciences literature.** The fairness formalizations in the machine learning literature correspond to the notions of *distributive justice* from the social sciences literature, as we discuss in Section \[sec:PastNotions\]. Since, some formalizations of fairness can be conflicting with others, the predictions produced by the algorithms using them would vastly differ as well. Therefore, from the practical point of view, it is important to study how fairness is formalized in the machine learning literature and the implications of various formalizations. To this end, **we present theoretical as well as empirical critiques of their corresponding notions from the social sciences literature.** The co-presentation is with the intention to assist in **determining the suitability of the existing formalizations of fairness in machine learning literature** and **building newer formalizations of fairness**. In Section \[sec:ProspetiveNotions\], we **nominate two notions from the social sciences literature** which answer some of the critiques of the existing formalizations in the machine learning literature. Lastly, in Section \[sec:Discussion\], we discuss avenues for prospective fairness formalizations. We begin by formulating the problem of prediction with machine learning. **Mathematical formulation of prediction with machine learning:** Let ${X}$, ${A}$ and ${Z}$ represent a set of individuals i.e. a *population*, protected attributes and remaining attributes respectively. Each of the individuals can be assigned an outcome from a finite set ${Y}$. Some of the prediction outcomes are considered to be more beneficial or desirable than others. For an individual ${x}_i \in {X}$, let ${y}_i$ be the true outcome (or label) to be predicted. A (possibly randomized) predictor can be represented by a mapping ${\mathcal{H}}: {X}\rightarrow {Y}$ from population ${X}$ to the set of outcomes ${Y}$, such that ${\mathcal{H}}({x}_i)$ is the predicted outcome for individual ${x}_i$. A group-conditional predictor consists of a set of mappings, one for each group of the population, $ {\mathcal{H}}= \{{\mathcal{H}}_S\} {\textnormal{ for all }}S \subset {X}.$ For the sake of simplicity, assume that the groups induce a partition of the population.
What is fair? (Formalizations of fairness in prediction with machine learning) {#sec:PastNotions}
==============================================================================
The first step in formalizing fairness in prediction with machine learning is to answer the following two questions:
Parity Preference
----------- ------------------------- ---------------------
Treatment Unawareness Preferred treatment
Counterfactual measures
Group fairness
Impact Individual fairness Preferred impact
Equality of opportunity
\[tab:AllNotions\]
- **Parity or preference?** : whether fairness means achieving parity or satisfying the preferences.
- **Treatment or impact?** : whether fairness is to be maintained in treatment or impact (results).
Next, we will see the existing formalizations of fairness in the machine learning literature. Table \[tab:AllNotions\] summarizes how they answer the questions presented above.
Fairness through unawareness
----------------------------
Any predictor which is not group-conditional satisfies this measure. Formally, it is defined as follows:
([fairness through unawareness]{.nodecor}) A predictor is said to achieve fairness through unawareness if protected attributes are not explicitly used in the prediction process.
A number of proposed predictors in the machine learning literature satisfy this measure [@Dwork:2012:FTA:2090236.2090255; @Luong:2011:KIS:2020408.2020488], while some don’t [@Calders:2010:TNB:1842547.1842562; @NIPS2016_6374; @Kamishima:2012:FCP:2405742.2405746]. However, satisfying fairness through unawareness is not a sufficient condition to avoid discrimination when other background knowledge is available [@Pedreshi:2008:DDM:1401890.1401959]. Furthermore, some of the assumptions made during the construction of a predictor might not hold in real-life scenarios [@Calders2013] which leads to discrimination even while satisfying this measure.
From the point of view of distributive justice, fairness through unawareness corresponds to the approach of being “blind” to counter discrimination. However, various discriminatory practices have been documented following race-blind approach in education, housing, credit, criminal justice system [@BonillaSilva2013; @Taslitz2007]. It has shown that, in the long run, race-blind approach is less efficient than race-conscious approach [@Fryer2008]. Alternatively, some studies show that a blind approach can work for some specific tasks [@Goldin2000]. The above critiques challenge the suitability of fairness through unawareness to domains in which, protected attributes can be deduced from easily available non-protected attributes and structural barriers, which hinder the protected groups, are shown to be present by credible surveys.
Counterfactual measures
-----------------------
These measures model fairness through tools from causal interference. @NIPS2017_6995 recently introduced one such measure which can be defined as follows:
A predictor ${\mathcal{H}}$ is counterfactually fair, given ${Z}= z$ and ${A}= a$, for all ${y}$ and $a \neq a'$, iff\
$
{\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathcal{H}}_{{A}= a} = {y}{\:\vert\:}{Z}= z, {A}=a\} ={\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathcal{H}}_{{A}= a'} = {y}{\:\vert\:}{Z}= z, {A}=a\}
$
In the above definition, ${\mathcal{H}}_{{A}= a}$ is to be interpreted as the outcome of the predictor ${\mathcal{H}}$ if ${A}$ had taken value $a$. For the mathematical details of how such a statement is realized, refer to @NIPS2017_6995. This measure deems a predictor to be fair if its output remains the same when the protected attribute is flipped to its counterfactual value. This measure compares every individual with a different version of themselves. A similar measure was introduced independently by @NIPS2017_6668. In the literature of social sciences, the closest correspondent to these measures is the theory for counterfactual reasoning given by @Lewis1973-LEWC. There has been research to indicate that counterfactual reasoning is susceptible to hindsight bias [@PETROCELLI201061; @80e08f5f44b24ace9987ca4bdb798187] and outcome bias (i.e. evaluating the quality of a decision when its outcome is already known) [@Baron1988]. Moreover, it has been argued that counterfactual reasoning may negatively influence the process of identifying causality [@ROESE19971; @doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10474210].
These critiques bring into question the suitability of counterfactual measures for potential domains for prediction using machine learning like health-care system or judicial system where the above-mentioned biases are frequently observed.
Group fairness (Statistical/demographic parity)
-----------------------------------------------
Group fairness imposes the condition that the predictor should predict a particular outcome for individuals across groups with *almost* equal probability.
([Group fairness]{.nodecor}) A predictor ${\mathcal{H}}: {X}\rightarrow {Y}$ achieves group fairness with bias $\epsilon$ with respect to groups $S, T \subseteq {X}$ and $O \subseteq A$ being any subset of outcomes iff\
$
| {\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathcal{H}}({x}_i) \in O {\:\vert\:}{x}_i \in S \} - {\mathbb{P}}\{{\mathcal{H}}({x}_j) \in O {\:\vert\:}{x}_j \in T \} | \leq \epsilon
$
From the above definition it is clear that, group fairness imposes the condition of statistical and demographic parity on the predictor. Unlike some of the other formalizations of fairness, group fairness is independent of the “ground truth” i.e. the label information. This is useful when reliable ground truth information is not available e.g. in domains like employment, housing, credit and criminal justice, discrimination against protected groups has been well-documented [@Pager2008; @Waddell2016]. Alternatively, in the cases where disproportionality in the respective outcomes can be justified by using non-protected attributes (which don’t merely serve as a proxy for protected attributes), imposing statistical parity leads to incorrect outcomes and may amount to discrimination against qualified candidates [@Luong:2011:KIS:2020408.2020488]. Another deficiency of group fairness is that the predictor is not stipulated to select the most “qualified” individuals within the groups as long as it maintains statistical parity [@Dwork:2012:FTA:2090236.2090255].
The formalization of group fairness follows from the notion of *collectivist egalitarianism* for distributive justice. In practice, the biggest (in terms of the number of people affected) implementation of group fairness is the application of affirmative action [@DeshpandeBook2013] in India and USA to address discrimination on the basis of caste [@Dumont1980], race and gender. See @Weisskopf2004 for arguments made for and against affirmative action polices in both India and the USA. Two of the standard objections to group fairness are: it is not meritocratic and it reduces efficiency.
The underlying assumption behind the first claim is that the allocation of social benefits without affirmative action is meritocratic. However, several studies [@DeshpandeA2007; @10.1257/0002828042002561; @147186] have confirmed discrimination on the basis of protected attributes. For the second claim, @Holzer2000 conclude on the basis of several studies that “the empirical case against Affirmative Action on the grounds of efficiency is weak at best”. In India, a study by @Deshpande2016 found no evidence of loss in efficiency because of affirmative action policies. Nonetheless, deficiencies mentioned earlier limit the applicability of group fairness.
Individual fairness
-------------------
Individual fairness ascertains that a predictor is fair if it produces similar outputs for similar individuals.
([Individual fairness]{.nodecor}) \[def:IndFairness\] A predictor achieves individual fairness iff $ {\mathcal{H}}({x}_i) \approx {\mathcal{H}}({x}_j) {\:\vert\:}{d}({x}_i , {x}_i) \approx 0 $ where ${d}: {X}\times {X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a distance metric for individuals.
Several works including @Dwork:2012:FTA:2090236.2090255 and @Luong:2011:KIS:2020408.2020488 use this notion of fairness. The notion of individual fairness can be then captured by $({D}, {d})$-Lipschitz property which states that $ {D}({\mathcal{H}}({x}_i)_{Y}, {\mathcal{H}}({x}_j)_{Y}) \leq {d}({x}_i, {x}_j) $ where ${D}$ is a distance measure for distributions. Furthermore, @Dwork:2012:FTA:2090236.2090255 prove that if a predictor satisfies $({D}, {d})$-Lipschitz property, then it also achieves statistical parity with certain bias.
In the social sciences literature, this formalization is equivalent to *individualism egalitarianism*. According to @doi:10.1086/291523, this is the formal principle of justice. This notion delegates the responsibility of ensuring fairness from the predictor to the distance metric. If the distance metric uses the protected attributes directly or indirectly to compute the distance between two individuals, a predictor satisfying Definition \[def:IndFairness\] could still be discriminatory. Therefore, the potency of this notion of fairness to prevent discrimination depends largely upon the distance metric used. Hence, individual fairness as stated above, can not be considered suitable for domains where reliable and non-discriminating distance metric is not available [^1].
Equality of opportunity
-----------------------
In the literature of machine learning, the formalization of equality of opportunity was introduced by @NIPS2016_6374. An equivalent formalization was also proposed concurrently and independently by @Zafar:2017:FBD:3038912.3052660. To formalize it, let us consider the case of binary outcomes with a single beneficial outcome $y=1$.
([Equal opportunity]{.nodecor}) A predictor is said to satisfy equal opportunity with respect to group $S$ iff $
{\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathcal{H}}({x}_i) = 1 {\:\vert\:}{y}_i = 1, {x}_i \in S \} = {\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathcal{H}}({x}_j) = 1 {\:\vert\:}{y}_j = 1, {x}_j \in {X}\setminus S \}
$.
It can be considered as a stipulation which states that the true positive rate should be the same for all the groups. An equivalent notion proposed by @Zafar:2017:FBD:3038912.3052660, called *disparate mistreatment*, asks for the equivalence of misclassification rates across the groups.
In the social sciences literature, the corresponding notion was presented by @Rawls1971-RAWATO-4. An essay by @10.2307/4320904 states that equality of opportunity would not be able to cope with the problems of *stunted ambition* and *selection by bigotry*. The notion of equality of opportunity has also been criticized for not considering the effect of discrimination due to protected attributes like gender [@Okin1991-OKIJGA] and race [@Shiffrin2004]. It has been shown that the protected attributes like race and gender affect one’s access to opportunities in domains such as education, business, politics in many parts of the world [@Iqbal2015]. The exclusion of attributes like race and gender from the list of attributes deemed to be affecting an individual’s life prospects in the notion of equality of opportunity thus calls into question its suitability to the domains in which there exists vast evidence that such attributes do indeed affect one’s prospects.
Preference-based fairness
-------------------------
@2017arXiv170700010B introduce two preference-based formalizations of fairness. In order to provide the definitions for the same, the authors first introduce the notion of *group benefit* which is defined as the expected proportion of individuals in the group for whom the predictor predicts the beneficial outcome. Group benefit can also be defined as the expected proportion of individuals from the group who receive the beneficial output for whom the true label is the same. Based on the above notion of group benefit, @2017arXiv170700010B provide following two fairness formalizations.
([Preferred treatment]{.nodecor}) A group-conditional predictor is said to satisfy preferred treatment if each group of the population receives more benefit from their respective predictor then they would have received from any other predictor i.e.\
${\mathbb{B}}_S({\mathcal{H}}_S) \geq {\mathbb{B}}_S({\mathcal{H}}_T) \smallskip \qquad {\textnormal{ for all }}S, T \subset {X}$
([Preferred impact]{.nodecor}) A predictor ${\mathcal{H}}$ is said to have preferred impact as compared to another predictor ${\mathcal{H}}'$ if ${\mathcal{H}}$ offers at-least as much benefit as ${\mathcal{H}}'$ for all the groups.\
$ {\mathbb{B}}_S({\mathcal{H}}) \geq {\mathbb{B}}_S({\mathcal{H}}') \qquad {\textnormal{ for all }}S \subset {X}$
If a classifier is not group-conditional then, it by default satisfies preferred treatment. In certain applications, there might not be a single universally accepted beneficial outcome. It is possible that a few individuals from a group may prefer another outcome than the one preferred by the majority of the group. In order to alleviate their concerns, the collectivist definition of group benefit needs to be extended to account for individual preferences. In the social sciences literature, the above notion corresponds to *envy-freeness* [@RePEc:bla:jecsur:v:8:y:1994:i:2:p:155-86]. This notion of fairness is attractive because it can be defined in terms of ordinal preference relations of the utility values of the predictors. On the other hand, @10.2307/1061111 show that freedom from envy is neither necessary nor sufficient for fairness. For many real-world problems, one needs to find fair and efficient solutions amongst the groups. An efficient solution ensures the greatest possible benefit to the groups. In decision making problems, like the domain applications of prediction with machine learning, it can be formally expressed by the notion of *Pareto-efficiency*. However, deciding whether there is a Pareto-efficient envy-free allocation is computationally very hard even with simple additive preferences [@deKeijzer2009].
These critiques indicate that the suitability of such envy-free formalizations is limited only to the domains where such an effective and envy-free allocation can be computed easily.
Prospective notions of fairness {#sec:ProspetiveNotions}
===============================
In this section, we describe two prospective notions of fairness which have not been considered in the literature of machine learning so far. Our intent is to address the critique that many of the past formalizations, as seen in Section \[sec:PastNotions\], do not offset for the fact that social benefits are being allocated unequally by the algorithms among the people owing to the attributes they had no say in.
- **Equality of resources:** @Dworkin1981-DWOWIE-2 propose the notion of *equality of resources* in which unequal distribution of social benefits is only considered fair when it results from the intentional decisions and actions of the concerned individuals. Equality of resources is *ambition-sensitive* i.e. each individual’s ambitions and choices that follow them ascertains the benefits they receive and *endowment-insensitive* i.e. each individual’s unchosen circumstances including the natural endowments should be offset. In the second property, equality of resources differs from equality of opportunity as the latter considers differences in natural endowments (including the protected attributes such as sex) as facts of nature which need not be adjusted to achieve fairness.
- **Equality of capability of functioning:** @18084 extends the insight that people should not be held responsible for attributes they had no say in to include personal attributes which cause difficulty in developing *functionings*. Functionings are states of “being and doing”, that is, various states of existence and activities that an individual can undertake. @18603 [@18084] argue that variations related to the protected attributes like age, sex, gender, race, caste give individuals unequal powers to achieve goals even when they have the same opportunities. In order to equalize capabilities, people should be compensated for their unequal powers to convert opportunities into functionings. To this point, it sounds similar to quality of resources described above. Crucially however, the notion of equality of capability calls for addressing inequalities due to social endowments (e.g. gender) as well as natural endowments (e.g. sex) , in contrast to the equality of resources [@POST:POST646].
One of the main strengths of this notion of fairness that it is flexible which allows it to be developed and applied in many different ways [@Alkire2002-ALKVFS]. Indeed, this notion has been used in the foundations of human development paradigm by the United Nations [@doi:10.1080/1354570022000077980; @FukudaKumar2003]. One of the major criticism of Equality of capability theory concerns the failure to identify of valuable capabilities [@doi:10.1080/00220389608422460]. Another criticism is that the informational requirement of this approach can be very high [@Alkire2002-ALKVFS]. The second criticism applies to equality of resources as well and it makes exact mathematical formalizations of these notions a potentially difficult problem. However, the suitability of these prospective formalizations (unlike the current formalizations) to domains in which natural endowments or social endowments or both impede an individual’s prospect to receive social benefits makes the open problem of formalizing them worthwhile. We intend this article to serve as a call for machine learning experts to work on formalizing them.
Discussion and further directions {#sec:Discussion}
=================================
As the field of fairness in machine learning prediction algorithms is evolving rapidly, it is important for us to analyze the fairness formalizations considered so far. To this end, we juxtaposed the fairness notions previously considered in the machine learning literature with their corresponding theories of distributive justice in the social sciences literature. We saw the theoretical critique and analysis of these fairness notions from the social sciences literature. Such critiques of the formalizations and experimental studies of their use in large-scale practice serve as guiding principles while choosing the fairness formalizations to use in particular domains.
We also proposed two prospective notions of fairness, which have been studied extensively in the social sciences literature. Of course, we do not claim that these notions will serve as panacea for all the critiques of the current notions. Our intention is to initiate a discussion about fairness formalizations in prediction with machine learning which recognize that - **the problem of fair prediction cannot be addressed without considering social issues such as unequal access to resources and social conditioning. While these factors are difficult to quantify and formalize mathematically, it is important to acknowledge their impact and attempt to incorporate them in fairness formalizations.**
[^1]: @Dwork:2012:FTA:2090236.2090255 have provided some approaches to build distance metrics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The spectral properties of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on an anisotropic triangular lattice in a magnetic field are investigated using a weak-interchain-coupling approach combined with exact solutions of a chain. Dominant modes induced by interchain interactions in a magnetic field behave as quasiparticles which show distinctive features such as anomalous incommensurate ordering and high-energy modes. In terms of them, various unusual features observed in the anisotropic triangular antiferromagnet Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ in a magnetic field are quantitatively explained in a unified manner.'
author:
- Masanori Kohno
title: Quasiparticles of spatially anisotropic triangular antiferromagnets in a magnetic field
---
In the context of two-dimensional (2D) spin liquids [@RVB], identification of gapless quasiparticles (QPs) emerging in the absence of classical long-range orders in 2D frustrated magnets has been one of the central subjects in modern condensed-matter physics. Various possibilities of QPs different from conventional magnons, including those with fractional quantum numbers called spinons [@RVB; @ColdeaPRL; @ColdeaPRB], have been discussed for 2D spin liquids in the absence or presence [@Alicea] of a magnetic field. Related to this issue, the anisotropic triangular antiferromagnet Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ has attracted a lot of attention especially because of its spinon-like behavior observed in a zero field [@ColdeaPRL; @ColdeaPRB]. Meanwhile, it shows a host of intriguing features in a magnetic field. Among them are novel incommensurate (IC) ordering [@ColdeaPRL] and excitation spectra which are hard to understand in terms of magnons in linear spin-wave theory [@ColdeaSkw]. Nevertheless, the conventional 2D magnon appears above the saturation field $H_s$ [@ColdeaModel]. Obviously, QPs in the one-dimensional (1D) Heisenberg chain in a magnetic field [@Karbach_psinon; @Karbach_Szz; @1DH] cannot consistently explain the above features since they show neither IC ordering nor 2D dispersion relations by themselves.
To explain the puzzling behavior in a magnetic field, we consider QPs which are defined as collective modes induced by interchain exchange processes and can be regarded as bound states (BS) or anti-bound states (ABS) of 1D QPs in a magnetic field. In zero field, related collective modes [@NPhys; @Schulz; @Essler; @Bocquet] may appear more or less similar to conventional magnons because of their nearly sinusoidal dispersion relations with gapless points close to those of magnons. However, the QPs in a magnetic field we consider in this Letter show distinctive features which differ from those of conventional magnons [@SW] and those of 1D QPs [@Karbach_psinon; @Karbach_Szz; @1DH] not only conceptually but also in appearance. In particular, we mainly focus our attention on the following features of the QPs: (1) multiparticle crossover in a magnetic field, (2) frustration-induced IC ordering whose momentum strongly depends on the magnetization, and (3) excitation spectra with anomalous high-energy modes. We find, rather remarkably, that various unusual features observed in Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ in a magnetic field [@ColdeaPRL; @ColdeaSkw; @ColdeaModel; @CsCuCl_MH] are consistently explained as properties of such QPs.
![(a) Anisotropic triangular lattice. (b) Momentum regions of $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 (light blue) and $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 (light yellow) for $J'$$>$0. Solid circles denote ordering momenta for $m$=1/16, which shift towards the center of each light yellow plaquette as the magnetic field increases as indicated by arrows. (c)-(e) Comparisons with experimental results on Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$. Solid lines are present results. (c) Magnetization curve. The dotted line denotes experimental results for $H$$\parallel$$c$ in Ref. [@CsCuCl_MH] with $g$-factor $g$=2.30 [@ESR] and $J$=0.374 meV [@ColdeaModel]. $S^z_{\rm max}$ denotes $S^z$ at $H_s$. (d) Dispersion relation above $H_s$ along dotted lines in (b). Symbols are experimental results in Ref. [@ColdeaModel]. (e) Momenta of IC ordering. Symbols are experimental results at $k_y=0$ for $H$$\parallel$$c$ in Ref. [@ColdeaPRL], replotted using the magnetization curve in (c).[]{data-label="fig:lattice"}](Fig1){width="8.7cm"}
In this Letter, we consider the spin-1/2 antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on an anisotropic triangular lattice in magnetic field $H$. The Hamiltonian is defined as $${\cal H}=\sum_{\bm r}\left(
J{\bm S}_{{\bm r}+{\hat {\bm x}}}
+J'{\bm S}_{{\bm r}+\frac{{\hat {\bm x}}+{\hat {\bm y}}}{2}}
+J'{\bm S}_{{\bm r}+\frac{{\hat {\bm x}}-{\hat {\bm y}}}{2}}\right)
\cdot{\bm S}_{\bm r}-HS^z,$$ where ${\bm S}_{\bm r}$ is the spin-1/2 operator at site ${\bm r}$, and $S^z\equiv\sum_{\bm r}S^z_{\bm r}$. The intra- and interchain couplings and unit vectors are denoted by $J$, $J'$, ${\hat {\bm x}}$, and ${\hat {\bm y}}$ as in Fig. \[fig:lattice\](a). We assume $J$$>$$|J'|$. In particular, we take $J'/J$=0.34 corresponding to that of Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ ($J$=0.374 meV and $J'$=0.128 meV [@ColdeaModel]). We denote the magnetization per site by $m$. The dynamical structure factors (DSFs) are defined as $S^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)$=$\sum_iM^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},e_i)\delta$($\omega$$-$$e_i$), where $M^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},e_i)\equiv|\langle{\bm k},e_i|S^\alpha_{\bm k}|{\rm GS}\rangle|^2$ for $\alpha$=$+$, $-$, and $z$. Here, $|{\rm GS}\rangle$ and $|{\bm k},e_i\rangle$ each denote the ground state and an excited state with excitation energy $e_i$ and momentum ${\bm k}$ in the anisotropic-2D system in a magnetic field. We also define ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$$\equiv$\[$S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$+$S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$+4$S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$\]/6.
We apply two weak-interchain-coupling techniques, using exact solutions of the Heisenberg chain [@Bethe]. One is a random-phase approximation (RPA) [@Schulz; @Essler; @Bocquet]: DSFs are obtained from dynamical susceptibilities approximated as $\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)$$\simeq$$\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$/\[1+$J'({\bm k})$$\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$/$\xi_{\alpha}]$ with $\xi_{z}$=1 and $\xi_{\pm}$=2, where the Fourier component of interchain couplings is $J'({\bm k})$=4$J'$$\cos\frac{k_x}{2}$$\cos\frac{k_y}{2}$ for anisotropic triangular lattices, and $\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$ are calculated from DSFs in 1D as ${\rm Im}\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$=$\pi$$S^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$ for $\omega$$>$0. The $S^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\omega)$ can be calculated [@1DH; @Kitanine; @Biegel; @Caux] using rapidities of Bethe-ansatz solutions [@Bethe]. It is known that spectral properties of the Heisenberg chain in a magnetic field are mainly characterized by QPs called psinon ($\psi$) and antipsinon ($\psi^*$) [@Karbach_psinon; @Karbach_Szz; @1DH] and a QP for a 2-string ($\sigma$) in the Bethe ansatz [@1DH; @Bethe]. We use excitations of up to 2$\psi$2$\psi^*$ [@Karbach_psinon; @1DH], $O(L^3)$ states of 2-string solutions and those of 3-string solutions [@1DH] in a chain with length $L$=320 for the RPA. These excitations occupy over 80% of the total spectral weight in $L$=320 except at very low fields [@1DH].
The other technique is the one developed in Ref. [@NPhys]: in the restricted Hilbert space spanned by exact eigenstates of chains, an effective Hamiltonian is derived as $$[{\cal H}^{\alpha}_{\rm eff}({\bm k})]_{i,j}=\epsilon_i(k_x)\delta_{i,j}
+J'({\bm k})A^{\alpha}(k_x,\epsilon_i)A^{\alpha}(k_x,\epsilon_j)/\xi_{\alpha},
\label{eq:effHam}$$ where $A^{\alpha}(k_x,\epsilon_i)$=$\sqrt{M^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\epsilon_i)}$. It is known that DSFs calculated using the eigenstates of Eq. (\[eq:effHam\]) are almost the same as those of the RPA [@NPhys]. We discuss physical pictures mainly based on this formulation. We use dynamically dominant excitations of $O(L^2)$ states in an $L$=2240 chain [@Karbach_psinon; @1DH] and assume $S^{{\bar\alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)$=$M^{{\bar\alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)D({\bm k},\omega)$ with $D({\bm k},e_i)$=2/($e_{i+1}$-$e_{i-1}$) [@Karbach_Szz] for calculations using this technique. We neglect instabilities in the ground state for simplicity and show intensities of DSFs in units of 1/$J$.
This approach is applicable to the full range of momenta, energies, and magnetic fields for all directions of spin polarization except small energy scales ($\alt0.1J$) and large $|J'|$ ($\agt0.7J$). The wide $J'$ range is due to frustration which prevents instability at $k_x$=$\pi$, as will be discussed later. The approach reproduces the 2D magnon above $H_s$ and zero-field properties obtained in Ref. [@NPhys].
![$S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$, $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$/2, $S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$/2, and ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$ (from above) at $k_y$=0 for $J'/J$=0.34. (a) Results using the RPA at $m$=1/8, 1/4 and 3/8 (from the left), broadened in a Lorentzian form with full width at half maximum (FWHM) 0.08$J$. (b) Results using the method of Ref. [@NPhys] at $m$=1/4. Solid lines above (below) continua denote antibound (bound) states for 0$\le$$k_x$$<$$\pi$ ($\pi$$<$$k_x$$\le$2$\pi$). The inset shows the line shape at $k_x$=1.25$\pi$. (c) Single-magnon modes in linear spin-wave theory at $m$=1/4. Here, the modes from two cone states, one with the ordering momentum $+{\bm Q}$ and the other with $-{\bm Q}$, are shown, broadened in a Lorentzian form with FWHM=0.02$J$.[]{data-label="fig:Skw"}](Fig2){width="8.6cm"}
As a general property of the approach, spectral weights shift to higher (lower) energies for $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 ($J'({\bm k})$$<$0) \[Eq. (\[eq:effHam\])\], and modes with $\delta$-functional line shapes appear above (below) continua as poles of $\chi^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)$ in the RPA, which can be regarded as ABS (BS) of 1D QPs [@NPhys; @ABS_def]. A typical behavior is shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](b). Although the modes get small intrinsic width due to very small weights around continua, the almost $\delta$-functional peaks well represent QPs with integer $S^z$.
The results for DSFs using the RPA and the method of Ref. [@NPhys] are shown in Figs. \[fig:Skw\](a) and \[fig:Skw\](b), respectively. Strong intensities near upper (lower) edges of continua for $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 \[0$\le$$k_x$$<$$\pi$\] ($J'({\bm k})$$<$0 \[$\pi$$<$$k_x$$\le$2$\pi$\]) in Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a) are signatures of ABS (BS), whose dispersion relations are asymmetric with respect to $k_x$=$\pi$ due to the sign change of $J'({\bm k})$ at $k_x$=$\pi$. Each mode can be identified as follows. In the top row of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a), the mode above (below) the continuum in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$ for $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 ($J'({\bm k})$$<$0) can be identified as ABS (BS) of $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ [@Karbach_Szz], as indicated by solid lines in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](b). \[Dispersion relations as a function of $k_y$ for mod($k_x$,$\pi$)$\ne$0 have a jump at $J'({\bm k})$=0.\] For $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$, there are three kinds of continua as in the second row of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a). The low-energy modes near $k_x$=0 and 2$\pi$ can be effectively regarded as QPs originating from the 1$\psi^*$ mode in 1D [@Karbach_psinon; @1DH; @Biegel; @Muller]. The mode below the low-energy continuum near $k_x$=$\pi$ for $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 can be identified as BS of 2 $\psi^*$s [@1DH]. The mode above (below) the high-energy continua near $\omega$$\agt$2$J$ can be effectively regarded as ABS (BS) of $\sigma$ and $\psi$ originating from 2-string solutions of the Bethe ansatz [@Bethe; @1DH]. For $S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$, the mode below the continuum for $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 can be identified as BS of 2 $\psi$s [@Karbach_psinon] as in the third row of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a). In the following, we discuss distinctive features of these QPs. For comparison, behaviors of magnons in linear spin-wave theory [@SW; @LSWT] are shown in Fig. \[fig:Skw\](c).
[*Multiparticle crossover.$-$*]{}We consider how QP pictures change from 1D spinons interacting through interchain exchange processes in zero field [@NPhys] to the 2D magnon above $H_s$ [@ColdeaModel]. In zero field, the mode of BS of spinons appears for $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 [@NPhys], as in the top right panel of Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\](b). Yet considerable spectral weights remain spread in a broad continuum. Hence, the latter term in Eq. (\[eq:effHam\]), which determines the $k_y$ dependence, has relatively small effects on the dispersion relation. Thus, signatures of 1D spinons persist rather strongly in zero field [@NPhys]. In a magnetic field, the mode splits into three modes \[BS of $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$, BS of $\sigma$ and $\psi$ in $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$, and BS of 2 $\psi$s in $S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$\], as shown in the right panels in Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\](b) and the left panels of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a) near $k_x$$\simeq$1.5$\pi$. As the magnetic field increases, these modes fade away as shown in Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a). Instead, the low-energy modes originating from the 1$\psi^*$ mode emerge near $k_x$=0 and 2$\pi$ in $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$, as in the second row of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a). Using Eq. (\[eq:effHam\]) and the 1$\psi^*$ mode in 1D, the dispersion relation is effectively expressed as $$\omega({\bm k})=\epsilon_{1\psi^*}(k_x)+J'({\bm k})M^{+-}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\epsilon_{1\psi^*})/2,
\label{eq:1antipsinon}$$ as shown by solid lines near $k_x$=0 and 2$\pi$ at low energies in the second panel of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](b). As the magnetic field increases, spectral weights concentrate in the modes, increasing $M^{+-}_{\rm 1D}(k_x,\epsilon_{1\psi^*})$ in Eq. (\[eq:1antipsinon\]). As a result, the modes become dominant and highly dispersing in both $k_x$ and $k_y$ directions like 2D magnons. Evidently, as seen above, the dominant modes in low and high fields are different in origin in contrast to magnons in linear spin-wave theory.
Noting $H$=$\omega$(${\bm k}$=0) [@resMode; @Muller] and using Eq.(\[eq:1antipsinon\]), we obtain $$H=H_{\rm 1D}+4J'm,
\label{eq:MH}$$ where $H_{\rm 1D}$ is the magnetic field in 1D [@Griffiths]. This expression is equivalent to that obtained in Ref. [@Starykh]. Comparison with experimental results on Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ [@CsCuCl_MH] is shown in Fig. \[fig:lattice\](c). Hereafter, we use Eq. (\[eq:MH\]) to relate $m$ to $H$.
We confirm that the modes of Eq. (\[eq:1antipsinon\]) actually reduce to the 2D magnon above $H_s$. By noting that the excitation energy in the Heisenberg chain above $H_s$ is given as $\epsilon_{1\psi^*}(k_x)$=$J$($\cos k_x$$-$1)+$H_{\rm 1D}$, Eq. (\[eq:1antipsinon\]) reduces to the dispersion relation of single-spin-flipped states [@ColdeaModel]: $\omega({\bm k})$=$J$($\cos k_x$$-$1)+2$J'$($\cos\frac{k_x}{2}$$\cos\frac{k_y}{2}$$-$1)+$H$ with Eq. (\[eq:MH\]). Small deviations from experimental results on Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ \[Fig. \[fig:lattice\](d)\] will be due to other effects like Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya (DM) or interlayer interactions in the material [@ColdeaModel].
[*IC ordering.$-$*]{}We consider instabilities at IC momenta expected from the behaviors of the BS of $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$. In the Heisenberg chain in a magnetic field, transverse low-energy correlations at $k_x$=$\pi$ are always more dominant than longitudinal ones at IC momenta [@HaldaneXXZ]. However, in the presence of frustrated interchain interactions with $J'$($k_x$=$\pi$,$k_y$)=0, spectral weights at IC momenta for $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 shift to lower energies by interchain interactions while those at $k_x$=$\pi$ remain unaffected at least in the present approximation \[Eq. (\[eq:effHam\])\]. Thus, instabilities are expected at the momenta where the low-energy spectral weight in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$ becomes the most dominant [@inc_trans], i.e., ${\bm k}=(\pm\pi(1+2m)+4\pi l_1,4\pi l_2)$ and $(\pm\pi(1-2m)+4\pi l_3,2\pi+4\pi l_4),$ where $l_i$ ($i$=1$\sim$4) are integers for $J'$$>$0, which correspond to the gapless points of the QP for BS of $\psi$ and $\psi^*$. The momenta for $m$=1/16 are shown by solid circles in Fig. \[fig:lattice\](b). Actually, IC ordering whose momentum shifts as $k_x$=$\pi$(1$+$2$m$) at $k_y$=0 has been observed in Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ for $H$$\simeq$1$-$2 T$\parallel$$c$ [@ColdeaPRL] as in Fig. \[fig:lattice\](e). Similar behaviors have also been observed in Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$ just below the 1/3 plateau [@Ono_JPC]. These behaviors have remained unexplained by spin-wave theory [@SW]. In linear spin-wave theory based on classically stable cone states, ordering occurs at the momentum of the gapless point in transverse DSFs \[Fig. \[fig:Skw\](c)\], which is less dependent on $H$ or $m$ [@SW]. Note that by higher-order effects of $J'$ for $H$$\simeq$0 [@Starykh] and by large transverse correlations near $H_s$ [@SW; @HCB; @Starykh], other states can be more stabilized than the IC orders. In real materials, ground-state properties are also sensitive to DM interactions [@SW; @HCB; @Bocquet; @Starykh; @CsCuCl_MH].
The above argument for the IC ordering will be applicable to more general spatially anisotropic frustrated antiferromagnets with $J'$($k_x$=$\pi$,$k_y$)=0. (For frustrated 2-leg ladders, we pick up 2 $k_y$ points.) Thus, the QP picture would be related to the IC ordering in frustrated magnets predicted using numerical simulations [@Suzuki; @eta_inv; @Hikihara] and field-theoretical analyses [@Starykh; @Hikihara] and discussed using an RPA for $\omega$=0 [@Bocquet]. Note that the mechanism of the IC ordering is distinct from that of Ising-like chains [@HaldaneXXZ; @KimuraPRL2].
![Comparisons of line shapes of ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$ with experimental results on Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ at $k_y$=0 for (a) $\omega$=0.35 meV and (b) $k_x$=1.5$\pi$. (Left panels) Solid lines are present RPA results of ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$ broadened in accordance with the experimental energy resolution [@ColdeaSkw]. Arrows in (b) indicate peak positions of $S^{{\bar \alpha}\alpha}({\bm k},\omega)$, $\alpha$=$+$, $z$, and $-$ (from the left). Symbols denote experimental results for $H$$\parallel$$c$ in Ref. [@ColdeaSkw]. Here, the intensities are rescaled after subtracting backgrounds [@ColdeaSkw], and the energies are normalized by $J$=0.374 meV [@ColdeaModel]. (Right panels) ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$ using the RPA at $k_y$=0 corresponding to the left panels, broadened in a Lorentzian form with FWHM=0.08$J$. Green dashed lines indicate the scan paths for the left panels.[]{data-label="fig:cmpexp"}](Fig3){width="8.7cm"}
[*Excitation spectra.$-$*]{}Inelastic neutron scattering experiments can probe a quantity proportional to ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$. We expect behaviors as shown in the fourth row of Fig. \[fig:Skw\](a). Comparisons with experimental results on Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ [@ColdeaSkw] for $\omega$=0.35 meV are shown in Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\](a). The line shapes can be interpreted in terms of the present QPs. For example, the shoulder near $k_x$=2.6$\pi$ in the third row of Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\](a) is mainly due to BS of 2 $\psi$s in $S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$ and BS of 2 $\psi^*$s in $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$. The peak near $k_x$=3$\pi$ comes from $\psi\psi^*$ excitations in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$. The dip near $k_x$=3.4$\pi$ is due to the shift of spectral weights near lower edges of $\psi\psi^*$ and 2$\psi$ continua to higher energies for $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 \[$k_x$$>$3$\pi$\]. The asymmetry with respect to $k_x$=3$\pi$ is understood as a result of the sign change of $J'({\bm k})$ at $k_x$=3$\pi$.
As in the right panels of Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\](b), the mode of BS of spinons in zero field splits into three modes in a magnetic field. The left panels show comparisons with experimental results [@ColdeaSkw] at ${\bm k}=(1.5\pi,0)$. The low-energy peak is understood as superposition of BS of 2 $\psi$s in $S^{-+}({\bm k},\omega)$ and BS of $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$. Interestingly, the high-energy peak turned out to be a signature of BS of $\sigma$ and $\psi$ in $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$ originating from 2-string solutions of the Bethe ansatz [@1DH; @Bethe], which is not accounted for by the dominant modes in linear spin-wave theory \[Fig. \[fig:Skw\](c)\].
In summary, through weak-interchain-coupling analyses using exact solutions of a chain, we introduced QPs for anisotropic-2D frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnets in a magnetic field, which can be regarded as BS or ABS of 1D QPs. The QPs exhibit distinctive features different from those of 1D QPs and those of magnons in linear spin-wave theory. Differences with 1D QPs are obvious in view of their $\delta$-functional line shapes with integer $S^z$, instability to IC ordering, and 2D features. Their statistics may also be different from those of 1D QPs. Differences with magnons are the following. (1) The QPs show multiparticle crossover in a magnetic field. The dominant QPs in low fields fade away in higher fields. Instead, other QPs which reduce to the 2D magnon above $H_s$ emerge in a magnetic field. In linear spin-wave theory, magnons in low and high fields are the same in origin. (2) The QP in $S^{zz}({\bm k},\omega)$ causes instability to IC ordering whose momentum shifts as $k_x$=$\pi$$\pm$2$\pi$$m$ for $J'({\bm k})$$<$0 as in Fig. \[fig:lattice\](b). In spin-wave theory, it is known that ordering momenta do not shift so significantly as a function of $H$ or $m$ [@SW]. (3) The high-energy QPs in $S^{+-}({\bm k},\omega)$ come from 2-string solutions of the Bethe ansatz, whose behaviors are not explained by linear spin-wave theory.
These novel features revealed in a magnetic field come from the stabilization mechanism of the QPs, which is not based on spontaneous symmetry breaking: in contrast to magnons created from classical spin configurations, the QPs are induced by interchain exchange processes from liquids of 1D QPs. Thus, in analogy to collective modes in Fermi liquids, the QPs may be regarded as those in a kind of anisotropic-2D spin liquid or $\psi$, $\psi^*$, and $\sigma$ liquid, distinguished from the magnons. The arguments in this Letter can be generalized to weakly coupled antiferromagnetic chains with $J'$($k_x$=$\pi$,$k_y$)=0 including ladders.
Their relevance to real materials was confirmed through comparisons with experimental results. Various aspects observed in Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$ in a magnetic field, such as the 2D dispersion relation, IC ordering, line shapes of ${\bar S}({\bm k},\omega)$, and the magnetization curve, were explained in a unified manner in terms of the QPs. Note that comparisons in this Letter have no adjustable parameters except a single normalization factor in Fig. \[fig:cmpexp\]. It would be interesting in future studies to examine whether signatures of the QPs can persist in less frustrated or nearly spatially isotropic 2D antiferromagnets in a magnetic field.
I am grateful to L. Balents, O.A. Starykh, R. Coldea, T. Ono, K. Totsuka, A. Tanaka, T. Sakai, T. Hikihara, S. Kimura, M. Takigawa, J. Alicea, and M.P.A. Fisher for discussions, helpful comments, and suggestions. This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative on Materials Nanoarchitectonics, MEXT, Japan, and KAKENHI 20740206 and 20046015.
P. W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. [**8**]{}, 153 (1973). R. Coldea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1335 (2001). R. Coldea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 134424 (2003). J. Alicea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 144411 (2007). R. Coldea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 151 (1997). R. Coldea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 137203 (2002) M. Karbach [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 054405 (2002). M. Karbach [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 14871 (2000). M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 037203 (2009). M. Kohno [*et al*]{}., Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 790 (2007). H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2790 (1996). F. H. L. Essler [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 11001 (1997). M. Bocquet [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 094425 (2001). M. Y. Veillette [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 214426 (2005). Y. Tokiwa [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 134414 (2006). H. Bethe, Z. Phys. [**71**]{}, 205 (1931). N. Kitanine [*et al*]{}., Nucl. Phys. B [**554**]{}, 647 (1999). D. Biegel [*et al*]{}., Europhys. Lett. [**59**]{}, 882 (2002). J. -S. Caux [*et al*]{}., J. Stat. Mech., P09003 (2005). ABS are states induced above continua for $J'({\bm k})$$>$0 [@NPhys]. G. Müller [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 1429 (1981). T. Nagamiya, [*Solid State Physics*]{}, edited by F. Seitz [*et al*]{}. (Academic, New York, 1967), Vol. 2, p.305. C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. [**73**]{}, 155 (1948). R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. [**133**]{}, A768 (1964). O. A. Starykh [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 077205 (2007). F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{}, 1358 (1980). In 1D, $S^{zz}$($k_x$=$\pi$$\pm$2$\pi m,\omega$$\rightarrow$+0) is divergent, whereas $S^{\mp\pm}$($k_x$=$\pm$2$\pi m,\omega$$\rightarrow$+0) are vanishingly small. T. Ono [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**16**]{} S773 (2004). M. Y. Veillette [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 052402 (2006). N. Maeshima [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 127203 (2004). T. Suzuki [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 054419 (2004). T. Hikihara [*et al*]{}. (unpublished). S. Kimura [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 207201 (2008). S. Bailleul [*et al*]{}., Eur. J. Solid State Inorg. Chem. [**31**]{}, 431 (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the phase coherent transport of a quasi one-dimensional beam of Bose-Einstein condensed particles through a disordered potential of length $L$. Among the possible different types of flow we identified \[T. Paul, P. Schlagheck, P. Leboeuf and N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 210602 (2007)\], we focus here on the supersonic stationary regime where Anderson localization exists. We generalize the diffusion formalism of Dorokhov-Mello-Pereyra-Kumar to include interaction effects. It is shown that interactions modify the localization length and also introduce a length scale $L^*$ for the disordered region, above which most of the realizations of the random potential lead to time dependent flows. A Fokker-Planck equation for the probability density of the transmission coefficient that takes this new effect into account is introduced and solved. The theoretical predictions are verified numerically for different types of disordered potentials. Experimental scenarios for observing our predictions are discussed.'
author:
- 'T. Paul'
- 'M. Albert'
- 'P. Schlagheck'
- 'P. Leboeuf'
- 'N. Pavloff'
title: Anderson localization of a weakly interacting one dimensional Bose gas
---
Introduction
============
The absence of diffusion of waves in disordered media was predicted by Anderson 50 years ago [@And58]. Originally proposed in the context of electronic transport in disordered crystals, it has since been observed for different types of waves, including light and sound. Recently, direct observations of the Anderson localization by disorder [@Bil08] and of a localization transition by quasiperiodic potentials [@Roa08] of quasi one-dimensional (1D) matter waves of ultracold atoms were reported. These experiments pave the way to the observation of new phenomena and shed new light on long standing problems, amongst which the question of possible Anderson localization in presence of interactions.
In the present paper we consider the case of an atomic vapor described as a weakly interacting Bose gas in the presence of a weak disorder (what is meant by “weak” here will be made quantitative in Sec. \[model\]). In this configuration it has been shown theoretically in Refs. [@Hua92; @Gio94] and supported by numerical simulations in Ref. [@weakdis2] that a small amount of disorder does not drastically alter the [*equilibrium*]{} properties of the system, but merely decreases the condensate and superfluid fractions. Furthermore, even in the 1D limit considered in the present work, it has been experimentally demonstrated in Refs. [@Cle08; @Che08] that one can observe global phase coherence in the presence of disorder and remain far from, say, the Bose glass phase originally proposed by Giamarchi and Schulz and Fisher [*et al.*]{} [@GiaSch; @Fish].
Here we are interested in [*transport*]{} properties. Specifically, we study a quasi 1D, weakly interacting Bose Einstein condensate (BEC), propagating through a disordered potential. In this context, localization has been theoretically studied mainly for effective [*attractive*]{} interactions (see, e.g., [@Gre92] and references therein), with less attention on the [ *repulsive*]{} case we consider here (see, however, Refs. [@Bil05; @Pau05]). In the absence of an external potential, (repulsive) interactions make the system superfluid and introduce a new characteristic speed in the system, the speed of sound $c$. As mentioned above, when the speed $V$ of the BEC relative to the external potential tends to zero, the addition of a weak random potential preserves superfluidity, although with a reduced superfluid fraction. What happens as $V$ increases ? This question was investigated in a previous publication [@Pau07], where the disordered potential, of length $L$, was modeled by a series of randomly located delta peaks. For small velocities $V/c \ll 1$, perturbation theory shows that the superfluidity is preserved, e.g., the flow is dissipationless and with a perfect transmission. In contrast, in the high speed limit $V/c \gg
1$, where the kinetic energy dominates over the interaction energy, the transport properties of the BEC are deeply altered, and tend to those of the non-interacting gas, displaying an exponential damping of the transmission with length $L$, a behavior characteristic of the strong Anderson localization. Thus, two limiting cases of stationary flow have been identified [@Pau07], with contrasting transport properties: superfluidity in the deep subsonic regime, and Anderson localization in the deep supersonic one. In between, in the region $V\sim c$ where both interaction and kinetic energies are important, it was shown that stationary scattering solutions do not exist: one reaches a regime of time-dependent flows with more or less (depending on the speed) complex density excitations. The range of speeds around $c$ where this phenomenon is observed increases as the length $L$ increases. The different types of existing flows are summarized in Fig. \[fig1\].
![ (Color online) Transport of a quasi 1D BEC with velocity $V$ through a disordered potential $U_\delta$ consisting in a series of uncorrelated delta peaks extending over a domain of size $L$ \[cf. Eq. (\[e2a\]) and the discussion in Sec. \[sec-lstar\]\]. Dark region: time dependent flow; light gray (light blue online) regions: stationary flow. In the supersonic case, the yellow solid line corresponds to the threshold $L^*$ between these two domains as determined from Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]). The blue dashed line is the localization length $L_{\rm loc}$ (\[exp1\]). The supersonic region below $L_{\rm loc}$ denoted as “ballistic” corresponds to the region where the perturbation theory of Sec. \[pts\] applies. Note the enlarged scale for $V/c\in[0,1]$. \[fig1\]](Diag_Neu.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In the present study we concentrate on the supersonic stationary region of the phase diagram \[gray (light blue online) $V/c>1$ region in Fig. \[fig1\]\]. In this domain we provide analytical and numerical evidence of Anderson localization in the presence of interaction for different types of disorder. We compute analytically the interaction-dependent localization length as well as the corresponding distribution of transmission coefficients. We also explain the disappearance of the supersonic stationary flow observed at a given velocity for increasing length of the disordered sample. This onset of time dependence is an important qualitative effect revealed by our study. We show that it is directly connected to interaction effects and provide an analytical estimate of the length $L^*$ of the disordered region above which most of the realizations of the random potential lead to time dependent flows (see Fig. \[fig1\]).
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[model\] we present the model and identify its range of validity. In Sec. \[secIII\] we take some time to properly define the transmission coefficient of a Bose-condensed beam over an obstacle. In \[secIV\] we introduce the different types of disordered potentials studied in the present work. In Sec. \[ssr\] we present analytical and numerical results showing that Anderson localization is indeed possible in the supersonic regime. We consider the three possible supersonic regimes: perturbative (Sec. \[pts\]), Anderson localized (Sec. \[non-pert\]) and onset of time dependence (Sec. \[sec-lstar\]). In Sec. \[experiment\] we discuss experimental strategies and possible signatures for the observation of Anderson localization in an interacting Bose-Einstein condensate. Finally we present our conclusions in Sec. \[conclusion\]. Some technical points are given in the appendixes. In Appendix \[app1\] we derive the probability distribution of transmission in a special case (perturbative regime and correlated Gaussian potential). In Appendix \[app2\] we present the derivation of the Fokker-Plank equation (\[dmpk\]) for the distribution of the transmission coefficients.
Model
=====
We study here the transport properties of a quasi-one-dimensional (1D) Bose-Einstein condensate formed of particles of mass $m$, experiencing a repulsive effective interaction (characterized by the 3D s-wave scattering length $a>0$), in the presence of an obstacle represented by the external potential $U$. The potential is not necessarily disordered at this point, the only restriction we impose throughout the present work is that it should have a finite extent, i.e., $U(x)\to 0$ when $x\to\pm\infty$. The configuration we consider corresponds to the “1D mean field regime” [@Men02] (see also the discussion in Ref. [@Pet00]), where the system is described by a 1D order parameter $\psi(x,t)$ depending on a single spatial variable: the coordinate $x$ along the direction of propagation. $\psi(x,t)$ obeys the nonlinear Schrödinger equation $$\label{e1}
{\rm i}\,\hbar\,\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2
m}\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial x^2} + \left[
U(x-Vt)+g\,|\psi|^2-\mu\right]\psi\; .$$ In all the present work we choose to work in the “laboratory frame” where the condensate is initially at rest. Eq. (\[e1\]) describes its 1D dynamics in the presence of an obstacle moving at constant velocity $V$ in this frame, which corresponds to the experimental situation where an obstacle is swept through a condensate initially at rest, see e.g. Refs. [@Ram99; @Ono00; @Eng07]. On the theoretical side, one should imagine that, from an initial static configuration where the condensate is at rest with $U\equiv 0$, the potential intensity and speed have been slowly ramped up to a point where the condensate dynamics is described by Eq. (\[e1\]). We choose $V>0$, this corresponds to a potential moving from left to right in the laboratory frame.
The reduction of the motion of the condensate to a single spatial dimension is typically achieved through a transverse harmonic confining potential of pulsation $\omega_\perp$. We choose a normalization such that $n(x,t)=|\psi(x,t)|^2$ is the linear density of the condensate. In this case, the interaction amongst particles results in Eq. (\[e1\]) in the nonlinear term $g|\psi|^2$, with $g=2\,\hbar\,\omega_\perp\, a$ [@Ols98; @Jac98; @Leb01].
In the stationary regime, where the flow is time–independent in the frame moving with the potential, $\psi$ depends on $x$ and $t$ only through the variable $X=x-Vt$. The appropriate boundary condition is $\psi(X\to-\infty)=\sqrt{n_0}$ (where $n_0$ is a constant) (see [@Leb01] and the discussion in Section \[stationary\_regime\] below). The condensate is then characterized by a chemical potential $\mu=g\, n_0$, a speed of sound $c=(g\, n_0/m)^{1/2}$ and a healing length $\xi=\hbar/(m\,c)$.
It is customary to characterize the transverse confinement via the “harmonic oscillator length” $a_\perp=(\hbar/m\omega_\perp)^{1/2}$. With $n_1$ denoting a typical order of magnitude of $n(x,t)$, the 1D mean field regime in which Eq. (\[e1\]) is valid corresponds to a density range such that $$\label{s1.0}
(a/a_\perp)^2\ll n_1\,a \ll 1\; .$$ In this domain the wave function of the condensate can be factorized in a transverse and a longitudinal part [@Jac98; @Ols98; @Leb01]. The transverse wave function is Gaussian (this is ensured by the condition $n_1\,a \ll 1$), the longitudinal one is of the form $\psi(x,t)\exp\{-{\rm i}\,\mu t/\hbar\}$ and $\psi(x,t)$ satisfies Eq. (\[e1\]) [@Jac98; @Leb01]. The left-hand side (l.h.s.) inequality in Eq. (\[s1.0\]) prevents the system to enter in the Tonks-Girardeau regime. More precisely, a general analysis of 1D Bose gas shows that at zero temperature no BEC is possible [@SP91]. This results in a algebraic decrease of the one body density matrix monitored by phase fluctuations occurring over a phase-coherence length $L_\phi=\xi \exp
\{\pi\,a_\perp (n_1/2\,a)^{1/2}\}$ [@Sch77; @Petrov]. Hence the results obtained using Eq. (\[e1\]) are valid if they describe structures with a characteristic length scale smaller than $L_\phi$. The l.h.s. inequality in Eq. (\[s1.0\]) ensures that $L_\phi$ is exponentially large compared to the healing length. If one considers, for instance, $^{87}$Rb or $^{23}$Na atoms in a guide with a transverse confinement characterized by $\omega_\perp=2\pi\times 500$ Hz, the ratio $a/a_\perp$ is roughly of order $10^{-2}$ and restriction (\[s1.0\]) still allows the density to vary over four orders of magnitude.
Even if the mean field approach is legitimate in 1D, the effects of disorder have to be taken into account with some care. It may well be that the introduction of a disordered potential $U$ in Eq. (\[e1\]) modifies the properties of the ground state. This is indeed the case as shown in Refs. [@Hua92; @Gio94] : a disordered potential decreases the condensate and the superfluid fraction, but the effects are weak provided the intensity of the disorder remains weak (see Ref. [@Lop02] for an extension to finite temperature). More precisely, in the case of a disorder formed by randomly spaced delta impurities with density $n_{\delta}$ (see Sec. \[delta\]) one can show [@Ast04; @Pau07] that, in the dilute impurity limit, at $V=0$ the non-superfluid fraction (normal part) is proportional to $n_{\delta}\xi
(\xi/b)^2$ \[the notations are those of Eq. (\[e2a\])\] and thus remains small provided the dimensionless coefficient $(\xi/b)$ is small (weak disorder limit). At finite $V$, the normal fraction is multiplied by a factor $[1-(V/c)^2]^{-3/2}$ (see Ref. [@Pau07]), which diverges when $V=c$. One thus expects the mean field approach to fail near the region $V\simeq c$ of Fig. \[fig1\]. This is supported by the numerical results presented in [@Ern09]. Hence, in the center of the time-dependent region of Fig. \[fig1\] we cannot trust the results obtained from Eq. (\[e1\]). However, far from this region, the 1D mean field approach is expected to be valid even in presence of (weak) disorder, as experimentally demonstrated in Refs. [@Cle08; @Che08].
Definition of the transmission {#secIII}
==============================
In the present work we characterize the localization properties of the condensate in the random potential by studying the transmission coefficient. Eq. (\[e1\]) being non linear, the definition of transmission and reflection coefficients needs to be treated with special care. This is the purpose of the present section where we first define the stationary regime (Section \[stationary\_regime\]) and then the transmission coefficient within this regime (Section \[transmis\]).
Stationary regime {#stationary_regime}
-----------------
It is customary to perform a Madelung transformation and to write $\psi(x,t) =
\sqrt{n(x,t)} \exp\{ {\rm i}\, S(x,t)\}$ where $n(x,t)$ is the density and $\hbar \, \partial_x S/m=v(x,t)$ the local velocity. From (\[e1\]) one can check that they verify the continuity equation $$\label{e2}
\partial_t n +\partial_x(n v)=0 \; .$$ The stationary regime is defined as the regime where the system is at rest in the frame moving with the obstacle. In this case, in the laboratory frame $\psi$, $S$, $n$ and $v$ are time dependent, but they depend on $x$ and $t$ only through the variable $X=x-Vt$. It is then possible to get a first integral of (\[e2\]) under the form $$\label{e3}
n(X)\left(
\frac{\hbar}{m} \frac{{\rm d}S}{{\rm d}X} -V\right)=C^{\rm st} \; .$$
In the case of subsonic ($V<c$) and stationary motion, the flow is superfluid and the order parameter is only affected in the vicinity of the obstacle, with $n(X\to\pm \infty)=n_0$ and $v(X\to\pm \infty)=0$ [@Hak97; @Leb01].
For $V>c$, a regime of stationary flow also exists but in this case the obstacle induces density oscillations with a pattern stationary in its rest frame [@Leb01]. This means that in the laboratory frame the phase velocity of these waves is identical to the velocity $V$ of the obstacle. On the other hand, the energy transferred from the obstacle to the fluid propagates with the group velocity, which in the case of Bogoliubov excitations is greater than the phase velocity, i.e. – as just argued – than $V$. As a consequence, radiation conditions require that the wake is always located ahead of the obstacle, i.e., upstream, with no long-range perturbation of the fluid on the downstream side [@Leb01; @Lamb]. This means that in this case the flow far in the downstream region remains unperturbed, with $n(X\to -\infty)=n_0$ and $v(X\to
-\infty)=0$. The two possible stationary configurations (subsonic and supersonic) are represented in Fig. \[fig2\].
(9,5.5) (1,0)[![Schematic representation of the typical density profiles. The upper plot corresponds to a subsonic stationary profile, while the lower one corresponds to a supersonic stationary profile. The potential moves from left to right, and the upstream (downstream) region thus corresponds to the region $X\to+\infty$ ($X\to-\infty$). In both plots the potential is represented by a thick solid line (hatched down to zero) and the density profile is represented by a thin solid line.\[fig2\]](stationary.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{} (0.5,3.)[downstream]{} (6.7,3.)[upstream]{} (1,2.7)[(1,0)[7.5]{}]{} (6.6,2.3)[$X=x-Vt$]{} (1.4,1.7)[$n(X)$]{} (1.4,5.3)[$n(X)$]{} (3.2,1.)[$U(X)$]{} (3.8,5.)[$U(X)$]{} (0,1.5)[$n_0$]{} (0.4,1.55)[(1,0)[0.5]{}]{} (0,5.03)[$n_0$]{} (0.4,5.08)[(1,0)[0.5]{}]{}
Hence, in any stationary configuration (subsonic or supersonic), the above reasoning fixes the integration constant in the right hand side (r.h.s.) of Eq. (\[e3\]) to its value at $X\to -\infty$, i.e., $-n_0 V$.
In the stationary regime one gets from Eqs. (\[e1\]) and (\[e3\]) $$\label{e4}
U(X)\, \frac{{\rm d}A^2}{{\rm d}X} =
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}X}\left\{
\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\left(\frac{{\rm d}A}{{\rm d}X}\right)^2+
W(A)\right\} \; ,$$ where $A(X)=\sqrt{n(X)/n_0}$ and $$W(A)=\frac{m}{2} (A^2-1)
\left[c^2+V^2-c^2 A^2 -\frac{V^2}{A^2}\right]
\; .$$
Transmission coefficient {#transmis}
------------------------
In this section we restrict the analysis to the stationary regime of section \[stationary\_regime\], and define the transmission of the condensate through the obstacle represented by a potential $U$ (not necessarily disordered) verifying $U(|x|\to\infty)=0$.
As the wave equation (\[e1\]) is nonlinear, one cannot, in general, properly define reflection and transmission coefficients, since it is generally not possible to disentangle incoming and reflected waves in the nonlinear flow upstream the obstacle. However, following a procedure devised in Ref. [@Leb03] (see also [@Pau07b]), we will show that one can define a transmission and a reflection coefficient in the limit of small nonlinearity as well as in the limit of weak reflection and arbitrary nonlinearity.
Outside the scattering region, $U(X)=0$ and one can get a first integral of Eq. (\[e4\]) under the form $$\label{t1}
\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\left(\frac{{\rm d}A}{{\rm d}X}\right)^2+
W(A)=E^{\pm}_{\rm cl} \; , \quad\mbox{when}\quad
X\to\pm\infty \; ,$$ which defines the “free” asymptotic density profiles. $E^{\pm}_{\rm cl}$ in Eq. (\[t1\]) are integration constants. The boundary condition discussed in the previous section imposes $A=1$ and ${\rm d}A/{\rm d}X=0$ when $X \to
-\infty$. This fixes the value $E_{\rm cl}^-=0$. The value of $E_{\rm cl}^+$ at $+\infty$ has to be determined by the integration of Eq. (\[e1\]) (cf. Ref. [@Leb01]). Eq. (\[t1\]) expresses the energy conservation for a fictitious classical particle with “mass” $\hbar^2/m$, “position” $A$ and “time” $X$, evolving in a potential $W$ (whose typical shape is displayed in Fig. \[fig3\]). This type of analysis is common in the study of nonlinear equations such as Eq. (\[e1\]), see e.g., the review [@Ivl84] (the first time we found it used is in Ref. [@Lan67]). It is employed here as a convenient tool for getting intuition about the behavior of the solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (see below).
![(Color online) $W$ as a function of $A=|\psi|/\sqrt{n_0}$ (drawn for $V/c=4$). The fictitious particle has a classical energy $E_{\rm cl}^+$ when $X\to +\infty$. The (red) dashed line corresponds to an approximation of $W(A)$ by $\hbar^2\kappa^2(A-1/A)^2/(2 m)$, obtained by keeping only the first term in expansion (\[t3a\]).\[fig3\]](w.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
From now on we restrict to the supersonic stationary regime where an imperfect transmission occurs (in the subsonic stationary regime one has perfect transmission). In this case the fictitious particle is initially (i.e., when $X\to-\infty$) at rest at the bottom of the potential $W$ with $E_{\rm
cl}^-=0$. The behavior of $A$ for $X\to+\infty$ depends on the value of $E^{+}_{\rm cl}$. A stationary solution exists only if $A(X\to+\infty)$ remains bounded, i.e., if $E^{+}_{\rm cl}<W(A_1)$ (where $A_1$ corresponds to the local maximum of $W$, see Fig. \[fig3\]). In this case, the asymptotic behavior of $A(X)$ corresponds to oscillations between the values $A_{\rm
min}$ and $A_{\rm max}$ defined in Fig. 3.
For future references we note that $W(A)$ is zero when $A=A_0=1$ and when $A=V/c$, and that the derivative ${\rm d}W/{\rm d}A$ is zero when $A=A_0=1$ and when $A=A_1$, with $$\label{t1a}
A_1=\frac{V}{2c} \left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{8 c^2}{V^2}}\right)^{1/2}\; .$$ At large velocity, when $V\gg c$, one has $$\label{t1b}
A_1=\frac{V}{\sqrt{2} \, c}+{\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{V/c}\right)
\; ,$$ and $$\label{t1c}
W(A_1) = \frac{m V^4}{8\,c^2}
+{\cal O}\left(\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right)\; .$$
Writing $A^2(X)=\rho(X)=1+\delta\rho(X)$ we now argue that, following Ref. [@Leb03], one can write a perturbative version of (\[t1\]) in a limit where $$\label{t2}
|\delta\rho(X)| \ll
\left|\frac{V^2}{c^2}-1\right| \; .$$ We emphasize that restriction (\[t2\]) corresponds to $|\delta\rho| \ll
1$ (i.e., small oscillations) only when $V$ is of order of $c$ or smaller. The approach developed below is however able to tackle large relative density oscillations ($|\delta\rho| \gg 1$) at large velocities ($V\gg c$) [@rem]. In this sense it will allow us to penetrate in the non perturbative regime where the upstream density oscillations are large and the transmission is low.
Using the variable $\rho$, we write Eq. (\[t1\]) in the upstream region ($X\to +\infty$) as $$\label{t3}
\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\left(\frac{{\rm d}\rho}{{\rm d}X}\right)^2+
8 F(\rho)=8\rho E_{\rm cl}^+ \; ,$$ where $F(\rho)=\rho\, W(A=\sqrt{\rho})$. A simple limited expansion around $\rho=1$ yields $$\label{t3a}
F(\rho)\simeq
\frac{\hbar^2 \kappa^2}{2 m}(\delta\rho)^2+\frac{m c^2}{2}(\delta\rho)^3
+\cdots$$ where $\delta \rho(X)=\rho(X) - 1$ and $$\label{pt4}
\kappa=\frac{m}{\hbar}\left|V^2-c^2\right|^{1/2}
\; , \quad \mbox{and}\quad
\left|\frac{V^2}{c^2}-1\right| = \kappa^2\xi^2\; .$$ The second term in the r.h.s. of expansion (\[t3a\]) is small compared to the first one precisely in the limit (\[t2\]). In the following we restrict to this regime and neglect the second term of the r.h.s. of (\[t3a\]). This corresponds to approximating the exact $W(A)$ by the (red online) dashed line in Fig. \[fig3\] and to write Eq. (\[t3\]) under the form $$\label{t4}
\left(\frac{{\rm d}\delta\rho}{{\rm d}X}\right)^2+4\kappa^2 (\delta\rho)^2
= 16 \kappa^2\lambda (1+\delta \rho) \; ,$$ where the dimensionless parameter $\lambda$ is defined by $$\label{t5}
\lambda=\frac{m \, E^+_{\rm cl}}{2\, \hbar^2 \kappa^2}\; .$$ The solution of Eq. (\[t4\]) is $$\label{t6}
\frac{n(X)}{n_0}=\rho(X)=1+2\,\lambda+2\,\Lambda
\cos(2\kappa X+\theta) \; ,$$ where $$\label{t6b}
\Lambda=\sqrt{\lambda^2+\lambda} \; ,$$ and $\theta$ is a phase factor. We recall that Eq. (\[t6\]) describes the density oscillations in the upstream region $X\to +\infty$. These oscillations can be described as the sum of incident and reflected waves ($\psi_{\rm inc}$ and $\psi_{\rm ref}$) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t6c}
\psi_{\rm inc}(X) & = &
\sqrt{n_0(1+\lambda)}\, \exp(-i\kappa X) \; , \nonumber \\
\psi_{\rm ref}(X) & = &
\sqrt{n_0\lambda} \, \exp(i\kappa X+i\theta) \; . \end{aligned}$$ This analysis allows one to determine the reflection and the transmission coefficients as $$\label{t7}
R=\frac{|\psi_{\rm ref}|^2}{|\psi_{\rm inc}|^2}
=\frac{\lambda}{1+\lambda} \; , \quad T=1-R=\frac{1}{1+\lambda} \; .$$ Of course the sum of the incident $\psi_{\rm inc}$ and the reflected $\psi_{\rm
ref}$ waves (\[t6c\]) is an approximate solution of the nonlinear Schödinger equation (\[e1\]) which is only valid in regime (\[t2\]), i.e., in the regime of arbitrary interaction and small transmission ($\lambda\ll 1$), or in the regime of arbitrary transmission and small interaction ($V\gg c$).
Different types of disorder {#secIV}
===========================
Up to this point we presented a theory valid for any potential of finite extent. From now on we concentrate on the particular case of random potentials. We denote $U(x)$ an arbitrary random potential, and use a subscript when dealing with one of the particular cases defined below.
Potential formed by a series of $\delta$ peaks {#delta}
----------------------------------------------
The first potential of interest, analyzed in Ref. [@Pau07], is a series of $N$ randomly located identical delta peaks of the form : $$\label{e2a}
U_{\delta}(x)=\frac{\hbar^2}{m\,b} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(x-x_i) \; .$$ The intensity of the peaks is measured by the (non random) positive quantity $b$. The scatterers have random uncorrelated positions $0=x_1\le x_2\le
x_3...$, with mean density $n_\delta$ and average separation $l_\delta=1/n_\delta$. Hence the potential extends over a mean length $L=(N-1) l_\delta$.
Denoting henceforth the disorder average by $\langle ..\rangle$, for $x$ and $x'$ inside the disordered region one gets the mean value $$\label{e2b0}
\langle U_{\delta}(x) \rangle =\frac{\hbar^2 n_\delta}{m\, b} \; ,$$ and the irreducible two-point correlation function $$\label{e2b}
\langle U_{\delta}(x)U_{\delta}(x')\rangle-\langle U_{\delta}\rangle^2
=\sigma\,(\hbar^2/m)^2
\,\delta(x-x')\; ,$$ where $$\label{e2c}
\sigma=\frac{n_\delta}{b^2} \; .$$
Correlated Gaussian potential {#gaussian}
-----------------------------
Another commonly used model of disorder is provided by Gaussian random processes with zero average. We consider here potentials which are non zero only over a region of finite extent (with typical size $L$) and generate them in the following way (see, e.g., Chap. 5 of Ref. [@Shk84] and references therein): let’s consider a Gaussian white noise $\eta(x)$ extending over all the real axis, with zero mean and second moment $\langle \eta(x)\eta(y)
\rangle =\delta(x-y)$. Then for a given function $w(x)$ one defines $$\label{e2d}
U_g (x)=\frac{\hbar^2\sqrt{\sigma}}{m}\int_0^Lw(x-y)\,\eta(y) \, {\rm d}y \; ,$$ where $\sigma$ is a parameter characterizing the disorder and whose meaning is explained below. If $w$ were a delta function, then $U_g$ would be a Gaussian white noise over $[0,L]$ (and zero everywhere else). The actual function $w(x)$ has a finite extension, and this induces finite correlations in the disordered potential.
From (\[e2d\]) it is clear that $\langle U_g \rangle =0$. If the domain of integration in the r.h.s. of (\[e2d\]) were extended to all $\mathbb{R}$, $U_g$ would have a Gaussian distribution $${\cal P}(U_g)=\frac{\exp[-\frac{U_g^2}{2\,\Sigma^2}]}{\sqrt{2\pi\Sigma^2}} \; ,$$ where $$\label{s2}
\Sigma^2=\sigma\, (\hbar^2/m)^2
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\!w^2(x){\rm d}x
\; .$$ Defining the correlation function $C$ as $$\label{e2f0}
\langle U_g(x)U_g(x')\rangle - \langle U_g \rangle^2 =
\sigma\,(\hbar^2/m)^2
\, C(x-x') \; ,$$ one would get in this case $$\label{e2f}
C(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\!\! {\rm d}y \, w(x+y) \, w(y) \; ,$$ with a Fourier transform $$\label{e2g}
\hat{C}(q)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\!\! {\rm d}x \, C(x) \,
\ep^{- {\rm i}\,q\,x}=\left|\hat{w}(q)\right|^2 \; ,$$ where $\hat{w}$ is the Fourier transform of $w$.
Imposing here the normalization condition $$\label{e2cbis}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}w(x)\, {\rm d}x =1 \; ,$$ leads to a two-point correlation function (\[e2f0\]) which is – as in Eq. (\[e2b\]) – of the form of $\sigma(\hbar^2/m)^2$ multiplied by a function whose integral over $x$ equals unity \[$C(x)$ in (\[e2f0\]) instead of $\delta(x)$ in (\[e2b\])\]. Thus, with definition (\[e2d\]) and normalization (\[e2cbis\]), $\sigma$ plays for disorder (\[e2d\]) the same role as $n_\delta/b^2$ \[Eq. (\[e2c\])\] for disorder (\[e2a\]): it characterizes the amplitude of the fluctuations of the potential. The typical extent of $w(x)$ will in turn characterize the range of the correlations.
Since $U_g$ as given by Eq. (\[e2d\]) is typically non zero only over a region of finite extent, Eqs. (\[e2f0\]) and (\[e2f\]) are only correct if $x$ and $x'$ are inside this region. More precisely, they should be in this region, at a distance from 0 or $L$ larger than the typical extent $\ell_c$ of the function $w$. In the following we always consider the case where $L$ is very large compared to $\ell_c$ (otherwise one could simply not speak of a disordered region) and it is clear that the characteristics of the disorder are properly defined only inside the disordered region.
We consider two special cases of correlation corresponding to different forms of $w$: a Lorentzian $$\label{e2i}
w_{\sss L}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi} \,
\frac{\ell_c/2}{(\ell_c/2)^2+x^2} \; ,$$ and a Gaussian $$\label{e2h}
w_{\sss G}(x)= \frac{1}{\ell_c\sqrt{\pi}}
\exp\left(-\frac{x^2}{\ell_c^2}\right) \; .$$ We denote the corresponding potentials by $U_{\sss L}$ and $U_{\sss G}$. For the correlation functions one gets respectively $$\label{e2j}
C_{\sss L}(x)=
\frac{\ell_c/\pi}{\ell_c^2+x^2}\; , \quad
\hat{C}_{\sss L}(q)=
\ep^{-\ell_c|q|}\; ,$$ and $$\label{e2k}
C_{\sss G}(x)=
\frac{\ep^{-x^2/(2\,\ell_c^2)}}
{\sqrt{2\,\pi\,\ell_c^2}} \; , \quad
\hat{C}_{\sss G}(q)=
\ep^{-q^2\ell_c^2/2} \; .$$ In both cases $\ell_c$ is the typical correlation radius.
The choice of a Lorentzian correlated disordered potential originates from experimental and theoretical results in the case of micro-fabricated guides. In this type of setting, the atoms are magnetically guided over a chip [@fragmen]. Unavoidable imperfections and irregularities in the design of the circuit induce fluctuations in the current which, in turn, result in a random contribution to the magnetic field used for guiding the atoms. Thus the potential seen by the atoms has a random component which is typically Lorentzian correlated, with a correlation length $\ell_c$ which decreases when the distance between the guide and the chip increases [@Kraft; @Aspect_corrug; @Wang2004; @Pau05]. The Gaussian correlated potential $U_{\sss G}$ is more academic but, by comparison with the results obtained with $U_{\sss L}$ it allows one to check what is really specific to the Lorentzian case, and what is a mere effect of finite correlation length.
Speckle potential {#speckle}
-----------------
Another experimentally relevant type of disorder is the so called speckle potential which is generated by an optical speckle field produced by a laser beam passing through a diffusing plate [@Goo07; @Cle06; @Fal08]. The corresponding potential will be denoted by $U_{\sss S}$ and may be mathematically generated as follows [@rem_speckle]: $$\label{e2l}
U_{\sss S}(x)= \frac{\hbar^2 \sqrt{\sigma}}{m}
\left| \int_0^L\!\!\!\! w_{\sss S}(x-y)
\left[\eta_1(y)+{\rm i}\,\eta_2(y)\right]
{\rm d}y \right|^2 ,$$ where $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ are two independent Gaussian white noise processes of zero mean with $\langle\eta_\alpha(x) \eta_{\alpha'}(x')\rangle =
\delta(x-x') \delta_{\alpha \alpha'}$ ($\alpha$ and $\alpha'=1$ or 2).
Here also we characterize the disorder by studying its statistical properties in the limit where the domain of integration in the r.h.s. of (\[e2l\]) is extended to all $\mathbb{R}$. In this case one gets $${\cal P}(U_{\sss S})=\frac{\exp(-\frac{U_{\sss S}}{2\Sigma^2})}{2\Sigma^2}
\; ,$$ where $\Sigma$ is given by formula (\[s2\]) (replacing $w$ by $w_{\sss S}$). This yields $\langle U_{\sss S} \rangle=2\Sigma^2$ and the correlation function defined in Eq. (\[e2f0\]) reads here $$\label{e2m}
\begin{split}
C_{\sss S}(x-x')= &
\frac{1}{\sigma\,(\hbar^2/m)^2}
\left[
\langle U_{\sss S}(x)U_{\sss S}(x')\rangle -
\langle U_{\sss S} \rangle^2 \right] \\
= & 4 \left[
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\!\!{\rm d}y\, w_{\sss S}(x-x'+y)w_{\sss S}(y)
\right]^2 \; .
\end{split}$$ Contrarily to the choice (\[e2cbis\]), $w_{\sss S}$ should not be normalized to unity here because – from Eq. (\[e2l\]) – this is homogeneity-wise impossible. Instead, the choice $$\label{ws}
w_{\sss S}(x)=
\left(\frac{\ell_c}{4\,\pi^3}\right)^{1/4} \,
\frac{\sin(\frac{x}{\ell_c})}{x} \; ,$$ corresponds to the typical experimental situations [@Cle06] and leads to a correlation function $$C_{\sss S}(x)=\frac{\ell_c}{\pi}
\frac{\sin^2(\frac{x}{\ell_c})}{x^2} \; ,$$ whose integral over $x$ equals unity and whose Fourier transform is $$\label{csq}
\hat{C}_{\sss S}(q)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1-|q|\,\ell_c/2
& \mbox{if}\;\;\; |q|\,\ell_c<2\; , \\
& \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}\; . \end{array}
\right.$$ Hence, definition (\[e2l\]) and choice (\[ws\]) correspond here also to characterizing the amplitude of the disorder’s fluctuations by the parameter $\sigma$ and the range of the correlations by $\ell_c$.
Supersonic stationary regime {#ssr}
============================
As explained in Ref. [@Pau07], and recalled in the Introduction, Anderson localization in a weakly repulsive Bose-Einstein condensate is only possible in the supersonic regime (cf. Fig. \[fig1\]) which we consider now. In the present section we first analyze the transmission across a short disordered sample, in which case perturbation theory is applicable (Sec. \[pts\]). We then turn to generic non-perturbative configurations (Sec. \[non-pert\]) where Anderson localization is expected. In this regime we obtain evidences of the occurrence of Anderson localization in the presence of interaction. Finally we discuss the upper limit of the localized regime and the onset of time dependent flows for long disordered samples (Sec. \[sec-lstar\]).
Perturbation theory ($\lambda\ll 1$) {#pts}
------------------------------------
In the supersonic stationary regime, simple perturbation theory yields $n(x,t)=n_0+\delta n(X)$ where [@Leb01] $$\label{spt1}
\delta n(X)=\frac{2\,m\,n_0}{\hbar^2\,\kappa}
\int_{-\infty}^X\!\!\!\!{\rm d}y \, U(y)\,
\sin[2\kappa(X-y)] \; ,$$ and $\kappa$ is given by Eq. (\[pt4\]). Perturbation theory always predicts a stationary density profile. This is certainly wrong when $V$ is close to $c$ (cf. Fig. \[fig1\]), but in this case $\kappa$ gets very small and one precisely goes out of the domain of validity of perturbation theory ($\delta
n$ as given by (\[spt1\]) is no longer small compared to $n_0$).
Far ahead of the obstacle (in a region where $X-L$ is larger than $\ell_c$ and $\kappa^{-1}$) (\[spt1\]) gives $$\label{spt2}
\frac{\delta n(X)}{n_0}=\frac{2 m}{\hbar^2 \kappa} \,\mbox{Im}\, \left\{
\ep^{2 {\rm i} \kappa X} \hat{U}(2 \kappa ) \right\} \; .$$ The perturbative regime in which Eqs. (\[spt1\],\[spt2\]) are valid is also the one where the constant $\lambda$ in (\[t5\],\[t6\]) is small compared to unity. This can be inferred from the comparison of (\[spt2\]) and (\[t6\]) which indeed shows that $\lambda\ll 1$ in the regime where (\[spt2\]) holds and that, in this case, $\sqrt{\lambda}\simeq m
|\hat{U}(2\kappa)|/(\hbar^2\kappa)$. The corresponding reflection coefficient can then be obtained from (\[t7\]), yielding $$\label{spt3}
R\simeq \lambda \simeq
\frac{m^2}{\hbar^4 \kappa^2} \, |\hat{U}(2\kappa)|^2
\; .$$ From (\[spt3\]) it is clear that the average reflection coefficient is $$\label{spt5}
\langle R\, \rangle =\langle \lambda\, \rangle =
\frac{m^2}{\hbar^4\kappa^2} \langle |\hat{U}(2\kappa)|^2\rangle
\ll 1 \; .$$ Furthermore, one can show that the corresponding probability distribution of the reflection coefficient is Poissonian with $$\label{spt4}
P(R)=\frac{1}{\langle R\, \rangle } \exp (-R/\langle R\, \rangle) \; .$$ Note that for properly normalizing this probability distribution for $R\in[0,1]$, one should include in the prefactor of the r.h.s. of (\[spt4\]) a correcting term of order $\exp(-1/\langle R\, \rangle)$ which can be safely neglected in the limit (\[spt5\]).
We give in Appendix \[app1\] a demonstration of result (\[spt4\]) for the special case of a correlated Gaussian potential $U_g$ of type (\[e2d\]). Below, we show that the same result holds for a potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) \[see Eq. (\[dmpk0\]) in section \[non-pert\]\], and we checked numerically that it is also the case for the speckle potential $U_{\sss S}$ (\[e2l\]) (cf Fig. \[fig4\]). In all these cases, the average reflection coefficient reads (up to the above discussed exponentially small correction) $$\label{spt10}
\langle R \, \rangle =L/L_{\rm loc}(\kappa) \; ,$$ where $$\label{spt11}
L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)
=\frac{\kappa^2/\sigma}{\hat{C}(2\kappa)}\; .$$ We recall that the function $\hat{C}$ depends on the type of disorder considered. For a potential of form (\[e2a\]) one has $\hat{C}_\delta\equiv 1$, for the other potentials considered in this work it is given by (\[e2j\]), (\[e2k\]) and (\[csq\]).
Concomitantly to distribution (\[spt4\]) of reflection coefficients one gets for the transmission $$\label{e7b}
P(T)=\frac{L_{\rm loc}}{L} \exp\left\{
-(1-T) \frac{L_{\rm loc}}{L} \right\}\; .$$ From (\[e7b\]) \[or (\[spt10\])\] one gets $$\label{e7}
\langle T\rangle = 1 - \frac{L}{L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)} \; .$$ The perturbative approach holds when $\langle R\,\rangle\ll 1$ i.e., when $L\ll L_{\rm loc}$. This corresponds to the region which is denoted as “ballistic” in Fig. \[fig1\] [@ohm]. Its accuracy is shown for $L/L_{\rm loc}=0.1$ in Fig. \[fig4\] for a speckle potential $U_{\sss S}$ of type (\[e2l\]) (we also checked this prediction for the potentials $U_{\delta}$ and $U_{\sss G}$, with also excellent results).
![Probability distribution $P(T)$ for the transmission coefficient $T$ in a potential $U_{\sss S}$ with $\sigma=3.14\,\mu^2\xi$, $\ell_c=0.1\xi$ and $L=50\,\xi$ moving at velocity $V=7c$ in a condensate of initial constant density $n_0\,\xi=1$. The corresponding localization length is $L_{\rm loc}=500\,\xi$. The histogram corresponds to a statistical analysis of the results of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[e1\]) for 10000 different random potentials. The solid line is the perturbative result (\[e7b\]).\[fig4\]](Pert_speckle.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
At this stage, $L_{\rm loc}$ is simply a notation for expression (\[spt11\]), but it will be shown to be the actual localization length of the matter wave in a disordered potential (in section \[non-pert\]).
The results derived here also hold for a noninteracting gas, obtained by taking the limit $g\rightarrow 0$ in Eq. (\[e1\]), in which case $c=0$ and $\kappa=k$. Eq. (\[spt11\]), with $\kappa$ replaced by $k$, then coincides with the Antsygina-Pastur-Slyusarev formula for the localization length [@Ant81; @Lif88] and the distribution of transmissions (\[e7b\]) holds, with $L_{\rm loc}=L_{\rm loc}(k)$.
In the present work, those formulas are modified to include interactions. The generalization simply consists in replacing the wave vector $k=mV/\hbar$ by $\kappa =m(V^2-c^2)^{1/2}/\hbar$. This replacement has, as an important physical consequence, the effect of diminishing, at a given speed $V$, the localization length (there is an effective reduction of the available kinetic energy by the repulsive interactions). For instance, in the case of a potential $U_\delta$, since $L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)\propto \kappa^2$, there is a relative difference $c^2/V^2$ between $L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)$ and $L_{\rm
loc}(k)$, that is 11 $\%$ for $V=3\, c$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig5\], which displays the average $\langle T\,\rangle$ as a function of $L$ for a disorder $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]), with and without interactions.
![(Color online): Average transmission as a function of $L$ for a potential $U_\delta$ (characterized by $n_\delta \xi=0.5$ and $\xi/b=0.1$). In the interacting case $V=3\,c$ and $L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)=1600
\, \xi$. The non-interacting case is drawn for the same velocity and corresponds to a value $L_{\rm loc}(k)=\frac{9}{8} L_{\rm
loc}(\kappa)=1800\,\xi$. In both cases the dashed line is the analytical result (\[e7\]) and the solid line corresponds to a statistical analysis of the results of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[e1\]) for 15000 different random potentials. The departure of the numerical results from the dashed lines occurs when the systems leaves the perturbative regime.\[fig5\]](tmoy_pert.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Non perturbative approach {#non-pert}
-------------------------
When the size $L$ of the sample is large compared to the value $L_{\rm loc}$ determined in Section \[pts\], the perturbative approach fails. We now propose a non perturbative method allowing to treat both the regimes $L<L_{\rm
loc}$ and $L\ge L_{\rm loc}$ and showing that $L_{\rm loc}$, as defined in Eq. (\[spt11\]), is indeed the localization length in the presence of interactions.
Within the framework of the non perturbative approach, we are able to provide approximate analytical results in the case of the model disorder potential (\[e2a\]). This potential being zero between two impurities, one can write a series of first integrals of Eq. (\[e4\]) in each segment $]x_n,x_{n+1}[$ as follows : $$\label{np1}
\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\left(\frac{{\rm d}A}{{\rm d}X}\right)^2 + W[A(X)]
=E^{(n)}_{\rm cl} \; .$$ In the region $X<x_1=0$ the integration constant $E_{\rm cl}^-$ of Eq. (\[t1\]) is denoted as $E_{\rm cl}^{(0)}$ in (\[np1\]) (taking $x_0=-\infty$) and is zero, whereas in the region $X>x_{N}$ one has $E_{\rm cl}^+= E_{\rm cl}^{(N)}$ (and $x_{N+1}=+\infty$).
![(Color online) Upper panel: $W$ as a function of $A$ (drawn for $V/c=4$). For $X<x_1=0$, the fictitious particle is initially at rest at the bottom of potential $W$ with $E_{\rm cl}^{(0)}=0$. The value of the classical energy changes from $E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)}$ to $E_{\rm cl}^{(n)}$ at each impurity $x_n$. The lower panel displays the corresponding oscillations of $A(X)$, with two impurities at $x_1 = 0$ and $x_2 = 4.7 \, \xi$ (their position is indicated by vertical dashed lines).\[fig6\]](w_de_a_ter.eps "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Upper panel: $W$ as a function of $A$ (drawn for $V/c=4$). For $X<x_1=0$, the fictitious particle is initially at rest at the bottom of potential $W$ with $E_{\rm cl}^{(0)}=0$. The value of the classical energy changes from $E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)}$ to $E_{\rm cl}^{(n)}$ at each impurity $x_n$. The lower panel displays the corresponding oscillations of $A(X)$, with two impurities at $x_1 = 0$ and $x_2 = 4.7 \, \xi$ (their position is indicated by vertical dashed lines).\[fig6\]](w_de_a_quin.eps "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
From (\[e4\]) it is a simple matter to show that the matching condition of the density at impurity position $x_n$ is $$\label{np1a}
A'(x_n^+)-A'(x_n^-)=\frac{2}{b}\, A(x_n) \; ,$$ where $A'(x_n^-)$ \[$A'(x_n^+)$\] denotes the limit of the derivative ${\rm
d}A/{\rm d}X$ at the left \[at the right\] of $x_n$. Relation (\[np1a\]) between the derivatives of the amplitude results \[from Eq. (\[np1\])\] in a relation between the classical energies: $$\label{np2}
E_{\rm cl}^{(n)}=E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)}+\frac{2 \hbar^2}{m b^2} \, A(x_n)\left[
b \, A'(x_n^-) + A(x_n)\right] \; .$$
Hence, Eq. (\[np1\]) allows to draw a classical analogous of the solution of the nonlinear Schödinger equation in the presence of potential (\[e2a\]) formed by a series of delta peaks: the fictitious classical particle defined in Sec. \[transmis\] evolves in the potential $W$ and experiences kicks at “times” $x_n$. Each kick changes the “energy” according to (\[np2\]), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig6\]. The key point in the remaining of this section will be to derive the probability distribution of $E_{\rm cl}^{+}=E_{\rm
cl}^{(N)}$ which then directly allows one to get the distribution of $\lambda$’s and of the transmission coefficients \[through Eqs. (\[t5\]) and (\[t7\])\].
Let us introduce the quantities $$\label{np2a}
\lambda_n=\frac{m E_{\rm cl}^{(n)}}{2\, \hbar^2 \kappa^2}
\; , \quad\mbox{and}\quad
\Lambda_n=\sqrt{(\lambda_n)^2+\lambda_n} \; .$$ The parameters $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ defined in (\[t5\]) and (\[t6b\]) are related to the ones of Eq. (\[np2a\]) by $\lambda=\lambda_{N}$ and $\Lambda=\Lambda_{N}$ (i.e., $\lambda$ is the last of $\lambda_n$’s; the same holds for $\Lambda$). Denoting by $\theta_{n-1}$ the value of the phase $\theta$ \[appearing in(\[t6\])\] for $X\in]x_{n-1},x_{n}[$, one gets in this domain \[the derivation is exactly the same as for Eq. (\[t6\])\] $$\label{t6bis}
A^2(X)=1+2 \lambda_{n-1}+2 \Lambda_{n-1}
\cos\left(2\kappa X+\theta_{n-1}\right) \; ,$$ and one can rewrite Eq. (\[np2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{np3}
E_{\rm cl}^{(n)} & = & E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)} +
\frac{2\hbar^2}{m b^2} \left[1+2\,\lambda_{n-1}\right] \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{4\hbar^2}{m b^2} \Lambda_{n-1} \sqrt{\kappa^2 b^2 +1}
\; \zeta_{n-1}
\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{np4b}
\zeta_{n-1}=\cos\left[ 2\,\kappa\, x_n + \theta_{n-1}
+ \tan^{-1}\left(\kappa b \right)\right] \; .$$ Using definition (\[np2a\]) one can rewrite Eq. (\[np3\]) in terms of the parameter $\lambda_n$ as $$\label{np5}
\lambda_n=\lambda_{n-1}+\frac{1+2\,\lambda_{n-1}}{\kappa^2 b^2} +
\frac{2\,\Lambda_{n-1}}{\kappa^2 b^2} \sqrt{\kappa^2 b^2 +1} \;
\zeta_{n-1} \; .$$
Eqs. (\[np3\],\[np5\]) are valid provided (\[t2\]) holds, [ *i.e.*]{}, provided $E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)}\ll W(A_1)$, which reads $$\label{np5b}
E_{\rm cl}^{(n-1)}\ll \frac{\hbar^2\kappa^2}{m} \,(\kappa^2\,\xi^2) \; ,
\quad \mbox{{\it i.e.}}\; , \quad
\lambda_{n-1} \ll \kappa^2\,\xi^2 \; .$$ In the following we also impose the condition $$\label{np4a}
\kappa \, b \gg 1 \; .$$ Precisely, we neglect all the quantities of order $1/(\kappa^3 b^3)$. This is an important technical point. It facilitates the analysis by allowing one to get simple formulas as we now illustrate in the perturbative case: Eq. (\[np5\]) allows for instance to compute the average value of the reflection coefficient in the perturbative regime (as already done in Section \[pts\], Eq. (\[spt10\])). In this regime, additionally to condition (\[np5b\]) one has $\lambda_{n}\ll 1$. Then Eq. (\[np5\]) implies at leading order $\langle \lambda_{n} \rangle= \langle\lambda_{n-1}\rangle +
1/(\kappa^2 b^2)$ which, together with the initial condition $\lambda_0=0$, leads immediately to $$\label{npp}
\langle \lambda \rangle = \frac{1}{\kappa^2 b^2}\, \langle N \rangle
= \frac{1}{\kappa^2 b^2}\,\frac{ L}{l_\delta} \; ,$$ which is identical to result (\[spt10\]) in the case of a potential $U_\delta$ for which $L_{\rm loc}(\kappa) = \kappa^2/\sigma =
\kappa^2b^2\, l_\delta$ \[cf. Eq. (\[spt11\])\].
Let us now proceed and consider the generic non perturbative regime where $\lambda_{n}$ may become large compared to unity and where (\[t2\]) and (\[np5b\]) are still valid. Taking the condition (\[np4a\]) into account, Eq. (\[np5\]) reads $$\label{np6}
\lambda_n=\lambda_{n-1}+\frac{1+2\,\lambda_{n-1}}{\kappa^2 b^2} +
\frac{2\,\Lambda_{n-1}}{\kappa\, b} \;
\zeta_{n-1} \; .$$ It is natural to assume that the phase of the cosine in the r.h.s. of (\[np4b\]) is uniformly distributed in $[-\pi,\pi]$ and independent of the phase at step $n-1$. This could be called a “phase randomization” approximation. This relies on hypothesis (\[np4a\]) and on the assumption that there is a large number of density oscillations over the (random) length between $x_{n-1}$ and $x_{n}$, i.e., $$\label{gnp2bis}
\kappa\langle x_n-x_{n-1}\rangle=\kappa\,l_\delta \gg 1 \; .$$ Then, the argument of the cosine in definition (\[np4b\]) is uniformly distributed, $\zeta_n$’s are uncorrelated random variables, with all the same law characterized by its average $\langle \zeta_n\rangle = 0$ and variance $$\label{varxi}
\langle
\zeta_n \zeta_{n'}\rangle =\frac{1}{2}\delta_{n,n'} \; .$$ Note that the regimes (\[np4a\]) and (\[gnp2bis\]) imply that $$\label{npzut}
\frac{\hbar^2\kappa^2}{2\, m}\gg \frac{\hbar^2\,n_\delta}{m\,b}=
\langle U_\delta\rangle \; ,$$ which in turn implies that the kinetic energy $\frac{1}{2}m V^2$ is much larger than $\langle U_\delta\rangle$; [*i.e.*]{}, one is exactly in the Anderson regime where the incident kinetic energy is much larger than the typical value of the (disordered) potential representing the obstacle. Hence a classical particle would flow almost unperturbed over the potential but, as we shall see, a quantum particle experiences an exponentially small transmission.
Let $P(\lambda,n)d\lambda$ be the probability that $\lambda_n$ lies in the interval $\lambda$, $\lambda+{\rm d}\lambda$. Going to the continuous limit and defining the continuous variable $t=n/(\kappa^2 b^2) = X/L_{\rm
loc}$ \[where $L_{\rm loc}=\kappa^2/\sigma$ is the parameter (\[spt11\]) in the case of a potential $U_\delta$\] it is shown in Appendix \[app2\] that $P(\lambda,t)$ verifies the following Fokker-Planck equation $$\label{dmpk}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}\left[\lambda(1+\lambda)
\frac{\partial P}{\partial \lambda}\right]\; .$$ Equation (\[dmpk\]) follows directly from Eq. (\[np6\]) in the regime where conditions (\[np4a\]) and (\[gnp2bis\]) hold. It is precisely the Dorokhov-Mello-Pereyra-Kumar (DMPK) equation [@papierdmpk] for the transmission in a single disordered channel \[with $T=1/(1+\lambda)$\]. Equation (\[dmpk\]) is sometimes referred to as Mel’nikov’s equation (after Ref. [@Mel80]) but has a much longer history (see the discussion in Refs. [@Lif88; @Bee97]).
Since before entering the disordered region the particle has a classical energy $E_{\rm cl}^{(0)}=0$ corresponding to $\lambda=0$, Eq. (\[dmpk\]) has to be solved for the initial condition $$\label{np8}
\lim_{t\to 0}P(\lambda,t)=\delta_{+}(\lambda) \; ,$$ where $\delta_{+}$ is the one-sided delta function: $\int_0^\infty\delta_{+}(\lambda){\rm d}\lambda=1$. In the limit of small $t$ (i.e., in the perturbative regime $X\ll L_{\rm loc}$), $\lambda$ remains small and one can approximate in the r.h.s. of (\[dmpk\]) the term $\lambda(\lambda+1)$ by $\lambda$. It is then simple to verify that the solution of this approximate equation that satisfies (\[np8\]) is $$\label{dmpk0}
P(\lambda,t) = \frac{\exp\{-\lambda/t\}}{t}
\quad \mbox{for} \quad
t\ll 1 \; .$$ This result for the small $t$ solution of the DMPK equation has been already obtained in Ref. [@Mel86] (see also the discussion in Ref. [@Bee94]). The distribution law (\[dmpk0\]) is exactly equivalent to distribution (\[spt4\]) of the reflection coefficient in the perturbative regime and this proves the validity of the Poissonian distribution (\[e7b\]) for a potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) [@rem7].
In the general case (i.e., for all $t\ge 0$) the solution of (\[dmpk\]) with the initial condition (\[np8\]) is (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@Lif88; @Bee97] and references therein) $$\label{np9}
P(\lambda,t)=\frac{\ep^{-t/4}}{\sqrt{2\,\pi\,t^3}}
\int_{u_\lambda}^{\infty}
\frac{u\;\ep^{-u^2/(4\,t)}}{\sqrt{\cosh(u)-1-2\,\lambda}} \; {\rm d}u
\; ,$$ where $u_\lambda=\cosh^{-1}(1+2\lambda)$.
From distribution (\[np9\]), a lengthy computation or alternatively the direct use of the DMPK equation (\[dmpk\]) [@Abr81] yields $$\label{np10}
\langle \, \ln T \rangle =
\int_0^{\infty}\!\!{\rm d}\lambda \, \ln\left(\frac{1}{1+\lambda}\right)
P(\lambda,t)= -t \; .$$
In the large $t$ limit, distribution (\[np9\]) tends to a log-normal distribution, i.e., the distribution of the variable $\ln T$ is Gaussian (see Ref. [@Abr81]) $$\label{np11}
P(\ln T,t)=
\frac{\exp\left\{-(t+\ln T)^2/4 t\right\}}{\sqrt{4\pi t}}
\quad \mbox{for} \quad
t\gg 1 \; .$$ From this distribution one gets the correct average $\langle \ln T\rangle =
-t$, Eq. (\[np10\]), and a standard deviation $[ \langle (\ln T)^2\rangle -
\langle \ln T\rangle^2]^{1/2} = \sqrt{2 t}$, which is in agreement with the exact result in the limit $t\gg 1$ [@Abr81]. At the extremity of a sample of length $L$ one has $t=L/L_{\rm loc}$, and the distribution (\[np11\]) is the log-normal distribution of transmission typical for Anderson localization in the regime $L\gg L_{\rm loc}$ (see, e.g., Ref. [@Tig99; @Bee97]). As a side product of this analysis, Eqs. (\[np10\]) and (\[np11\]) confirm that $L_{\rm loc}$ is indeed the localization length as was anticipated in the notation.
We have tested the validity of the DMPK approach for a Bose-Einstein beam of interacting particles propagating in a disordered potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]). The numerical results for the probability distribution $P(T)$ are compared on Fig. \[fig7\] with the DMPK prediction (\[np9\]). The agreement is seen to be excellent. The distribution evolves from the Poissonian result (\[e7b\]) (for low values of $L/L_{\rm loc}$) towards a distribution peaked at low $T$-values for large $L/L_{\rm loc}$. In this latter case one can check that the distribution tends to a log-normal by plotting $P(\ln T)$.
![(Color online) Probability distribution of the transmission through a disordered potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) (characterized by $\xi/b=0.5$ and $n_\delta\xi=0.5$) plotted for different values of the ratio $t=L/L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)$ with $V=30 \,c$. The black solid lines are the DMPK result (\[np9\]) and the colored histograms correspond to the numerical simulations (50000 samples used for each value of $t$). Cases (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond respectively to $t=0.1$, 0.5, 1 and 2. The inset displays $\langle \ln T\rangle$ as a function of $t$. The thick solid line is extracted from numerical simulations and the thin (red) solid line is the DMPK prediction (\[np10\]). They can be distinguished only around $t\simeq 2$ as shown in the blowup of the (gray) shaded region for $1.9<t<2$. \[fig7\]](DMPK_delta.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We have also checked the validity of the present approach over a sizable range of lengths of disordered region and of intensities of disordered potential by plotting in the inset of Fig. \[fig7\] the average $\langle
\rm{ln}T\rangle$ as a function of $L/L_{\rm loc}$. The agreement of the numerical results with the DMPK prediction (\[np10\]) is excellent. Note however the beginning of a small departure around $L/L_{\rm loc}\simeq 2$; this effect will be studied more thoroughly in Sec. \[sec-lstar\] (cf. Fig. \[fig9\]).
Finally, we discuss numerical results obtained for the disordered potentials introduced in Secs. \[gaussian\] and \[speckle\]. Although we do not have an analytical derivation of the DMPK equation for these potentials, the numerical results indicate a very good quantitative agreement for a disordered potential $U_{\sss G}$ and for a speckle potential $U_{\sss S}$. We display the comparison of the numerical data with the DMPK predictions for a speckle potential in Figure \[fig8\]. The same agreement is obtained for a Gaussian potential $U_{\sss G}$. Hence, the behavior analytically predicted for the potential $U_\delta$ appears to be of general validity, meaning that the above defined regime of “phase randomization” can probably be extended to correlated potentials, leading to a regime of single parameter scaling. However, we have noticed that, although showing an overall good agreement with the DMPK prediction, the Lorentzian correlated potential $U_{\sss L}$ exhibits some deviations in the tail of the distribution, the details of which will be studied elsewhere.
![(Color online) Probability distribution of the transmission through a speckle disordered potential $U_{\sss S}$ (characterized by $\ell_c/\xi=0.05$ and $\sigma=3.13$ $\mu^2\xi$) plotted for different values of the ratio $t=L/L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)$ with $V=13\, c$. Curves (a), (b) and (c) corresponds respectively to $t=0.31$, 0.52 and 0.68. For each curve, the black solid line is the DMPK result (\[np9\]) and the colored histogram is the result of 10000 numerical simulations.\[fig8\]](DMPK_speckle.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Threshold for the existence of a stationary flow {#sec-lstar}
------------------------------------------------
In the previous sections the main effect of interaction has been shown to be a renormalization of the localization length $L_{\rm loc}$. Interaction induces a modification of the wave vector: expression (\[spt11\]) for the localization length coincides with the noninteracting one but computed for an effective interaction-dependent wave vector $\kappa$ given by Eq. (\[pt4\]), instead of $k=mV/\hbar$. The repulsive interaction diminishes the available kinetic energy and therefore reduces the localization length with respect to the noninteracting case (since $\kappa<k$).
We now discuss another, more spectacular, effect of interactions on the localization properties of a propagating BEC on a disordered potential.
In the previous sections \[pts\] and \[non-pert\], we completely neglected the presence of an upper limit for the classical energy $E_{\rm cl}$, which is given by the local maximum of the effective potential $W(A)$, namely $E_{\rm
cl}^{\rm max} = W(A_1)$ (see Fig. \[fig3\]). Trajectories that pass beyond $E_{\rm cl}^{\rm max}$ would become unstable and develop singularities with infinitely large density at $X\to\infty$. In practice this implies, on the level of Eq. (\[e1\]), that a stationary flow cannot be maintained in this case and that the disorder induces time-dependent dynamics of the condensate.
In the vicinity of $E_{\rm cl}^{\rm max}$, the density profile of the condensate in between two adjacent scatterers becomes quite different from the cosine shape (\[t6\]) that was derived for weak nonlinearities and/or low density modulations, and resembles more to a periodic train of gray solitons [@Leb01]. In a crude approximation, we neglect this complication and assume that the spatial evolution of the density is still given by Eq. (\[t6\]) for all classical energies until $E_{\rm cl} = E_{\rm cl}^{\rm
max}$. Trajectories that happen to pass beyond $E_{\rm cl}^{\rm max}$ are considered to be “lost”, i.e., they do no longer contribute to the probability distribution for the transmission. This formally amounts to introducing a “sink” in the stochastic equation (\[np6\]), namely at $\lambda = \lambda_{\rm max}=m\,E_{\rm cl}^{\rm max} / (2\hbar^2\kappa^2)$. In the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation (\[dmpk\]), this sink is appropriately modeled by imposing the boundary condition $$\label{bc}
P(\lambda_{\rm max},t) = 0\; .$$ As a consequence of this boundary condition, the integrated probability distribution $\int_0^{\lambda_{\rm max}} P(\lambda,t) {\rm d} \lambda$ is no longer conserved, but decreases with increasing $t$, i.e., increasing length $L$ of the disorder region.
In the following, we show how this affects the DMPK predictions of section \[non-pert\] and how the “survival probability”, i.e., the fraction of trajectories that remain below this boundary at given length $L$, can be analytically computed in the limit $V\gg c$. In this limit, from Eq. (\[t1c\]) one gets $E_{\rm cl}^{\rm max}\simeq mV^4/(8\,c^2)$ and thus $\lambda_{\rm max}\simeq V^2/(16\,c^2)\gg 1$. Modifications of the probability density $P(\lambda,t)$ due to the presence of the sink appear only when the typical value of $\lambda$ is of order $\lambda_{\rm max}$ which, as just remarked, is large compared to unity in the case $V\gg c$. In this case $P(\lambda,t)$ is already negligibly small around $\lambda \sim 1$. We therefore make the approximation $\lambda + 1 \simeq \lambda$ in the Fokker-Planck equation (\[dmpk\]), which then reads $$\label{dmpk-large}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}\left[\lambda^2
\frac{\partial P}{\partial \lambda}\right]\; .$$ Using, from now on, the probability distribution $P(\ln T, t)$ for finding a given value of $\ln T$ at fixed $t \equiv L / L_{\rm loc}$, we obtain in this limit $$\label{lognorm-eq}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(z,t) =
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} P(z,t) -
\frac{\partial}{\partial z} P(z,t) \; ,$$ where we introduce $z \equiv - \ln T$. Clearly, the log-normal distribution (\[np11\]) corresponds to a solution of Eq. (\[lognorm-eq\]) in the absence of any additional boundaries.
In the presence of the sink, which is imposed by the boundary condition $P(z_{\rm max},t) = 0$ with $$\label{defzmax}
z_{\rm max} = \ln ( \lambda_{\rm max} + 1 ) \simeq \ln \lambda_{\rm max}
\simeq \ln \left(\frac{V^2}{16 c^2} \right) \; ,$$ we can straightforwardly find the solution of Eq. (\[lognorm-eq\]) by subtracting from the log-normal distribution (\[np11\]) a “mirror” distribution centered at some $z>z_{\rm max}$ (namely $2 z_{\rm max}+t$) with a suitable prefactor. This yields the distribution $$\begin{aligned}
P(z,t) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi t}} \left[
\exp\left( - \frac{(z - t)^2}{4 t} \right) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. - e^{z_{\rm max}} \exp\left( -
\frac{(z - t - 2 z_{\rm max})^2}{4 t} \right) \right]\; ,
\label{lognorm-decay}\end{aligned}$$ which is defined for $z < z_{\rm max}$. Clearly, this distribution satisfies the evolution equation (\[lognorm-eq\]) as well as the boundary condition $P(z_{\rm max},t) = 0$ for all $t$ and the initial condition $P(z,0) =
\delta(z)$ for $z < z_{\rm max}$.
The presence of the sink at $z=z_{\rm max}$ explains a phenomenon barely noticeable in Fig. 7, but exemplified in Fig. \[fig9\], namely the departure of the observed average $\langle \ln T \rangle$ from the usual DMPK result $\langle \ln T \rangle=-t$. This departure is due to the fact that the numerically computed average only takes into account the stationary solutions which –as will be seen from Eq. (\[Psurv\])– become less and less numerous when $t$ increases. Hence what is computed numerically is the average of $\ln T=-z$ over the distribution (\[lognorm-decay\]). This reads $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z \rangle &=& \int_{-\infty}^{z_{\rm max}}\!\!\!\!
z \, P(z,t) \, {\rm d}z
\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{t}{2}\left[
1+ \textrm{erf}\left(\frac{z_{\rm max}-t}{2\sqrt{t}}\right) \right] -
\nonumber \\
& & e^{z_{\rm max}}
\left(\frac{t}{2}+ z_{\rm max}\right)\, \textrm{erfc}
\left(\frac{t+z_{\rm max}}{2\sqrt{t}}\right) \; .\label{zmoy_leak}\end{aligned}$$ where the error function is defined by $$\label{erf}
\mathrm{erf}(x) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_0^x \exp(- y^2) \, {\rm d}y \; ,$$ and $\textrm{erfc}(x)=1-\textrm{erf}(x)$.
Expression (\[zmoy\_leak\]) is compared in Fig. \[fig9\] with the results of a numerical simulation performed in the case $V/c=450$ (corresponding to $z_{\rm max}=9.43$) for 10000 random potentials $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) characterized by $n_\delta\xi=0.5$ and $\xi/b=\sqrt{2}$ (leading to $L_{\rm
loc}(\kappa)=100\, \xi$). The agreement is seen to be very good. Since the sink cuts the solutions which are strongly scattered by the random potential, the remaining stationary states have a higher transmission coefficient. This effect increases with the sample length $L$, which explains the behavior of the curve in Fig. \[fig9\].
![(Color online) $\langle\ln T\rangle=-\langle z\rangle$ plotted as a function of $t=L/L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)$ in the case of random potentials $U_\delta$ characterized by $n_\delta\xi=0.5$ and $\xi/b=\sqrt{2}$. The curve is drawn in the case $V/c=450$. The red solid line is the numerical result and the black dashed line is the analytical result (\[zmoy\_leak\]). The straight (thin dashed) line is the usual DMPK result $\langle \ln T\rangle = -t$ \[Eq. (\[np10\])\].\[fig9\]](correction_lnT.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
As an other test of the validity of our approach (which amounts to model the upper boundary $z_{\rm max}$ by a perfect sink and to neglect nonlinear deformations of the density pattern of the flow close to the threshold) we now determine the probability for a trajectory to remain below the boundary. This survival probability reads $$\begin{aligned}
P_s(t) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{z_{\rm max}} P(z,t) \, {\rm d}z \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \left[1 + \mathrm{erf}
\left(\frac{z_{\rm max} - t}{\sqrt{4 t}}\right) \right] \nonumber \\
& &
- \frac{e^{z_{\rm max}}}{2} \, \mathrm{erfc}
\left(\frac{z_{\rm max} + t}{\sqrt{4 t}}\right) \; .\label{Psurv}\end{aligned}$$ As anticipated, $P_s(t)$ clearly decreases from $1$ (at $t=0$) to 0 (for large $t$). The knowledge of $P_s(t)$ allows to determine the value $L^*$ of the length of the disordered region beyond which most of the random realizations lead to a non-stationary flow of the condensate. We can, most conveniently, define $L^*$ through the condition $$\label{tstar}
P_s(t^*) = 1/2 \; ,$$ with $t^* \equiv L^* / L_{\rm loc}$. This leads to the implicit equation for the threshold value $t^*$: $$\label{tstar-impl}
\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{z_{\rm max} - t^*}{\sqrt{4 t^*}} \right) =
e^{z_{\rm max}} \mathrm{erfc}\left(
\frac{z_{\rm max} + t^*}{\sqrt{4 t^*}} \right) \; .$$ This equation can be explicitly solved in the limiting case of large $z_{\rm
max}$. As it is natural to assume that $t^*$ ought to be of the order of $z_{\rm max}$, which is the only relevant scale in this equation, we make the ansatz $$\label{tstar-ansatz}
t^* = z_{\rm max} + \delta t$$ and assume (which is to be verified *a posteriori*) that $\delta t$ is of the order of unity, whereas $z_{\rm max} \gg 1$. This yields to lowest non vanishing order $$\label{tstar-left}
\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{z_{\rm max} - t^*}{\sqrt{4 t^*}}\right) =
- \frac{\delta t}{\sqrt{\pi z_{\rm max}}}
\left[ 1 + \mathcal{O}\left(z_{\rm max}^{-1}\right) \right] \; ,$$ for the left-hand side of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{e^{z_{\rm max}} \mathrm{erfc}\left(
\frac{z_{\rm max} + t^*}{\sqrt{4 t^*}} \right) =} \nonumber \\
& = &
e^{z_{\rm max}} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\int_{\sqrt{z_{\rm max}}}^\infty e^{-y^2}{\rm d}y
\left[ 1 + \mathcal{O}\left(z_{\rm max}^{-2}\right) \right] \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi\, z_{\rm max}}} \left[ 1 + \mathcal{O}\left(z_{\rm
max}^{-1}\right) \right] \; ,
\label{tstar-right}\end{aligned}$$ for the right-hand side of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]). This finally results in $$\label{delta-t}
\delta t = -1 + \mathcal{O}\left(z_{\rm max}^{-1}\right) \; .$$ Neglecting terms of the order of $z_{\rm max}^{-1}$, we therefore obtain for the threshold length $$\label{Lstar}
L^* = ( z_{\rm max} - 1 ) \, L_{\rm loc} =
L_{\rm loc} \left[ \ln \left( \frac{V^2}{16 c^2} \right) - 1 \right] \ .$$ We emphasize that Eq. (\[Lstar\]) holds for $z_{\rm max}\gg 1$, i.e., for $\ln(V^2/16\,c^2)\gg 1$ \[see Eq. (\[defzmax\])\]. This is much more restrictive than the condition $V\gg c$ which is assumed to hold true when deriving Eqs. (\[lognorm-decay\]) and (\[tstar-impl\]).
![(Color online) Fraction of stationary trajectories $P_s(t)$ plotted as a function of the length $L$ of the disordered region. The condensate flow through disorder potentials $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) was numerically computed for this purpose (red solid line), at parameters for which $V^2/c^2 = 2\times 10^{5}$. The black dashed line shows the analytical prediction of this survival probability $P_s(L/L_{\rm loc})$ according to Eq. (\[Psurv\]). The vertical dashed line marks prediction (\[Lstar\]) for the threshold length $L^*$ at which $P_s(L^*/L_{\rm loc})
= 1/2$ (horizontal dashed line), namely $L^*/L_{\rm loc} =
8.433$ .\[fig10\]](stationary_fraction.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig10\] shows a comparison of the analytical predictions (\[Psurv\]) and (\[Lstar\]) with numerical data obtained from the integration of the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\[e1\]). The condensate flows through a disorder potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]) with $V^2/c^2 = 2\times 10^{5}$. We see that the fraction of stationary trajectories $P_s(t)$ is very well described by Eq. (\[Psurv\]), and that the approximate expression (\[Lstar\]) predicts very well the length $L^*$ at which the crossover length from stationary to time-dependent flow occurs.
For velocities $V$ not extremely large compared to the speed of sound, the condition $z_{\rm max}\gg 1$ will not be fulfilled and estimate (\[Lstar\]) will not be valid, while $\lambda_{\rm max} \gg 1$ might still hold and the average evolution of the system might still be fairly well described by the simplified Fokker-Planck equation (\[dmpk-large\]). In that case, the implicit equation (\[tstar-impl\]) has to be solved numerically. In Figure \[fig1\] one can see that the numerical solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) (yellow solid line) provides a very reasonable estimate of the boundary between the bright supersonic region (stationary flows) and the dark time-dependent region, in a regime of not extremely large $V/c$, where Eq. (\[Lstar\]) fails to properly predict the threshold length $L^*$. The simulations are performed by solving Eq. (\[e1\]) numerically using a potential of type $U_\delta$ (characterized by $\langle U_\delta\rangle/\mu =
0.025$ and $n_{\delta} \xi = 0.5$). For each $V$ and $L$ we consider 100 realizations of such a potential and statistically determine the quantity $P_s$, i.e., the fraction of stationary solutions. $P_s$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig1\] using a gray scale (dark, $P_s=0$ ; light blue/gray, $P_s=1$) as a function of the normalized variables $L/\xi$ and $V/c$ (this normalization rescales interaction effects). The qualitative agreement of Figure \[fig1\] is made quantitative in Figure \[fig11\]. In this figure the numerical solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) is compared with its determination extracted from numerical simulations in the supersonic regime. More precisely, the solid (red) line in Fig. \[fig11\] is simply the contour $P_s=1/2$ in Fig. \[fig1\]. This corresponds exactly to definition (\[tstar\]) of $L^*$. The agreement between the numerical result and the theory of the present section \[dashed curve, solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\])\] is seen to be excellent [@PRL].
![(Color online) $L^*$ as a function of $V$ in dimensionless units. The black dashed line corresponds to the solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) and the red solid line corresponds to the value of $L^*$ extracted from numerical simulations for a potential $U_\delta$ with the same characteristics as in Fig. \[fig1\] (see the text).\[fig11\]](L_star.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We conclude this section by emphasizing that the existence of an upper threshold $L^*$ corresponding to lengths of the disordered region beyond which most of the flows are time-dependent is a genuine nonlinear effect \[absent if one sets $g=0$ in Eq. (\[e1\])\]. Actually, whereas interactions only weakly modify the precise value of the localization length, the existence of the threshold $L^*$ is a remarkable qualitative effect induced by nonlinearity. Moreover, as illustrated in Figures \[fig9\] and \[fig10\], this effect persists even in the limit $V\gg c$ where naively one would expect no noticeable consequence of interaction.
Experimental considerations {#experiment}
===========================
On the basis of the results obtained in the previous section we present here what are the more favorable experimental configurations for observing Anderson localization in an interacting Bose-Einstein beam. We also discuss a possible experimental signature of localization.
Appropriate configurations for observing Anderson localization {#apconf}
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the non-interacting regime the only condition for observing Anderson localization in 1D is that the size of the disordered region should be larger than the localization length. Then one can observe an exponential decay of transmission with a log-normal distribution (in the limit $L\gg L_{\rm loc}$).
The situation is more complex when interactions are turned on. What is particularly interesting is the interplay between localization and superfluidity. Indeed these two phenomena are conflicting one with the other: superfluidity is the (counterintuitive) ability to pass over an obstacle without reflection whereas Anderson localization corresponds to a large reflection in a domain where one would expect almost perfect transmission. As a result of the interplay between these two extreme phenomena, and depending on the fluid velocity and on the sample size, the flow may be stationary and superfluid, dissipative and time dependent or stationary supersonic (and also dissipative) [@Pau07]. Anderson localization does not occur in the superfluid region (where the transmission is perfect) and either does not exist or cannot be clearly identified in the time dependent regime (where interference effects are washed out [@Pau05]); but is truly observed in the supersonic stationary regime, as demonstrated in Sec. \[ssr\].
In that regime, a first experimentally relevant effect is the modification of the localization length with respect to its value in the absence of interactions. This effect is very well described by renormalizing the wave vector $k$ to $\kappa$ \[Eq. (\[spt11\])\], which means that part of the kinetic energy available to the flow is taken by interactions. However, as already discussed in Ref. [@Pau07] this effect is only sizable in a regime where $V$ is not too large compared to $c$, and is thus relevant only in the perturbative regime (cf. Fig. \[fig5\]).
A second experimentally observable effect is the modification of the localization length due to the correlations of the disordered potential. This is described by formula (\[spt11\]) where $\hat{C}$ is the Fourier transform of the two-point correlation function of the disorder. For the different potentials considered here, $\hat{C}\equiv 1$ for a potential $U_\delta$ or is alternatively given by Eqs. (\[e2j\]), (\[e2k\]) and (\[csq\]) for correlated potentials. Explicitly this yields $$\label{exp1}
L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)=\frac{\kappa^2}{\sigma} \; ,$$ for a potential $U_\delta$ of type (\[e2a\]); $$\label{exp2}
L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)=\frac{\kappa^2}{\sigma}\,
\exp\left\{2 \kappa^2\ell_c^2\right\} \; ,$$ for a potential $U_{\sss G}$ of type (\[e2d\]); $$\label{exp3}
L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)=\frac{\kappa^2}{\sigma} \,
\exp\left\{2\, \kappa \, \ell_c\right\} \; ,$$ for a potential $U_{\sss L}$ of type (\[e2d\]); and $$\label{exp4}
L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)=\frac{\kappa^2}{\sigma} \, \frac{1}{1-\kappa\, \ell_c} \; .$$ for a potential $U_{\sss S}$ of type (\[e2l\]) (when $\kappa\,\ell_c < 1$). The validity of these expressions has been tested in Sec. \[non-pert\]. In the non-interacting case (i.e., $\kappa=k$), expressions (\[exp1\]) to (\[exp4\]) correspond to a high energy limit and can be obtained through a first order Born expansion within the phase formalism of Refs. [@Ant81; @Lif88]. In all three cases, one sees that the localization length is drastically enhanced due to the non-zero correlation length with respect to the uncorrelated disorder, Eq. (\[exp1\]). In the Gaussian and the Lorentzian cases the localization length scales exponentially with $(\kappa \ell_c)^2$ and $\kappa \ell_c$, respectively \[see Eqs. (\[exp2\],\[exp3\])\]. In the case of a speckle potential, the effect is even stronger: one sometimes speaks of an “effective mobility edge” [@Izr99; @San07], meaning that beyond a critical wave-vector (or a critical velocity) the localization length (\[exp4\]) is infinite. This is an artifact of the Antsygina-Pastur-Slyusarev formula (\[spt11\]) which can be corrected by going to higher orders (see Refs. [@Tes02; @Gur09; @Lug09]): the corrections to this result give a localization length which is finite, but typically larger than any other relevant scale in experimental systems.
Hence, in all the cases the dependence of the localization length with respect $\kappa$ (i.e., with velocity) is amplified by correlations. Mathematically this is due to the fact that the denominator in the Antsygina-Pastur-Slyusarev formula (\[spt11\]) for the localization length in presence of correlations tends to zero when $\kappa\ell_c\gg 1$. In order to minimize this effect one needs to impose the following condition: $$\label{exp5}
\kappa \, \ell_c \lesssim 1 \quad
\mbox{or}
\quad
V\lesssim V_c=\frac{\hbar}{ m\,\ell_c}=c\, \frac{\xi}{ \ell_c} \; .$$ In the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[exp5\]) we replaced $\kappa$ by $mV/\hbar$ because in practice condition (\[exp5\]) is verified in regimes where $V\gtrsim
3\, c$, i.e., when the approximation $\kappa\simeq k$ is sound. Note that this condition is arbitrary and is only superficially analogous to the 3D Ioffe-Regel criterion [@Iof60]. The latter defines a true mobility edge that separates a metallic from a localized phase whereas Eq. (\[exp5\]) only requires that the localization length does not get too large. Understood in this sense, the criterion (\[exp5\]) is exactly equivalent to the definition of an “effective mobility edge” sometimes used in the literature.
In the absence of interactions it is always possible (at least theoretically) to define a system with a length $L>L_{\rm{loc}}$ which verifies (\[exp5\]); i.e., a system where one can observe Anderson localization. If we now turn on interactions, a major effect is the appearance of a length scale $L^*$ which signals the onset, for $L>L^*$, of a regime of time-dependent flows (cf. Sec. \[sec-lstar\]). In this regime, Anderson localization disappears, and the time-averaged transmission coefficient scales as $1/L$ [@Pau05]. This is the most spectacular effect of interactions in the transport properties of the system. In order to observe Anderson localization, the system size should therefore satisfy $L_{\rm loc}< L <
L^*$. In practice, one should be in a regime of parameters such as illustrated in Fig. \[fig12\]: the crossing $L^*>L_{\rm oc}$ has to occur at a velocity lower than $V_c$.
![(Color online) Schematic phase diagram in arbitrary units. The (blue) dashed line is the localization length $L_{\rm loc}$ and the solid line is the threshold length $L^*$. $V_c=\hbar/m \ell_c$ is the typical velocity beyond which it is almost impossible to observe Anderson localization in a realistic system (see text). The (blue) colored zone corresponds to the region where Anderson localization can be experimentally observed in presence of interaction.\[fig12\]](schema.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Based on the numerical solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) one can show that the crossing $L^* \ge L_{\rm loc}$ occurs at a velocity $V^*\simeq 7.95\,c$ [@795] (see also Fig. \[fig1\]). This condition only allows the system to reach a (stationary) regime where $L=L_{\rm loc}$. But if one wants to observe Anderson localization one should be able to reach a regime where $L^*
\gtrsim L \gtrsim 2 \, L_{\rm loc}$ say, in order to get as close as possible to the domain of log-normal distribution of transmissions still remaining in the region of stationary flows. This imposes $V/c\gtrsim 20$. This must be supplemented by condition (\[exp5\]), i.e. $V/c\lesssim \xi/\ell_c$. Hence the correlation length $\ell_c$ should be smaller or equal to $\xi/20$. Fig. \[fig13\] shows the phase diagrams of a one dimensional interacting beam of condensed atoms moving through a speckle potential in this regime. For plotting this diagram one has generated 16 random potentials and studied in each case if a stationary solution exists or not. The dark blue region corresponds to a domain where no stationary solution exists while the light blue one corresponds to a domain where all the potentials admit a stationary solution (the color code is the same as in Fig. \[fig1\] and is explained in Sec. \[sec-lstar\]). The region between $L_{\rm loc}$ and $L^*$ in Figure \[fig13\] is the region where one can observe Anderson localization.
![(Color online) Phase diagram displaying the fraction of stationary trajectory $P_s$ for a beam with velocity $V$ moving in a speckle disorder of extent $L$. The figure has been drawn for a potential $U_{\sss S}$ of type (\[e2l\]) characterized by $\ell_c/\xi=0.05$ and $\sigma=3.93\,\mu^2\xi$. The light blue region corresponds to a domain of stationary flow ($P_s=1$: 100 $\%$ of the solutions are stationary, see the explanation in the text); the dark region corresponds to time dependent flow. The curves indicating the values of $L_{\rm loc}$ and $L^*$ correspond to the analytical results (\[exp4\]) and to the numerical solution of Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]).\[fig13\]](SPECKLEDIAG.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Let us now evaluate the orders of magnitude of the different parameters allowing one to reach the appropriate regime. For concreteness we consider a beam of $^{87}$Rb atoms such as the one of the Atom Optics Group at Laboratoire Charles Fabry de l’Institut d’Optique. For a correlation length of 0.26 $\mu$m the velocity cut-off for observing Anderson localization is roughly $V_c\simeq 2.7$ mm/s. Note that in Ref. [@Bil08] the velocity of the expanding condensate is about 1.6 mm/s, i.e., smaller that $V_c$ as it should. If we use the parameters of Ref. [@Gue07] ($a\,n_{1}\simeq 0.25$, $V\simeq 9$ mm/s, $a=5.3$ nm, $n_{1}=45$ atoms/$\mu$m, $c\simeq 0.9$ mm/s and $\xi\simeq 0.8$ $\mu$m) it is impossible to satisfy condition (\[exp5\]) because $V\simeq 9$ mm/s $>V_c$ and also because $\ell_c/\xi\simeq
0.3$. However the Atom Optics Group has recently improved the sensitivity of its detectors which is now close to being able to detect a density as small as 1 atom/$\mu$m. This allows one to work with a smaller density and to improve the ratio $\ell_c/\xi$ which can be tuned down to the value of $0.05$. Then the localization length can be selected by tuning the speckle amplitude. For instance $L_{\rm loc}=0.25$ mm can be obtained by choosing $\langle U_{\sss
S}\rangle =34$ Hz at $V=1.6$ mm/s. These parameters are close to those used in Fig. \[fig13\] and are reachable experimentally. However, for observing Anderson localization one needs to keep the beam stable for almost 1 s (0.31 s if we want $L=2L_{\rm loc}$) whereas in the current experiment this is only possible during 0.1 s, hence it is still a matter of debate to decide if the observation of Anderson localization of a Bose condensed beam in the presence of interaction is within the reach of present time technology.
It is also interesting to make a connection between the physics described here and the recent experiment observation of Anderson localization of a condensate expanding in a disordered potential performed in the same group [@Bil08]. Contrarily to the propagation of a beam studied in the present work, Ref. [@Bil08] considers the spreading of a wave packet (initially at rest) in a speckle potential. After a first stage of expansion, mainly driven by interactions, the experimental cloud expands with a constant velocity $V\simeq 1.6$ mm/s but the particle density and the sound velocity are functions of the position. Therefore it is not possible to place this experiment on a single point of the phase diagram displayed in Fig. \[fig13\]. However one can evaluate the ratio $V/c$ at different positions, that is at different $L$. For instance, at the typical value $L=L_{\rm loc}$, Fig. 2 of reference [@Bil08] allows to calculate the sound velocity as well as the healing length $\xi$, yielding the typical experimental values $V/c\simeq 12$ and $L/\xi\simeq 55$. Moreover the ratio between the typical disorder amplitude $\langle U_{\sss S}\rangle$ and the chemical potential $\mu=g\,n_0$ is the same in Fig. \[fig13\] and in experiment: $\langle U_{\sss S}\rangle/\mu=5$ (note however that in the experimental case this is the value of the [*local*]{} chemical potential that matters). Hence, although the experimental setup of Ref. [@Bil08] forbids a direct comparison with the results of the present work, the estimates of the typical values $V/c\simeq 12$ and $L/\xi\simeq 55$ indeed locate the experimental system within the regime of Anderson localization of Fig. \[fig13\].
Experimental signature {#signature}
----------------------
Once the appropriate regime of parameters for observing Anderson localization in a Bose condensed beam has been determined, it is also important to identify possible experimental signatures. In our theoretical approach we use the transmission coefficient $T$ of the beam over the disordered region as the relevant parameter. However the measure of $T$ might be experimentally involved, and we propose here to use an other related quantity, namely the rate of energy dissipation [@Ast04]: $\dot{E}= -V F_{d}$ where $$\label{exp6}
F_d=\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\rm d}x \, n(x,t) \,\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}\; ,$$ is the drag force exerted by the beam on the obstacle. Definition (\[exp6\]) is quite natural: the force exerted on the obstacle is the mean value of the operator $\partial_xU$ over the condensate wave function. It is rigorously justified by the analysis of Ref. [@Pav02] in terms of stress tensor. In the stationary case, changing integration from $x$ to $X$ in (\[exp6\]), a simple integration by parts yields $$\label{exp10}
F_d=-n_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}} U \, \frac{{\rm d}A^2}{{\rm d}X} \, {\rm d}X
=n_0 \left(E_{\rm cl}^--E_{\rm cl}^+\right) \; .$$ In the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[exp10\]) we made use of relations (\[e4\]) and (\[t1\]).
It has been shown in section \[transmis\] that $E_{\rm cl}^-=0$ and that under assumption (\[t2\]) (small nonlinearity and arbitrary transmission or weak transmission and arbitrary nonlinearity) one has (see Eqs. (\[t7\]) and (\[t5\])) $E_{\rm cl}^+=2\hbar^2\kappa^2/m(R/T)$ which yields $$\label{exp11}
F_d=- \frac{2\hbar^2\kappa^2}{m} \, n_0 \, \frac{R}{T} \; .$$ In the regime $R\ll 1$, using Eq. (\[spt3\]) one recovers from (\[exp11\]) the perturbative result already obtained in Ref. [@Pav02]: $F_d=-2 n_0 m
|\hat{U}(2\kappa)|^2/\hbar^{2}$ [@attention].
The physics embodied in Eq. (\[exp11\]) is rather simple and it is worth spending some time to discuss it. Consider an incident beam of particles with density $n_{\rm inc}$ and momentum $p=-\hbar\kappa$ moving from $+\infty$ towards an obstacle at rest. Part of the particles is transmitted (a fraction $T$) and the other part is reflected (a fraction $R$). The collisions are elastic and each of the reflected particles experiences an exchange of momentum $\delta p=2\hbar\kappa$ with the obstacle. During a time $\delta t$ there are $N_{\rm coll}$ collisions and by the law of action and reaction the obstacle experiences a force $$\label{exp12}
F_d=- N_{\rm coll}\,\frac{\delta p}{\delta t}
=- \frac{2\hbar^2\kappa^2}{m} \, n_{\rm inc} \, R\; .$$ In the r.h.s. of (\[exp12\]), one has written that $N_{\rm coll}/\delta t$ is the flux of particles colliding with the obstacle i.e., $\frac{\hbar\kappa}{m} \, R \, n_{\rm inc}$. Eqs. (\[exp11\]) and (\[exp12\]) are identical because what we call $n_0$ is the downstream density of the beam (cf. Fig. \[fig2\]), i.e., precisely $T\, n_{\rm
inc}$. Depending on which quantity is held constant ($n_0$ as in the present paper, or $n_{\rm inc}$) Eq. (\[exp11\]) or (\[exp12\]) is more appropriate (cf. the discussion of the fixed input and fixed output problem in Ref. [@Pau07b]). This is somewhat reminiscent of the controversy on the correctness of the Landauer formula (see, e.g., the discussion in Ref. [@Imr97]).
On the basis of (\[exp11\]) one sees that the measure of $\dot{E}$ gives direct informations on the transmission of the interacting beam through the disordered region, allowing one to reveal in which configuration is the system. For instance in the localized regime the energy dissipation is high ($\propto 1/T$) and grows exponentially with the size $L$ of the disordered region, whereas in the perturbative regime $\dot{E}$ is much lower and scales as $L$.
Conclusion
==========
In the present work we have presented an analysis of the transmission of a weakly interacting Bose gas incident on a disordered potential. We have shown on the basis of numerical and analytical results that there is a regime of Anderson localization in this system and proposed experimental signature of this phenomenon. In order to properly identify a “localized regime” we have studied the transmission coefficient and its probability distribution. The transmission coefficient $T$ is well defined under assumption (\[t2\]), which holds in the following regimes : (i) small nonlinearity and arbitrary transmission or (ii) weak transmission and arbitrary nonlinearity. In other cases there is no obvious way to define the transmission of the non-linear beam because one cannot separate in the up-stream region an incident flow from a reflected one. However, our analysis in terms of $E_{\rm cl}$ and $\lambda$ (defined in Sec. \[transmis\]) is always valid, even when condition (\[t2\]) is not fulfilled. This just means that, out of regime (\[t2\]), the connection (\[t7\]) between $\lambda$ and $T$ is invalid. But for instance this does not invalidate at all the analysis leading to the DMPK equation (\[dmpk\]), and the experimental signature proposed in Sec. \[signature\] also remains valid even when it is not possible to properly define $T$.
We note that the validity of the DMPK approach for non-interacting particles is a well established fact in the theory of disordered systems. What is achieved in the present work is its extension to the case of interacting particles. Other studies of Anderson localization in the presence of interactions have concentrated on the long time behavior of the time evolution of initial wave packets [@timevolution]. Although those results are still a matter of active debate in the community, the results of the present work produce strong evidence of the existence of Anderson localization for weakly interacting Bose particles (with effective repulsive interaction) propagating through disordered samples of finite size $L<L^*$.
Although the present study leads to the important conclusion that Anderson localization in the presence of interaction is possible, it is rather disappointing to remark that it can be clearly identified only when $V \gtrsim
20 \, c$, i.e., in a regime where interactions do not play a major role (see the discussion of Sec. \[apconf\] and also Ref. [@Pau07]). In this respect, the more interesting and new effect of interactions is the existence of an upper threshold $L^*$ for the length of the disordered region : for $L>L^*$ no stationary flow is possible. As shown in Sec. \[sec-lstar\], $L^*$ is directly connected to the probability distribution of the parameter $\lambda$ and to the localization properties of the system. It would be very interesting to lead a systematic study of the transmission in the interaction-induced time dependent regime ($L>L^*$) where the numerical results of Ref. [@Pau05] indicate a power law decay of the time-averaged transmission, a signature generally considered of loss of phase coherence and onset of Ohmic behavior [@Dat95; @Ber97]. Work in this direction is in progress.
It is a pleasure to thank B. Altshuler, A. Comtet, J.-L. Pichard and C. Texier for inspiring discussions. This work was supported by ANR Grants No. 05–Nano–008–02, No. NT05–2–42103 and No. 08–BLAN–0165–01, by the IFRAF Institute and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Excellence Initiative of the German Research foundation (DFG) through the Heidelberg Graduate School of Fundamental Physics (Grant No GSC 129/1) and the Global Networks Mobility Measures the Frontier Innovation Fund of the University of Heidelberg. We furthermore acknowledge support through the DFG Forschergruppe 760 “Scattering systems with complex dynamics”.
Distribution of reflection coefficients in the perturbative case for a potential of type (\[e2d\]) {#app1}
==================================================================================================
We give here a demonstration of the perturbative results (\[spt4\]), (\[spt10\]) and (\[spt11\]) in the special case of a Gaussian disordered potential $U_g$ of type (\[e2d\]). A simple way to obtain this results starts by noticing that any Gaussian noise verifying $\langle
\eta(x)\rangle=0$ and $\langle \eta(x)\eta(x')\rangle=\delta(x-x')$ \[and here we are specifically interested in $\eta(x)$ that appears in Eq. (\[e2d\])\] can be written as (see, e.g., Ref. [@texier]) $$\label{a1}
\eta(x)=\lim_{\nu\to\infty}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}}\sum_{j=-\infty}^{+\infty} \epsilon_j \, \delta(x-X_j)
\; ,$$ where $X_j$’s are random positions uniformly distributed on the real axis with density $\nu$ and mean spacing $1/\nu$ and $\epsilon_j=\pm 1$ is a random variable (with $\langle \epsilon_j\rangle=0$ and $\langle \epsilon_i
\epsilon_j\rangle=\delta_{i j}$).
In order to calculate the probability distribution of the reflection coefficient $R$ \[whose value is given by (\[spt3\])\] one should first consider the distribution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a2}
\hat U_g(2\kappa)& = &
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \!\! {\rm d}x \, U_g(x) \, \ep^{2{\rm i} \kappa x}
\nonumber \\
& = & \lim_{\nu\to\infty}
\frac{\hbar^2\sqrt{\sigma}}{m}\,
\frac{\hat w(2\kappa)}{\sqrt{\nu}}\, \sum_{j=0}^{\nu L}
\epsilon_j\, \ep^{2{\rm i}\kappa X_j} \; .\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\hat U_g(2\kappa)$ as given by (\[a2\]) is formally equivalent to the position $z$ of a particle performing a random walk in the complex plane after $N=\nu L$ iterations. The particle is initially at the origin and performs jumps of constant amplitude $s=\frac{\hbar^2}{m}|\hat{w}(2\kappa)|\sqrt{\sigma/\nu}$ with random direction. Denoting by ${\rm d}^2P=p(z,N){\rm d}x{\rm d}y$ the probability to find the particle in the domain ${\rm d}x{\rm d}y$ around $z$ after $N$ steps, if $N\gg 1$ \[which is ensured by taking the limit $\nu\to\infty$ in (\[a2\])\], the central limit theorem yields $$\label{a3}
p(z,N)=\frac{1}{\pi\, N\, s^2}
\exp\left(-\frac{|z|^2}{N\, s^2}\right) \; .$$ It is then a simple exercise to get the distribution of $|z|^2$. One obtains $$\label{a4}
P(|z|^2,N)=
\frac{1}{\langle |z|^2\rangle}
\exp\left[ -\frac{|z|^2}{\langle |z|^2\rangle}\right] \; ,$$ where $$\label{a5}
\langle |z|^2\rangle =s^2\,N=
\sigma (\hbar^2/m)^2 |\hat{w}(2\kappa)|^2\,L\; .$$ From relation (\[spt3\]), Eq. (\[a5\]) immediately yields the announced probability distribution (\[spt4\]) with $$\label{a6}
\langle R \, \rangle = \frac{m^2}{\hbar^4\,\kappa^2}\langle |z|^2\rangle
=\frac{\sigma\, L}{\kappa^2} \, |\hat{w}(2\kappa)|^2 \; .$$ For a potential $U_g$ of type (\[e2d\]), $|\hat{w}|^2=\hat{C}$ \[see Eq. (\[e2g\])\] and Eq. (\[a6\]) demonstrates in this case the validity of Eqs. (\[spt10\]) and (\[spt11\]).
Derivation of the DMPK equation (\[dmpk\]) {#app2}
==========================================
In this appendix, we explain how to obtain the DMPK equation (\[dmpk\]) starting from the discrete Langevin equation (\[np6\]).
Let us consider a generic situation where $\lambda_n$ obeys a stochastic recursion relation of the type $$\label{b1}
\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_n=F(\lambda_n,\zeta_n) \; ,$$ with uncorrelated random variables $\zeta_n$ : $$\label{b2}
\langle\zeta_{n_1}\zeta_{n_2} \cdots \,
\zeta_{n_N}\rangle=C_N \; \delta_{n_1 n_2} \cdots \, \delta_{n_1 n_N} \; .$$ It is clear that under assumption (\[gnp2bis\]), Eq. (\[np6\]) is of type (\[b1\]) with all the odd $N$ averages in (\[b2\]) being zero and $C_2=1/2$ \[cf. Eq. (\[varxi\])\].
Let $P(\lambda,n){\rm d}\lambda$ be the probability that $\lambda_n$ lies in the interval $\lambda$, $\lambda+{\rm d}\lambda$. One can express $P(\lambda,n)$ as $$\label{b3}
P(\lambda,n)=\langle \delta(\lambda_n-\lambda)\rangle = \left\langle
\int_\mathbb{R} \frac{{\rm d}k}{2\pi}
\, \ep^{{\rm i} k (\lambda_n-\lambda)}
\right\rangle\; .$$ This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b4}
& & P(\lambda,n+1)-P(\lambda,n) = \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle\left\langle
\int_\mathbb{R} \frac{{\rm d}k}{2\pi}
\, \ep^{{\rm i} k (\lambda_n-\lambda)}
\left(\ep^{{\rm i}kF(\lambda_n,\zeta_n)}-1\right)\right\rangle = \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^\ell}{\ell\, !}\,
\frac{\partial^\ell}{\partial\lambda^\ell}
\left\langle F^\ell(\lambda_n,\zeta_n)
\int_\mathbb{R} \frac{{\rm d}k}{2\pi}
\, \ep^{{\rm i} k (\lambda_n-\lambda)} \right\rangle = \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^\ell}{\ell\, !}\,
\frac{\partial^\ell}{\partial\lambda^\ell}
\left\langle F^\ell(\lambda,\zeta_n) \delta(\lambda_n-\lambda)\right\rangle
\; . \end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\lambda_n$ depends on the variables $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$ …$\zeta_{n-1}$ but not on $\zeta_n$ (as can be seen directly from (\[b1\])) one can write the last of Eqs. (\[b4\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b5}
& &
P(\lambda,n+1)-P(\lambda,n) = \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^\ell}{\ell\, !}\,
\frac{\partial^\ell}{\partial\lambda^\ell}
\left\{\left\langle F^\ell(\lambda,\zeta_n)\right\rangle P(\lambda,n)\right\}
\; .\end{aligned}$$ In the case of Eq. (\[np6\]) one has $F(\lambda,\zeta)= (1+2\lambda)/
\kappa^2b^2+ 2(\lambda^2+\lambda)^{1/2}\zeta/\kappa b$ and the successive moments of $F$ read $$\label{b6}
\langle F(\lambda,\zeta_n)\rangle=\frac{1+2\lambda}{\kappa^2 b^2} \; ,$$ $$\label{b7}
\langle F^2(\lambda,\zeta_n)\rangle=\frac{2(\lambda^2+\lambda)}{\kappa^2b^2}
+{\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa^4b^4}\right) \; ,$$ with all the other moments being of order $1/(\kappa^3 b^3)$ or more, i.e., negligible in regime (\[np4a\]). Eq. (\[b5\]) thus reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b8}
& & \displaystyle \kappa^2b^2\left[P(\lambda,n+1)-P(\lambda,n)\right] =
\nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle
-\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}\left[(1+2\lambda)P\right] +
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\lambda^2}\left[(\lambda^2+\lambda)P\right] =
\nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}
\left[\lambda(\lambda+1)\frac{\partial P}{\partial\lambda}\right]
\; .\end{aligned}$$ In the continuous limit, defining $t=n/(\kappa^2 b^2)$, the l.h.s. of Eq. (\[b8\]) is simply the first derivative of $P$ with respect to $t$ and (\[b8\]) reduces to Eq. (\[dmpk\]) of the main text.
[99]{} P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**109**]{}, 1492 (1958). J. Billy [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**453**]{}, 891 (2008). G. Roati [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**453**]{}, 895 (2008). K. Huang and H. F. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 644 (1992). S. Giorgini, L. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 12938 (1994). G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 023603 (2002). D. Clément, Ph. Bouyer, A. Aspect, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 033631 (2008). Yong P. Chen. [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 033632 (2008). T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 325 (1988). M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 546 (1989). S. A. Gredeskul and Y. S. Kivshar, Phys. Rep. [**216**]{}, 1 (1992). N. Bilas and N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 130403 (2005). T. Paul, P. Leboeuf, N. Pavloff, K. Richter, and P. Schlagheck, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 063621 (2005). T. Paul, P. Schlagheck, P. Leboeuf and N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 210602 (2007). C. Menotti and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 043610 (2002). D. S. Petrov, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3745 (2000). C. Raman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2502 (1999). R. Onofrio [*et al.*]{}. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2228 (2000). P. Engels and C. Atherton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 160405 (2007). M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 938 (1998). A. D. Jackson, G. M. Kavoulakis, and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 2417 (1998). P. Leboeuf and N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 033602 (2001). L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, J. Low Temp. Physics [ **85**]{}, 377 (1991). M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. B [**15**]{}, 1399 (1977). D. S. Petrov, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2003, available online at <http://www-old.amolf.nl/publications/theses/petrow> . A. V. Lopatin and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 235503 (2002). G. E. Astrakharchik and L. P. Pitaevskii, Phys. Rev. A [ **70**]{}, 013608 (2004). T. Ernst, T. Paul, and P. Schlagheck, arXiv:0905.4750 (submitted to Phys. Rev. A). V. Hakim, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 2835 (1997). H. Lamb, [*Hydrodynamics*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997). P. Leboeuf, N. Pavloff, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 063608 (2003). T. Paul, M. Hartung, K. Richter, and P. Schlagheck, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 063605 (2007). B. I. Ivlev and N. B. Kopnin, Adv. Phys. [**33**]{}, 47 (1984). J. S. Langer and V. Ambegaokar, Phys. Rev. [**164**]{}, 498 (1967). Note in particular that condition (\[t2\]) is always fulfilled in absence of interaction since in this case the speed of sound is $c\equiv 0$. B. I. Shklovskii and A. L. Efros, [*Electronic properties of doped semiconductors*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, 1984). J. Fortágh and C. Zimmermann, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{}, 235 (2007). S. Kraft, A. Gúnther, H. Ott, D. Wharam, C. Zimmermann, and J. Fortágh, J. Phys. B [**35**]{}, L469 (2002). J. Estève [*[et al.]{}*]{} Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 043629 (2004); T. Schumm [*[et al.]{}*]{} Eur. Phys. J. D [**32**]{}, 171 (2005). D.-W. Wang, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 076802 (2004). J W Goodman, [*Speckle Phenomena in Optics: Theory and Applications*]{}, Roberts and Compagny Publishers (Greenwood Village, 2007). D. Clément [*et al.*]{}, New J. Phys. [**8**]{}, 165 (2006). L. Fallani, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**56**]{}, 119 (2008). Eq. (\[e2l\]) corresponds to a typical physical situation where the potential seen by the particles is proportional to the intensity of an electric field whose components are random Gaussian variables. In Ref. [@Pau07] this region has been improperly called “ohmic”. T. N. Antsygina, L. A. Pastur and V. A. Slyusarev, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1 (1981) \[Fiz. Nizk. Temp. [**7**]{}, 5 (1981)\]. I. M. Lifshits, S. A. Gredeskul, and L. A. Pastur, [ *Introduction to the theory of disordered systems*]{}, John Wiley (New-York 1988). O. N. Dorokhov, JETP Lett. [**36**]{}, 318 (1982) \[Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**36**]{}, 259 (1982)\]; P. A. Mello, P. Pereyra, and N. Kumar, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**181**]{}, 290 (1988). V. I. Mel’nikov, Sov. Phys. Solid State [**23**]{}, 444 (1981) \[Fis. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) [**23**]{}, 782 (1981)\]. C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 731 (1997). P. A. Mello, J. Math. Phys. [**27**]{}, 2876 (1986). C. W. J. Beenakker and J. A. Melsen, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 2450 (1994). In order to complete the proof of this equivalence one has to show that the mean value $\langle \lambda\rangle = t=L/L_{\rm loc}(\kappa)$ obtained from (\[dmpk0\]) for a sample of length $X=L$ is identical to the result (\[spt5\]). This amounts to show that for a potential of the form (\[e2a\]) one has $\langle |\hat{U}_\delta(2\kappa)|^2\rangle =
(\hbar^2/m)^2\sigma L$, which is easily obtained. A. A. Abrikosov, Solid State Comm. [**37**]{}, 997 (1981). B. A. Van Tiggelen in [*Diffusive Waves in Complex Media*]{}, J. P. Fouque ed., p. 1 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999). Note that in Ref. [@Pau07] the theoretical determination of $L^*$ was obtained using a criterion different from (\[tstar\]) resulting in a less precise estimate at high $V/c$. F. M. Izrailev and A. A. Krokhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4062 (1999). L. Sanchez-Palencia [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 210401 (2007). L. Tessieri, J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, 9585 (2002). E. Gurevich and O. Kenneth, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 063617 (2009). P. Lugan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 023605 (2009). A. F. Ioffe and A. R. Regel, Prog. Semicond. [**4**]{}, 237 (1960). Note that the value $V^*/c=7.95$ does not depend on the type of correlation of the disordered potential considered since it is simply the value of $V/c$ for which Eq. (\[tstar-impl\]) admits the solution $t^*=1$. W. Guérin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 200402 (2006). N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 013610 (2002). Note that there is a factor of 2 difference between the present definition (\[pt4\]) of $\kappa$ and the one used in Ref. [@Pav02]. Y. Imry, [*[Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics]{}*]{}, Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1997). D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1787 (1993); G. Kopidakis, S. Komineas, S. Flach, and S. Aubry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} 084103 (2008); A. S. Pikovsky and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 094101 (2008); S. Fishman, A. Iomin, and K. Mallick Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 066605 (2008). S. Datta, [*[Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems]{}*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1995). M. V. Berry and S. Klein, Eur. J. Phys. [**18**]{}, 222 (1997). C. Texier, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 6, 1999, available online at <http://www.lptms.u-psud.fr/membres/texier/research.html>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the tight-binding models of solid state physics with the $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry in the presence of elastic deformations, and their important particular case -the tight binding model of graphene. In order to describe the dynamics of electronic quasiparticles we explore Wigner-Weyl formalism. It allows to calculate the two-point Green’s function in the presence of both slowly varying external electromagnetic fields and the inhomogeneous modification of the hopping parameters resulted from the elastic deformations. The developed formalism allows us to consider the influence of elastic deformations and the variations of magnetic field on the quantum Hall effect.'
address:
- |
Physics Department, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel\
[email protected]
- |
Physics Department, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel\
[email protected]
author:
- 'IGNAT V. FIALKOVSKY [^1]'
- 'MIKHAIL A. ZUBKOV [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'wigner2.bib'
title: 'ELASTIC DEFORMATIONS AND WIGNER-WEYL FORMALISM IN GRAPHENE'
---
Introduction
============
Recently there has been the revival of interest to the Wigner-Weyl formalism in both condensed matter and high energy physics. It was proposed long time ago by H. Groenewold [@1] and J. Moyal [@2] mainly in the context of the one-particle quantum mechanics. The main notions of this formalism are those of the Weyl symbol of operator and the Wigner transformation of functions. Correspondingly, the formalism accumulated the ideas of H. Weyl [@3] and E. Wigner [@4]. In quantum mechanics the Wigner-Weyl formalism substitutes the notion of the wave function by the so called Wigner distribution that is the function of both coordinates and momenta. The operators of physical quantities are described by their Weyl symbols (that are also the complex-valued functions of momenta and coordinates). The product of operators on the language of Wigner-Weyl formalism becomes the Moyal product of their Weyl symbols [@5; @berezin]. The Wigner-Weyl formalism has been applied to several problems in quantum mechanics [@6; @7]). Notice that certain modifications of this formalism were proposed [@8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @Buot], where the main notions were changed somehow.
Let us recall the basic notions of the Wigner-Weyl formalism in quantum mechanics on the example of the one dimensional model. The Wigner distribution $W(x,p )$ is a function of coordinate $x $ and momentum $p$. It gives the probability that the coordinate $ x $ belongs to the interval $[a,b]$ in the following way: $${P} [a\leq x \leq b]=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int _{a}^{b}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }W(x,p )\,dp\,dx$$ Let $\hat A$ be operator of a certain physical observable. Its Weyl symbol $A_W(x, p)$ is defined as the function in phase space, which gives the expectation value of the given quantity with respect to the Wigner distribution $W(x,p )$ as follows [@2; @15] $${ \langle {\hat {A}}\rangle =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int A_W(x,p )W(x,p )\,dp\,dx.}$$ For the pure quantum state the Wigner function is given by $$W(x,p ) = \int dy \, e^{-ipy} \psi^*(x+y/2) \psi(x-y/2)$$ where $\psi(x)$ is the wave function of the state. The formalism is readily generalized to multidimensional $\bx$ and $\bp$.
The Schrodinger equation in the language of the Wigner-Weyl formalism acquires the form $$i \partial_t W(\bx,\bp ,t) = H_W(\bx,\bp )\ast W(\bx,\bp ,t)-W(\bx,\bp ,t)\ast H_W(\bx,\bp )$$ The Moyal product of two functions $f$ and $g$ is given here by $${f\ast g=f\,\exp {\left({\frac {i}{2}}({\overleftarrow {\partial }}_{\bx}{\overrightarrow {\partial }}_{\bp}-{\overleftarrow {\partial }}_{\bp}{\overrightarrow {\partial }}_{\bx})\right)}\,g}$$ The left arrow above the derivative shows that the derivative acts on $f$ while the right arrow assumes the action of the derivative on $g$.
The definition of the Weyl symbol of an arbitrary operator $\hat{A}$ is: $$A_W(\bx,\bp ) = \int \D\by e^{-i\bp\by} \langle \bx +\by/2| \hat{A} | \bx -\by/2\rangle$$ We denote by $H_W(\bx,\bp )$ the Weyl symbol of Hamiltonian $\hat H$.
The Wigner-Weyl formalism was also modified somehow in order to be applied to the quantum field theory. The analogue of the Wigner distribution was introduced in QCD [@QCDW; @QCDW2]. It has been used in the field-theoretic kinetic theory [@KTW; @KTW2], in noncommutative field theories [@NCW; @NCW2]. Certain applications of the Wigner-Weyl formalism were proposed to several fields of theoretical physics including cosmology [@CSW; @WW; @Berry].
The Wigner-Weyl formalism has been widely applied to the study of nondissipative transport phenomena [@ZW1; @ZW2; @ZW3; @ZW4; @ZW5; @ZW6]. Using this formalism it has been shown that the response of nondissipative currents to the external field strength is expressed through the topological invariants that are robust to the smooth deformation of the system. This allows to calculate the nondissipative currents for certain complicated systems within the more simple ones connected to the original systems by a smooth deformation. Using this method the absence of the equilibrium chiral magnetic effect [@CME] was demonstrated within the lattice regularized field theory [@ZW5]. The anomalous quantum Hall effect was studied using the Wigner-Weyl formalism for the Weyl semimetals and topological insulators [@ZW6]. In addition, the Wigner-Weyl formalism allows to derive the chiral separation effect [@CSE] within the lattice models [@ZW3; @ZW1]. The same method was also applied to the investigation of the hypothetical color-flavor locking phase in QCD [@ZW4], where the fermion zero modes on vortices were discussed. The scale magnetic effect [@SME] has also been investigated using the same technique [@ZW2].
Historically the momentum space topological invariants were treated mainly in the context of condensed matter physics theory [@HasanKane2010; @Xiao-LiangQi2011; @Volovik2011; @Volovik2007; @Volovik2010]. They protect gapless fermions on the edges of the topological insulators [@Gurarie2011; @EssinGurarie2011] and the gapless fermions in the bulk of Weyl semi-metals [@Volovik2003; @VolovikSemimetal]. The fermion zero modes of various topological defects in $^3$He are also governed by momentum space topology [@Volovik2016]. In the high energy physics the topological invariants in momentum space were considered, say, in [@NielsenNinomiya1981; @So1985; @IshikawaMatsuyama1986; @Kaplan1992; @Golterman1993; @Volovik2003; @Horava2005; @Creutz2008; @Kaplan2011]. The Wigner-Weyl formalism in [@ZW1; @ZW3; @ZW5; @ZW6] was developed in the context of lattice field theory. The one-particle fermion Green’s function ${G}({\bp},\bq )$ was considered in momentum space $\cM$ (${\bp}, \bq \in {\cM}$). It has been shown that the introduction of an Abelian external gauge field $\bA({x})$ resulting in the Peierls substitution leads to the following equation $${\hat Q}({\bp}-\bA(i {\partial_{\bp}}))){G}({\bp},\bq ) = \delta({\bp}-\bq )$$ Here ${\hat Q}({\bp})$ is the lattice Dirac operator. Notice, that in lattice field theory the imaginary time is discretized on the same ground as space coordinates.
The Wigner transformation of Green’s function is defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{G}_W({\bx},\bp)\equiv\int \D\bq e^{i{\bx} \bq } {G}({{\bp}+\bq /2}, {{\bp}-\bq /2})\label{GWx0}
\end{aligned}$$ It was shown [@ZW1] that for slowly varying external fields it obeys the Groenewold equation \_W(,) Q\_W(,) = 1 \[Geq0\] with the above defined Moyal product $\ast$ extended to the $D$-dimensional vectors of coordinates ${\bx}$ and momentum $\bp$. Here $Q_W$ is the Weyl symbol of operator $ {\hat Q}({\bp}-\bA(i {\partial_{\bp}}))$.
In [@SZ2019; @ZW2019; @ZZ2019] the approach of [@ZW1; @ZW3; @ZW5; @ZW6] was further developed. In [@SZ2019] the lattice model with Wilson fermions was investigated in details. The precise expression for the Weyl symbol of the Wilson Dirac operator was derived in the presence of an arbitrarily varying external gauge field. In addition, the complete iterative solution of the Groenewold equation Eq. (\[Geq0\]) was given. As a result the fermion propagator in the background of arbitrary external electromagnetic field was calculated. We refer to [@SZ2019] for the technical details of the Wigner-Weyl formalism in lattice models, which will be used in the present paper as well. In [@ZW2019] it has been shown that in the lattice models (i.e. in the tight-binding models) of solid state physics with essential inhomogeneity (caused by the varying external magnetic field) the Hall conductance integrated over the whole space is given by a topological invariant in phase space. This quantity is expressed through the Wigner transformation of the one-fermion Green’s functions. The expression for the phase space topological invariant repeats the form of the momentum space topological invariants of [@Matsuyama:1986us; @Volovik0; @Gurarie2011; @EssinGurarie2011; @ZW1]. The difference is that the Green’s functions entering this expression depend on both momenta and coordinates, and the ordinary product is substituted by the Moyal product, while the extra integration over the whole space is added [^3]. It has been shown that the value of the topological invariant in phase space responsible for the Hall conductance is robust to the introduction of disorder. Certain indications were found that it is also robust to the weak Coulomb interactions.
Topological description of the Quantum Hall effect (QHE) started from the discovery of the TKNN invariant [@TTKN] defined in the two-dimensional systems. The three dimensional topological invariants for the QHE were considered in [@Hall3DTI]. This formalism allows to deal with the intrinsic anomalous quantum Hall effect (AQHE) and with the QHE in the presence of [*constant*]{} magnetic field [@Fradkin]. Unfortunately, the formalism that is based on the notion of Berry curvature does not admit the direct generalization to the QHE in the presence of varying external magnetic field and elastic deformations when the system becomes essentially inhomogeneous. It is widely believed that the total QHE conductance is robust to the introduction of disorder and weak interactions. Expression for the QHE conductivity through the one-particle Green’s functions has been invented in [@Matsuyama:1986us; @Volovik0]. In the presence of interactions the full two-point Green’s function should be substituted to the corresponding expression. It has been checked in [@ZZ2019], that the leading order contributions due to the Coulomb interactions do not change expression for the AQHE conductivity in topological insulators. This expression has the form of an integral in momentum space over the certain composition of the interacting two-point Green’s function. It is worth mentioning, however, that there is still no proof in general case to all orders in perturbation theory that the higher order full Green’s functions do not give contributions to the QHE. For a discussion of this issue see also [@Gurarie2011; @EssinGurarie2011]. The AQHE conductivity discussed in [@ZZ2019] may be applied, in particular, to Weyl semimetals [@semimetal_effects10; @semimetal_effects11; @semimetal_effects12; @semimetal_effects13; @Zyuzin:2012tv; @tewary].
It is difficult to overestimate the role of disorder in the Quantum Hall Effect [@Fradkin; @TKNN2; @QHEr; @Tong:2016kpv]. One of its effects is elimination of the Hall current from the bulk, and its concentration along the boundary. The formalism developed in [@ZW2019] allows to give an alternative prove that the total conductance remains robust to the introduction of disorder in the majority of systems although the total current remains only along the boundary of the sample. However, for graphene there are certain complications to be discussed in Conclusions. Namely, when the Hall current remains along the boundary only, the QHE is absent at the half filling (neutrality point). According to the common lore the Hall conductance is assumed to be robust to the introduction of weak interactions, at least in the presence of the sufficient amount of disorder. However, Coulomb interactions are able to give rise to the fractional QHE [@Fradkin; @Tong:2016kpv; @Hatsugai] for the clean systems at very small temperatures. This, however, is out of the scope of the present paper.
Graphene [@vozmediano2; @vozmediano4; @vozmediano5; @vozmediano6; @Oliva; @VZ2013; @VolovikZubkov2014; @Volovik:2014kja; @Khaidukov:2016yfi] represents the two-dimensional Weyl semimetal. The low energy physics of its electronic quasiparticles is described by massless Dirac equation. Therefore, it allows to simulate in laboratory certain features of the high energy physics that cannot be observed directly. The examples of such effects are: the Schwinger pair production, and the gravitational effects in the quantum-mechanical motion of particles. Gravity appears in graphene in the presence of elastic deformations [@VZ2013]. One more exceptional feature of graphene is that (unlike discovered later three-dimensional Weyl semimetals) it is described with a very good accuracy by the simple tight-binding model defined on the honeycomb lattice. The investigation of various features of this model (including the QHE) based on the Wigner-Weyl formalism constitutes the subject of the present paper. It worth noting here, that many phenomena in graphene can be adequately treated even with low energy continuum approximation, within appropriate (pseudo-relativistic) field-theoretical methods [@Fialkovsky:2016kio; @Fialkovsky:2011wh].
In graphene the elastic deformations lead both to the appearance of the emergent gauge field and emergent gravitational field (see, for example, [VZ2013,Horava2005,VZ2014NPB,WeylTightBinding,Cortijo:2015jja,Chernodub:2015wxa,Zubkov:2015cba]{}). The emergent gauge field appears as the variation of the Fermi point position in momentum space while the emergent gravitational field comes as the variation of the slope of the dependence of energy on momentum (i.e. the anisotropic Fermi velocity).
Although our main aim is the investigation of the tight-binding model of monolayer graphene, the paper is organized in such a way, that many of the obtained expressions may be applied to some other lattice models of solid state physics (though, only the model of graphene from this class describes quantitatively the really existing physical system). The paper is organized as follows. We start from the description of the almost arbitrary non-homogeneous lattice model in Sect. \[Nonlocal\]. We represent the formulation of such models in momentum space. Next, we reduce the considered class to the tight-binding models with the jumps of electrons between the adjacent lattice sites only. This section is ended with the consideration of non-homogeneous tight-binding models with the $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry. Tight-binding model of graphene belongs to this class. However, it is much wider, in particular the tight-binding models defined on rectangular lattices in $2D$ and $3D$ remain in this class.
In Sect. \[WignerWeylLattice\] we introduce the Wigner-Weyl formalism in the nonhomogeneous lattice models with $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry. We explore the definition of the Weyl symbol of lattice Dirac operator (entering the fermion action), which is defined through the integral in momentum space. We calculate the Weyl symbol of Dirac operator for the considered models both in the presence of inhomogeneous hopping parameters and in the presence of varying external electromagnetic field. Both electromagnetic field and the hopping parameters are assumed to vary slowly, i.e. we neglect their variations on the distance of the lattice spacing. Next, we turn directly to the physics of graphene. We recall the relation between elastic deformations and the non-homogeneous hopping parameters. After that we express the Weyl symbol of lattice Dirac operator in graphene in the presence of elastic deformations and electromagnetic field through the electromagnetic potential and the tensor of elastic deformations.
In Sect. \[SectWW\] we consider relation between Weyl symbol of lattice Dirac operator in the considered systems and the Wigner transformation of the Green’s functions. Also we express electric current through the quantities of the Wigner -Weyl formalism.
In Sect. \[GWcalculation\] we again consider the lattice models of general type. (The corresponding calculations are of course applied to the case of graphene directly.) Namely, we extend the results of [@SZ2019] for the calculation of the Wigner transformation of the fermion Green’s function (obtained for lattice Wilson fermions on rectangular lattice) to the case of the non-homogeneous tight-binding models of arbitrary form. It is explained also how to reconstruct the Green’s function both in momentum and coordinate representations from its known Weyl symbol.
In Sect. \[sigmaTop\] we extend the consideration of [@ZW2019] to the case, when elastic deformations are present. Namely, we prove that for the [*noninteracting*]{} $2D$ condensed matter model with [*slowly varying electromagnetic fields and elastic deformations*]{} the Hall conductivity integrated over the whole area of the sample is given by topological invariant in phase space composed of the Wigner transformed one-particle Green’s function. It is the same topological invariant proposed in [@ZW2019]. It remains robust to the smooth modification of the model (if the modification remains local and bounded to the smooth modification of the Hamiltonian in the limited region of the sample that remains far from its boundary).
In Sect. \[IQHE\] we apply the results of the previous sections to the discussion of Hall conductivity in graphene in the presence of both elastic deformations and inhomogeneous magnetic field. First, we recall the standard derivation of the Hall conductance in the noninteracting $2D$ models with constant magnetic field and constant hopping parameters. Next, this standard derivation is extended to the case of the weakly varying elastic deformations that cause varying hopping parameters that remain isotropic (i.e. their values are equal for all directions in the given point though vary from point to point). We obtain the formula for the Hall conductance that allows to express it through the total number of electrons in the occupied energy levels and the external magnetic field. Next, we apply the topological invariant in phase space defined in Sect. \[WignerWeylLattice\] to the consideration of the QHE in graphene. The very existence of such a representation for the QHE conductance allows to prove that it remains robust to the weak elastic deformations of arbitrary form and weak modification of magnetic field unless the topological phase transition is encountered. Both are assumed to be localized in the region that remains far from the boundaries of the sample. Finally, in this section we notice that the elastic deformations in graphene that do not cause emergent magnetic field give rise to the isotropic hopping parameters. The corresponding displacement appears to be analytical function of the atom coordinates of the unperturbed honeycomb lattice. For the constant external magnetic field this allows to derive the simple relation between the number of electrons in the occupied branches of spectrum, and the value of magnetic field.
In Sect. \[SectConcl\] we end with the conclusions, discuss the obtained results and the directions of future research.
Throughout the paper the following notational conventions are used. Latin letters in subscript $a,b,c$ numerate the spatial components of vectors. The Latin letters in superscript $i,j$ enumerate the elementary translations. All momenta vectors are bold italic $\bl,\bk,\bp,\bq$ from the middle of the alphabet, coordinate vectors are from its end, $\bx,\by ,\bu,\bv$. Operators are denoted by the Latin letters with hat $\hat Q, \hat G$, their matrix elements of operators - by functions of two variables $Q(\bp,\bq)$. Weyl symbols of operators are denoted by the sub-index $W$: $ (\hat Q)_W \equiv Q_W $.
Hamiltonian for the nonlocal tight–binding model {#Nonlocal}
================================================
General case
------------
We start our discussion with the general case of the non-local tight–binding model in presence of external electromagnetic field $A$. The discussion of the present section is applicable, in principle, not only to the tight-binding model of graphene, but also to other $2+1$D and $3+1$D tight-binding models of solid state physics.
The Hamiltonian under consideration has the form
& \_[,]{} |() f(,) e\^[\_\^d( )]{} ()\
& = ddd d |()f(, ) ( ) \_[, ]{} e\^[\_\^d ( )]{} e\^[(-)+i(- + )]{} \[bPsi-Psi-gen\]
here the sum is over the lattice sites $\bx, \by$, while $f(\bx, \by)$ is the matrix of hopping parameters. The lattice is assumed to be infinite, which means that we neglect the finite volume effects as well as the finite temperature corrections. Thus, the integrals in the second line are over momentum space $\cM$, which is the first Brillouin zone specific for the given lattice model.
In the following we may absorb the electromagnetic field to the definition of $f$. Therefore, we omit it temporarily and will restorer in appropriate expressions.
Now let us consider a less general situation of the tight-binding model with the jumps of electrons between the adjacent sites only – the nearest neighbor approximation. We discuss the case of the inhomogeneous hopping parameters, which will allow us to discuss elastic deformations. Now $$f(\by, \bx) = \sum_{j=1}^M \delta(\by- (\bx+\bbj)) f^{(j)}(\by) \label{fg}$$ where $\bbj$ are the vectors connecting each atom to its nearest $M$ neighbors, $j = 1,...,M$, and $f^{(j)}(\by) $ is the non-uniform varying hopping parameter.
Then
f(, ) & = \_[j=1]{}\^M \_[, ]{} e\^[-+ ]{} (-(+))f\^[(j)]{}()\
&= \_[j=1]{}\^M \_e\^[-(- ) +]{}f\^[(j)]{}()\
&= \_[j=1]{}\^M [f]{}\^[(j)]{}(- ) e\^[ ]{}
\[f-fourier\] and
&= \_[j=1]{}\^M \_ |() $${f}^{(j)}(\bp-\bq) e^{ \ii \bq \bbj }$$ ()
The $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry
-----------------------------
Our next simplification is consideration of a particular case, when crystal lattice exhibits $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry, i.e. there are two sublattices $\cO_{1,2}$ that constitute the crystal, and there is the one to one correspondence between them generated by shift $\bx \to \bx + \bbj$ for any $j = 1,...,M$ and $\bx \in \cO_1$ or $\bx \to \bx-\bbj$ for $\bx \in \cO_2$. The points of those two sublattices are to be considered independently, which gives the sublattice index $\alpha=1,2$ to $\Psi$. We identify $\Psi(t,\bx)$, where $\bx \in \cO_1$, with $\Psi_1(t, \bx)$, and $\Psi(t,\bx)$ for $\bx \in \cO_2$ is identified with $\Psi_2(t,\bx)$. We set $\Psi_1(t,\bx) = 0$ for $\bx \in \cO_2$ and $\Psi_2(t,\bx) = 0$ for $\bx \in \cO_1$. Then $$\Psi_\al(\bp) = \frac{1}{|{\cM}|^{1/2}} \sum_{\bx \in \cO_\al} \Psi_\al(\bx)e^{-\ii \bp \bx },
\qquad
\al=1,2$$ The inverse transform is similarly $$\Psi_\al(\bx) =\frac{1}{|{\cM}|^{1/2}} \int_\cM \D{\bp} \Psi_\al(\bp)e^{\ii \bp \bx }, \qquad
\al=1,2$$ Note, that Brillouin zone $\cM$ is the same for both sublattices since both of them are build over the same basis vectors, and thus have the same periodicity. $\cM$ is formed as space of vectors $\bp$ defined modulo transformations $$\bp \to \bp + { \bg}^{(k)}$$ where ${ \bg}^{(k)}$ are vectors of inverse lattice that solve the system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
e^{\ii { \bg}^{(k)}{\bmm}^{(j_1j_2)}}=1,\quad j_1,j_2 = 1, ..., M\end{aligned}$$ while ${\bmm}^{(j_1,j_2)} = \bb^{(j_1)}- \bb^{(j_2)}$ form each of the two sublattices $\cO_{1,2}$. Then the hoping parameters $f^{(j)}$ become $2\times 2$ matrices. Besides, we assume, that the spatial hoping parameters are coordinate dependent, f\^[(j)]{}\_[21]{}(+ ) = -t\^[(j)]{}(+ ) i.e., the values of $t^{(j)}$ may vary independently but not with time. The diagonal ones are vanishing, $f^{(j)}_{11} = f^{(j)}_{22} = 0$.
The Hamiltonian then receives the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\cH &=&
\sum_{j=1}^M\sum_{\bx \in \cO_1\atop \by = \bx + \bbj}
\Big(
t^{(j)}(\by)\bar{\Psi}_2(t,\by) \Psi_1(t,\bx) + t^{(j)}(\by)\bar{\Psi}_1(t,\bx) \Psi_2(t,\by)
\Big)
\label{SLAT}\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we will omit the temporal argument of the wave function whenever no confusion is provoked.
Weyl symbol for the lattice Dirac operator {#WignerWeylLattice}
==========================================
Lattice Dirac operator
----------------------
Let us rewrite (\[SLAT\]) in the following way
&=\_[[\_1]{}]{} $\bar{\Psi}_1(\bx),\ \bar\Psi_2(\by) $ [H]{}(,) ${\Psi}_1(\bx),\ \Psi_2(\by) $\^T\
& \_[[\_1]{}]{} ( |\_2() H\_[21]{}(,) \_1()+ |\_1() H\_[12]{}(,) \_2() )
\[cH\] where
H\_[21]{}(\_2,\_1) & = -\_[j=1]{}\^M $\by_2-(\by_1+\bbj )$ $\frac{\by_1+\by_2}{2}$,\
H\_[12]{}(\_1,\_2) & = H\_[21]{}(\_2,\_1)
\[H21 t\] Note that we define the hoping parameter by its values in the middle of the lattice links, $\tj \(\tfrac{\by_1+\by_2}{2}\)$ for a better readability of consequent formulas.
We will refer to $2$ by $2$ matrix operator ${{\bm H}}$ as to the lattice Dirac Hamiltonian, although its geometrical symmetries will only be defined after specifying $\bbj$. Along with Hamiltonian, we also introduce Dirac operator, which enters the action and consequently will be usefull for analysis of the partition function of the system Q-[H]{} = $\begin{array}{cc}
\ii \omega &-H_{12}\\
- H_{21} & \ii \omega\\
\end{array}$. \[def Q\]
Let us consider the off-diagonal term $21$ in the Hamiltonian. It can be written in terms of the Fourier transformation as \_[21]{}=\_ |\_2() H\_[21]{}(,) \_1() modifying Eq. (\[f-fourier\]) for two sublattices, we have
H\_[1 2]{}(, ) & = \_[j=1]{}\^M \_[\_1\_1\_2\_2]{} e\^[-\_1 + \_2]{} $\by_2-(\by_1+\bbj )$ $\frac{\by_1+\by_2}{2}$\
&= \_[j=1]{}\^M \_[\_1\_1]{} e\^[-(-) \_1 +]{} $\by_1+\bbj /{2}$
\[f-fourier2\] We can identify now the points $\by_1+\bbj /{2}$, $\by_1\in\cO_1$ with those situated in the middle of the lattice links along the $j$-th direction. We call these sets of points by $\cO^{(j)}_{{1}/{2}}$. Now we can write H\_[21]{}(,) = \_[j=1]{}\^M (-) e\^[ (+ ) /2]{} \[H\_12\] where () = \_[\^[(j)]{}\_[[1]{}/[2]{}]{}]{} () e\^[-]{} \[tj\] Note, that the above expression is simply a Fourier transformation of a function shifted by $\bbj /2$ since $\tj$ are only defined in the middle of the links. In the particular case, when $t^{(j)}(\bx) = t^{(j)}$, i.e. if it does not depend on $ \bx $, we obtain $${t}^{(j)}(\bp) =t^{(j)} \delta(\bp\!\!\!\mod \bgj).$$
The definition of the Weyl symbol in momentum space
---------------------------------------------------
We propose the following definition of the Weyl symbol of an operator $\hat A$: (A)\_[W]{} (,) = \_ A(+/2,-/2) e\^. \[A\_W\] Here integral is over momentum space ${\cM}$, in which the two vectors are equivalent if they differ by $\bgj$. In particular this means that $\bp\pm \bq/2$ do not span the whole Brillouin zone $\cM$.
For off-diagonal components of ${\bm H}$ from above it gives H\_[21,W]{} (,) = \_ e\^\_[j=1]{}\^M () e\^[ ]{} = \_[j=1]{}\^M e\^ \_ () e\^ If the hopping parameters are homogeneous, then $$H_{21,W} (\bx,\bp ) = e^{\ii \bp \bbj } \tj$$ On the other hand, when the hopping parameters vary, we have using
H\_[21,W]{} (,) &= \_[j=1]{}\^M e\^ \_[O\^[(j)]{}\_[1/2]{}]{} () \_ e\^[(-) ]{}\
&= \_[j=1]{}\^M e\^ \_[\^[(j)]{}\_[1/2]{}]{} () [F]{}(-),
\[H21W\] where () = \_ e\^ Notice that for $\bx, \by \in \cO^{(j)}_{1/2}$ we have $\by-\bx\in\cO$ and thus, the function ${\cal F}(\by-\bx)$ vanishes for all $ \bx \in \cO^{(j)}_{1/2}$ except for $ \bx =\by$. However, it remains nonzero and oscillates for all other values of $ \bx $, including continuous ones, and gives unity if summed over $\cO^{(j)}_{1/2}$ for any $ \bx $ \_[\^[(j)]{}\_[1/2]{}]{} [F]{}(-) = 1. Each term of the $j$-sum in receives a particular form if $ \bx \in \cO^{(j)}_{1/2}$ (with same value of $j$): H\^[(j)]{}\_[21,W]{} (,)|\_[\^[(j)]{}\_[1/2]{}]{} = e\^ () However, defines $H_W$ also for the continuous values of $ \bx $.
The presence of external electromagnetic field with vector potential $ \bA$ may be introduced to the model via the modification of hopping parameter in the term $H_{21}$ $$\tj(\bx) \to \tj(\bx) e^{-\ii \int_{\bx-\bbj /2}^{\bx + \bbj /2} \bA(\by)d\by }.$$ In $H_{12}$ there should be a complex conjugate substitution: $$\tj(\bx) \to \tj(\bx) e^{-\ii \int_{\bx + \bbj /2}^{\bx-\bbj /2} \bA(\by)d\by }$$ From we see that it is simply Pieirls substitution in the language of Weyl symbols.
Combining this substitution with we get $$Q_W = \sum_{j=1}^{M} Q^{(j)}_W$$ where $$Q^{(j)}_W(\bx,\bp )\Big|_{\bx \in \cO^{(j)}_{1/2} }
= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\ii \omega/M & -\tj (\bx)\, e^{\ii (\bp \bbj-{A}^{(j)}(\bx))} \\
-\tj(\bx) \, e^{-i (\bp \bbj-{A}^{(j)}({\bx} ))} & \ii \omega/M
\end{array}\right)
\label{QWj},$$ $M$ is the number of the nearest neighbours. Here $$A^{(j)}(\bx) = \int_{\bx-\bbj /2}^{\bx + \bbj /2} \bA(\by)d\by.$$ For both $\tj$ and $ A$ that almost do not vary at the distances of order of lattice spacing we may use Eq. for arbitrary values of $ \bx $, and get $$Q_W(\bx,\bp )=\sum_{j=1}^{M}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\ii \omega/N & -t^{(j)}(\bx)\, e^{\ii (\bp \bbj-{A}^{(j)}(\bx))} \\
-t^{(j)}(\bx) \, e^{-\ii (\bp \bbj-{A}^{(j)}(\bx))} & \ii \omega/N
\end{array}\right).
\label{QW}$$ This approximation corresponds to the situation, when the typical wavelength of electromagnetic field is much larger than the lattice spacing.
Elastic deformation and modification of hoping parameters
---------------------------------------------------------
Now we are in the position to consider elastic deformations and Wigner-Weyl formalism in graphene. In this section we discuss graphene monolayer in the presence of elastic deformations. The sheet of graphene is parametrized by coordinates $ x_k, k = 1,2$. The displacements of each point have three components $u_a(\bx)$, where $a=1,2,3$. The resulting coordinates of the graphene sheet embedded into three-dimensional space $y_a$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
y_k(\bx)& = & x _k + u_k(\bx), \quad k = 1,2\nonumber\\
y_3(\bx)& = &u_3(\bx)\end{aligned}$$ In the absence of the displacements, when $u_a=0$, the graphene is flat. Metric of elasticity theory is given by $$g_{ik} = \delta_{ik} + 2 u_{ik},~~u_{ik} = \frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\partial_i u_k +
\partial_k u_i + \partial_i u_a \partial_k u_a\Bigr), \quad a = 1,2,3,
\quad i,k = 1,2.
\label{Two_deformations}$$ Elastic deformations change the spatial hopping parameters which enter are now $$t^{(j)}(\bx)=t\(1-{\beta} u_{ik}(\bx) b_i^{(j)} b_k^{(j)}\).
\label{HoppingElements}$$ Here {}\_[j=1]{}\^3 = {(-1,0); (1/2,/2); (1/2,-/2)} \[l-s-gr\] while $\beta$ is the Gruneisen parameter. We imply that $\beta |u_{ij}| \ll 1$.
The standard expression for the emergent electromagnetic potential has the form $$\begin{aligned}
{A}_1 & = &- \frac{\beta}{a}\,u_{12}\nonumber\\
{A}_2 & = & \frac{\beta}{2a}\,(u_{22}-u_{11})\label{AFP2_}\end{aligned}$$
For arbitrarily varying field $u$ we obtain the following expression for $Q_W$: Q\_W(,p; , ) = -t \_[j=1]{}\^3 $ 1- \beta u_{ik}(\bx) b_i^{(j)} b_k^{(j)} $ $\begin{array}{cc}
0 & e^{\ii (\bp \bbj -{ A}^{(j)}(\bx))} \\
e^{-\ii (\bp \bbj -{ A}^{(j)}(\bx ))} & 0
\end{array} $\[QW\]
Green’s function and the Groenewold equation {#SectWW}
=============================================
Appearance of the Moyal product {#sec:double-lattice}
--------------------------------
Our definition of the Weyl symbol of operator $\hat A$ can be also written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_W(\bx,\bp ) &=&
\int_{{\cM}}d\bcP e^{ix\bcP}
\Bra{\bp+\frac\bcP{2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\frac\bcP{2}}\end{aligned}$$ The integral over $\bcP$ is over the Brillouin zone ${\cM}$, i.e. in ${\cM}$ we identify the points that differ by a vector of reciprocal lattice $\bgj$.
Now let us consider the Weyl symbol $(AB)_W(\bx,\bp )$ of the product of two operators $\hat A$ and $\hat B$ such that their matrix elements $\Bra{\bp+\frac\bq {2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\frac\bq {2}}$ and $\Bra{\bp+\frac\bq {2}} \hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\frac\bq {2}}$ are nonzero only when $\bq$ remains in the small vicinity of zero. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&(AB)_W(\bx,\bp )=
\int_{{\cM}} \D{\bcP} \int_{\cM} \D{\bcR}
e^{\ii \bx \bcP}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac\bcP{2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bcR}
\Bra{\bcR} \hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bcP{2}}\\
&=\frac{1}{2^D}\int_{{\cM}} \D{\bcP d\bcK }
e^{\ii \bx \bcP}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac\bcP{2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bcK{2}}
\Bra{\bp-\tfrac\bcK{2}}\hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bcP{2}}\\
&= \frac{2^D}{2^D }\int_{{\cM}} \D{\bq d \bk} e^{\ii \bx (\bq+ \bk)}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac\bq {2}+\tfrac{ \bk}{2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}+\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}
\Bra{\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}+\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}\hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}-\tfrac{\bk}{2}}\\
&= \int_{{\cM}} \D{\bq d \bk}
\[ e^{\ii \bx \bq}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac\bq {2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}}
\]
e^{\tfrac{ \bk}{2}\cev{\partial}_\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}\vec{\partial}_\bp}
\[ e^{\ii \bx \bk}
\Bra{p+\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}\hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}
\]\\
&= \[ \int_{{\cM}} \D\bq e^{\ii \bx \bq}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac\bq {2}} \hat{A} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac\bq {2}}
\]
e^{\tfrac{\ii}{2} \(- \cev{\partial}_\bp\vec{\partial}_\bx+\cev{\partial}_{\bx}\vec{\partial}_\bp\)}
\[ \int_{{\cM}} \D\bk e^{\ii \bx \bk}
\Bra{\bp+\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}\hat{B} \Ket{\bp-\tfrac{ \bk}{2}}
\]
\label{Z}
\end{aligned}$$ Here the bra- and ket- vectors in momentum space are defined modulo vectors of reciprocal lattice $\bgj$, as it is inflicted by the periodicity of the lattice. In the second line we change variables $$\bcP = \bq+ \bk , \quad \bcK = \bq- \bk$$ $$\bq = \frac{\bcP+\bcK}{2}, \quad \bk =\frac{\bcP-\bcK}2$$ with the Jacobian $$J = \left|\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 \end{array} \right| = 2^D$$ This results in the factor ${2^{D}}$ in the third line. Here $D$ is the dimension of space. In the present paper it may be either $2$ or $3$.
Hence, the Moyal product may be defined similar to the case of continuous space $$\begin{aligned}
&(AB)_W(\bx,\bp )=
A_W(\bx,\bp )
e^{\frac{\ii}{2} \( \cev{\partial}_{\bx}\vec{\partial}_\bp-\cev{\partial}_\bp\vec{\partial}_{\bx}\)}
B_W(\bx,\bp )
\label{ZAB}\end{aligned}$$ Notice, that for the chosen form of Wigner transformation on a lattice the above equality is approximate and works only if the operators $\hat{A}$, $\hat{B}$ are close to diagonal.
Lattice Groenewold equation {#Sec:GroEq}
---------------------------
Let us define the Fourier components of field $\Psi(\tau,\bx)$ that depends on both space coordinates $\bx$ and imaginary time $\tau$ as $$\Psi_\al(\tau,\bx) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}|{\cM}|^{1/2}} \int_{\dR\otimes \cM }\D{\bp d\omega} \Psi_\al(\omega,\bp)e^{\ii \bp \bx }, \qquad
\al=1,2$$ The partition function of the considered models has the form Z = D|D e\^[S\[,|\]]{} S\[,|\]= \_ |\^T(,)(,), \[Z01\] As usually, we relate operators $\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{G} = \hat{Q}^{-1}$ defined in Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ of functions (on $\dR\otimes \cM$) with their matrix elements $Q(p,q)$ and ${G}(p,q)$, where the $D+1$ dimensional vectors consist of the spatial parts $\bp, \bq$ and frequencies $p_{D+1}, q_{D+1}$: $$Q(p,q) = \langle p|\hat{Q}| q\rangle, \quad {G}(p,q) = \langle p|\hat{Q}^{-1}| q\rangle.$$ It is implied that the basis of $\cal H$ is normalized as $\langle p| q\rangle = \delta(p_{D+1}-q_{D+1})\delta^{(D)}(\bp-\bq)$. The mentioned operators satisfy = 1 \[QG=1\] or, equivalently, $$\langle p|\hat{Q}\hat{G}|q\rangle = \delta^{(D+1)}({p}-q ).$$ Eq. (\[Z01\]) may be rewritten as follows S\[,|\]= \_ \_ |\^T([p]{}\_1)Q(p\_1,p\_2)(p\_2) \[Z1\] while the Green’s function is \_[ab]{}( k\_2, k\_1) = D|D W\_[ab]{}( k\_2, k\_1) e\^[S\[,|\]]{} \[G1\] where we introduced the Grassmann-valued Wigner function W\_[ab]{}(p,q) = . \[W\_[ab]{}\] Formally we may also define operator $\hat{W}_{ab}\equiv \hat{W}_{ab}[\Psi,\bar{\Psi}]$, whose matrix elements are equal to the Wigner function, $W_{ab}(p,q) = \langle p|\hat{W}_{ab}[\Psi,\bar{\Psi}]|q\rangle$. Indices $a,b$ enumerate the components of the fermionic fields, we will omit them for brevity.
We may consider the $D+1$ dimensional version of Wigner transformation of $\hat G$ in the way similar to that of : \_W(x,p ) G\_W (,;p\_[D+1]{},) = \_dq\_[D+1]{} \_e\^[(q\_[D+1]{} + )]{} [G]{}([p+q /2]{}, [p-q /2]{}). \[GWx\] Its inverse then is (p+q /2,p- q /2) = \_d\_[\_[1]{}]{} e\^[-(+ )]{} [G]{}\_W(,;,). \[GWxinv\] In the same way the $D+1$ dimensional Weyl symbol of $\hat Q$ may be defined. For $\hat{Q} = -\partial_\tau-{\bf H}$ we obtain $${Q}_W(x,p )= \ii\omega-H_W(\bx,\bp)$$ where $H_W$ is the $D$-dimensional Weyl symbol of the Hamiltonian defined above.
For the slowly varying external electromagnetic field and/or in the presence of weak elastic deformations the function $Q_W(x,p )$ varies slowly as a function of $ \bx $ on the distances of order of the lattice spacing. As a result matrix elements $\Bra{p+\frac q {2}} \hat{Q} \Ket{p-\frac q {2}}$ and $\Bra{p+\frac q {2}} \hat{G} \Ket{p-\frac q {2}}$ are both nonzero in the small vicinity of $\bq=0$. This imposes the bounds on the value of external magnetic field $B$: it should be much smaller than $1/a^2$ (where $a$ is the typical lattice spacing). In practice this means $B \ll 1000$ Tesla. Then we are able to use Eq. (\[ZAB\]) and Eq. becomes a lattice version of the Groenewold equation: \_W(x,p ) Q\_W(x,p ) = 1 \[Geq\] that is 1 = [G]{}\_W(x,p ) e\^[ $ \cev{\partial}_{x}\vec{\partial}_p-\cev{\partial}_p\vec{\partial}_{x}$]{} Q\_W(x,p ). \[GQW\] Weyl symbol $Q_W$ of operator $\hat{Q}$ has been calculated above and is given by Eq. (\[QW\]). For the external fields that vary slowly on the distances of the order of lattice spacing we are able to represent it as a function of $t^{(j)}(x)$ and combination $p-A(x)$: $$Q_W(x,p) = Q_W(t^{(j)}(x),p-A(x)).$$
Expression for the electric current {#Sect4}
-----------------------------------
Let us consider the variation of the partition function corresponding to the variation of the external field $ A$.
We note first that the action can be written as an operator trace, S\[,|\] = $\hat{W}[\Psi,\bar{\Psi}] \hat Q$, where $\hat W[\Psi,\bar{\Psi}]$ is the Wigner operator corresponding to . Vacuum expectation value, defined in the usual way, O = 1ZD|D O e\^[S\[,|\]]{} , gives then for the variation of the action S = \_ $${G}_W (p,x) \ast \partial_{p_k} Q_W(t^{(j)}(x),p-{ A}(x))$$\_k(x) where we used for the expectation value of $\hat W$ and expressed trace of (almost diagonal) operators through a trace of their Weyl symbols $${\Tr} \hat{A} \hat{B} =\Tr(A_W \ast B_W) = \sum_{x} \int\frac{dp}{(2\pi)^{D+1}}
\tr (A_W \ast B_W).$$
Now we obtain
Z &=-\_[\^[D+1]{}]{}dx \_ [tr]{} $${G}_W (p,x) \ast \partial_{p_k} Q_W(t^{(j)}(x),p-{ A}(x))$$\_k(x). \[dZ2\]
We used that for the slow varying fields $$\sum_{x\in \cO_{1}} \approx \int_{\dR^D} \frac{dx}{|{\cal V}|}$$ where $|{\cal V}|$ is the volume of the lattice cell. Also we used the following relation between $|{\cal V}|$ and $|{\cM}|$: $$|{\cal V}| |{\cM}| = (2\pi)^D.$$
The total current, i.e. the current density integrated over the whole volume of the system, appears as the response to the variation of $ A$ that does not depend on coordinates: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J^k \rangle
&=& -T\,
\int_{\dR^{D+1}} \D x \, \int_{\dR\otimes\cM}\!{\frac{dp}{(2\pi)^{D+1}}}\,
\tr \[G_W (p,x) \ast \partial_{p_k} Q_W(p,x)\]
\label{J}\end{aligned}$$ Here $T$ is temperature that is assumed to be small. The properties of the star product allow to rewrite the last equation in the following way: J\^k = -T $$G_W (p,x) \partial_{p_k} Q_W(p-{ A}(\bx))$$ \[J2\] This expression for the total current is a topological invariant, i.e. it is not changed when the system is modified continuously. Here $\Tr$ of a Weyl symbol of an operator stands for integration over whole phase space and summation over spinor indices, if any A\_W(x,p ) \_[\^[D+1]{}]{} x \_ A\_W(x,p ). \[Tr\]
Calculation of the Green’s function in the inhomogeneous lattice models {#GWcalculation}
=======================================================================
Calculation of the Wigner transformation of the Green’s function
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we propose method of calculation of electronic Green’s function in lattice models. This method is based on solving of the Groenewold equation Q\_WG\_W =1 \[GE\] for the Wigner transformation $G_W$ as defined in . In the following we use Eq. (\[QW\]) as the definition of the Weyl transform of $\hat Q$. Let us also introduce the following notation $$\overleftrightarrow{\Delta} = \frac{i}{2} \left( \overleftarrow{\partial}_{x}\overrightarrow{\partial_p}-\overleftarrow{\partial_p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{x}\right )$$ The solution may be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{G}_W =&Q^{-1}_W + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\begin{array}{c} M=1 \\\sum_j k_j= n\\ k_i\ne 0\end{array}}^n \, \frac{(-1)^M}{\Pi_{i=1}^M k_i!}\, \Big[...\Big[Q^{-1}_W \overleftrightarrow{\Delta}^{k_1} Q_W\Big] Q^{-1}_W \overleftrightarrow{\Delta}^{k_2} Q_W\Big]Q^{-1}_W... \overleftrightarrow{\Delta}^{k_M} Q_W \Big] Q^{-1}_W \\
=&\sum_{M=0}^{\infty} \, \underbrace{\Big[...\Big[Q^{-1}_W(1- e^{\overleftrightarrow{\Delta}}) Q_W\Big] Q^{-1}_W (1-e^{\overleftrightarrow{\Delta}}) Q_W\Big]... (1-e^{\overleftrightarrow{\Delta}}) Q_W \Big]} Q^{-1}_W\\
& \hspace{5cm} \emph{M \, brackets} \\
=&\sum_{M=0}^{\infty} \,\underbrace{ \Big[...\Big[Q^{-1}_W(1- \ast) Q_W\Big] Q^{-1}_W(1- \ast) Q_W\Big]Q^{-1}_W... (1-\ast) Q_W \Big]} Q^{-1}_W\\
& \hspace{5cm} \emph{M \, brackets} \\
\label{GQWsff}
\end{aligned}$$ In the first row the sum may be extended to the values $M=n=0$, then the first term will be equal to $Q^{-1}_W$. Let us introduce the product operator $\bullet$, which works as follows being combined with the star product introduced above: $$A \bullet B \ast C = (AB) \ast C, \quad A\ast B \bullet C = (A \ast B) \bullet C$$ In the first equation $\ast$ acts both on $AB$ and on $C$ while in the second equation it acts only on $A$ and $B$. These rules allow to write the above equation in the compact way: $$\begin{aligned}
{G}_W(x,p ) =&\sum_{M=0}^{\infty} \,\underbrace{Q^{-1}_W(1- \ast) Q_W\bullet Q^{-1}_W(1- \ast) Q_W\bullet Q^{-1}_W... (1-\ast) Q_W \bullet} Q^{-1}_W\\
& \hspace{5cm} {M \, \bullet- products }\\
=&\sum_{M=0}^{\infty} \,\Big(Q^{-1}_W(1- \ast) Q_W\bullet\Big)^M Q^{-1}_W
\label{GQWsffb}\end{aligned}$$ We may write symbolically:
In order to show that Eq. (\[GQWsff\]) is indeed the solution of the Groenewold equation, let us substitute Eq. (\[GQWsffa\]) to the star product ${G}_W\ast Q_W $ and obtain
Reconstruction of fermion propagator from its Wigner transformation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the definitions of the Wigner transform and its inverse we find the Green’s function in discrete coordinate space
[G]{}(x\_1,x\_2) &= \_ (p\_1,p\_2)e\^[p\_1 x\_1-p\_2 x \_2]{}\
&= d\_1 d\_2 \_ d\
&\_[\_1]{} e\^[-(p\_1-p\_2) x + p \_1 x \_1-p \_2 x \_2]{} [G]{}\_W $x, \tfrac{p_1 +p_2}2 $\
&= d\_ \_[\_[1]{}]{} D(-(\_1 + \_2)/2|) [G]{}\_W (x,p ) e\^[p (x\_1-x \_2)]{}
It is assumed that $p_i = (\omega_i,\bp_i)$ and $x = (\tau,\bx)$. Here
D(|) & = \_ \_[\^D]{}e\^[-]{} (-(\_1+\_2)/2)(-(\_1-\_2))\
& = \_ e\^[-(\_1-\_2) ]{} (-(\_1+\_2)/2)
Notice, that function $D(\by|\bp)$ is not equal to the lattice delta function.
In the particular case, when both hopping parameters and the external electromagnetic field vary slowly, we may substitute the sum over $ \bx $ by an integral, and $D(\by|\bp) $ by $\delta(\by)$. This gives (x\_1,x\_2) \_ \_W ( (x\_1 + x \_2)/2, p)e\^[p (x\_1-x \_2)]{}
Total Hall conductance as the topological invariant in phase space {#sigmaTop}
==================================================================
Derivation in the framework of Wigner-Weyl formalism
----------------------------------------------------
We discuss here the case when $D=2$ and slightly modify the derivation presented in [@ZW2019]. Let us start from Eq. (\[J2\]) for the electric current. We represent the electromagnetic potential as a sum of the two contributions: $$A = A^{(M)} + A^{(E)}$$ where $A^{(E)}$ is responsible for the electric field while $A^{(M)}$ is responsible for magnetic field. The former is assumed to be weak, and we will keep in Eq. (\[J2\]) the term linear in $A^{(E)}$.
The Groenewold equation for $G_W$ may be solved iteratively. We will keep in this solution the terms linear in $A^{(E)}$ and in its first derivative. The zeroth order term (that does not contain $A^{(E)}$ at all) is denoted $G_W^{(0)}$. Then G\_WG\_W\^[(0)]{}+ G\_W\^[(0)]{}(\_[p\_m]{} Q\_W A\_m) G\_W\^[(0)]{} Next, we further expand the second term in derivatives of $A$ and write symbolically G\_WG\_W\^[(0)]{}+ G\_W\^[(1)]{} + G\_W\^[(2)]{} \[GW\_dA\] where $$\begin{aligned}
G_W^{(1)} & = &( G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)} ) A^{(E)}_m
\nonumber \\
G_W^{(2)} & = &
\frac\ii2 (G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W \ast \partial_{p_l} G_W^{(0)}) \partial_{x_l} A^{(E)}_m
-\frac\ii2 (\partial_{p_l} G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}) \partial_{x_l} A^{(E)}_m\nonumber\\
&= &\frac\ii2 (G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_l} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}) F^{(E)}_{lm}\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\partial_{p_l} G_W^{(0)} =-G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_l} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}$. The $Q_W$ does not depend on the derivatives of $A$, therefore, it is given by Q\_W = Q\_W\^[(0)]{}+ \_[p\_m]{} Q\_W\^[(0)]{} A\^[(E)]{}\_m \[QW\_dA\]
Upon substitution of and in Eq. (\[J2\]) the terms proportional to $A^{(E)}$ (i.e. with no derivatives) cancel each other. The remaining term proportional to the field strength $F^{(E)}$ is
$ G_W^{(2)} \partial_k Q_W^{(0)} $ & = $(G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_l} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}) F^{(E)}_{lm}
\partial_k Q_W^{(0)} $\
&= $(G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_l} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)}\ast \partial_{p_m} Q_W^{(0)} \ast G_W^{(0)} \ast \partial_k Q_W^{(0)}) F^{(E)}_{lm}
$
We come to the following representation of the average Hall current (i.e. the Hall current integrated over the whole area of the sample divided by this area ${\cal A}$) in the presence of electric field along the $ x_2$ axis: $$\langle J_1 \rangle = \frac{\cal N}{2\pi} E_2$$ Here = $${G}_W(x,p )\ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(x,p )}{\partial p_i} \ast \frac{\partial {G}_W(x,p )}{\partial p_j} \ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(x,p )}{\partial p_k}$$\_[A\^[(E)]{}=0]{} \[calM2d230\] with $\Tr$ defined in . This expression for $\cal N$ is a topological invariant in phase space, i.e. it is not changed if the system is modified smoothly within a finite region distant from the boundary of the sample or from infinity if the sample is infinite. This may be checked via the direct consideration of a variation of Eq. (\[calM2d230\]) with respect to the variation of $Q_W$.
From topological invariant in phase space expressed through $G_W, Q_W$ to the standard expression for Hall conductance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous section we showed that Hall conductance (i.e. the conductivity integrated over the whole area of the sample) is given by $\sigma_{xy} = {\cal N}/2 \pi$ where ${\cal N}$ is the topological invariant in phase space. Our derivation is applicable to the general case of the inhomogeneous one-particle Hamiltonian including the case when elastic deformations are present. Our next purpose is to bring Eq. (\[calM2d230\]) to the conventional expression for the Hall conductance in the case, when the non-interacting charged fermions have Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$.
First of all, one may show that Eq. (\[calM2d230\]) is equivalent to the following representation for $\cal N$ in terms of the Green’s ’s function written in momentum representation: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N} &=& \frac{T \,(2\pi)^3}{{\cal A}\, 3!\,4\pi^2} \, \epsilon_{ijk} \int \prod_{l=1}^4 d^3p^{(l)}
\tr \[
{G}(p^{(1)},p^{(2)})\Big( [\partial_{p^{(2)}_i} + \partial_{p^{(3)}_i}] Q(p^{(2)},p^{(3)})\Big) \right. \nonumber\\
&&
\qquad \times \left. \Big( [\partial_{p^{(3)}_j} + \partial_{p^{(4)}_j}] G(p^{(3)},p^{(4)}) \Big)
\Big( [\partial_{p^{(4)}_k} + \partial_{p^{(1)}_k}] Q(p^{(4)},p^{(1)})\Big)
\]_{A=0}
\label{calM2d23P}\end{aligned}$$ This may be proved noticing that the functional trace of a product of two operators is expressed through their Weyl symbols as follows: $${\Tr} \hat{A} \hat{B} =\Tr(A_W \ast B_W) = \int d^3 x \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}
\tr (A_W \ast B_W)$$ (Again, we need that the matrix elements $\Bra{p+\frac{q} {2}} \hat{A} \Ket{p-\frac{q} {2}}$ and $\Bra{p+\frac{q} {2}} \hat{B} \Ket{p-\frac{q} {2}}$ are nonzero only when $q$ remains in the small vicinity of zero.) Applying this formula several times to Eq. (\[calM2d230\]) we come to Eq. (\[calM2d23P\]).
Secondly, for non-interacting fermions described by ${\cal H}$ with energy eigenstates $|n\rangle$: $\cH |n\rangle = \cE_n |n\rangle$, function $Q(p^{(1)},p^{(2)})$ in momentum space has the following form: Q(p\^[(1)]{},p\^[(2)]{}) p\^[(1)]{}| | p\^[(2)]{} = $ \delta^{(2)} (\bp^{(1)}-\bp^{(2)}) \ii \omega^{(1)}
- \langle \bp^{(1)}| {\cal H} | \bp^{(2)}\rangle $ (\^[(1)]{}-\^[(2)]{}) where $p = (p_1,p_2,p_3) = (\bp ,\omega)$. At the same time $$G(p^{(1)},p^{(2)}) = \sum_{n} \frac{1}{\ii\omega^{(1)}-{\cal E}_n} \langle \bp ^{(1)}| n \rangle \langle n | \bp ^{(2)}\rangle \delta(\omega^{(1)}-\omega^{(2)})$$ This way we obtain: One may represent $$[\partial_{p^{(4)}_j} + \partial_{p^{(1)}_j}] \langle \bp ^{(4)}| {\cal H} | \bp ^{(1)}\rangle= i \langle \bp ^{(4)}| {\cal H} {\hat \bx }_j -{\hat \bx }_j{\cal H} | \bp ^{(1)}\rangle
= i \langle \bp ^{(4)}| [{\cal H}, {\hat \bx }_j]| \bp ^{(1)}\rangle.$$ By operator $\hat \bx$ we understand $i\partial_{\bp}$ acting on the wavefunction written in momentum representation: $$\hat{x}_j \Psi(\bp)
= \langle \bp|\hat{x}_j |\Psi\rangle
= i\partial_{p_j} \langle \bp|\Psi\rangle
= \ii \partial_{p_j} \Psi(\bp)$$ Then, for example, $$\hat{x}_j \delta^{(2)}(\bq-\bp)
= \langle \bp|\hat{x}_j |\bq\rangle
= \ii\partial_{p_j} \langle \bp|\bq \rangle
= \ii \partial_{p_j} \delta^{(2)}(\bp-\bq)
= -\ii \partial_{p_j}\langle \bq|\bp \rangle$$ Therefore, we can write $$\hat{x}_j |\bp\rangle = -\ii\partial_{p_j} |\bp \rangle$$ Notice, that the sign minus here is counter-intuitive because the operator $\hat \bx $ is typically associated with $+\ii\partial_\bp$. We should remember, however, that with this latter representation the derivative acts on $\bp$ in the bra-vector $\langle \bp| $ rather than on $\bp$ in $| \bp \rangle$. Above we have shown that the sign is changed when the derivative is transmitted to $\bp$ of $| \bp \rangle$.
Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N} &=& \frac{\ii\,(2\pi)^2}{8\pi^2\, {\cal A}}\,\sum_{n,k} \int_\dR \D\omega \epsilon_{ij}\,
\frac{\langle n| [{\cal H}, {\hat \bx }_i] | k \rangle \langle k | [{\cal H}, {\hat \bx }_j] | n \rangle }
{(\ii\omega^{}-{\cal E}_n)^2 (\ii\omega^{}-{\cal E}_k)}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{2\ii\,(2\pi)^3}{8\pi^2\, {\cal A}}\,\sum_{n,k} \, \epsilon_{ij}\,
\frac{\theta(-{\cal E}_n)\theta({\cal E}_k)}{({\cal E}_k-{\cal E}_n)^2}
\langle n| [{\cal H}, {\hat \bx }_i] | k \rangle \langle k | [{\cal H}, {\hat \bx }_j] | n \rangle .
\label{sigmaHH}\end{aligned}$$ The last expression is just the conventional expression for the Hall conductance () for the given system. Notice, that it is valid for the slowly varying electromagnetic potential only (the potential almost does not vary at the distance of order of lattice spacing). Then operator ${\hat \bx} = i\frac{\partial}{\partial \bp}$ has the meaning of coordinate operator.
Integer Quantum Hall effect in the presence of varying magnetic field and elastic deformations {#IQHE}
==============================================================================================
Constant magnetic field and constant hopping parameters
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we repeat the standard derivation of the Hall conductance in the noninteracting $2D$ models with constant magnetic field perpendicular to the surface, and constant hopping parameters. It is assumed here that the magnetic field $\bB$ is sufficiently weak, so that $|\bB| a^2 \ll 1$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing. Then the Hall conductivity may be represented as ${\cal N}/(2\pi)$, where $\cal N$ is given above in .
In order to calculate the value of $\cal N$ we decompose the coordinates $ \bx _1, \bx _2$ in relative coordinates $\xi_i$ (with bounded values) and center coordinates $X_i$ (the unbounded part) \_1 = \_1 + \_1, \_2 = \_2 + \_2 \[xi-X\] where \_1 = -,\_1 = \_2 = -,\_2 = Then the commutation relations follow: = , =-, \[\_i,\_j\]=0i,j \[comm-xi-X\] Since the Hamiltonian is a function of $\xi_i$ only (in Landau gauge) (\_1,\_2) its commutator with $X_j$ vanishes = \[[H]{}, \_2\] = 0. We use these relations to obtain:
[N]{} &= -\_[n,k]{} \_[A=0]{} \_[ij]{} (-[E]{}\_n)([E]{}\_k)\
&= \_[n,k]{} \_[ij]{} \_[A=0]{}(-[E]{}\_n)([E]{}\_k)\
&= \_[n]{} \_[A=0]{}(-[E]{}\_n)\
&= -\_[n]{} n| n (-[E]{}\_n).
\[N-nn\]
Momentum $p_2$ is a good quantum number, and it enumerates the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian: $${\cal H} |n\rangle = {\cal H}(\hat{ p}_1, \hat p_2-{ B} \hat x _1)|p_2, m\rangle = {\cal E}_{m}(p_2)|p_2, m\rangle , \, m\in Z$$ We assume that the size of the system is $L\times L$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N} &=&-\frac{(2\pi)}{{\cal A}}\,\sum_{m}\int \frac{dp_2 L}{2\pi} \, \frac{1}{ B} \theta(-{\cal E}_m(p_2))
\label{calM2d232}\end{aligned}$$ Average value $\langle \bx \rangle = p_y/{ B}$ plays the role of the center of orbit, and this center should belong to the interval $(-L/2, L/2)$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}
&=& N \, {\rm sign}(-{ B}),
\label{calM2d233}\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\cal A} = L^2$ is the area of the system while $N$ is the number of the occupied branches of spectrum. This way we came to the conventional expression for the Hall conductance of the fermionic system in the presence of constant magnetic field and constant electric field.
It is worth mentioning, that for graphene in addition to the considered above expression of $\sigma_{xy}$ there is another contribution. It is caused by the deep energy levels, which are not described by the presented here theory. According to [@Hatsugai2] this contribution may be calculated when the tight-binding model of graphene is considered exactly. This is possible for constant magnetic field in the absence of elastic deformations. It appears that this contribution of the deep levels cancels precisely that of ${\cal N}/(2\pi)$ at the half filling. We denote this term $\sigma_{xy}^{(0)} = {\cal N}^{(0)}/(2\pi)$, and the final expression for the Hall conductivity becomes $$\sigma_{xy} = \frac{{\cal N}}{2\pi}-\sigma_{xy}^{(0)}\label{sigmadeformed}$$ Correspondingly, in Eq. (\[calM2d233\]) $N$ is counted from a certain deep Landau Level in such a way, that we have $$\sigma_{xy} = \frac{N^\prime}{2\pi} {\rm sign}(-{B})\label{sigmadeformed2}$$ where $N^\prime$ is counted from the half filling (the LLL being occupied contributes with the factor $1/2$).
Constant magnetic field and weakly varying hopping parameters {#Secttt}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider the case when $$t^{(j)}(\bx) = t^{(j)}_0 e^{ \bx \bbf }.$$ (with some constant spatial vector $ \bbf$) for specific Hamiltonian, which we define by its Weyl symbol $${\cal H}_W(\bx,\bp ) = \sum_{j=1}^M \left(\begin{array}{cc}-\mu/N & t^{(j)}(\bx)\, e^{\ii (p \bbj-{ A}^{(j)}(x ))} \\
t^{(j)}(\bx) \, e^{-\ii (p \bbj-{ A}^{(j)}(\bx))} & -\mu/N \end{array}\right)\label{HWm}$$ here $\mu$ is chemical potential. As above, we decompose the coordinates $ \bx _1, \bx _2$ into relative coordinates $\xi_i$ and the center coordinates $X_i$ using . We still have the commutation relations . However, since $t^{(j)}(\bx)$ now depend on coordinates, the Hamiltonian does not commute anymore with $X_1$, $X_2$. Instead we have \_W \_[W,j]{}-[X]{}\_[W,j]{}\_W = \^[ji]{}f\_i ([H]{}\_W-) . Here \_1 = ,\_2 = and $X_{W,i}$ is their Weyl symbols. This gives \_[j]{}-\_[j]{} [H]{} = \^[ji]{}f\_i ([H]{}-) Then for $n\ne k$ we obtain: $$\langle n | {\cal H} \hat{X}_{j}-\hat{X}_{j} {\cal H}|k \rangle = 0$$ and we come again to = -\_[n]{} n| n (-[E]{}\_n) = - where now $\rho$ is the average density of occupied states.
If we require, in addition, that $t^{(j)}$ does not depend on $y$ and depends on $ \bx $ only, then momentum $p_y$ is still a good quantum number, and is applicable. As above, we will obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}
&=& N \, {\rm sign}(-{B}),
\label{calM2d233}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that ${\cal A} = L^2$ is the area of the system while $N$ is the number of the occupied branches of spectrum. One can see, that in the presence of constant magnetic field and the hopping parameters that depend on $ \bx $ and do not depend on $y$ (i.e. $t^{(j)}(\bx) = t^{(j)}_0 e^{ x_1 f_1}$) the Hall conductivity is given by the same standard value as for the constant hopping parameters. Here we assume also, that weak elastic deformations are not able to modify the contribution $\sigma^{(0)}_{xy}$ of the deep Landau Levels, so that Eq. (\[sigmadeformed\]) remains valid, and we come finally to the conductivity (averaged over the area of the sample) is $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{xy} &=& \frac{ N^\prime}{2\pi} \, {\rm sign}(-{B}),
\label{calM2d233}\end{aligned}$$ where the number of occupied branches of spectrum $N^\prime$ is counted from the half-filling.
Weak variations of magnetic field and hopping parameters {#SectWD}
--------------------------------------------------------
The key point of our calculation is that the total integrated Hall conductance is given by the topological invariant in phase space $\sigma_{xy} = {\cal N}/2 \pi$ where ${\cal N}$ is given by $${\cal N}
= \frac{\epsilon_{ijk}}{{\cal A}\, 3!\,4\pi^2}\, \Tr
\[
{G}_W(\bx,\bp )\ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(\bx,\bp )}{\partial p_i} \ast \frac{\partial {G}_W(\bx,\bp )}{\partial p_j} \ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(\bx,\bp )}{\partial p_k}
\]_{A =0}$$ From the above consideration, we also know that for the constant magnetic field $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}
&=& N \, {\rm sign}(-{B})\label{NBc}\end{aligned}$$ Smooth modification of Hamiltonian does not change the value of $\cal N$ until the phase transition is encountered. We need, however, that both hopping parameters and the electromagnetic field remain equal to their original values at spatial infinity $|x| \to \infty$. We come to the conclusion, that under this condition the total Hall conductance is still given by Eq. (\[NBc\]) for the weakly varying hopping parameters and magnetic field.
Analytical elastic deformations in graphene
-------------------------------------------
In graphene the relation between $t$, $A$ and $u$ is given by [@VZ2013],
t\^[(j)]{}()=t\[1- u\_[kl]{}() \_k \_l\],\_1 =-u\_[12]{}\_2 = (u\_[22]{}-u\_[11]{})
\[t-A-u\] With elementary translations given by , the nontrivial part of $\tj$ is u\_[kl]{}() \_k \_l = 4 $\begin{array}{c}
4 u_{11}\\
u_{11}+2\sqrt3 u_{12}+3 u_{22}\\
u_{11}-2\sqrt3 u_{12}+3 u_{22}
\end{array}$ Requiring that t\^[(1)]{}() = t\^[(2)]{}() = t\^[(3)]{}(), \[t-cond\] consistent with Sect. \[Secttt\], we come to the Cauchy-Riemann conditions $$\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_1} = \frac{\partial u_2}{\partial x_2}, \qquad
\frac{\partial u_2}{\partial x_1} =-\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_2}$$ that is $h(z) \equiv u_1(z) + \ii u_2(z)$ is analytic as a function of $z = x_1 +\ii x_2 $. [^4]
In this case we have vanishing emergent gauge field, while up to the terms linear in the derivatives of the hopping parameters the results of Sect. \[Secttt\] give $${\cal N} = -\frac{2\pi}{ { B}} \, {\rho}\label{Nrho}$$ where $\rho$ is the average density of occupied states. On the other hand, the results of Sect. \[SectWD\] ensure, that any weak variations of both hopping parameters and magnetic field give $${\cal N} =-N\,{\rm sign}\,{ B}$$ where $N$ is the number of occupied Landau levels (now instead of the degenerate Landau level we may have the energy band parametrized by certain parameters). Comparing this result with Eq. (\[Nrho\]) we obtain $$\rho = \frac{|{ B}|}{2\pi} N$$ for the elastic deformations given by analytical function of coordinates (i.e. when the emergent magnetic field is absent).
Conclusions and discussions {#SectConcl}
===========================
In the present paper we proceed with the development of Wigner-Weyl formalism for the tight-binding models of solid state physics (or, equivalently, for the lattice regularized quantum field theory). We extend the previous works made in this direction [@ZW1; @ZW2; @ZW3; @ZW4; @ZW5; @ZW6; @ZW2019; @ZZ2019; @SZ2019]. The developed technique is applied to the class of the inhomogeneous models that includes, in particular, the tight-binding model of graphene in the presence of both inhomogeneous magnetic field and nontrivial elastic deformations. It is worth mentioning, that majority of our results may be applied to other models of solid state physics. Apart from the family of two-dimensional honeycomb lattice materials (graphene, germanene, silicene, etc), all rectangular lattice crystals, both in two and three dimensions can be treated with developed methods, if described within nearest-neighbour approximation. In these cases the electrons may jump only between the nearest neighbors and there is the $Z_2$ sublattice symmetry. The lattice consists of the two sublattices $\cO_1$ and $\cO_2$. For each $ \bx \in \cO_1$ site $ \bx + \bbj \in \cO_2$ with fixed vectors $\bbj $, where $j = 1,2,...,M$. For the honeycomb lattice $M = 3$, for the $2D$ rectangular lattice $M = 4$, for the $3D$ rectangular lattice $M = 8$. Among the mentioned models only the two-dimensional model on the honeycomb lattice describes sufficiently accurately the real system (graphene). Therefore, the emphasis is on the application to the physics of graphene. The particular interest in our study is the consideration of arbitrarily varying external magnetic field and nonhomogeneous elastic deformations.
We obtain the following main results:
1. We calculate Weyl symbol of lattice Dirac operator (i.e. the operator $\hat Q$ that enters the action $\sum_{\bx,\by } \bar{\Psi}_x Q_{\bx,\by } \Psi_y$) in the presence of both elastic deformations and slowly varying external electromagnetic field: \_W = i -t \_j $ 1- \beta u_{kl}({\bx}) \bj_k \bj_l $ $\begin{array}{cc}
0 & e^{\ii (\bp \bbj -{ A}^{(j)}({\bf r} ))} \\
e^{-i (\bp \bbj -{ A}^{(j)}({\bf r} ))} & 0
\end{array} $\[QWc\] where $u_{ij}$ is the tensor of elastic deformations while $$A^{(j)}(\bx) = \int_{\bx-\bbj /2}^{\bx + \bbj /2} \bA(\by)d\by.$$ It is assumed that the variation of electromagnetic field $A(\bx)$ at the distances of order of the lattice spacing may be neglected. In practise this corresponds to magnetic fields ${B}$ that obey ${B}a^2 \ll 1$. In practice this bound reads ${B} \ll 1000$ Tesla. Also we require that the typical wavelenth of the external electromagnetic field is much larger than the lattice spacing. This does not allow to use Eq. (\[QWc\]) for matter interacting with the X-rays with the wavelengths of the order of several Angstroms and smaller.
2. Wigner transformation of electron propagator in the presence of slowly varying magnetic field and arbitrary elastic deformations may be calculated using the following expression: where $$\overleftrightarrow{\Delta} = \frac{i}{2} \left( \overleftarrow{\partial}_{x}\overrightarrow{\partial_p}-\overleftarrow{\partial_p}\overrightarrow{\partial}_{x}\right )$$
3. Electron propagator in the presence of slowly varying electromagnetic field and elastic deformations may be expressed through the Wigner transformed Green’s function as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{G}(x_1,x_2) &\approx&
\frac{1}{2\pi{|{\cM}|} }\int d p {G}_W ( (x_1 + \bx _2)/2, p)e^{-i p (x_1-\bx _2)}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\cM|$ is the area of the Brillouin zone.
4. We prove that the total average Hall conductivity (i.e. the Hall conductivity integrated over the area of the sample and divided by this area, in the presence of varied weak magnetic field ${\cal B} \ll 1/a^2$ and elastic deformations) has the form of $\sigma_{xy} = \frac{\cal N}{2 \pi}-\frac{{\cal N}^{(0)}}{2\pi}$ where ${\cal N}$ is the topological invariant in phase space = \_[ijk]{} $${G}_W(p,x)\ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(p,x)}{\partial p_i} \ast \frac{\partial {G}_W( p,x)}{\partial p_j} \ast \frac{\partial {Q}_W(p,x)}{\partial p_k}$$ \[calM2d23c\] where $\cal A$ is the area of the sample while in graphene ${\cal N}^{(0)}$ is the value of ${\cal N}$ at half-filling (with constant magnetic field and without elastic deformations). Thus we extend here the results of [@ZW2019] to the case, when in addition to the inhomogeneous magnetic field an arbitrary elastic deformation is present. The resulting expression works for the magnetic field slowly varying in the limited region of the sample, such that it approaches constant value $B$ close to the boundary of the sample.
5. The above mentioned representation of the average Hall conductivity through the topological invariant in phase space allows to prove that in graphene it is robust to both weak variations of magnetic field and weak elastic deformations. It is worth mentioning that both mentioned variations of magnetic field and elastic deformations are to be concentrated within the finite region far from the boundary of the sample. Under these conditions Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]) is not changed for the smooth variations of lattice Hamiltonian (for the proof see Appendix D in [@ZW2019]).
6. The special case of elastic deformations is considered, when the emergent gauge field in graphene is absent. It is shown that the corresponding deformations are given by the arbitrary analytical functions of coordinates. Namely, the condition of the absence of emergent gauge field is equivalent to the Riemann-Cauchy conditions for the displacement function $u_i$, $ i= 1,2$. As a result the function $u(z) = u_1(z) + i u_2(z)$ appears to be analytical function of $z=x_1 + i \bx _2$, where $ \bx _i$ are the coordinates of the carbon atoms in the unperturbed honeycomb lattice. Under these circumstances for the constant magnetic field $B$ the Hall current is given by $$I_{xy} =- \frac{N^\prime \, U}{2\pi}\,{\rm sign}\,{B}
\label{Ixy}$$ where $U$ is voltage while $N^\prime$ is the number of occupied Landau levels (counted from the half filling). Now unlike the case of the unperturbed graphene the Landau levels may already not be degenerate.
It is worth mentioning that our results were obtained in the absence of both disorder and Coulomb interactions. According to the standard considerations (see also Section 6 of [@ZW2019]) the total Hall current is typically robust to the introduction of disorder. Let us discuss in this respect the case of graphene in the presence of constant magnetic field but without strain. In pure ideal graphene without impurities all Landau levels participate in the QHE. However, the theory developed here is valid for the levels sufficiently close to the half-filling. The consideration of the model in the absence of elastic deformations and for the constant magnetic field demonstrated, that deep energy levels contribute to the total conductance in a very peculiar way (see [@Hatsugai2] and references therein). These contributions contain several jumps, and make the conductance negative for the Fermi energy placed somewhere below zero. Starting from a certain level below zero our theory works, and it gives contributions to conductivity proportional to the number of occupied levels (see, for example, calculation in Sect. \[IQHE\] above). The sum of this contribution and the contribution of deep energy levels results in vanishing conductance at the half filling. As a result the Landau Levels (LL) participate in the QHE being counted from the neutrality point. The occupied levels above the neutrality point represent the so-called particle LL’s, while the vacant ones below neutrality point represent the so-called hole LL’s. Then, in Eq. (\[Ixy\]) the value of $N$ is negative for the hole LL’s and positive for the particle LL’s.
In the presence of disorder the Hall current density is pushed towards the boundary. It appears that the neutrality point (when chemical potential is in the middle of the Lowest Landau Level) corresponds to vanishing Hall conductivity. Again, the Landau Levels (LL) participate in the QHE being counted from the neutrality point. This occurs now because close to the boundary the branches of energy spectrum above and below the neutrality point behave differently. Energies of those above the neutrality point are increased while energies of the branches situated below it are decreased. As a result there is no crossing of the energy levels with the Fermi level on the boundary at neutrality point [@Tong:2016kpv], and, consequently, there are no gapless edge states that are to be the carriers of the Hall current. This shows, that weak disorder does not cause a jump in the value of total conductance. The average conductivity (the conductivity integrated over the area of the sample divided by this area) is given by $\sigma_{xy} = \frac{ N^\prime}{2\pi}\,{\rm sign}\,{B}$, where $N^\prime$ is the number of [*occupied electronic energy levels counted from the half filling*]{}. Therefore, for graphene $N^\prime$ may be both negative and positive. Moreover, for the chemical potential just above zero only half of the Lowest Landau Level contributes the Hall conductance. Therefore, in this case $N^\prime = \frac{1}{2} \, g_s g_v = \frac{4}{2} = 2$. Next, we may turn on weak variations of magnetic field and weak elastic deformations. The value of the average Hall conductivity should remain the same until the topological phase transition to the state with a different value of Hall conductivity is encountered. For sufficiently strong elastic deformations and/or variations of magnetic field the very notion of Landau levels may loose its sense, but the values of Hall conductivity may still remain nonzero.
We expect that the Hall current is robust to the weak Coulomb interactions (at least in the presence of a sufficient amount of disorder) although the detailed investigation of this issue is still to be performed (see [@ZZ2019] and references therein), especially in the presence of elastic deformations and variations of magnetic field. At the same time, the clean samples of graphene (very weak disorder) exhibit the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) due to the Coulomb interactions. The investigation of this issue remains out of the scope of the present paper although we expect that Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]) may still be related somehow to the description of the FQHE.
We suppose that the results obtained here may be used further in the investigation of various properties of graphene. In particular, Eqs. (\[QWc\]), (\[GWc\]) determine electron propagator in the complete tight-binding model in the presence of both elastic deformations and slowly varying external electromagnetic field. This propagator may be used in those investigations of transport properties that require use of the complete tight-binding model, i.e. when the low energy effective continuum field theory of graphene is not sufficient for the solution of a particular problem. Since the form of the obtained expressions is rather complicated, and the result of Eq. (\[GWc\]) is represented in the form of the infinite series, the practical applications of the obtained formulas are likely to require certain numerical techniques.
We also expect that the practical calculation of Hall conductivity using Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]) may require the application of certain numerical procedures. The possible problem to be solved using this expression is the calculation of Hall conductivity in the presence of varying magnetic field and/or varying elastic deformations. For the constant external magnetic field and without elastic deformations the result for the Hall conductance is well-known. According to our results weak elastic deformations and weak variations of magnetic field cannot affect the value of the total Hall current. However, when the variations become stronger, the system may undergo a topological phase transition to the state with different value of Hall conductance. We may determine the critical values of magnetic field variation and/or deformation tensor variation using the direct evaluation of an integral in Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]). Both numerical and analytical methods of this evaluation await for their development.
It is worth mentioning, that the simplified version of Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]) (discussed in [@ZW1]) that appears when $G_W$ does not depend on coordinates, represents the generator of the co-homology group ${\cal H}^{(3)}({\cM})$, where ${\cM}$ is momentum space. Eq. (\[calM2d23c\]) also awaits for the interpretation using the language of algebraic topology. At the present moment we notice only that this topological invariant certainly plays a role in the classification of the homotopic classes of maps $G: {\cM}\otimes {\cal R} \rightarrow GL(2,C)$, where ${\cal R}$ is the coordinate space with certain boundary conditions while $\cM$ is momentum space.
We would like to notice again, that the theory presented here is valid for the slowly varying potentials, which is consistent with the requirement ${B} a^2 \ll 1$. It would be interesting to extend the Wigner-Weyl formalism to the precise consideration of the tight-binding model of graphene in the presence of strong magnetic fields ${B} \sim 1/a^2$. Another challenge is an extension of our results to the investigation of the fractional Hall effect.
The authors are grateful for sharing ideas, comments and collaboration in the adjacent fields to M.Suleymanov, Xi Wu, and Chunxu Zhang. M.A.Z. is indebted for valuable discussions to G.E.Volovik.
[^1]: On leave of absence from CMCC-Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, S.P., Brazil
[^2]: On leave of absence from Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, 117259, Russia
[^3]: The topological invariants of [@Matsuyama:1986us; @Volovik0; @Volovik2003; @Gurarie2011; @EssinGurarie2011] repreat the structure of the degree of mapping of the three-dimensional manyfold to a group of matrices.
[^4]: There is another solution of $$\partial_1 u_1 = -2-\partial_2 u_2, \quad \partial_1 u_2 = \partial_2 u_1,$$ which however brakes the smallness condition $\beta |u_{ij}|\ll 1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'At a fraction the total cost of an equivalent orbital mission, scientific balloon-borne platforms, operating above $99.7\%$ of the Earth’s atmosphere, offer attractive, competitive, and effective observational capabilities – namely space-like resolution, transmission, and backgrounds – that are well suited for modern astronomy and cosmology. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}is a diffraction-limited, wide-field, 0.5m telescope capable of exploiting these observing conditions in order to provide exquisite imaging throughout the near-IR to near-UV. It utilizes a robust active stabilization system that has consistently demonstrated a $1\sigma$ sky-fixed pointing stability at 48milliarcseconds over multiple 1hour observations at float. This is achieved by actively tracking compound pendulations via a three-axis gimballed platform, which provides sky-fixed telescope stability at $<$500milliarcseconds and corrects for field rotation, while employing high-bandwidth tip/tilt optics to remove residual disturbances across the science imaging focal plane. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s performance during the 2019 commissioning flight benefited from a customized high-fidelity science-capable telescope designed with exceptional thermo- and opto-mechanical stability as well as tightly constrained static and dynamic coupling between high-rate sensors and telescope optics. At the currently demonstrated level of flight performance, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}capabilities now surpass the science requirements for a wide variety of experiments in cosmology, astrophysics and stellar dynamics.'
author:
- 'L. Javier Romualdez'
- 'Steven J. Benton'
- 'Anthony M. Brown'
- Paul Clark
- 'Christopher J. Damaren'
- Tim Eifler
- 'Aurelien A. Fraisse'
- 'Mathew N. Galloway'
- Ajay Gill
- 'John W. Hartley'
- Bradley Holder
- 'Eric M. Huff'
- Mathilde Jauzac
- 'William C. Jones'
- David Lagattuta
- 'Jason S.-Y. Leung'
- Lun Li
- 'Thuy Vy T. Luu'
- 'Richard J. Massey'
- Jacqueline McCleary
- James Mullaney
- 'Johanna M. Nagy'
- 'C. Barth Netterfield'
- Susan Redmond
- 'Jason D. Rhodes'
- Jürgen Schmoll
- 'Mohamed M. Shaaban'
- Ellen Sirks
- 'Sut-Ieng Tam'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Robust diffraction-limited NIR-to-NUV wide-field imaging from stratospheric balloon-borne platforms\
– [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope commissioning flight & performance
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
This paper presents the sub-arcsecond pointing and 50milliarcsecond image stabilization capabilities of the Super-pressure Balloon-borne Imaging Telescope ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}), for diffraction-limited, wide-field near-infrared (NIR) to near-ultraviolet (NUV) imaging from a stratospheric balloon. This first section introduces the science objectives that motivate these imaging capabilities, with a high-level description of the system architecture from the perspective of mechanical, optical, and control systems engineering. Section \[s:gondola\] presents [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s best achieved performance to date, from the 2019 telescope commissioning flight; Section \[s:analysis\_and\_discussion\] analyzes the key technical improvements that enabled this performance, learned through earlier engineering test flights; and Section \[s:forecast\] predicts how the as-built performance could influence observing strategy during [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s upcoming long duration flight. Detailed science forecasts, based on as-built performance, are being prepared for an accompanying [*forecasting paper*]{}.
Scientific Applications
-----------------------
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}experiment is a balloon-borne telescope designed to provide diffraction-limited imaging over a 25by 17field-of-view (approximately 36 times larger than the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}’s Advanced Camera for Surveys) with an on-sky resolution of $<$0.3${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$. The platform utilizes the super-pressure balloon capabilities provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which offers mid-latitude long duration balloon (LDB) flights from 30 to 50+ days. A telescope at 36km altitude is above 99.7% of the Earth’s atmosphere[@usstandardatmosphere], enabling: 1) potentially diffraction-limited observations, with negligible atmospheric “seeing” $<10$milliarcseconds, and 2) space-like backgrounds and transmission throughout the wavelength range from near-ultraviolet (300nm) to the near-infrared (1000nm).
Within this wavelength range, the projected resolution and depth of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}imaging is sufficient to measure the (weak) gravitationally lensed shapes of distant (redshift $z\approx1$) galaxies behind foreground ($z\approx0.3$) clusters of galaxies.[@MasseyLensing] Furthermore, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s wide field-of-view allows an entire cluster to be imaged in a single pointing, including its connection to surrounding large-scale structure. With imaging available in six selectable bands from 300 to 1000 nm, UV/blue photometry – which is effectively inaccessible from ground-based instruments – is particularly valuable for photometric redshift calibration, where cluster member galaxies can be identified via their 4000A break or the 3700A Balmer break in cluster dwarf galaxies for which this is suppressed.[@MasseyLensing; @JonesSuperBIT] For multiple observations of 100–150 clusters over a single super-pressure balloon flight, the high-quality cluster weak lensing masses estimated with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}would allow for the computation of fundamental cosmological parameters such as $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_m$ at the level of experiments including Weighing the Giants and SPT-SZ[@2015ApJ...799..214B; @2015MNRAS.446.2205M]. In combination with X-ray or Sunyaev-Zoldovich (SZ) measurements, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}weak lensing maps of actively merging clusters would also be valuable for dark matter studies or calibration of cluster–mass observable relations. Additionally, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s diffraction-limited imaging can mitigate de-blending calibration of ground-based cosmological surveys like the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) [@2017ApJS..233...21R], reducing that particular source of systematic uncertainty and leading to tighter constraints on cosmological parameters [@2018arXiv180706209P].
Given the ability for balloon-borne platforms like [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}to readily access, quickly implement, and flight verify cutting-edge technologies, high impact science goals can be realized at a fraction the economic and development time cost typical of equivalent space-borne implementations, with expected survey efficiencies rivaling similar ground-based applications. In addition to cluster cosmology, some examples of prospective science goals enabled by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}include probes of dark matter sub-structure, strong gravitational lensing constraints on the Hubble constant, studies of galaxies’ morphological evolution, UV-bright stars, and exo-planetary atmospheres.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}Architecture {#ss:superbit_architecture}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a brief description of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}instrument flown on the September 2019 science telescope commissioning flight, the last of a series of engineering test flights in advance of a long duration science mission. Detailed descriptions of the mechanical [@StevenThesis; @LunLi2016], thermal [@RedmondThesis; @Redmond18], control systems [@RomualdezThesis18; @Romualdez16; @Romualdez18], and software [@RomualdezThesis18] architectures for the 2019 and previous test flight configurations are available in the literature.
### Pointing & Instrument Stabilization
![[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 gondola schematic with primary stabilization components identified; total mass at the pivot is 800kg, which includes CNES flight electronics; the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 gondola has 1600W solar power generation and 432Ah power storage systems.[]{data-label="fig:superbitoverview"}](Superbit_drawing_paper2019.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
From a purely engineering perspective, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}platform, shown in Figure \[fig:superbitoverview\], is a three-axis telescope stabilizer that is designed to provide sub-arcsecond stability for the science payload, namely the 0.5m NIR-to-NUV telescope, the scientific charge-coupled device (CCD) readout electronics, and accompanying back-end stabilization optics. A series of three gimballed frames provide sub-arcsecond stabilization and control, which together correct both for gravity-driven compound pendulations induced by the balloon and flight train as well as the bulk sky rotation for long exposures (300–600s) over the science payload field-of-view ($\sim$0.5$^\circ$). Gimbal roll and pitch control is facilitated per axis by frameless motors, each axially supported by flexure bearings that provide motion free from static friction, while a high-inertia reaction wheel facilitates yaw control and pendulation stability, with excess momentum dumped through the flight train to the balloon via the pivot connection [@RomualdezThesis18].
Mounted to the science payload inner frame are two wide-angle (2–3$^\circ$) star tracking cameras – one along the telescope boresight axis and the other orthogonal to it – that provide absolute sky-fixed pointing references at 1–50Hz, while 1kHz rate gyroscopes (*KVH Industries Inc.*) provide inertial stabilization feedback. Altogether, science targets acquired with sub-arcminute-level accuracy are available with full three-axis sub-arcsecond stability for 30–60minutes per target, only limited mechanically by roll and pitch gimbal throw ($\pm 6^\circ$) and the full telescope pitch range (20–60$^\circ$). This level of sky-fixed, three-axis stability is distinct from other balloon-borne stabilizers that provide only two-axis inertial stability[@WASP].
### Telescope Optics & Image Stabilization
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope (Figure \[fig:telescope\]) is a modified-Dall-Kirkham $f/11$ design with optics sensitive from 300–1000nm (for a description of the pre-2019 engineering telescope, see 2015–2016 instrument papers[@Romualdez16; @StevenThesis]). As a custom-designed telescope (*Officina Stellare*), the 0.5m conical primary, carbon-fiber monocoque body, and Invar components – namely the secondary and lens stack mounting assemblies – mitigate potential thermal gradients across optical components of the telescope assembly as well as variable mechanical loading due to elevation maneuvers.
Additionally, three equilaterally-placed linear actuators allow for the secondary mirror tip, tilt, and focus to be adjusted during operations to correct for changes in alignment and primary focus after launch or from variations in the bulk temperature profile of the telescope assembly due to diurnal cycles. To correct for aberrations due to a spherical secondary mirror, a lens set near the back-end of the telescope assembly provides diffraction-limited imaging over a 55mm focal plane with a 37.5${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$/mm plate scale ($\sim$0.5$^\circ$ usable field-of-view). Optics are thermally regulated through the telescope baffle to maintain a constant temperature profile and to mitigate large gradients when transitioning from day to night operations in the stratosphere.
In order to provide further image stabilization at the science CCD, a piezo-electric tip-tilt actuated fold mirror provides high-bandwidth (50–60Hz) focal plane corrections, which attenuates residual pointing jitter from the telescope stabilization systems down to 50milliarcseconds ($1\sigma$), well within the $<$0.3${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ optical diffraction limit (more details in Section \[s:analysis\_and\_discussion\]). Sky-fixed feedback for the tip-tilt actuator is provided by a pair of focal plane tracking star cameras (FPSCs) – one on either side of the science CCD – while low noise rate gyroscopes (*Emcore Corporation*) at 350Hz mounted directly to the telescope structure provide inertial feedback while actively correcting for the bulk latency and the limited bandwidth of the FPSCs.
Instrument Performance {#s:gondola}
======================
![[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 pre-launch (site: Timmins, Ontario) secured by a launch support vehicle beneath the tow balloon (top); this smaller tow balloon (bottom, right) provides neutral buoyancy for launch and is secured during primary balloon (bottom, left) inflation.[]{data-label="fig:superbit2019_launch"}](superbit2019_launch.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 pre-launch (site: Timmins, Ontario) secured by a launch support vehicle beneath the tow balloon (top); this smaller tow balloon (bottom, right) provides neutral buoyancy for launch and is secured during primary balloon (bottom, left) inflation.[]{data-label="fig:superbit2019_launch"}](superbit2019_balloons.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
The 2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope commissioning launch took place on September 17, 2019 at 20:34 GMT-4 with the *Centre National d’Études Spatiales* (CNES) through the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) from the Timmins, Ontario launch site. After a 2hour ascent to a minimum float altitude of 27km (89kft), the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}instrument was calibrated and aligned during the first 4 hours of operations, which was followed by 3.5hours of science observations. Flight termination occurred on September 18, 2019 at approximately 14:00 GMT-4 after $\sim$7hours of daytime operations.
This section reports the best pointing and image stabilization performance achieved to-date from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 flight, which includes current [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}performance results for telescope pointing stabilization, target acquisition accuracy, and focal plane image stabilization throughout typical operations. To highlight particular challenges involved with demonstrating the achieved level of performance, comparisons with pre-2019 engineering test flights are provided (additional detail on pre-2019 performance is available in literature. [@Romualdez16; @Romualdez18]).
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
Telescope Stabilization
-----------------------
As described in Subsection \[ss:superbit\_architecture\], the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}telescope itself is stabilized about all three rotational degrees-of-freedom via a series of gimballed frames with inertial feedback from rate gyroscopes and sky-fixed reference feedback from star tracking cameras. When a target is requested in right ascension (RA) and declination (Dec), each of the gimbals slew in unison to the calculated target gimbal angles in order to point the telescope to the corresponding azimuth (Az) and elevation (El) coordinates on the sky whilst offsetting the middle and inner frames to maximize tracking time on the sky with fixed field rotation (FR). Once a lost-in-space solution is acquired at the target coordinates[@dustin], the gimballed frames are iteratively honed towards the desired target until the absolute error on the sky is within a commandable star camera subframe threshold, which for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}is typically $0.5{\mbox{$^\prime$}\xspace}$. Following this, star camera centroids are then used for higher rate feedback, which provides absolute, sky-fixed stability while concurrently correcting for biases in the rate gyroscopes that provide inertial stability.
During the 2019 flight, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}tracked and stabilized over several telescope tracking runs for a number of alignment calibration and potential science targets of interest. For a typical long timescale telescope stabilization run ($\sim$0.5hr), Figure \[fig:telescope\_stability\] shows centroid distribution plots in the boresight and cross-boresight (or “telescope roll”) star cameras as well as a representative point-spread-function (PSF) per tracking camera. Analyses and discussions on this level of sub-arcsecond pointing performance are provided in subsection \[ss:stabilization\].
Image Stabilization
-------------------
Once telescope stabilization is established, a high-bandwidth, piezo-electrically actuated, tip-tilt fold mirror further stabilizes the focal plane. As described in subsection \[ss:superbit\_architecture\], sky-fixed feedback is obtained from a pair of focal-plane tracking star cameras, each equally separated about the center of the science camera CCD by 29.3arcminutes (see Figure \[fig:telescope\]). In addition to providing inertial feedback, a set of low noise rate gyroscopes directly and rigidly coupled to the telescope frame itself increases the effective bandwidth and corrects the bulk image processing latencies inherent to each of the focal plane star cameras. Altogether, this tracking system comprises the fine guidance system or FGS.
To be able to effectively track the residual perturbations on the focal plane, the expected peak-to-peak variation from the telescope stabilization stage must be well within the maximum throw of the tip-tilt stage. With knowledge of the 2019 back-end optics geometry, notably the distance between the tip-tilt stage and focal plane ($\ell = 169$mm) and the maximum stage-centered throw of the FGS ($\theta = 2$mrad), the maximum sky-equivalent pitch throw $\phi_{pitch}$ and cross-pitch throw $\phi_{xpitch}$ of the FGS are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\rm pitch} &=& p\cdot \ell \cdot \theta \ , \ \phi_{\rm xpitch} = \phi_{\rm pitch}\cdot \cos(45\deg)\\
&\Rightarrow & p = \tfrac{206264.8{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}}{D\times f}
\label{eq:fgs_throw}\end{aligned}$$ where $p = 0.168{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$/px is the FPSC plate scale, $D = 500$mm is the primary mirror diameter, and $f = 11$ is the $f$-number for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 science telescope. Due to the $90^\circ$ fold in the optical path (see Figure \[fig:telescope\]), the effective throw of the cross-pitch axis is reduced by a factor $\cos(45^\circ)$ compared to the pitch axis. To highlight the performance shown previously, the $\phi_{\rm pitch}=12.61{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ and $\phi_{\rm xpitch}=8.92{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ requirements on stabilization are at least 15 times the demonstrated $1\sigma$ telescope stabilization. Note however that this specification does not include potentially long timescale mechanical or thermal drifts between the boresight and focal plane star cameras since such variations are unknown at the telescope tracking level without feedback information from the tip-tilt stage. These longer timescale effects are reported in the following subsection and further discussed in Section \[s:analysis\_and\_discussion\].
Once trackable stars were reliably and accurately obtained on one or both of the FPSCs during the first half of the 2019 flight, several dedicated image stabilization runs calibrate the FGS and to align telescope optics. Figure \[fig:image\_stability\] demonstrates the typical image stabilization performance post-calibration by evaluating focal plane star camera centroid distributions as a sky-fixed metric for FGS corrections, in response to residual disturbances from the outer telescope stabilization loop. Analyses and discussions on FGS performance, including FPSC tracking depth, FPSC beam size, and overall image stability are provided in subsections \[ss:stabilization\] and \[ss:diffraction\_limited\].
Target Acquisition {#ss:target_acquisition}
------------------
![(Top) absolute pointing residual plot illustrating the drift of the FGS tip-tilt mirror command during the image stabilizaiton run shown in Figure \[fig:image\_stability\]; this is not the result of telescope pointing drift, as would be seen by the bore star camera centroid residuals (middle), or telescope focal plane drift, as would be seen by the FPSC centroid residuals (bottom), which implies that this is likely relative pointing drift between that the boresight star camera and the telescope focal plane; despite this, the $<$1${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ drift is maintained well within the $8.92{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ (or $\pm 4.46{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$) cross-pitch throw of the FGS; on-sky directions for all residual plots are given in pitch and cross-pitch to distinguish from telescope El and cross-El; randomized commanded dithering steps can be seen at 5minute intervals (top & middle) but are removed by the FGS at the telescope focal plane (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:pointing_drift"}](fgs_bore_drift_2019.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
To find adequate guide stars for image stabilization, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}stabilization platform must have sufficiently accurate absolute pointing to place a target within the roughly $5.5{\mbox{$^\prime$}\xspace}\times 4{\mbox{$^\prime$}\xspace}$ field-of-view of either focal plane star camera. Although the pointing and tracking systems are capable of acquiring targets to much higher precision (within the 0.26${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ star camera centroiding resolution), [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}target acquisition requires only arcminute-level repeatability, because of its wide field-of-view and absolute sky-fixed feedback. If higher accuracy is required post-flight, absolute pointing information can be reconstructed from flight data and confirmed directly with astrometry[@dustin] on science camera images. Over extended tracking runs, relative drift between the boresight and focal plane star tracking cameras is shown in Figure \[fig:pointing\_drift\] to be minimal, which contrasts the large 10–20 arcsecond pointing drift observed during pre-2019 test flights. This reflects both the thermo-mechanical and the opto-mechanical stability of the 2019 telescope optics, back-end optics, and star camera mounts, a detailed discussion of which is provided in subsection \[ss:opto\_mech\_stability\]. To quantify this effect, the sky-equivalent FGS command shown in Figure \[fig:pointing\_drift\] measures how the focal plane would have moved with respect to the boresight star camera had the FGS not been actively and continuously correcting for structural or kinematic disturbances. Plausible sources for residual discrepancies between optics and telescope pointing are discussed in \[ss:opto\_mech\_stability\].
![Target re-acquisition and continuous target tracking during simultaneous roll and fine pitch gimbal resets; gimbal frames track in unison about the FPSC target star whilst the FGS attenuates perturbations at the 2–4${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ level (a) down to $<$0.2${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ (c) during the reset; the boresight star camera centroids (b) show a mean shift post-reset due to an offset pointing vector with the FPSC(s) as the roll gimbal is slewing (d); the maximum sky-equivalent throw of the FGS in pitch and cross-pitch is 12.61${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ and 8.92${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:gimbal_reset"}](gimbal_reset_2019.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}, target acquisition repeatability and target re-acquisition are also important factors contributing to overall survey efficiency during science operations. In particular, a fixed-time overhead is required to reset the roll and pitch gimbals once either axis has reached its maximum usable throw, which is fundamentally limited by the flexure bearings ($\pm 6{\mbox{$^\circ$}\xspace}$ smooth tracking range), as mentioned in subsection \[ss:superbit\_architecture\]. To minimize the time required to recover image stabilization after a reset, all three gimballed axes are slewed in unison about the FPSC target star in a way that resets the roll and pitch gimbals while maintaining the target star within the FGS full throw. Figure \[fig:gimbal\_reset\] demonstrates the efficacy of this approach from a typical gimbal reset during the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 flight. During this kind of reset, which takes place over about 20seconds, science camera exposures are temporarily halted, and the net effect on subsequent science camera exposures post-reset is a 1-6degree field rotation about the current tracking FPSC depending on the target.
Analysis & Discussion {#s:analysis_and_discussion}
=====================
Telescope & Image Stabilization {#ss:stabilization}
-------------------------------
As presented in the previous section, telescope stabilization performed exceptionally well, where the maximum throw of the FGS is 15 times the worst-case $1\sigma$ pitch/cross-pitch pointing stability over even the longest tracking timescales. Even though telescope roll stability was only maintained at the arcesecond level, as shown in Figure \[fig:telescope\_stability\], the sensitivity of the telescope focal plane to roll perturbations is significantly lower than in pitch and cross-pitch, where a $1{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ roll motion over a $0.5\deg$ angular separation between the telescope and the boresight star camera is $<$10milliarcseconds in the worst case. Furthermore, the fidelity of both the telescope and image stabilization performance (in Figures \[fig:telescope\_stability\] and \[fig:image\_stability\], respectively) is highlighted by the clear sub-pixel structure observed in the centroid distributions, where the finite size of the pixel gaps on the respective imaging sensors is clearly resolved near the pixel boundaries (with a 0.5px offset).
### Stabilization Trade-offs
The high performance of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}telescope stabilization platform suggests that there may have been potential trade-offs between telescope stabilization and image stabilization that could have further improved the overall attenuation and fidelity of the FGS in correcting for the residual telescope disturbances. Figure \[fig:pitch\_overcontrol\] shows the zero-speed inertial stabilization (i.e. rate gyroscopes only) immediately following the tuning phase of the 2019 flight.
![Rate gyroscopes residuals after gain calibration of the telescope stabilization stage during the 2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}telescope commissioning flight; timestreams (top) and amplitude spectra (bottom) are given in the telescope pitch and cross-pitch axes during a period where the gondola was only being inertially stabilized (i.e. rate gyroscopes controlled to zero speed with no sky-fixed feedback); the $1\sigma$ noise measured in the cross-pitch axis is 35% below the $1\sigma$ noise measure in pitch.[]{data-label="fig:pitch_overcontrol"}](pitch_overcontrol.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
Comparing pitch and cross-pitch control, it is clear that there is a noticeable level of over-control in the pitch axis, which is characterized by the wide-band feature in the pitch spectrum centered at $\sim$7Hz. This idea of pitch over-control is supported by the fact that the pitch spectrum at low ($<$1Hz) frequencies has been pushed below the noise floor seen at higher frequencies. Although there is some over-control in the cross-pitch axis as well, the cross-pitch over-control is 42% lower than in the pitch axis, which suggests that the pitch control gains may have been slightly over-tuned. The overall result of this over-tuning is a level of high frequency rate gyroscope noise from telescope stabilization leaking into the image stabilization stage.
Looking at Figure \[fig:image\_stability\], this effect is directly observed in the 48% reduction in performance in the FGS pitch-oriented axis compared to cross-pitch. It is therefore reasonable to assert that a reduction in pitch gains, though potentially reducing performance at the telescope stabilization stage at lower frequencies, would have reduced higher frequency rate gyroscope noise that inadvertently degraded image stabilization in pitch.
Overall, it is clear from the results that the 50milliarcsecond stability requirement was consistently achieved during flight in the cross-pitch, and despite the fact that there is indeed a clear asymmetry in FGS performance due to pitch over-control effects, the level to which the FGS performed is still sub-pixel on the science CCD and below the diffraction limit ($<$0.3${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$). This level of performance met science requirements; in part due to time constraints, the 2019 performance was deemed adequate to begin science operations for the remainder of the 2019 flight. Additional tuning would have likely yielded improved performance in the pitch axis and, potentially, in image stabilization overall.
Diffraction-Limited Performance {#ss:diffraction_limited}
-------------------------------
### FPSC Beam Size
The image stabilization results in Figure \[fig:image\_stability\] provide preliminary insights into the optical performance of the 2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope, which not only influences the quality of the resulting science images, but is directly related to the limiting depth and fidelity of FGS centroiding and, therefore, focal plane tracking performance. To quantify the sharpness of the star imaged on the FPSCs, the full-width half-max (FWHM – in pixels, denoted $W$) reported in flight (and shown in Figure \[fig:image\_stability\]) is estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{W} = \frac{4\log{2}}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{\sum_i p_i}{\mbox{max}_i p_i}}
\label{eq:fwhm_est}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_i p_i$ is the sum of all the pixels and $\mbox{max}_i p_i$ is the maximum/peak pixel value in the background-subtracted image subframe.
Due to the small number of pixels that contribute to the sum post-background-subtraction, this estimator $\hat{W}$ is inherently subject to pixel noise and is potentially biased due to variation in background estimates. To correct for this bias, simulated Gaussian sources were tuned such that $\hat{W}$ and background noise matched those observed and measured during flight. Over 10000 simulations, the input FWHM ($W$) used to match the flight images were then used to generate a calibration curve given by $W \simeq 1.307\hat{W}-0.705$. For the majority the 2019 flight, the estimated FWHM values on FPSC2 were within the $\hat{W} = $1.7–1.9px range per image, which correspond to bias-corrected FWHM values of $W =$1.52–1.78px or 0.255–0.300${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ on the sky. A representative measure of FWHM on FPSC1, which had considerably fewer image stabilization runs, is $\hat{W} = $1.75px corresponding to $W =$ 1.58 px or 0.265${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ on the sky.
For a typical 300 second science camera exposure, Figure \[fig:fpsc\_coadd\] shows the co-added PSF on the FPSCs, which effectively captures the optical PSF convolved with the pixel response, and the measured pointing jitter during image stabilization. Fitting a two dimensional Gaussian to the PSF yields a cumulative $0.400{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ and $0.350{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ FWHM on FPSC1 and FPSC2, respectively. After deconvolving the pointing jitter with a FWHM from 0.113–0.217${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ based on Figure \[fig:image\_stability\], this implies an optical PSF with a 0.273–0.302${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ FWHM.
The expected FPSC PSF can be estimated from simulation by taking into account the effective throughput at the FPSC (Figure \[fig:fpsc\_efficiency\]) and integrating the nominal simulated optical beam per-band. From this, the theoretical pixel-convolved FWHM is $0.273{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ on the sky, which agrees with the measured value remarkably well compared to the best-case measured PSF on FPSC2 ($<$1%) and within 10% for the worst-case. Note that, given its broadband spectral response, the FPSC PSF is markedly wide compared to the typical PSF expected in many of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science bands; however, the FPSCs provide higher PSF spatial resolution due to 20% smaller pixels compared to the science camera.
![Theoretical per-band optical efficiency at the FPSCs focal plane, which incorporates the following: optical characteristics, namely the transfer curves for the primary mirror, secondary mirror, and the lens stack combined; back-end optical characteristics, including the tip-tilt fold mirror and the FPSC pick-off mirror; and the nominal FPSC quantum efficiency response. For a flat spectrum source, the effective band center of the FPSCs is 600nm, with 89% bandwidth and a band-average throughput of 38%.[]{data-label="fig:fpsc_efficiency"}](fpsc_efficiency.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
As shown in Figure \[fig:fpsc\_coadd\], the measured PSF in the FPSCs on opposite sides of the field of view differ at a level of 50milliarcseconds, near the demonstrated limit of tracking stability. There are a variety of potential causes for this PSF variation. For example, a degree of optical misalignment may have been present at the secondary, causing an asymmetry in the aberrations at the location of the two FPSCs, which are offset 20.3mm from the optical axis (Figure \[fig:telescope\]). Pointing jitter over the FPSC exposure time is also convolved with the optical PSF per image, but the level to which this plays a role is limited by the short exposure times typical on the FPSCs (nominally $<$20ms). Relative focus stages allow for FPSCs’ focus positions to be calibrated independently, so the 15% broader PSF observed in FPSC1 compared to FPSC2 could be attributed to relative defocus between the two tracking camera sensors. All these can easily be improved through more regular calibration (e.g. daily) during a longer duration mid-latitude science flight.
### FPSC Tracking Depth
--------------- ---------------------- --------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------
Observed Mag. $t_{\rm exp}$ \[ms\] $a_{\rm snr}$ $\Delta M_{\rm exp,dc}$ $\Delta M_{\rm exp,rn}$ $\Delta M_{\rm snr}$ Limiting Mag.
8.7 $14$ $79$ $1.0$ $2.1$ $2.2$ 12–13
8.9 $19 $ $70$ $0.9$ $1.8$ $2.1$ 12–13
8.7 $11$ $85$ $1.2$ $2.4$ $2.3$ 12–14
6.0 $ 1.0$ $80$ $2.5$ $5.0$ $2.3$ 11–13
6.6 $ 3.0$ $54$ $1.9$ $3.8$ $1.8$ 10–12
--------------- ---------------------- --------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------
Overall, FPSC depth not only affects how well the FGS can effectively stabilize the telescope focal plane, but also directly determines the availability of targets on the sky, where sensitivity to dimmer guide stars (i.e. higher apparent magnitude) increases the likelihood that a given target will have a trackable star on one or both of the FPSCs. As such, it is important to assess the limiting star magnitude that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope can use for image stabilization. This was not directly measured during the 2019 flight due to time constraints, but the limiting star magnitude can be estimated with knowledge of system performance with known guide stars on the FPSC. Specifically, Table \[tab:fpsc\_mags\] shows a summary of identified stars on the FPSCs at a given exposure time and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) during unique image stabilization pointings during the 2019 flight. In terms of apparent magnitudes $M$, the potential gains from increased exposure time ($t_{\rm exp}$) and decreased SNR ($a_{\rm snr}$) can be estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta M_{\rm exp,rn} &=& 2.5\log\left(\tfrac{t_{\rm exp,max}}{t_{\rm exp}}\right)\\
\Delta M_{\rm exp,dc} &=& \tfrac{2.5}{2}\log\left(\tfrac{t_{\rm exp,max}}{t_{\rm exp}}\right)\\
\Delta M_{\rm snr} &=& 2.5\log\left(\tfrac{a_{\rm snr}}{a_{\rm snr,min}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Delta M_{\rm exp,rn}$ and $\Delta M_{\rm exp,dc}$ bound the magnitude gain from increased exposure time assuming either read-noise- or dark-current-limited exposures, respectively, where the latter yields reduced magnitude gain due to increased noise that scales with $\sqrt{t_{\rm exp}}$.
The minimum SNR is determined from simulation based on the fidelity of the centroiding algorithm used on the FPSCs, which suggests that the required one-tenth pixel centroid accuracy ($\sim$20milliarcseconds) is adequately maintained with $a_{\rm snr,min} = 10$. For maximum exposure time, FGS simulations indicate that tracking stability – limited by rate gyroscope noise (0.002$^\circ/\sqrt{\mbox{hr}}$) – is sufficiently constrained at the 20milliarcsecond level by FPSC centroid estimation at 10Hz, or $t_{\rm exp,max} = 0.1$s (see control architecture[@RomualdezThesis18]). Applying this to the 2019 tracking runs, Table \[tab:fpsc\_mags\] shows the limiting apparent magnitudes per target, with a flight average limiting magnitude range of of 11–13. Surveying the GAIA DR2 star catalog[@gaia_dr2] a limiting magnitude $\leq$13, the FPSCs are within 1of a guide star over about 83% of the sky. When considering multiple angles of observation over the course of a night, this approaches 100% of the sky.
For more conservative estimates, future [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science flights – such as a 30–50 day mid-latitude flight – would undoubtedly benefit from higher target availability over the full sky. As such, additional sensitivity could potentially be gained by improving the optical efficiency of the back-end optics or the FPSC CCD, where the former would be a trade-off for sensitivity in the shorter wavelength near-UV bands with alternative optical coatings. Improved target availability could also be achieved by increasing the proportion of the available telescope focal plane to FPSCs either through increased area per FPSC or additional FPSCs distributed about the science CCD.
Telescope Opto-mechanical & Focus Stability {#ss:opto_mech_stability}
-------------------------------------------
### Static Pointing Drift
{width="93.00000%"}
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}engineering flights prior to the 2019 flight had observed that relative pointing – specifically between the boresight star camera and the main telescope – had drifted significantly over long ($\geq$30minutes) tracking periods. This effect had only been mitigated by the fact that the 10–15${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ net sky-equivalent drifts observed had only been 18.7% the full FGS throw in the pre-2019 configuration, where $\phi = 69.8{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ from (\[eq:fgs\_throw\]) with $f = 10$, $\ell = 168$ mm, $\theta = 10$mrad [@Romualdez16].
In contrast, the 2019 flight configuration performance results shown in Figure \[fig:pointing\_drift\] demonstrate much more stable relative pointing on the sky, with a worst case $\leq$1.0${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ sky-equivalent drift over the same time period, or only 11.2% the full cross-pitch throw of the FGS. Note that compared to previous flight configurations, a 5 times reduction in FGS range – as implemented for the 2019 flight – favors improved position resolution over FGS throw. Although this implies that the 2019 FGS would not have been able to compensate for the larger relative drifts observed pre-2019, the more rigidly and optically coupled mounting of the boresight star camera directly to the carbon fiber telescope baffle tube played a major role in reducing drift over long timescales by an order of magnitude.
In addition to this effect, apparent relative pointing drift can also be the product of relative motion between optical components within the telescope itself, namely the primary and secondary mirrors shifting within their respective mounts due to thermal changes or changes in gravitational loading at different elevations. For pre-2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}test flights, the engineering telescope configuration utilized flexible, zero-stress mounting methods for optics (i.e. whiffle tree with spring side supports) typically used for ground-based or certain space-based applications. However, the large deflections observed from pre-2019 configurations may have also been indicative of significant gravity sag and, consequently, gross optical misalignment. In contrast, the 2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope, as described in Subsection \[ss:superbit\_architecture\], mitigates mechanical and thermal stress through static mounting of a conical primary, which is, by design, rigid to within the structural flexibility of the solid carbon fiber monocoque shell at the $\lambda$/20 surface roughness requirement.
### Relative Dynamics
Although static boresight camera mounting drift cannot be easily decoupled from gravity sag of telescope and back-end optics, the relative dynamics between the telescope baffle (via rate gyroscopes) can be directly compared with FPSC centroids on the telescope focal plane. As such, Figure \[fig:fpsc\_gyro\_centroids\] shows the spectra of the residual pitch and cross-pitch differences between the FPSC centroids and raw integrated rate gyroscopes, which are rigidly coupled to the telescope tube assembly. Since measurement took place during periods when the FGS was disabled despite having a trackable star on the FPSCs, this measurement represents the difference in frequency response between the telescope frame and the optics, assuming that external effects (e.g. stratospheric seeing at $<$0.010${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$) are negligible.
From pre-2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}test flights, significant disagreement had been observed at the 0.2${\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ level from 1–15Hz, where higher frequency motion had been captured by FPSC centroids that was not reflected in the rate gyroscopes. To some level, this would imply dynamic instability had been present between the telescope frame and telescope optics – likely due to the flexible primary mirror mount – that could have been driven by the telescope stabilization stage. In contrast, the 2019 flight results in Figure \[fig:fpsc\_gyro\_centroids\] show significantly improved agreement between FPSC centroids and integrated rate gyroscopes, and therefore suggest better optical and dynamic stability between the science telescope optics and baffle frame. Keeping in mind that $1/f$ drift is present in the raw integrated rate gyroscope timestreams, the sub-pixel agreement in amplitude spectra between integrated rate gyroscopes and FPSC centroids is further emphasized by the similar shape and magnitude of variations in the timestreams from 0.5–10Hz. There does appear to be to be a slight residual below 0.5 Hz, but this can likely be attributed to spike removal in the timestreams (Emcore).
When considering the static drift (Figure \[fig:pointing\_drift\]), the relative dynamic stability (Figure \[fig:fpsc\_gyro\_centroids\]), and the overall image stabilization performance (Figure \[fig:image\_stability\]), it is reasonable to assert – in contrast with pre-2019 engineering test flights – that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope met mechanical stability specifications required to provide effective sub-pixel image stabilization at a level sufficient for diffraction-limited imaging. Improvements in the rigidity of components’ relative mounting or the fidelity of inertial measurements could potentially be informed by direct measurement of telescope optics motion during tracking (e.g. accelerometer measurements).
\[s:summary\]
--------- --------------- ----------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
Year Launch Site Provider
@5min. @30min. @5min. @30min.
2015 Timmins, ON CNES-CSA 0.5 1.5 0.085 0.5
2016 Palestine, TX CSBF-NASA 0.5 1.1 0.070 0.2
2017/18 Palestine, TX CSBF-NASA 0.4 0.8 0.065 0.090
2019 Timmins, ON CNES-CSA 0.3 0.5 0.046 0.048
--------- --------------- ----------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
### FGS Depth-of-Focus Effects
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s minimum wavelength in the near-UV ($\lambda = 300$nm), the minimum delta focus $\Delta F$ to induce a quarter-wavelength wavefront error is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta F \simeq \pm 2\lambda f^2\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is the $f$-number for the telescope. For the pre-2019 engineering telescope with a 55mm diameter usable focal plane and $f=10$, the $\theta = 10$mrad full FGS throw could have potentially caused a defocus of 0.275mm at the edge, which exceeds the $\Delta F = 0.060$mm by nearly a factor of 5 had the full range been exercised. However, the maximum drift experienced from previous test flights was only 18.7% the full FGS throw equivalent to a maximum defocus of 0.514mm, which had been within the tolerable $\Delta F$ albeit marginally.
In contrast, the 2019 science telescope and back-end optics configuration has a five-fold reduction in FGS throw ($\theta = 2$mrad) with a maximum defocus of 0.055mm at the focal plane edge, which is comfortably within the $\Delta F = 0.0726$mm tolerable delta focus for $f=11$. For depth-of-focus, this implies significant margin for the maximum observed $1{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}\xspace}$ absolute drift observed during the 2019 flight (Figure \[fig:pointing\_drift\]), with nearly an order of magnitude more FGS throw than required to compensate.
For the 2019 science configuration overall, this ability to exercise the full FGS range highlights the flexibility in target re-acquisition accuracy during, for example, gimbal resets as shown in Figure \[fig:gimbal\_reset\]. Furthermore, this potentially enables the trading-off of telescope stabilization gains for improved image stabilization, which may require the FGS to compensate for lower frequencies at high amplitude, as described previously. Should additional range during image stabilization be required, as was likely the case for the pre-2019 [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}configuration and could be the case for future [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}flights for image dithering operations, FPSC centroid information could potentially be fed back to the telescope stabilization loop to mitigate larger low frequency perturbations. However, care would have be to taken to ensure sufficient decoupling with image stabilization (i.e. prevent co-servoed jack-knifing).
Summary & Forecasting {#s:forecast}
=====================
Table \[tab:superbit\_performance\_todate\] shows the progression of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}performance over 4 test flights from 2015–2019 compared to the most recent science telescope commissioning flight in September 2019. As previously mentioned, a major factor contributing to the improved performance of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}2019 flight compared with previous test flights was the design, implementation, and flight verification of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}diffraction-limited telescope (Figure \[fig:telescope\]), which provided the necessary opto-mechanical static and dynamic stability as well as optical beam quality (Figure \[fig:fpsc\_coadd\]) required for sufficiently robust focal plane stability. This is clearly reflected in the image stabilization results for 2019 (Figure \[fig:image\_stability\]), where the performance over 5minute timescales is maintained over entire telescope tracking runs (Figure \[fig:telescope\_stability\]) at the 30–60minutes timescale. Improvements in 2019 opto-mechanical design and relative mounting stiffness allowed for higher resolution in the image stabilization stage over a smaller range compared to engineering test flights (Subsection \[ss:opto\_mech\_stability\]).
From the latest 2019 performance, the level of image stability achieved has been shown to be sufficient for diffraction-limited imaging from over [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}’s wavelength range (300–1000nm) (Subsection \[ss:diffraction\_limited\]). As discussed in Subsection \[ss:stabilization\]), 2019 flight performance could have been improved with more time allocated to trading-off the coarse stabilization loop performance at lower frequencies for reduced high frequency rate gyroscope noise that perturbed image stabilization (Figure \[fig:pitch\_overcontrol\]) through a careful gain reduction. For the prospective [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}mid-latitude LDB flight, this is effectively mitigated by the availability of additional calibration time on the sky as well as more opportunity for iteration with feedback from science images, both of which was quite limited by less than 8hours of operational time at float in 2019.
Ultimately, the optical and mechanical performance of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}science telescope and gondola will determine effective science yield, specifically the number of clusters observed in the case of weak lensing. The achievable depth on the science camera focal plane based on the telescope throughput will directly influence overall survey efficiency source completeness, while the PSF contributions from pointing jitter, optical alignment, and non-linear focal plane effects will impact the fidelity of background galaxy ellipticities at the 1–3% level (estimated). Although certain aspects of these science-related factors are explored in the work presented here, further work is currently being undertaken to fully assess [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}weak lensing potential as well as other science forecasting. This ongoing and future work will be captured in an upcoming *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SuperBIT</span>]{}forecasting paper*, in which the results of this work will be directly leveraged.
Support for the development of SuperBIT is provided by NASA through APRA grant NNX16AF65G. Launch and operational support for the sequence of test flights from Palestine, Texas are provided by the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) under contract from NASA’s Balloon Program Office (BPO). Launch and operational support for test flights from Timmins, Ontario are provided by the *Centre National d’Études Spatiales* (CNES) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA).
LJR is supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council Post-doctoral Fellowship \[NSERC PDF–532579–2019\]. MJ is supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship ’Using Cosmic Beasts to uncover the Nature of Dark Matter’ \[grant MR/S017216/1\].
The Dunlap Institute is funded through an endowment established by the David Dunlap family and the University of Toronto. UK coauthors acknowledge funding from the Durham University Astronomy Projects Award, the Van Mildert College Trust, STFC \[grant ST/P000541/1\], the Royal Society \[grants UF150687 and RGF/EA/180026\], and UKRI \[grant MR/S017216/1\].
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [*Gaia*]{} (<https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [*Gaia*]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the [*Gaia*]{} Multilateral Agreement. Additionally, this work made use of the `SAOImage DS9` imaging application [@ds9], `Astrometry.net` [@astrometry], and `SExtractor` [@sextractor].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the first – of a series – study of the evolution of galaxies in compact groups over the past 3 Gyr. This paper focuses on the evolution of the nuclear activity and how it has been affected by the dense environment of the groups. Our analysis is based on the largest multiwavelength compact group sample to-date, containing complete ultraviolet-to-infrared (UV-to-IR) photometry for 1,770 isolated groups (7,417 galaxies). We classified the nuclear activity of the galaxies based on optical emission line and mid-infrared diagnostic methods, as well as using spectral energy distribution fitting. We observe a 15% increase on the number of the AGN-hosting late-type galaxies found in dynamically old groups, over the past 3 Gyr, accompanied by the corresponding decrease of their circumnuclear star formation. Comparing our compact group results with those of local isolated field and interacting pair galaxies, we find no differences in the AGN at the same redshift range. Based on both optical and mid-IR colour classifications, we report the absence of Seyfert 1 nuclei and we attribute this to the low accretion rates, caused by the depletion of gas. We propose that the observed increase of LINER and Seyfert 2 nuclei (at low-z’s), in the early-type galaxies of the dynamically young groups, is due to the morphological transformation of lenticular into elliptical galaxies. Finally, we show that at any given stellar mass, galaxies found in dynamically old groups are more likely to host an AGN. Our findings suggest that the depletion of gas, due to past star formation and tidal stripping, is the major mechanism driving the evolution of the nuclear activity in compact groups of galaxies.'
author:
- |
T. Bitsakis,$^{1}$[^1] D. Dultzin$^{1}$, L. Ciesla$^{2,3}$, Y. Krongold$^{1}$, V. Charmandaris$^{2,3,4}$, A. Zezas$^{2,5,6}$\
$^{1}$Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 70-264, 04510 D.F., Mexico\
$^{2}$Department of Physics, University of Crete, 71003, Heraklion, Greece\
$^{3}$Institute for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space Applications & Remote Sensing, National Observatory of Athens, GR-15236, Penteli, Greece\
$^{4}$Chercheur Associé, Observatoire de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France\
$^{5}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA\
$^{6}$Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion 71003, Greece\
date: 'date-here'
title: 'Studying the evolution of galaxies in compact groups over the past 3 Gyr. I. The nuclear activity'
---
\[firstpage\]
Galaxies: nuclei – Galaxies: interactions – Galaxies: groups: general – Galaxies: Seyfert
Introduction
============
Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are considered some of the most dramatic and enigmatic phenomena in the evolution of galaxies. It is now believed that most galaxies in the Universe may host a supper-massive black hole (SMBH) in their nucleus [@Kormendy04], thus stressing the importance of understanding the key mechanisms creating, fuelling and quenching them. Despite the diversity of the observed nuclear activities, there is currently a general consensus that they are all different expressions of the same phenomena. According to the AGN unification scheme [@Antonucci93; @Urry95], this diversity depends on our viewing angle. The SMBH is surrounded by an accretion disk, which in turn is also enclosed in an optically thick dusty torus. Depending on our position, we can either observe directly towards the central broad line region (BLR), where we may observe a Type 1 source (a.k.a Seyfert 1; Sy1), or the torus shall block our view towards the center, allowing us to observe only its reflection on the narrow line region (NLR) clouds, and therefore a Type 2 AGN (a.k.a Seyfert 2; Sy2). As a consequence, the expected spectrum of a Sy2 is dominated by narrow lines ($<$1000 km s$^{-1}$) of ionized metals (such as \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ and \[NII\]$\lambda6584$), whereas Sy1s have both narrow and broad lines ($\gg$1000 km s$^{-1}$).
More recently, however, a number of studies suggested that Sy1 and Sy2 hosting galaxies display important intrinsic, as well as environmental differences. @Steffen03 showed that broad-line AGN are dominating the high X-ray luminosities, whereas narrow-line AGN the lower ones. (the so-called “Steffen effect”). To interpret these results one should assume either a modification to the unified scheme, to include X-ray luminosities, or the complete segregation of Sy1 and Sy2 sources as two different categories of nuclear activity. Some optical and infrared studies revealed that Sy2 galaxies are more likely to display circumnuclear star formation than Sy1s [i.e. @Dultzin94; @Maiolino97; @Gu01], with more than 50% of them exhibiting nuclear starbursts [@Cid01]. Galaxies hosting a Sy2 nucleus, though, were found more frequently in interaction with close neighbours ($\le$100 kpc) than Sy1s or non-active galaxies [@Dultzin99; @Krongold02; @Koulouridis06; @Villarroel14]. On the other hand, @Wu09 showed that there is no statistical difference in the strength of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which probe star formation, between Sy1’s and Sy2’s. In addition, @Elitzur12 proposed that Sy1 and Sy2 AGN are simply the extremes of the AGN distribution, where in the first case we observe directly towards the BLR whereas in the other dust blocks completely our view towards it. @Tran01 showed that 50% of the Sy2’s in their sample displayed BLRs observed in reflected polarised light (a.k.a hidden-BLRs; HBLRs), confirming their obscured Sy1 nature. However, the remaining non-HBLR galaxies appear to have lower AGN luminosities, indicative of their lower accretion rates [@Wu11]. All the above results, raised concerns about the validity of the Unification scheme. Alternative models [i.e. @Nicastro00; @Nicastro03 and references therein] suggested that the accretion rate, and subsequently the AGN luminosity, play a key role in the presence of the BLR. @Elitzur06 showed that for low bolometric luminosities ($<$10$^{42}$erg sec$^{-1}$), the torus and possibly the BLR disappear, due to the inability of the SMBH to sustain the required cloud outflow rate.
The existence of a connection between galaxy interactions and nuclear activity, both in terms of star formation and/or AGN activity, has been also confirmed by @Storchi08. Since most galaxies in the Universe are found in interacting environments – such as pairs, groups and clusters [e.g. @Small99] – it is very important to understand their connection with the various types of nuclear activity. Although clusters host the largest number of galaxies, of all the interacting environments, it has been recently shown that a large number of their members have been pre-processed in groups [i.e @Cortese06; @Eckert14]. @Hickson92 showed that compact groups (CGs) of galaxies appear as the ideal systems to study the effects of galaxy interactions, due to their high galaxy densities and low velocity dispersions ($\sim$250 km s$^{-1}$). So far, the most complete and best studied CG sample was [**the one**]{} compiled by @Hickson82. The initial sample consisted of 100 CGs – the so-called Hickson compact groups (HCGs), containing 451 galaxies – however later @Hickson92, using spectroscopic information, reduced it to 92 groups having at least 3 accordant members. Although, the dynamical and star formation properties of these groups have been extensively examined during the last three decades [i.e @Mendes94; @Johnson07; @Bitsakis10; @Bitsakis11], there is a limited number of studies focused on their nuclear activity. @Shimada00 studied a sample of 69 galaxies belonging to 31 HCGs and found that nearly 40% host an AGN. Later, @Martinez08 and @Martinez10 relied on the optical spectroscopy of 270 galaxies in 64 CGs, and confirmed the fraction of AGN previously found (42%). They also showed that the majority of AGN in CGs have low luminosities (LLAGN), and they attributed this to their high gas deficiencies. This result is consistent with those of @Verdes01, @MartinezBadenes12 and @Bitsakis14, where it was shown that HCG galaxies display high deficiencies in their atomic and molecular gas, as well as their dust content due to tidal stripping. More recently, @Sohn13 studied a sample of 58 local CGs selected from the SDSS data release 7. They found AGN activity in 17-42% of the galaxies, depending on the classification method used. They also showed that no powerful dust-obscured AGN were detected, according to the most recent WISE mid-IR classification method of @Mateos12, and they suggested that nuclear activity is not strong due to gas depletion. Finally, @Tzanavaris14 examined $Chandra$ X-ray maps of 9 HCGs and showed that the majority of the galaxies displaying low specific star formation rates (thus being earlier types), are also more likely to host a weak AGN, with L$_{X, 0.5-8.0 keV} < 10^{41}$ erg sec$^{-1}$.
Although these studies examined the incidence of the AGN activity in local CG galaxies (z$<$0.05) and its connection with the dense environment of the groups, they were not able to show how it evolved throughout cosmic time. Nevertheless, the well known connection between star formation and the AGN activities [e.g. @Magorrian98] and the fact that the star formation history of the Universe changed significantly over the past few Gyr [e.g. @Heavens04], imply that AGN activity should have also experienced several different phases, during this period. Using the advent of wide-area extragalactic surveys, such as the Galaxy Evolution Explorer surveys ($GALEX$), the Sloan Digital Sky Survey ($SDSS$), the 2 micron all-sky survey ($2MASS$), and the Wide-field Infrared Survey [**($WISE$)**]{} Explorer All Sky Release, as well as the published CG catalogues of @McConnachie09, we obtained a working sample of 1,770 CGs, containing 7,417 galaxies, in the redshift range of 0.01$<$z$<$0.23 (thus, looking back time of approximately 3 Gyr). Using this sample, we will examine the evolution of the AGN activity and its connection with the dynamic environment of the groups. In §2, we describe the selection of our sample, and also the comparison samples we have used to put the properties of our galaxies into context. In §3, the nuclear and morphological classifications are presented, as well as the spectral energy distribution modeling we performed to estimate some important physical properties of the galaxies, necessary for our study. In §4, we present results, and in §5 we discuss their implications. Finally, in §6, we sum up our main conclusions.
To calculate the distances in this paper we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, with parameters: H$_{0}$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}$=0.30 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.70.
The samples
===========
The SDSS compact group sample selection
---------------------------------------
The sample of compact groups of galaxies, presented in this paper is part of the larger sample of @McConnachie09. The latter was constructed by applying the slightly-improved Hickson’s criteria, to the whole Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 6 ($SDSS$-DR6; @Adelman08). @Hickson82 defined as compact all galaxy groups in which, $(i)$ the number of galaxies within 3 magnitudes are at least four, N($\Delta$m$_{r}$=3)$\ge$4, $(ii)$ the angular diameter with no additional galaxies is at least 3 times the diameter of the group, $\theta_{N}\ge 3 \theta_{G}$, and $(iii)$ the total magnitude of the galaxies, averaged over $\theta_{G}$, is less than 26mag arcsec$^{-2}$. However, @McConnachie08 showed that by increasing the required minimum surface brightness, from 26-to-22 mags arcsec$^{-2}$, the contamination of groups containing an additional non-member galaxy decreases from 71% to 26%. Moreover, they imposed a faint-end limit at Petrosian r-band magnitude of 18 mags, to ensure that the observational and the mock catalogues (created to test the selection criteria) are robustly compared, and a bright-end limit of 14.5 mags, to ensure that automatic de-blending of galaxies is reliable. Their final catalogue comprised 2,297 compact groups, containing 9,713 galaxies (see Catalogue A of @McConnachie09). For the purposes of this work we have constructed a sub-sample of the Catalogue A of @McConnachie09, using as a criterion the availability of ultraviolet (UV), optical, near and mid-infrared (IR) photometry, which are essential to estimate the physical properties of the galaxies and perform a detailed analysis of the sample.
Initially, since Catalogue A originates from the $SDSS$, optical photometry was available for all the galaxies. The $SDSS$-DR7 [@Abazajian09] covered over 35% of the sky in the $u, g, r, i, z$ bands, centered at 3557, 4825, 6261, 7672 and 9097$\AA{}$, with a resolution of 1.4 arcsec and sensitivities ranging from 22.0-to-20.5 mags for 5-$\sigma$ detection, respectively. The photometry was automatically estimated using a combination of two models, a pure de Vaucouleurs profile and a pure exponential profile, which is considered the optimal for extended sources (called the CModel Magnitudes; @Strauss02). Simultaneously, spectroscopy was performed at all sources brighter than 17.77 mags in r-band, with angular separation more than 55 arcsec to avoid collision of the $SDSS$ fibers. The size of the $SDSS$ aperture was 3(see more in §3.4). The fluxes and equivalent widths of the optical lines have been obtained from the work of @Brinchmann04. These authors have published the processed line fluxes of more than 8$\cdot$10$^{5}$ galaxies from the $SDSS$-DR7 (see MPA-JHU DR7). They fitted single Gaussian profiles after removing the stellar continuum, correcting for the foreground galactic reddening and re-normalising them to match the photometric fiber magnitudes in the r-band. In addition, they re-estimated the uncertainties to include both errors in spectrophotometry and continuum subtraction uncertainties. Unfortunately, they have chosen 500 km s$^{-1}$ as an upper limit of the width of the Gaussian profile, to ensure the correct estimation of the faintest line fluxes where widths are often overestimated, thus preventing us from classifying real broad-line galaxies (with widths $>$1000 km s$^{-1}$). The fraction of the emission line galaxies in our sample, having signal-to-noise ratios S/N$>$3, was 75%.
For the near-IR observations we have used the published magnitudes from the $2MASS$ extended source catalogue [@Skrutskie06]. The galaxies were imaged in J, H, and K bands, with 3-$\sigma$ sensitivity limits of 14.7, 13.9, and 13.1 mags, respectively. The photometry was performed using sets of circular and ellipsoidal apertures applied on the 3-$\sigma$ J-band isophote of each individual galaxy, so that both the integrated flux, as well as the estimated uncertainty were estimated.
Using the latest $WISE$ [@Wright10] all sky release, we obtained the photometry or the upper limits for the galaxies in our sample. $WISE$ was a 40cm telescope, which performed all sky survey, covering the 3.4, 4.6, 12.0, and 22.0$\mu$m bands (named w1-to-w4), with 5-$\sigma$ sensitivity limits 19.70-to-14.40 mags, respectively. The $WISE$ photometry (WPHOT) was automatically performed using profile fitting. However, if the PSFs of two or more galaxies were closer than the resolution of the telescope (6-to-12 arcsec), WPHOT reports the total photometry with a blending parameter, which is the number of PSFs included in the aperture.
The UV data were obtained from $GALEX$ [@Morrissey05] All Sky Survey (AIS; with 100sec on-source exposures), Medium Imaging Survey (MIS; with 1500sec on-source exposures), Nearby Galaxy Survey (NGS; with typical exposures of 4000sec), Deep Imaging Survey (DIS; with typical exposures of 4000sec), as well as from Guest Investigator’s data 1-to-4 (GI1-4; with typical exposures of 1500sec); publicly available in the $GALEX$ archive. $GALEX$ is a 50cm diameter UV telescope that imaged the sky simultaneously in both FUV and NUV channels, centered at 1540Å and 2300Å, respectively. The field-of-view (FOV) is approximately circular with a diameter of $1.2^{o}$ and a resolution of about 5.5$''$ (FWHM) in the NUV. The data sets used in this paper are based-on the $GALEX$ sixth data release (GR6). The photometry was initially acquired from the GALEX archive, where it was automatically performed using SExtractor [see @Bertin96], a code that estimates the fluxes of all the sources in a given image using ellipsoid apertures.
To check the accuracy of the archival photometry obtained in the various bands (from the UV-to-IR), we randomly selected a sample of galaxies and performed aperture photometry, using the galaxy 3-$\sigma$ isophotal contours. Our results suggested that the published $SDSS$, $2MASS$ and $WISE$ archival fluxes were consistent with our photometry, within the uncertainties. However, for more than 10% of the $GALEX$/NUV fluxes and for $\sim$34% of the $GALEX$/FUV fluxes we found differences of 1-2 magnitudes (see Fig. \[fig\_galex\]). To overcome this limitation in the UV fluxes, we manually performed aperture photometry by calculating the isophotal contours around each source in order to account for variations in the shape of the emitting region. Then we defined a limiting isophote 3-$\sigma$ above the local overall background, for each galaxy, and we measured the flux within this region, after subtracting the corresponding sky. To convert from counts to UV fluxes we used the conversion coefficients, given in the header of each file. The upper limits depend on the survey ranging from 20.5 and 21.5 mags, to 24.0 and 24.5 mags, for FUV and NUV bands respectively.
![Differences between the $GALEX$ photometry of the galaxies in our sample, derived manually using aperture photometry (indicated as $phot$) and the archival ones (indicated as $GALEX$) in the FUV (top panel) and NUV (bottom panel) bands. In the bottom boxes are presented the standard deviations ($\sigma$) of the values created as running averages, in bins of 0.1 mag. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig_galex"}](fig_galex.ps)
Our final sample comprises 1,770 groups, containing 7,417 galaxies with available UV-to-mid-IR flux densities. Due to $SDSS$ fiber collision constraints, optical spectroscopy was available only for 4,208 of these galaxies (for the purposes of this paper, galaxies with no spectral information were assigned with the z of the most massive galaxy in their group). This sample is nearly 55 times larger than the previous HCG multiwavelength samples presented in @Bitsakis11 [@Bitsakis14]. It also covers a much larger volume in the Universe, with groups being detected up to a redshift of 0.23, equal to a distance of $\sim$1.15 Gpc (the corresponding for HCGs is z$\sim$0.022 or 95 Mpc).
The comparison samples
----------------------
As comparison samples we have used truly isolated galaxies in the field, as well as galaxies in isolated interacting pairs. The first sample contains 513 local (with z below 0.05) isolated field galaxies presented in @Hernandez13. It mostly consists of late-type galaxies (86%), with an AGN fraction of 40%, at least for the 87% of them for which optical emission lines could be measured. The second, is a sample of 385 isolated interacting pair galaxies, 71% of which are LTGs [originally selected from the catalog of @Karachentsev72], was taken from @Hernandez14. Approximately 82% of these galaxies have emission lines, and $\sim$49% of them are classified as AGN-hosting galaxies. The authors separated the pairs into three subsamples depending on the morphologies of the member galaxies. Pairs consisting of late-type galaxies (S+S), of early-type galaxies (E+E), and mixed pairs (S+E). Both samples were selected from the $SDSS$-DR7 survey, having the same spectroscopic limitations than our compact group sample.
Data analysis and classifications
=================================
Morphological classification
----------------------------
![The BPT diagnostic diagram of 4,208 galaxies in our sample with available optical spectroscopy. The dashed and dotted lines indicate the @Kauffmann03 and @Kewley06 AGN selection criteria, respectively. Galaxies located under the dashed line are classified as star forming nuclei (SFN), galaxies over the dotted line as pure AGN, and galaxies between the two as composite objects. Contours are at 5% intervals of the maximum of the total distribution. Mean uncertainties are indicated in the bottom right corner and correspond to the 6% and 16% of the x and y-axis values, respectively. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.ps)
A very important step to put the properties of our galaxies into context, was the classification of their morphologies, as well as of the dynamical state of the groups (as proposed by @Bitsakis10). To classify our galaxies into late-type (spirals and irregulars; hereafter LTGs) and early-type (lenticulars and ellipticals; hereafter ETGs), we have relied on the criteria described in @Simard09 [@Simard11]. These authors have fitted the $SDSS$ r-band 2D, point-spread-function-convolved, bulge$+$disk decompositions of a sample of 1.12 million galaxies from the SDSS-DR7. Using four different decomposition procedures they ensured more robust structural parameters of the galaxies, even in crowded environments. According to their findings, galaxies with bulge-to-disk ratios B/T$\ge$0.35 and image smoothness at half-light radius S2$\ge$0.075 are classified as ETGs. Applying this classification in our sample, 3,045 galaxies are classified as LTGs (41%), 4,367 as ETGs (59%). There is no available classification for 5. The results are similar to what we have observed in HCGs (54% LTGs and 46% ETGs, respectively).
As mentioned above, in @Bitsakis10 we have proposed a dynamical-evolution classification for the groups, depending on their ETG fraction. There we showed that this kind of classification is physical and also consistent with previous classifications based on the distribution of the HI gas content of the groups [see @Verdes01; @Borthakur10]. According to this, groups with more than 25% of early-type members are classified as “dynamically old” (DO), whereas groups with less or no ETGs as “dynamically young” (DY). Applying this classification to our current sample, we find 373 dynamically young (21%), and 1,397 dynamically old groups (79%).
![The @Kewley06 diagnostic BPT diagrams, that use \[O[I]{}\]$\lambda6300$ (top panel) and \[S[II]{}\]$(\lambda6717+6731)$ lines (bottom panel), to further separate AGN galaxies into Sy2 and LINERs (found in the upper left and lower right portion of both diagrams, respectively). Contours are at 5% intervals of the maximum of the total distribution. Mean uncertainties are indicated in the bottom right corner of each panel and correspond to the 18% and 16%, as well as the 6% and 16% of the x and y-axis values of the top and bottom panels, respectively. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps)
AGN classification methods
--------------------------
To characterise the nuclear activity of the galaxies in our sample, we have relied on the spectral classification diagnostic diagrams, initially proposed by @Baldwin81 and later expanded by @Veilleux87, also known as BPT-diagrams. These, compare the flux ratios of several narrow emission lines, such as \[O[III]{}\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$, \[N[II]{}\]$\lambda6584$/H$\alpha$, \[S[II]{}\]$(\lambda6717+6731)$/H$\alpha$ and \[O[I]{}\]$\lambda6300$/H$\alpha$, and distinguish the nuclear activity of galaxies between star-forming nuclei (SFN), active galactic nuclei (AGN), and composite objects (objects showing both signatures of both SFN and AGN). In Fig. \[fig2\] we present the \[O[III]{}\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ versus the \[N[II]{}\]$\lambda6584$/H$\alpha$ line ratios of the 4,208 galaxies in our sample with available optical spectroscopy [see @Brinchmann04]. Following the selection criteria introduced by @Kauffmann03 and @Kewley06, 1,436 of them are classified as SFN (34%), 1,860 as AGN (44%), and 912 as composite objects (22%; detected to host both star formation as well as AGN activity within our aperture).
However, the above methods are not able to distinguish between broad-line Sy1, which appear to have very wide spectral lines with widths $>$1000 km s$^{-1}$, form narrow-line Sy2 sources. Nevertheless, as we explained in §2.1, @Brinchmann04 set an upper limit (of 500 km s$^{-1}$) to the width of the Gaussian profiles they have used to fit the spectral lines, to better constrain the weak narrow lines. Therefore, using these data, we have classified as “broad-line AGN”, all AGN-hosting galaxies detected with signal-to-noise ratios $>$10$\sigma$, and lines wider than the upper limit, $\sigma>$500 km s$^{-1}$. This had as a result to include both Sy1s, as well as other narrower sources (having spectral line widths between 500 and 1000km s$^{-1}$). Yet, even applying this approximate classification, the fraction of “broad-line” AGN in our sample is negligible ($<$1%).
![The @Mateos12 WISE \[4.6\]-\[12\] versus \[3.4\]-\[4.6\] colour diagram. Galaxies containing dust obscured AGN are located in the area within the dashed lines. Contours are at 5% intervals of the maximum of the total distribution. Since, $<$1% of our sources are found in the AGN locus, we identify them with black points. Mean uncertainties are indicated in the bottom right corner and correspond to the 4% of the x and y-axis values. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.ps)
More recent classifications were also able to distinguish between Sy2s and low-ionisation nuclear emission-line regions [**(LINERs; their classification as AGN is still open to discussion; e.g. see @Heckman80 [@Ho93])**]{}. In the two panels of Fig. \[fig3\], we present the diagnostic methods proposed by @Kewley06. According to these, we plot the \[O[III]{}\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ versus the \[O[I]{}\]$\lambda6300$/H$\alpha$ (top panel) as well the \[S[II]{}\]$(\lambda6717+6731)$/H$\alpha$ (bottom panel) line ratios, of all the galaxies detected in the classic BPT as AGN-hosting. Based on these classifications, 319/531 of these galaxies are classified to host a Sy2 nucleus (8-13%), whereas 685/851 are LINERs (16-20%), respectively.
Finally, by applying the colour diagnostic methods of @Mateos12 and @Stern12 we were also able to identify dust obscured AGN activity. These methods compare the mid-IR colours of galaxies, to identify a power-law-based selection of luminous AGN candidates. The first method compares the WISE \[4.6$\mu$m\]-\[12$\mu$m\] versus the \[3.4$\mu$m\]-\[4.6$\mu$m\] colours (see Fig. \[fig5\]) and defines an area where power-law dominant AGN should be located. The second, describes different colour selection, where mid-IR luminous AGN should be located, at \[3.4$\mu$m\]-\[4.6$\mu$m\]$\ge$0.8 (Vega mags). Both methods predict the fraction of dust obscured AGN to be $<$1%.
Spectral energy distribution modeling
-------------------------------------
We performed a UV to mid-IR broad band spectral energy distribution (SED; see Fig. \[figSED\]) fitting of all of the sources of the catalogue using the recently updated version of the [CIGALE]{} model, which includes a detailed treatment of the AGN influence to the observed SED [@Noll09; @Ciesla14 Boquien et al. in prep, Burgarella et al. in prep]. Based on an energy balance between the energy absorbed in UV-optical and re-emitted in IR, [CIGALE]{} builds SED models that are then compared to the data. For each model, [CIGALE]{} computes the $\chi^2$ value in order to build the probability distribution function (PDF) of each parameter. The final value of a parameter is thus the mean value of the PDF and the uncertainty associated is the standard deviation of the distribution.\
![Example of fits obtained with the [CIGALE]{} code. The color code of the data-point refers to the instrument used, in purple: UV data from $GALEX$, in blue: optical data from $SDSS$, in red: NIR data from $2MASS$, and in green: MIR data from $WISE$. The black solid line shows the best fit model for each source. The value of the reduced $\chi^2$ is indicated for each fit. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="figSED"}](fig_sed.eps)
We used a delayed star formation history (SFH) for our galaxies as it has been shown that it provides a good estimate of the stellar mass and SFR, as well as realistic ages [@Ciesla14]. This SFH was convolved with the stellar population models of [@Maraston05]. The SED was then attenuated using the [@Calzetti00] law, and the energy absorbed is re-emitted in the IR through the [@Dale14] templates. [CIGALE]{} models the presence of an AGN through the library of [@Fritz06], which takes into account the emission of the central object, the dust torus emission, and the scattered photons. However, when using broad band photometry, the AGN models are highly degenerated. Therefore, following [@Ciesla14], we used three models: a Sy1, a Sy2, and an intermediate type AGN template, displaying a power law emission in mid-IR without any strong UV contribution. Two of the most important output parameters, for our current study, provided by [CIGALE]{} are the stellar masses as well as the contribution of the AGN to the total IR luminosity, $f_{AGN}$, for each galaxy. We are confident in the presence of an AGN when $f_{AGN}$ is higher than 10%. Between 5 and 10% @Ciesla14 showed that this confidence is reduced (yet the $\chi^{2}$ value is still 50% lower than by not using the power-law template), and for fractions below 5% we cannot conclude by the fit whether an AGN is present.
Bias control and mass selection
-------------------------------
![Selection biases in our sample. Malmquist bias prevents us from observing less massive galaxies at higher redshifts. Moreover, due to an upper limit cut-off in the luminosities, during the selection process, brighter galaxies at lower-z’s were also excluded. Galaxies selected in the stellar mass range of 10.4$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.3 M$_{\odot}$, are located within the dashed lines. For the purposes of comparison we separate our sample into four different redshift regions, containing a similar number of galaxies ($\sim$1,100). These are: Bin1 (blue; 0.010$\le$z$<$0.078), Bin2 (green; 0.078$\le$z$<$0.104), Bin3 (orange; 0.104$\le$z$<$0.133) and Bin4 (red; 0.133$\le$z$<$0.230). (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal) []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps)
Due to its large size, with galaxies found in a wide range of redshifts and stellar masses, our sample can be subject to selection biases. In an effort to detect and control them, we plot in Fig. \[fig1\] the stellar masses of the galaxies in our sample as a function of their redshift. The Malmquist effect appears at higher redshifts (see lower-portion of this figure). [**Since**]{}, we are unable to detect the faintest sources and, as a consequence we are biased towards the more massive ones. Furthermore, on the upper left portion of the same figure we can notice one more bias. As we mentioned in §2.1, an upper limit cut-off was applied to the SDSS luminosities of our galaxies, to ensure the success of the automatic de-blending [see @McConnachie09]. This had as a result to exclude the lower-z bright-massive galaxies from our sample. To overcome these two biases, while comparing galaxies at different redshifts, we chose objects within the mass range of 10.4$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.3 M$_{\odot}$. This mass selection can also ensure that we are not including dwarf galaxies in our study, which could affect our statistics. Indeed, the lower mass limit of log(M$_{stellar}$) = 10.4 M$_{\odot}$ refers to $SDSS$ z-band magnitudes brighter than -21.5, which correspond to bright galaxies, according to the $SDSS$ z-band luminosity functions presented in @Blanton01.
Moreover, for the purposes of comparison we have also separated our sample into four different redshift bins, chosen to contain a similar number of galaxies after the mass selection was applied (shown in Fig. \[fig1\] in different colours). In Table \[tab\_bin\], we present the number and the median stellar mass of the galaxies in each redshift bin, before and after the stellar mass selection. It is evident that after the mass segregation, we are able to compare similar – in a statistical manner – samples of galaxies. In the same table we also present the duration of each redshift period (in Gyr), and the number of LTGs and ETGs, as well as dynamically young and old groups found in each bin.
z bin - range No. of galaxies$^{a}$ log(M$_{star}$) \[M$_{\odot}$\]$^{a}$ No. of galaxies$^{b}$ log(M$_{star}$) \[M$_{\odot}$\]$^{b}$ T$^{c}$ \[Gyr\] LTGs/ETGs$^{d}$ DY/DO$^{e}$
------------------ ----------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------
Bin1 0.010-0.078 2,237 10.26$\pm$0.20 1,109 10.75$\pm$0.32 1.0 442/667 61/216
Bin2 0.078-0.104 1,717 10.66$\pm$0.25 1,119 10.80$\pm$0.32 0.4 359/760 50/230
Bin3 0.104-0.133 1,444 10.86$\pm$0.29 1,111 10.85$\pm$0.33 0.4 330/780 34/244
Bin4 0.133-0.230 1,489 11.09$\pm$0.28 1,016 10.97$\pm$0.34 1.0 328/687 38/217
All redshifts 7,417 10.76$\pm$0.12 4,355 10.84$\pm$0.18 2.8 1,459/2,894 183/907
$^{a}$ Total number of galaxies in each bin.\
$^{b}$ Number of galaxies in each bin with stellar masses of 10.5$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.2 M$_{\odot}$.\
$^{c}$ Duration of each redshift period, according to $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.\
$^{d}$ Number of late-type (LTGs) and early-type (ETGs) galaxies in each bin, after the mass selection.\
$^{e}$ Number of dynamically young (DY) and old (DO) groups in each bin, after the mass selection.\
In §3.1, we classified the morphologies of our galaxies based on the fitted radial profiles and the selection criteria described in @Simard11. Nevertheless, due to their larger distances, LTGs at higher-z’s might appear more “spheroidal” with result to be misclassified as ETGs. In that case, we should expect to observe more ETGs as we are probing at higher-z. To examine this, we have applied – in addition to our current – the classifications proposed by @Balogh04 and @Tanaka05. These authors classified galaxies into star-forming (thus, LTG) or quiescent (thus, ETG), based on their H$\alpha$ equivalent widths (EW(H$\alpha$)), with star-forming galaxies having EW(H$\alpha$)$>$4Å. Comparing the results of these classifications with the one we performed in §3.1, we find differences of $<$3% at the various redshift bins. In addition, using the published galaxy morphologies from the “Galaxy Zoo”[^2] [@Lintott11], we found more than 95% agreement, for classifications with $>$80% confidence, suggesting that the fraction of misclassified galaxies in our sample is likely very low.
Finally, one more probable bias associated with our data, could emerge from the fact that as we are probing at higher redshifts, the nuclear spectra will be increasingly contaminated by their galaxy-hosts (due to the finite size of the slit/fiber). Using the results of the fitted radial profiles of our galaxies, from @Simard11, we plot in Fig. \[fig\_cont\] the distributions of the ratios of the 3$''$ SDSS spectro-fiber over the disk radii, at the different redshift bins. Our results show that at z$<$0.104 this contamination is insignificant, however at 0.104$<$z$<$0.133 around 10-15%, and at 0.133$<$z$<$0.230 more than 20% of the disk galaxies may suffer a significant contamination in their nuclear spectra. @Moran02 showed that galaxy nuclear spectra suffering a contamination from their disks would move towards the lower-left portion of the classic BPT diagram, due to the dilution of their spectral lines, therefore often misclassifying AGN as SFN. However, a more recent study by @Maragkoudakis14 revealed that galaxies with extra-nuclear star formation can show higher \[O[III]{}\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ line ratios, since lower metallicity H[II]{} regions in the outer parts of galaxy discs are also capable of producing high-excitation emission lines, implying that the results of such a contamination might rather be challenging to interpret.
Results
=======
Nuclear activity in late-type galaxies
--------------------------------------
As presented in the previous section, to study the evolution of the AGN activity in our sample, we have separated it into four different redshift bins. We used galaxies within the mass-range of 10.4$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.3 M$_{\odot}$, as described in §3.4. The corresponding fractions of the spectroscopic classifications for the different subsamples are presented in Table \[tab1\]. In the discussion that follows, we will refer as AGN hosts, to all galaxies classified either as AGN or composite objects. In Fig. \[fig45\], we present how the AGN fractions[^3] of the various sub-samples change with redshift. We notice that the number of AGN-hosting galaxies in our sample (marked with black solid line) increases by $\sim$15% moving towards lower-z’s. When we separate them according to the dynamical state of their group (also presented in the same table), the AGN fractions of the LTGs found in dynamically old groups increase from 45% to 61%. Moreover, their Sy2 fractions, which is 7-8% beyond z$\sim$0.133, is changing to 14%-28% at lower redshifts (the range depends on the classification method; see §3.2). The above results suggest a significant increase of the AGN-hosting galaxies over the past 3 Gyr, accompanied by the corresponding increase of their Sy2-hosts fraction. On the other hand, LINER fractions do not seem to change at all. In contrast, the AGN activities of the LTGs in dynamically young groups, do not seem to change during the same period. Despite their AGN fraction seems to slightly increase (within the 1-$\sigma$ level), their Sy2 fraction remains almost constant. In Table \[tab\_yair\], we present the corresponding fractions of the local isolated field and interacting pair LTGs samples (described in §2.2), found in the same mass range with our galaxies. Interestingly, we can notice that there are no statistical differences between the different environments in the local Universe, with all of them having AGN-hosting galaxy fractions of about 60%. However, we have to stress here that due to the uncertainties in some of the comparison samples, the results of such a comparison are not conclusive.
![Fractions of the AGN+composite hosting galaxies over the total population of galaxies in each redshift bin, as a function of redshift, for the four different sub-samples we presented in Table \[tab1\] (DY-LTGs in red, DO-LTGs in orange, DY-ETGs in green and DO-ETGs in blue lines), as well as for the total sample (in black solid line). X-axis values are taken in the middle of each redshift bin, slightly displaced to resolve better. Uncertainties denote 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig45"}](fig_tab1.ps)
[ccccccc]{} redshift bin & SFN$^{a}$ & Composite$^{a}$ & AGN$^{a}$ & AGN+Comp.$^{a}$ & LINER$^{b}$ & Sy2$^{b}$\
\
Bin1 & 39$\pm$4% & 31$\pm$4% & 30$\pm$4% & 61$\pm$3% & 13-37$\pm$4% & 16-37$\pm$5%\
Bin2 & 46$\pm$6% & 33$\pm$5% & 21$\pm$3% & 54$\pm$3% & 20-22$\pm$6% & 14-18$\pm$5%\
Bin3 & 43$\pm$6% & 39$\pm$6% & 19$\pm$4% & 57$\pm$3% & 25$\pm$7% & 8-18$\pm$4%\
Bin4 & 48$\pm$7% & 34$\pm$6% & 18$\pm$5% & 52$\pm$3% & 15-24$\pm$6% & 12-21$\pm$6%\
\
Bin1 & 39$\pm$3% & 32$\pm$3% & 29$\pm$3% & 61$\pm$3% & 21-26$\pm$4% & 14-28$\pm$4%\
Bin2 & 46$\pm$4% & 35$\pm$4% & 19$\pm$3% & 54$\pm$3% & 23-29$\pm$4% & 9-25$\pm$6%\
Bin3 & 50$\pm$4% & 29$\pm$3% & 21$\pm$2% & 50$\pm$2% & 16-26$\pm$4% & 24-32$\pm$6%\
Bin4 & 55$\pm$5% & 30$\pm$4% & 14$\pm$3% & 45$\pm$2% & 21-29$\pm$7% & 7-8$\pm$4%\
\
Bin1 & 23$\pm$7% & 23$\pm$7% & 54$\pm$11% & 77$\pm$6% & 41-52$\pm$12% & 15-37$\pm$7%\
Bin2 & 28$\pm$7% & 25$\pm$7% & 47$\pm$10% & 72$\pm$6% & 35$\pm$11% & 15-23$\pm$7%\
Bin3 & 32$\pm$11% & 37$\pm$13% & 32$\pm$11% & 68$\pm$7% & 23-31$\pm$13% & 8-23$\pm$7%\
Bin4 & 45$\pm$13% & 41$\pm$13% & 14$\pm$7% & 55$\pm$5% & 8-22$\pm$8% & 0-8$\pm$8%\
\
Bin1 & 28$\pm$1% & 24$\pm$1% & 48$\pm$2% & 72$\pm$2% & 33-34$\pm$3% & 13-30$\pm$2%\
Bin2 & 35$\pm$2% & 26$\pm$1% & 39$\pm$2% & 65$\pm$2% & 34-38$\pm$3% & 15-18$\pm$2%\
Bin3 & 39$\pm$2% & 26$\pm$1% & 35$\pm$1% & 61$\pm$2% & 30-31$\pm$3% & 13-18$\pm$2%\
Bin4 & 44$\pm$2% & 26$\pm$2% & 31$\pm$2% & 56$\pm$2% & 26-30$\pm$4% & 15-22$\pm$3%\
$^{a}$Classifications from the classic BPT-diagram, using the \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ vs the \[NII\]$\lambda6584$/H$\alpha$ line ratios.\
$^{b}$Classifications based on the @Kewley06, using both the \[SII\]$(\lambda6717+6731)$/H$\alpha$ and \[OI\]$\lambda6300$/H$\alpha$ lines, for galaxies already classified as AGN or Composite from the classic BPT diagram.\
Uncertainties denote the 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors.\
[cccc]{} Sample & SFN & AGN & AGN+Comp.\
\
Isolated field$^{a}$ & 41$\pm$6% & 10$\pm$3% & 59$\pm$7%\
S+S pairs$^{b}$ & 41$\pm$7% & 34$\pm$6% & 59$\pm$8%\
S+E pairs$^{b}$ & 42$\pm$13% & 38$\pm$13% & 58$\pm$16%\
\
Isolated field$^{a}$ & 7$\pm$7% & 93$\pm$26% & 93$\pm$26%\
S+E pairs$^{b}$ & 5$\pm$5% & 85$\pm$20% & 95$\pm$21%\
E+E pairs$^{b}$ & 6$\pm$6% & 94$\pm$22% & 94$\pm$22%\
$^{a}$Isolated field galaxies from @Hernandez13, with 10.4$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.3 M$_{\odot}$.\
$^{b}$Isolated interacting pair galaxies from @Hernandez14, with 10.4$\le$log(M$_{star}$)$\le$11.3 M$_{\odot}$ (Following these authors’ symbolism, S denotes the LTGs, and E the ETGs).\
These fractions correspond to the 87% and 82% of the field and interacting pair galaxy samples, respectively, which were detected to have emission lines.\
Uncertainties denote the 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors.\
In the first columns of Tables \[tab1\] and \[tab\_yair\], we also present the number of SFN galaxies in our sample, as well as the comparison samples. Again, we find no differences between the field isolated galaxies (41%), the S+S and S+E pairs (with 41% and 42%, respectively), and the dynamically young and old groups (both having 39% SFN at low-z’s). On the other hand, looking at higher-z’s, we can see that both dynamically young and old LTGs, have similar SFN (of 48% and 55%, respectively). These results are also consistent with our observations of their UV-optical colours. Studying the \[NUV-r\] colours of the dynamically old LTGs we notice significant reduction, of almost 40%, of the blue star forming galaxies (blue cloud) at lower redshifts, and at the same time an increase of 30% and 10% of the green valley and red sequence galaxies (quiescent galaxies), respectively (Bitsakis et al. - in prep.). On the contrary, this blue cloud decrease is not observed to be significant for the LTGs in dynamically young groups (only 15%).
-------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
redshift bin $f_{AGN}$ $f_{AGN}$ $f_{AGN}$ $f_{AGN}$
DY-LTGs DO-LTGs DY-ETGs DO-ETGs
Bin1 3$\pm$1% 4$\pm$1% 7$\pm$1% 6$\pm$1%
Bin2 5$\pm$1% 5$\pm$1% 10$\pm$1% 10$\pm$1%
Bin3 6$\pm$1% 8$\pm$1% 10$\pm$1% 14$\pm$1%
Bin4 10$\pm$1% 11$\pm$1% 16$\pm$1% 17$\pm$1%
-------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
With DY and DO we denote the dynamically young and old groups, respectively.\
Note that for $f_{AGN}$$<$5% the existence of an AGN is highly uncertain (see §3.3).\
Uncertainties denote the 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors.
In a first attempt to interpret these results we rely on the conclusions of @Bitsakis11, for HCG galaxies. According to these, as the time progresses the multiple encounters each compact group galaxy experiences, will result in the built-up of its stellar mass, as well as to the depletion (via star formation and/or tidal stripping) of a significant fraction of its gas (in dynamically old groups is more than 70%; derived for HCG galaxies, see @Verdes01 [@Borthakur10]) and dust content [more than an order of magnitude lower from what is observed in dynamically young and isolated field LTGs; see @Bitsakis14]. In dynamically old groups, this effect is expected to appear stronger, since they are denser, more dynamically evolved, and their galaxies have experienced most probably a higher rate of tidal encounters. The high AGN fractions at lower redshifts can be explained assuming that, as the star formation of the compact group LTGs slowly fades-out (due to the depletion of gas, mentioned earlier), it reveals a weaker AGN activity, might also been triggered by the dynamical interactions. This assumption is consistent with the scenario proposed by @Krongold02, where galaxy interactions/merging initially trigger central starbursts and subsequently reveal a Sy2 and eventually a Sy1 nucleus (thus increasing the fraction of AGN hosting galaxies). To explain the transition between Sy2 and Sy1 nuclei, the following scenarios have been proposed: a very powerful, fully-obscured Sy1, which due to feedback will either completely wipe-out the torus or make it clumpy [@Sirocky08], or a sequence on the AGN power that depends either on the low accretion rates or the small mass of the SMBH [e.g. @Nicastro00]. @Krongold02 suggested that transitions from Sy2 to Sy1 AGN may have been delayed as much as 1 Gyr (upper limit). During this period, compact group galaxies will, most probably, experience a large number of encounters [having dynamical times of $\sim$100 Myr; @Hickson97], which will result in the depletion of large amounts of their interstellar gas (via induced star formation and/or tidal stripping), thus preventing high accretion rates towards the SMBH, required to form a BLR and thus a potential Sy1 nuclei. This conclusion is consistent with the results of @Nicastro03, where the absence of HBLRs in Sy2 AGN can be regulated by the accretion rate of the SMBH.
-------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
redshift bin DY-LTGs DO-LTGs DY-ETGs DO-ETGs
$\times$10$^{40}$erg s$^{-1}$ $\times$10$^{40}$erg s$^{-1}$ $\times$10$^{40}$erg s$^{-1}$ $\times$10$^{40}$erg s$^{-1}$
Bin1 0.67$\pm$0.07 0.58$\pm$0.05 0.26$\pm$0.05 0.34$\pm$0.02
Bin2 1.63$\pm$0.23 0.81$\pm$0.10 0.57$\pm$0.11 0.48$\pm$0.03
Bin3 1.64$\pm$0.25 2.07$\pm$0.25 0.76$\pm$0.21 0.54$\pm$0.03
Bin4 3.70$\pm$0.63 2.41$\pm$0.37 1.51$\pm$0.43 1.03$\pm$0.07
-------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
With DY and DO we denote the dynamically young and old groups, respectively. Uncertainties denote the 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors.
The above scenario predicts the existence of only a very small fraction of Sy1 nuclei in compact groups. Using the classification described in §3.1, we find that only $<$1%, of the galaxies in our sample, may have broad-lines. The almost complete absence of such objects does not support the inclination scenario, at least in most cases, according to which we should be able to observe more than 20% of them, in the local Universe [@Ho97]. It is possible, though, that heavy dust obscuration could hide them from us. Using, the advent of infrared extragalactic surveys, such as the [*WISE*]{} All Sky Release, we are able to unveil the mystery of the emission from dust obscured regions. Based on the mid-IR colour selection proposed by @Mateos12 [see Fig. \[fig5\]] we find that only 0.5% of the galaxies in our sample could be dust obscured AGN. In addition, according to the WISE \[3.4\]-\[4.6\]$>$0.8 (Vega mags) colour selection, by @Stern12, this fraction is also 0.3%. Therefore, it is evident that obscuration is not a factor that affects the absence of Sy1 sources from our sample.
An alternative method to detect IR luminous AGN has been presented in §3.3 [and also described in more detail in @Ciesla14]. There, we showed how our SED modeling is able to estimate the fraction of the total infrared luminosity of a galaxy, due to an AGN ($f_{AGN}$). In Table \[tab2\], we present the results of the fitting, separating galaxies according to their optical morphologies, the dynamical state of their group, and their redshift. Firstly, we can see the nearly complete absence of AGN activity in the local compact group galaxies, independent of morphology and group state (having $f_{AGN}$$<$5%). On the other hand, it is also evident the rise of 10% that occurs at redshifts beyond 0.133. We have to remind here to the reader, that according to @Ciesla14 CIGALE’s results can be reliable only for $f_{AGN}$$>$10%. Between 5%$<$$f_{AGN}$$<$10%, the uncertainties are very high, and below 5%, its impossible to identify an AGN.
@Martinez10 showed that even though 45% of HCG galaxies in their sample, host an AGN, the majority appear to have low-luminosities (known as low-luminosity AGN; LLAGN), with a median H$\alpha$ luminosity of 0.71$\times$10$^{40}$ erg sec$^{-1}$. We estimate the corresponding value for the AGN hosting galaxies in our sample to be 0.76$\pm$0.01$\times$10$^{40}$ erg sec$^{-1}$, which is in excellent agreement with their result. In Table \[tab3\], we also present the corresponding H$\alpha$ luminosities of the galaxies in our sample, separating them by their morphologies and evolutional state of their group. We can see that there is no statistical difference between the various sub-samples of LTGs and ETGs at the different redshifts, but there is a significant increase (more than an order of magnitude), that occurs at higher redshifts, which is observed in all the sub-samples. On the other hand, local interacting pairs and isolated galaxies display luminosities of $\sim$1-2$\times$10$^{40}$ erg sec$^{-1}$, which are similar to the corresponding compact group luminosities at higher redshifts. The fact that we observe a significant decrease in the AGN H$\alpha$ luminosities and the f$_{AGN}$, may suggest that the AGN activity in groups became weaker during the last 3 Gyr, possibly as a consequence of the gas starvation scenario, initially proposed by @Martinez10.
Nuclear activity in early-type galaxies
---------------------------------------
In Table \[tab1\] and Fig. \[fig45\], we have also presented the corresponding AGN and SFN fractions of the ETGs in our compact group sample. Similarly to what we have seen for LTGs, the number of AGN-hosting ETGs found in dynamically old groups is increasing towards lower redshifts, by 16%. Similarly, the AGN fraction of ETGs found in dynamically young groups seem also to increase by 15%, in the 2-$\sigma$ level. Examining the Sy2’s in both sub-samples, it appears that in contrast with the dynamically young groups, where an increase of 10-20% is observed, in old groups these fractions remain high but constant. Similar is the evolution of LINERs with the fractions of the first increasing, and those of the latter remaining almost constant and much higher than those in LTGs. Comparing our findings with those of the control samples (see bottom panel of Table \[tab\_yair\]) we notice that, emission line isolated field galaxies have a corresponding fraction of AGN hosts of 93%, and E+S and E+E pairs have 95% and 94%, respectively. Unfortunately, due to the very large uncertainties, we cannot derive statistically significant conclusions from these comparisons.
In an effort to interpret the observed differences between the Sy2 and LINER fractions of the AGN-hosting ETGs in our sample, we propose the following possibilities: in dynamically young groups we may observe the morphological transformation of Sa’s and S0’s into ellipticals. As discussed in §4.1, the remaining star formation activity of Sa’s and S0’s is expected to fade-out and subsequently reveal an AGN nucleus (which most probably is a Sy2). During that period, S0’s already at later phases of evolution may eventually evolve into ellipticals (usually having LINERs; @Ho97b). On the other hand, by definition dynamically old groups host large numbers of ETGs at all epochs, which are expected to be either evolved S0’s or ellipticals [see @Hickson82; @Bitsakis11]. Therefore, both Sy2 as well as LINER fractions are expected to be high at all times, but also constant. However, we should mention once more that Sy2 and LINER fractions discussed here are based on the AGN definition of the classic BPT diagram, while the true nature of LINERs is still uncertain. More specifically a number of studies [e.g. @Yan12] suggest that the excitation mechanisms behind LINERs are a combination of post-AGB stars and shocks. @Singh13 argued that post-AGB stars are ubiquitous and their ionising effects would be present in all galaxies, having stellar populations older than 1 Gyr, unless they are out-shined by a much brighter young stellar population and/or an AGN. On the other hand, @Gonzalez06 showed that at least 60% of the LINER galaxies in their sample could host an AGN, based on their X-ray morphologies and spectra. In addition, more recently @Dopita15 also presented the case of the LINER elliptical NGC1052, where an accreting SMBH was detected.
Unfortunately, due to the morphological classification we applied in our sample, we cannot distinguish between elliptical and S0 galaxies, in order to verify the proposed scenario. Nevertheless, examining their bulge-to-disk ratios (B/T), we can see their tendency to be more “disky” (having lower B/T ratios, as derived from @Simard11) or “bulgy” (with higher B/T ratios). We find that in local dynamically old groups, ETGs have a median B/T=0.69$\pm$0.07 that decreases to 0.62$\pm$0.06 at z$>$0.133. In dynamically young groups the corresponding B/T ratios change from 0.64$\pm$0.18 (at Bin1) to 0.52$\pm$0.25 (at z$>$0.133), suggesting that they are not significant differences in the morphologies.
Even though the above scenarios can explain the observed nuclear activities for a large number of ETGs in our sample, there might always be the possibility that some of them have increased their gas content, via accretion/merging from gas-rich companions, which are more common in dynamically young groups. Indeed, in @Bitsakis14, we showed that about 25% of the Hickson compact group ETGs display blue colours and enhanced star formation activities. Examining their dust masses and star formation rates, we found that they are almost an order of magnitude higher in respect to those of field ETGs, suggesting that compact group ETGs may have enhanced their gas and dust content via accretion from gas rich members and/or the merging of dwarf companions.
![AGN fractions of the compact group (in red squares and continuous line), isolated field (in blue triangles and dotted line) and pair (in orange X’s and dashed line) galaxies, as a function of their stellar mass. For the purposes of comparison with the control samples we have selected CG galaxies at z$<$0.05. X-axis values are taken in the middle of each stellar mass bin, slightly displaced to resolve better. The 50% dashed line was placed to show where AGN rules-over SFN activity. Error-bars denote the 1$\sigma$ Poissonian errors. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.ps)
Finally, examining the AGN H$\alpha$ luminosities of the dynamically young and old ETG samples (see Table \[tab3\]), we can see them both decreasing more than an order of magnitude, as we are moving towards lower-z’s. As it was suggested for compact group LTGs, in §4.1, this could be an indirect indication of the gas depletion these sources had experienced, throughout time. Moreover, we can see that dynamically old AGN-hosting ETGs display lower H$\alpha$ luminosities, at all redshifts, with respect to those of the dynamically young ETGs. These results imply that ETGs in dynamically young groups may have larger gas contents, either due to accretion from gas rich neighbours, or because they mostly host later-type ETGs, in the Hubble classification scheme.
The relation between environment and AGN activity at lower mass galaxies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is generally accepted that the nuclear activity of massive galaxies is mostly dominated by AGN rather than circumnuclear star formation [i.e. @Caputi14 and references therein]. @Hernandez13 [@Hernandez14] showed this tendency in isolated field and interacting pair galaxies. In figures 6 and 4 of these publications, respectively, one can notice that AGN in isolated field galaxies start dominating the emission with respect to SFN, at log(M$_{star}$)$\ge$10.7 M$_{\odot}$, whereas in pairs this occurs at log(M$_{star}$)$\ge$10.5 M$_{\odot}$. In addition, @Pimbblet13 showed that AGN in clusters are mostly found in galaxies with log(M$_{star}$)$\ge$10.7 M$_{\odot}$. In Fig. \[fig6\], we present the AGN fractions as a function of the stellar mass, for the galaxies in our sample (presented with the red squares and the solid line), having z$<$0.05 in order to compare them with those of the isolated field and interacting pair samples (shown with blue triangles and the dotted line, and orange X’s and the dashed line, respectively). The three distributions do not appear to have any statistical difference, due to their large uncertainties, yet one can see the tendency of the compact group galaxies to exceed the 50% line (where AGN rule-over SFN), at lower stellar masses, than the comparison samples.
![AGN fractions as a function of stellar mass of the dynamically young (in blue diamonds and continuous line) and dynamically old (in red triangles and dashed line) galaxies in our sample. Explanations as in Fig. \[fig6\]. (A coloured version of this figure is available in the online journal)[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.ps)
In Fig. \[fig7\], we present the same figure, this time having all compact groups found at all redshifts. We also separate CG galaxies according to the dynamical state of their group (into dynamically young, blue solid line, and old, red dashed line). It is evident that the incidence of the AGN activity in dynamically young groups starts prevailing over SFN at masses log(M$_{star}$)$\ge$10.6 M$_{\odot}$ (similar to those of the isolated field and interacting pair galaxies), whereas in dynamically old groups at log(M$_{star}$)$\ge$10.2 M$_{\odot}$. We perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) analysis, to test the hypothesis the two distributions being drawn from the same parent distribution. The KS probability is P$_{KS}$=0.2%, thus rejecting the null hypothesis, and suggesting they are different, with a level of significance of more than 99.9%. These results suggest that the more dynamically evolved the group, the lower the stellar mass at which AGN dominate the star formation activity of their members.
To interpret these results, we considered the following scenarios: $(i)$ either interactions enhance AGN activity, or $(ii)$ star formation fades-out faster during the evolution of these galaxies. Nevertheless, as we already presented there [**is**]{} no evidence to support an enhancement of the AGN activity due to interactions. On the contrary, we showed how multiple encounters result to the decrease of the AGN luminosities. However, gas consumption, due to tidally induced star formation [@Fedotov11], tidal stripping [i.e. @Verdes01], and shock excitation of the interstellar medium [@Cluver13; @Alatalo14], will result to the depletion of the [**cold**]{} gas reservoir of these galaxies or will make it unable to form stars (in the case of shocks). These results are also consistent with the observed absence of Sy1 nuclei in our sample, where the depletion of gas may led to small accretion rates. From the above it is evident that the the prevalence of AGN activity over star formation, is connected with the evolutional state of the environment (or the number of encounters galaxies had experienced).
Discussion: The role of compact groups in the AGN zoo
=====================================================
The results of this study suggest that compact groups can influence the evolution of the nuclear activity of their galaxies in an indirect manner, by affecting the available amount of gas. How does this result can be compared to the picture we already have about AGN? Do compact groups really differentiate their nuclear properties from galaxies in other environments? It seems that our results do not support the AGN unification scheme, according to which the only differentiation between Sy1 and Sy2 sources is caused by the dust obscuration of the torus. The almost complete absence of Sy1 nuclei in compact groups, in addition to the low AGN H$\alpha$ luminosities, suggest that the decrease of the gas reservoir may lead to low accretion rates, which according to @Nicastro00 and @Elitzur06 have as result to prevent from existence powerful Sy1 nuclei. The observed absence of such sources (also according to mid-IR colour diagnostics and SED modeling) is also consistent with what it was observed in pairs of galaxies [@Hernandez14]. Both results agree with the findings of @Dultzin99 and more recently @Koulouridis06 and @Villarroel14, where galaxies with close companions (found in distances closer than $\sim$150 kpc; in CGs almost all galaxies are found in smaller distances, see @Bitsakis11) are more likely to host a Sy2 nucleus, rather than a Sy1.
As we mentioned in §4.1 the above results led @Krongold02, and more recently @Koulouridis14, to propose an evolutionary sequence in the nuclear activity. Initially interactions may cause the collapse of gas towards the inner regions of the galaxies, which will trigger circumnuclear star formation, as well as a weak, dust enshrouded AGN, which may appear as a HBLR Sy2 nucleus. Then, the ever increasing presence of AGN feedback will lead to its transformation into a Sy1, and, eventually, the consumption and/or loss of its fuel might transform it back into a non-HBLR Sy2. However, the results of our current work, as well as previous AGN compact group studies [i.e. @Martinez10; @Sohn13], suggested that most compact group galaxies do not seem to complete that process. The absence of Sy1 nuclei and the low AGN H$\alpha$ luminosities, which are reducing towards higher redshifts, imply that this evolutionary sequence stops during its early phase. In §4.1, we mentioned that in typical time scales, where a Sy2 can turn into a Sy1, galaxies in compact groups will most probably experience a large number of encounters, which will, eventually, prevent this transformation. Galaxy mergers also do not seem to be a possible alternative to enrich galaxies and fuel a powerful AGN accretion. It has been shown that, most such events in CGs take place under dry conditions, thus no gas enrichment of the AGN-host can occur [@Coziol07; @Konstantopoulos10].
Another result of this work is that the number of compact group AGN-hosts (especially those of galaxies found in dynamically old groups) increases at lower redshifts. At a first glance, these results seem to be inconsistent with recent observations, where the AGN number densities have decreased significantly since z=1-2 [e.g. @Barger05]. Nevertheless, upon careful examination we find that it is not the number of compact group AGN-hosts that increases, but the fraction of SFN that decreases due to the depletion of gas, which affects star formation. These results are also confirmed by Bitsakis et al. - in prep., where the star formation activity of the late-type galaxies is significantly decreasing since z$\sim$0.2. Moreover, in a number of compact group studies it is already presented how the star formation activity of compact group late-type galaxies can be seriously affected by the depletion of gas (i.e. the specific star formation rates of dynamically old group LTGs are more than an order of magnitude lower to those of similar galaxies in the field; see @Bitsakis11 and references therein). The past interaction-triggered star formation activity, the tidal stripping – ram pressure effects have been shown to be weak in HCGs [@Rasmussen08], even though @Desjardins14 still advocate their influence – and the shock excitation of their remaining interstellar medium [@Cluver13; @Alatalo14], resulted either in the loss of their gas reservoir or its inability (when shocked) to form stars. These effects are expected to influence stronger the star formation activity that also occurrs in their disks, thus making them more vulnerable to gravitational interactions (disk material can be stripped easier). Moreover, according to the AGN “downsizing” scenario, there is an observed decrease in the AGN luminosities, since z=1, which can be either explained by the declining accretion of the central SMBH in all galaxies [the so-called mass-starvation; i.e. @Barger05], or due to the starvation of the massive galaxies, as the star formation becomes dominated by the lower stellar mass ones [i.e. @Cowie96]. Yet, a decrease in the AGN luminosities (f$_{AGN}$) was also what we observed in the galaxies of our sample for a narrow range in stellar mass (see Table \[tab3\]), thus confirming that even though their AGN number densities increase, they seem follow the same evolution as galaxies in other environments.
Summary
=======
In this paper we have presented the first study of the evolution of the nuclear activity in compact groups of galaxies over the past 3 Gyr (z=0.01-0.23). Our sample is also the largest multi-wavelength compact group sample to-date, consisted of 1,770 isolated compact groups (selected using Hickson’s criteria), containing 7,417 galaxies. We classified the nuclear properties of our galaxies using optical emission line diagrams, as well as mid-IR diagnostic methods. We have also fitted their UV-to-mid-IR spectral energy distributions and estimated the physical properties of the galaxies, which were necessary for our study. Our main conclusions are the following:
- We observe an increase of $\sim$15% of the number of AGN-hosts found in late-type galaxies of the dynamically old groups, accompanied by the corresponding reduction of the circumnuclear star formation as we are observing galaxies towards lower redshifts. Examining their Sy2 galaxy fractions a 10-15% increase is also observed.
- Comparing with local isolated field and interacting pair galaxy samples (found at z below 0.05), we do not find differences between the various environments. Yet, this can be also attributed to the small number statistics of the comparison samples.
- Using both optical, as well as mid-IR colour classifications, we report the absence of powerful Sy1 nuclei (less than 1% for the galaxies in our sample). These results are also confirmed by our SED modeling. We suggest that gas depletion, due to past star formation activity and tidal stripping, can lead to low accretion rates onto the super-massive black hole, which in turn will result in the lack of the highly-accreting Sy1 nuclei. The decreasing accretion rates are also confirmed by measuring the AGN H$\alpha$ luminosities of our galaxies, which were reduced by almost an order of magnitude, over the past 3 Gyr.
- An increase of about 15%, has been observed in the AGN fractions of the early-type galaxies in our sample. Examining the observed increase of the Sy2 and LINER fractions in dynamically young groups, we suggest that it may be caused by the on-going morphological transformation of lenticular into elliptical galaxies.
- We show that galaxies found in dynamically old groups, where they have most probably experienced a larger number of encounters, are more likely to host an AGN into their nucleus, than in dynamically young groups, at any given stellar mass.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
T.B. would like to acknowledge support from the DGAPA-UNAM postdoctoral fellowships. D.D. acknowledges support through grant 107313 from PAIIT-UNAM. V.C. would like to acknowledge partial support from the EU FP7 Grant PIRSES-GA-2012-316788. LC also acknowledges financial support from the [thales]{} project 383549 that is jointly funded by the European Union and the Greek Government in the framework of the programme “Education and lifelong learning”. We also appreciate the very useful comments of the referee which helped improve this paper. This research has made use of data products from: Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX), and ultraviolet space telescope operated by Caltech/NASA, Infrared Science Archive (IRSA/Caltech), a UCLA/JPL-Caltech/NASA joint project, and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). T.B. would also like to thank, P. Bonfini, G. Maravelias, A. Maragkoudakis and A. Steiakaki for the inspired discussions.
[99]{}
Abazajian, Kevork N.; Adelman-McCarthy, Jennifer K.; AgŸeros, Marcel A.; Allam, Sahar S.; Allende Prieto, Carlos; An, Deokkeun; et al. 2009, ApJS 182, 543
Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297
Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A 31, 473
Alatalo, K., Appleton, P. N., Lisenfeld, U., Bitsakis, T., Guillard, P, Charmandaris, and others, 2014, ApJ 795, 159
Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP 93, 5
Balogh, Michael L.; Baldry, Ivan K.; Nichol, Robert; Miller, Chris; Bower, Richard; Glazebrook, Karl, 2004, ApJ 615, 101
Barger, A. J.; Cowie, L. L., 2005, ApJ 635, 115
Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S., 1996, A&AS 317, 393
Bitsakis, T., Charmandaris, V., Le Floc’h, E., D[í]{}az-Santos, T., Slater, S. K., Xilouris, E. and Haynes, M. P. 2010, A&A 517, 75B
Bitsakis, T., Charmandaris, V., da Cunha, E., D[í]{}az-Santos, T., Le Floc’h, E., and Magdis, G. 2011, A&A 533, 142
Bitsakis, T., Charmandaris, V., Appleton, P. N., D[í]{}az-Santos, Le Floc’h, E., da Cunha, E., Alatalo, K., and Cluver, M. 2014, A&A 565, A25
Blanton, Michael R.; Dalcanton, Julianne; Eisenstein, Daniel; Loveday, Jon; Strauss, Michael A. and others, 2001, AJ 121, 2358
Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Brinkmann, J. 2004,MNRAS, 351, 1151
Borthakur, S., Yun, M. S., Verdes-Montenegro, L. 2010, ApJ 710, 385
Calzetti, Daniela; Armus, Lee; Bohlin, Ralph C.; Kinney, Anne L.; Koornneef, Jan; Storchi-Bergmann, Thaisa, 2000, ApJ 533, 682
Caputi, K. I., 2014, IJMPD 23, 7, 1430015
Ciesla, L.; Charmandaris, V.; Georgakakis, A.; Bernhard, E.; Mitchell, P. D., D. and others, 2015, - in press (arXiv1501.03672)
Cluver, M. E., Appleton, P. N., Ogle, P., Jarrett, T. H., Rasmussen, J., Lisenfeld, U., Guillard, P., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Antonucci, R., Bitsakis, T., Charmandaris, V., Boulanger, F., Egami, E., Xu, C. K., Yun, M. S. 2013, ApJ 765, 93
Coziol, R.; Plauchu-Frayn, I., 2007, AJ 133, 2630
Cowie, Lennox L.; Songaila, Antoinette; Hu, Ester M.; Cohen, J. G., 1996, AJ 112, 839
Cortese, L.; Gavazzi, G.; Boselli, A.; Franzetti, P.; Kennicutt, R. C.; O’Neil, K.; Sakai, S. 2006, A&A 453, 847
Cid Fernandes, R.; Heckman, T.; Schmitt, H.; Gonz‡lez Delgado, R. M.; Storchi-Bergmann, T., 2001, ApJ 558, 81
Cid Fernandes, R., Stasinska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS 403, 1036
Del Olmo, A.; Mart’nez, M. A.; Perea, J.; Coziol, R.; Focardi, P., 2010, ASPC 427, 349
Dale, Daniel A.; Helou, George; Magdis, Georgios E.; Armus, Lee; D’az-Santos, Tanio; Shi, Yong 2014, ApJ 784, 83
Desjardins, Tyler D.; Gallagher, Sarah C.; Hornschemeier, Ann E.; Mulchaey, John S. and others, 2014, ApJ 790, 132
Dopita, Michael A.; Ho, I-Ting; Dressell, Linda L.; Sutherland, Ralph; Kewley, Lisa; Davies, Rebecca, and others, 2015, arXiv.15010250
Dultzin-Hacyan, D.; Benitez, E., 1994, A&A 291, 720
Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Krongold, Y., Fuentes-Guridi, I., Martziani, P., 1999, AJ 513, 111
Eckert, D.; Molendi, S.; Owers, M.; Gaspari, M.; Venturi, T.; Rudnick, L.; Ettori, S.; Paltani, S.; Gastaldello, F.; Rossetti, M., 2014, A&A 570, 119
Elitzur, Moshe, 2012, ApJ 747, L33
Elitzur, Moshe; Shlosman, Isaac, 2006, ApJ 684, 101
Fedotov, K.; Gallagher, S. C.; Konstantopoulos, I. S.; Chandar, R.; Bastian, N.; Charlton, J. C.; Whitmore, B.; Trancho, G., 2011, AJ 142, 42
Fritz, J.; Franceschini, A.; Hatziminaoglou, E., 2006, MNRAS 366, 767
González-Martín, O.; Masegosa, J.; Marquez, I.; Guerrero, M. A.; Dultzin-Hacyan, D., 2006, A&A 460, 45
Gu, Q.; Dultzin-Hacyan, D.; de Diego, J. A., 2001, RMxAA 37, 3
Heavens, Alan; Panter, Benjamin; Jimenez, Raul; Dunlop, James 2004, Nature 428, 625
Heckman, T. M., 1980, A&A 87, 152
Hernández-Ibarra, F. J.; Dultzin, D.; Krongold, Y.; Olmo, A. del; Perea, J.; González, J. 2013, MNRAS 434, 336
Hernández-Ibarra, F. J.; Dultzin, D.; Krongold, Y.; Olmo, A. del; Perea, J.; González, J. 2014, in prep.
Hwang, H. S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., Choi, Y. Y., 2012, A&A 538, 15
Hickson, P. 1982, ApJ, 255, 382
Hickson, P., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Huchra, J. P., & Palumbo, G. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 353
Hickson, P. 1997, ARA & A 35, 357
Ho, Luis C.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Sargent, Wallace L. W., 1993, ApJ 417, 63
Ho, Luis C.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Sargent, Wallace L. W.; Peng, Chien Y., 1997, ApJS 112, 391
Ho, Luis C.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Sargent, Wallace L. W., 1997, ApJ 487, 568
Johnson, Kelsey E.; Hibbard, John E.; Gallagher, Sarah C.; Charlton, Jane C.; Hornschemeier, Ann E.; Jarrett, Thomas H.; Reines, Amy E., 2007, AJ 134, 1522
Karachentsev, I. D., 1972, SoSAO 7, 1
Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055
Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961
Krongold, Y.; Dultzin-Hacyan, D.; Marziani, P. 2002, ApJ 572, 169
Kormendy, J. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia, Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 1
Konstantopoulos, I. S.; Gallagher, S. C.; Fedotov, K.; Durrell, P. R.; Heiderman, A.; Elmegreen, D. M. and others, 2010, ApJ 723, 197
Koulouridis, Elias; Chavushyan, Vahram; Plionis, Manolis; Krongold, Yair; Dultzin-Hacyan, Deborah, 2006, ApJ 651, 93
Koulouridis, E., Plionis, M., Chavushyan, V., Dultzin, D., Krongold, Y., Georgantopoulos, I., Leon-Tavares, J., 2013, A&A 552, 135
Koulouridis, E., 2014, arXiv1408.6233, accepted in A&A
Lintott, Chris; Schawinski, Kevin; Bamford, Steven; Slosar, Anze; Land, Kate; Thomas, Daniel; Edmondson, Edd; Masters, Karen and others, 2011, MNRAS 410, 166
Magorrian, John; Tremaine, Scott; Richstone, Douglas; Bender, Ralf; Bower, Gary; Dressler, Alan et al. 1998, AJ 115, 2285
Maiolino, R.; Ruiz, M.; Rieke, G. H.; Papadopoulos, P., 1997, ApJ 485, 552
Maragkoudakis, A.; Zezas, A.; Ashby, M. L. N.; Willner, S. P., 2014, MNRAS 441, 2296
Maraston, Claudia, 2005, MNRAS 362, 799
Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS 426, 3271
McConnachie, A. W., Huxor, A., Martin, N. F., Irwin, M. J., Chapman, S. C., Fahlman, G., Ferguson, A. M. N., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Richter, H., Tanvir, N. R. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1281
McConnachie, A. W., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L. & Simard, L. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 255
Mart’nez, M. A.; Del Olmo, A.; Coziol, R.; Perea, J. 2010, ApJ 678, 9
Mart’nez, M. A.; Del Olmo, A.; Coziol, R.; Focardi, P. 2008, ApJ 139, 1199
Martinez-Badenes, V., Lisenfeld, U., Espada, D., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Garc’a-Burillo, S., Leon, S., Sulentic, J., Yun, M. S. 2012, A&A 540, 96
Mendes de Oliveira, C. & Hickson, P. 1994, ApJ, 427, 684
Moran, Edward C.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Chornock, Ryan, 2002, ApJ 579, 71
Morrissey, P. and GALEX Science Team 2005, A&A, 20717903M
Nicastro, F., 2000, ApJ 530, L65
Nicastro, F.; Martocchia, A.; Matt, G., 2003, ApJ 589, 13
Noll, S.; Burgarella, D.; Giovannoli, E.; Buat, V.; Marcillac, D.; Mu–oz-Mateos, J. C. 2009, A&A 807, 1793
Pimbblet, K. A.; Shabala, S. S.; Haines, C. P.; Fraser-McKelvie, A.; Floyd, D. J. E., 2013, MNRAS 429, 1827
Rasmussen, J.; Ponman, T. J.; Verdes-Montenegro, L.; Yun, M. S.; Borthakur, S., 2008, MNRAS 388, 1245
Shimada, Masashi; Ohyama, Youichi; Nishiura, Shingo; Murayama, Takashi; Taniguchi, Yoshiaki 2000, AJ 119, 2664
Singh, R.; van de Ven, G.; Jahnke, K.; Lyubenova, M.; Falcón-Barroso, J.; and others, 2013, A&A 558, 43
Simard, L., Clowe, D., Desai, V., et al. 2009, A&A 508, 1141
Simard, L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., McConnachie, A. W. 2011, ApJS, 196, 11
Sirocky, M. M.; Levenson, N. A.; Elitzur, M.; Spoon, H. W. W.; Armus, L., 2008, ApJ 678, 729
Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Small, Todd A.; Ma, Chung-Pei; Sargent, Wallace L. W.; Hamilton, Donald
Sohn, Jubee; Hwang, Ho Seong; Lee, Myung Gyoon; Lee, Gwang-Ho; Lee, Jong Chul 2013, ApJ 771, 106
Steffen, A. T.; Barger, A. J.; Cowie, L. L.; Mushotzky, R. F.; Yang, Y., 2003, ApJ 586, 23
Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., Blain, A., Cutri, R., et al. 2012, ApJ 753, 30
Storchi-Bergmann, T., González Delgado, R. M., Schmitt, H. R., Cid Fernandes, R., & Heckman, T. 2001, ApJ 559, 147
Strauss, Michael A.; Weinberg, David H.; Lupton, Robert H.; Narayanan, Vijay K.; Annis, James; Bernardi, and others, 2002, AJ 124, 1810
Tanaka, Masayuki; Kodama, Tadayuki; Arimoto, Nobuo; Okamura, Sadanori; Umetsu, Keiichi; Shimasaku, Kazuhiro; Tanaka, Ichi; Yamada, Toru, 2005, MNRAS 362, 268
Tran, H. D., 2001, ApJ 554, 19
Tzanavaris, P.; Gallagher, S. C.; Hornschemeier, A. E.; Fedotov, K.; Eracleous, M.; Brandt, W. N.; Desjardins, T. D.; Charlton, J. C.; Gronwall, C., 2014, ApJS 212, 9
Urry, C. Megan; Padovani, Paolo, 1995, PASP 107, 803
Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M. S., Williams, B. A., et al. 2001, A&A 143, 69
Veilleux, S., & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, ApJS 63, 295
Villarroel, B. & Korn, A. J., 2014, arXiv.1411.6735
Wright, Edward L.; Eisenhardt, Peter R. M.; Mainzer, Amy K.; Ressler, Michael E.; et al. 2010, AJ 140, 1868
Wu, Yu-Z.; Zhang, E.-P.; Liang, Y.-C.; Zhang, C.-M.; Zhao, Y.-H., 2011, ApJ 730, 121
Wu, Yanling; Charmandaris, Vassilis; Huang, Jiasheng; Spinoglio, Luigi; Tommasin, Silvia, 2009, ApJ 701, 658
Yan, Renbin; Blanton, Michael R., 2012, ApJ 747, 61
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Available at http://www.galaxyzoo.org
[^3]: As AGN fraction, we define the fraction of AGN-hosting galaxies in our sample (it is different from the $f_{AGN}$ mentioned in §3.3)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A [*canary tree*]{} is a tree of cardinality the continuum which has no uncountable branch, but gains a branch whenever a stationary set is destroyed (without adding reals). Canary trees are important in infinitary model theory. The existence of a canary tree is independent of ZFC $+$ GCH.
[*1991 Mathematics Subject Classification.*]{} Primary 03E35; Secondary 03C75.
author:
- |
Alan H. Mekler[^1]\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Simon Fraser University\
Burnaby, B.C., V5A 1S6\
Canada
- |
Saharon Shelah[^2]\
Institute of Mathematics\
The Hebrew University\
Jerusalem 91904, Israel\
and\
Department of Mathematics\
Rutgers University\
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903\
USA
title: The Canary Tree
---
\[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\]
A canary tree is a tree of cardinality $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ which detects the destruction of stationary sets. (A stationary set is [*destroyed*]{} in an extension if it is non-stationary in the extension.) More exactly, $T$ is a [*canary tree*]{} if $|T| = 2^{{\aleph}_0}$, $T$ has no uncountable branch, and in any extension of the universe in which no new reals are added and in which some stationary subset of ${\omega}_1$ is destroyed, $T$ has an uncountable branch. (We will give an equivalent characterization below which does not mention extensions of the universe.) The existence of a canary tree is most interesting under the assumption of CH (if $2^{{\aleph}_0}
= 2^{{\aleph}_1}$ it is easy to see, as we will point out, that there is a canary tree.) The existence or non-existence of a canary tree has implications for the model theory of structures of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$ and for the descriptive set theory of ${}^{{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1$ ([@MV]). The canary tree is named after the miner’s canary.
In this paper, we will explain the significance of the existence of a canary tree in model theory and prove that the existence of a canary tree is independent from ZFC $+$ CH.
As is well known the standard way to destroy a stationary costationary subset of ${\omega}_1$ is to force a club through its complement using as conditions closed subsets of the complement ([@BHK]). More precisely if $S$ is a stationary subset of ${\omega}_1$ we can define $T_S = {\{C \colon C \mbox{ a closed countable subset of }
S\}}$, where the order is end-extension. If $S$ is costationary then $T_S$ has no uncountable branch but when we force with $T_S$ we add no reals but do add a branch through $T_S$. Such a branch is a club subset of ${\omega}_1$ which is contained in $S$. (In [@BHK], the forcing to destroy a stationary costationary set $E$ is exactly $T_{{\omega}_1 \setminus E}$.) Notice that $T_S$ detects the destruction of ${\omega}_1 \setminus S$ in the sense that in any extension of the universe with no new reals and in which ${\omega}_1 \setminus S$ is non-stationary, $T_S$ has a branch.
These elementary observations imply that if $2^{{\aleph}_0}
= 2^{{\aleph}_1}$ then there is a canary tree. The tree can be constructed by having disjoint copies of $T_S$ sitting above a common root where $S$ ranges through the stationary costationary subsets of ${\omega}_1$. In fact any canary tree must almost contain the union of all the $T_S$, in the following weak sense.
\[equiv\] Suppose $T$ is a tree of $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ with no uncountable branch. Then $T$ is a canary tree if and only if for any stationary costationary set $S$ there exists a sequence ${\langle X_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$ of maximal antichains of $T_S$ and there is an order-preserving function $f\colon
\bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\omega}_1} X_{\alpha}{\rightarrow}T$. Furthermore ${\langle X_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}<
{\omega}_1\rangle}$ and $f$ are such that: if ${\alpha}< {\beta}$ and $s
\in X_{\alpha}$, $t \in X_{\beta}$ then either $s$ and $t$ are incomparable or $s < t$; if ${\delta}$ is a limit ordinal and $t \in X_{\delta}$ then $t =
\sup \{s < t \colon s \in X_{\beta}, {\beta}< {\delta}\}$; and $f$ is continuous. (Note that these conditions imply that for all $u \in T_S$ there is ${\delta}$ and $t\in X_{\delta}$ such that $u < t$.)
[[Proof. ]{}]{}First assume that for every stationary costationary set there is such a sequence of antichains and such a function. Suppose that $E$ is a stationary set which is destroyed in an extension of the universe with no new reals. Let $S = {\omega}_1 \setminus E$ and let $f$ and ${\langle X_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$ be as guaranteed. Let $C$ be a club in the extension which is contained in $S$. Choose an increasing sequence ${\langle s_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$ of elements of $T_S$ so that for all ${\alpha}$, $s_{{\alpha}+1}$ is greater than some member of $X_{\alpha}$ and $\max s_{\alpha}\in C$. The choice of such a sequence is by induction. There is no problem at successor steps. At a limit ordinal ${\delta}$, we can continue since $\sup \bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\delta}} s_{\alpha}\in C$ and hence in $S$. Also since no new reals are added $\bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\delta}} s_{\alpha}\cup\sup
\bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\delta}} s_{\alpha}\in T_S$. Let $b$ be the uncountable branch through $T_S$ determined by ${\langle s_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$. So in the extension $f\mbox{''}(b \cap \bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\omega}_1} X_{\alpha})$ is an increasing uncountable subset of $T$.
Now suppose that $T$ is a canary tree. Let $S$ be a stationary costationary set. Since forcing with $T_S$ destroys a stationary set there is ${{\tilde b}}$ a $T_S$-name for a branch of $T$. We will inductively define the sequence ${\langle X_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$ of maximal antichains of $T_S$. Let $0$ denote be the root of $T$. Define $X_0 = \{0\}$. In general, let $Y_{\alpha}= T \setminus
\bigcup_{{\beta}< {\alpha}} X_{\beta}$ and let $D_{\alpha}= {\{t \in Y_{\alpha}\colon t \mbox{
decides } {{\tilde b}}\rest{\alpha}\}}$. Let $X_{\alpha}$ be the set of minimal elements of $D_{\alpha}$. Since $D_{\alpha}$ is dense, $X_{\alpha}$ is a maximal antichain. For $t \in X_{\alpha}$, choose $s$ so that $t {\Vdash}s = {{\tilde b}}\rest{\alpha}$ and let $f(t) = s$.
$\Box$
It is possible to improve the theorem above to show that $T$ is a canary tree if and only if for every stationary costationary set $S$ there is an order preserving function from $T_S$ to $T$ ([@MV]). In fact when we show that it is consistent with GCH that there is a canary tree $T$, we will construct for every stationary costationary set $S$ an order preserving function from $T_S$ to $T$. It is also worth noting that we get an equivalent definition if we only demand that a canary tree have cardinality at most $2^{{\aleph}_0}$, since if $T$ is a tree of cardinality less than $2^{{\aleph}_0}$, then forcing with $T_S$ adds no new branch to $T$.
The Canary Tree and [Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé]{} Games
=================================================
A central idea in the Helsinki school’s approach to finding an analogy at ${\omega}_1$ of the theory of $L_{\infty {\omega}}$ is the notion of an [Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé]{} game of length ${\omega}_1$ (see [@HV] for more details and further references). Given two models, ${{\frak A}}$ and ${{\frak B}}$, two players, an isomorphism player and a non-isomorphism player, alternately choose elements from ${{\frak A}}$ and ${{\frak B}}$. In its primal form the game lasts ${\omega}_1$ moves and the isomorphism player wins if an isomorphism between the chosen substructures has been constructed. The analogue of Scott’s theorem is the trivial result that two structures of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$ are isomorphic if and only if the isomorphism player has a winning strategy. In the search for an analogue of Scott height, trees with no uncountable branches play the role of ordinals. More exactly suppose that $T$ is a tree and ${{\frak A}}$ and ${{\frak B}}$ are structures. The game ${\cal G}_T({{\frak A}}, {{\frak B}})$ is defined as follows. At any stage the non-isomorphism player chooses an element from either ${{\frak A}}$ or ${{\frak B}}$ and a node of $T$ which lies above the nodes this player has already chosen. The isomorphism player replies with an element of ${{\frak B}}$ if the non-isomorphism player has played an element of ${{\frak A}}$ and an element of ${{\frak A}}$ if the non-isomorphism player has played an element of ${{\frak B}}$. In either case the move must be such that the resulting sequence of moves from ${{\frak A}}$ and ${{\frak B}}$ form a partial isomorphism. The first player who is unable to move loses. In analogy with Scott height if ${{\frak A}}$ and ${{\frak B}}$ are non-isomorphic structures of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$ then there is a tree of cardinality at most $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ with no uncountable branches such that the non-isomorphism player has a winning strategy in ${\cal G}_T({{\frak A}}, {{\frak B}})$. (The tree $T$ can be chosen to be minimal.) A defect in the analogy with Scott height is that the choice of the tree depends on the pair ${{\frak A}}, {{\frak B}}$ and cannot in general be chosen for ${{\frak A}}$ to work for all ${{\frak B}}$ ([@HT]).
[Definition.]{} Suppose ${{\frak A}}$ is a structure of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$. A tree $T$ is called a [*universal non-equivalence tree*]{} for ${{\frak A}}$ if $T$ has no uncountable branch and for every non-isomorphic ${{\frak B}}$ of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$ the non-isomorphism player has a winning strategy in ${\cal G}_T({{\frak A}}, {{\frak B}})$.
As we have mentioned there are structures for which there is no universal non-equivalence tree of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$. However for some natural structures such as free groups (or free abelian groups) or ${\omega}_1$-like dense linear orders the existence of a universal non-equivalence tree of cardinality $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ is equivalent to the existence of a canary tree. We will only explain the case of ${\omega}_1$-like dense linear orders, the case of groups is similar.
Recall the classification of ${\omega}_1$-like dense linear orders with a left endpoint. Let $\eta$ represent the rational order type and for $S {\subseteq}{\omega}_1$ let ${\Phi}(S) = 1 + \eta + \sum_{{\alpha}< {\omega}_1}
{\tau}_{\alpha}$, where ${\tau}_{\alpha}= 1 + \eta$ if ${\alpha}\in S$ and ${\tau}_{\alpha}=
\eta$ otherwise. It is known that any ${\omega}_1$-like dense linear order is isomorphic to some ${\Phi}(S)$ and that for $E, S {\subseteq}{\omega}_1$, ${\Phi}(S)
\cong {\Phi}(E)$ if and only if the symmetric difference of $E$ and $S$ is nonstationary.
There is a universal non-equivalence tree of cardinality $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ for ${\Phi}(\emptyset)$ if and only if there is a canary tree.
[[Proof. ]{}]{}Assume that $T$ is a universal non-equivalence tree of cardinality $2^{{\aleph}_0}$ for ${\Phi}(\emptyset)$. Consider $E$, a stationary costationary set. Work now in an extension of the universe in which $E$ is non-stationary and there are no new reals. In that universe, ${\Phi}(E)
\cong {\Phi}(\emptyset)$. In that universe the isomorphism player can play the isomorphism against the winning strategy of the non-isomorphism player in ${\cal G}_T({\Phi}(\emptyset),{\Phi}(E))$. At each stage, both players will have a move. So the game will last ${\omega}_1$ moves and the non-isomorphism player will have chosen an uncountable branch through $T$. Hence $T$ is a canary tree.
Now suppose that $T$ is a canary tree. Let $T' = T+ 2$ (i.e., a chain of length 2 is added to the end of every maximal branch of $T$). We claim that $T'$ is a universal non-equivalence tree for ${\Phi}(\emptyset)$. Suppose $E$ is a stationary set. The case where $E$ is in the club filter is an easier version of the following argument. Assume that $S$ is stationary where $S = {\omega}_1 \setminus E$. To fix notation let ${\Phi}(\emptyset) = 1 + \eta + \sum {\tau}_{\alpha}$ and ${\Phi}(E) = 1 + \eta + \sum \mu_{\alpha}$. Let ${\langle X_{\alpha}\colon {\alpha}< {\omega}_1\rangle}$ and $f\colon T_S {\rightarrow}T$ be as in Theorem \[equiv\]. Let $X =
\bigcup_{{\alpha}< {\omega}_1} X_{\alpha}$. The winning strategy for the non-isomorphism player consists of choosing an increasing sequence $s_{\alpha}\in X$, playing $f(s_{\alpha})$ as the move in the tree $T$ and guaranteeing that at every limit ordinal ${\delta}$ if $A$ is the subset of ${\Phi}(\emptyset)$ which has been played (by either player) and $B$ is the subset of ${\Phi}(E)$ which has been played then $\sup\bigcup_{{\alpha}<
{\delta}} s_{\alpha}= \sup {\{{\beta}\colon a \in {\tau}_{\beta}, a \in A\}} = \sup {\{{\beta}\colon b
\in \mu_{\beta}, b \in B\}}$. The non-isomorphism player continues this way as long as possible. When there are no more moves following this recipe $\sup\bigcup_{{\alpha}<
{\delta}} s_{\alpha}$ is an ordinal in $E$. In that case $B$ has a least upper bound but $A$ doesn’t. So the non-isomorphism player only needs two more moves to win the game.
$\Box$
The above argument also shows that if there is a canary tree then the ${\omega}_1$-like dense linear orders share a universal non-equivalence tree of cardinality $2^{{\aleph}_0}$.
Independence Results
====================
\[notree\] It is consistent with GCH that there is no canary tree.
[[Proof. ]{}]{}Begin with a model of GCH and add ${\aleph}_2$ Cohen subsets to ${\omega}_1$. In the extension GCH continues to hold. Suppose $T$ is a tree of cardinality ${\aleph}_1$ which has no uncountable branch. Since the forcing to add ${\aleph}_2$ Cohen subsets of ${\omega}_1$ satisfies the ${\aleph}_2$-c.c., $T$ belongs to the extension of the universe by ${\aleph}_1$ of the subsets. By first adding all but one of the subsets we can work in $V[X]$ where $X$ is a Cohen subset of ${\omega}_1$ and $T$ is in $V$. Note that $X$ is a stationary costationary subset of ${\omega}_1$. Let ${{{\Bbb}P}}$ be the forcing for adding a Cohen generic subset of ${\omega}_1$ and let $Q$ be the ${{{\Bbb}P}}$-name for $T_X$. It is easy to see that ${{{\Bbb}P}}\ast
Q$ is essentially ${\omega}_1$-closed. Hence forcing with ${{{\Bbb}P}}\ast Q$ doesn’t add a branch through $T$. So neither does forcing with $T_X$ over $V[X]$. But forcing with $T_X$ destroys a stationary set, namely, ${\omega}_1 \setminus X$.
$\Box$
It remains to prove the consistency of GCH together with the existence of a canary tree. The proof has two main steps, we first force a very large subtree of ${{}^{<{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1}$. At limit ordinals we will forbid at most one branch from extending. Having created the tree we will then iteratively force order preserving maps of $T_S$ into the tree as $S$ varies over all stationary costationary sets.
It is consistent with GCH that there is a canary tree.
[[Proof. ]{}]{}Assume that GCH holds in the ground model. To begin define $Q_0$ to be $${\{f\colon \lim({\omega}_1) {\rightarrow}{{}^{<{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1}\colon {\mbox{\rm dom}}f \mbox{ is countable and
for all }{\delta}\in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(f),
f({\delta}) \in {}^{\delta}{\delta}\}}.$$ If $G_0$ is $Q_0$-generic, we can identify $G_0$ with $\bigcup_{f \in
G_0} \rge f$. Let ${{{\frak C}}} = {\{s \in {{}^{<{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1}\colon \mbox{for
all }{\delta}\leq \ell(s), s\rest{\delta}\notin G_0\}}$. It is easy to see that in $V[G_0]$, ${{\frak C}}$ has no uncountable branch and that $V[G_0]$ has no new reals. (In fact forcing with $Q_0$ is the same as adding a Cohen subset of ${\omega}_1$, so the claims above follow.)
To complete the proof we need to force embeddings of $T_S$ into ${{\frak C}}$ as $S$ ranges over stationary sets. Suppose that we are in an extension of the universe which includes a generic set for $Q_0$ and has no new reals. Fix a stationary set $S$. An element $t$ of ${{\frak C}}$ is called an $S$-[*node*]{} if for every limit ordinal ${\alpha}\notin S$, if ${\alpha}\leq \ell(t)$ then $t\rest
{\alpha}\notin {}^{\alpha}{\alpha}$. Notice that any $S$-node has successors of arbitrary height, since if $s$ is an $S$-node of height ${\alpha}$ and ${\delta}$ is a limit ordinal greater than ${\alpha}$, then any extension of $s^\frown\langle{\delta}\rangle$ of length at most ${\delta}$ is an $S$-node. The poset ${{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$ will consist of pairs $(g, X)$ where $X$ is a countable subset of ${{}^{<{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1}$ such that each element of $X$ is of successor length and $g$ is a partial order preserving map from $T_S$ to the $S$-nodes of ${{\frak C}}$ whose domain is a countable subtree of $T_S$. Further $(g, X)$ has the following properties.
1. if $c \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(g)$ and $t \in X$ then $t \not{\subseteq}g(c)$
2. if $c_0 < c_1 < \ldots$ is an increasing sequence of elements of ${\mbox{\rm dom}}(g)$ then $\bigcup_{n<{\omega}} g(c_n) \in {{\frak C}}$.
If $(g, X)$ is a condition let $o(g, X)$ be the $\sup{\{\ell(t) \colon t \in X \mbox{ or } t \in \rge(g)\}}$. A condition $(h, Y)$ extends $(g, X)$ if
1. $g {\subseteq}h$,
2. if $c \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(h) \setminus {\mbox{\rm dom}}(g)$, then $\ell(h(c)) >
o(g, X)$,
3. $X {\subseteq}Y$.
\[proper\] The poset ${{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$ is proper.
Suppose ${\kappa}$ is some suitably large cardinal, $N \prec {({\rm H}({\kappa}), {\in}, <^*)}$, where $<^*$ is a well-ordering of the model, $N$ is countable, and ${{{\Bbb}P}}(S) \in N$. We need to show that for every $p \in N \cap {{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$ there is an $N$-generic extension. Let ${\delta}= N \cap {\omega}_1$. Let $f$ be the $Q_0$-generic function and $t = f({\delta})$. There are two cases to consider. Either there is a successor ordinal ${\alpha}< {\delta}$ so that ${\alpha}> o(p)$ and $t \rest {\alpha}\in N$ or not. Let $p = (g, X)$. If such an ordinal ${\alpha}$ exists let $p_{-1} = (g, X \cup \{t\rest{\alpha}\})$, otherwise let $p_{-1} = p$. Now define a sequence $p_{-1}, p_0,
\ldots, p_n \ldots$ of increasingly stronger conditions so that (for $n \geq 0$) $p_n$ is in the $n^{\rm th}$ dense subset of ${{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$ which is an element of $N$. Let $p_n = (g_n, X_n)$ and $q = (h, Y)$ where $h = \bigcup_{n <
{\omega}} g_n$ and $Y = \bigcup_{n < {\omega}} X_n$. To finish the proof it suffices to see that $q \in {{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$. The only point that needs to be checked is to verify that if $c_0 < c_1 < \ldots \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(h)$ then $\bigcup_{n < {\omega}} h(c_n) \in {{\frak C}}$. If there is $m$ such that $c_n
\in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(g_m)$ for all $n$, then we are done. Otherwise, by the second property of being an extension, $\sup{\{\ell(h(c_n) \colon n < {\omega}\}} \geq
\sup{\{o(g_m, X_m) \colon m < {\omega}\}}$. However for all ${\alpha}< {\delta}$ there is a dense set $D$ such that $(g, X) \in D$ implies $o(g, X) > {\alpha}$. As $D$ is definable using parameters from $N$, $D \in N$. Furthermore since the sequence of conditions meets every dense set in $N$, $\sup{\{o(g_m, X_m) \colon m < {\omega}\}} \geq{\delta}$. Finally each $h(c_n) \in N$, so $\ell(h(c_n)) < {\delta}$ for all $n$. These facts give the equation, $\sup{\{\ell(h(c_n) \colon n < {\omega}\}} = {\delta}$. (In the remainder of the paper we will try to point out where a density argument is needed but we will not give it in such detail.) By the choice of $p_{-1}$ and the property 1 of the definition of ${{{\Bbb}P}}(S)$, $t \neq \bigcup_{n < {\omega}} h(c_n)$.
$\Box$
Our forcing will be an iteration with countable support of length ${\omega}_2$. As usual we will let ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$ be the forcing up to stage $i$ and will force with $Q_i$, a ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$-name for a poset. We have already defined $Q_0$. For $i$ greater than $0$, we take ${{\tilde S}}_i$ a ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$-name for a stationary costationary set and let $Q_i$ be the ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$-name for ${{{\Bbb}P}}({{\tilde S}}_i)$. By Claim \[nnr\], forcing with ${{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2}$ adds no reals. Also since each $Q_i$ is forced to have cardinality ${\omega}_1$, if we enumerate the ${{\tilde S}}_i$ properly every stationary costationary set in the final forcing extension will occur as the interpretation of some ${{\tilde S}}_i$.
\[nnr\] For all $i \leq {\omega}_2$, forcing with ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$ adds no new reals.
The proof is by induction on $i$. The case $i = 1$ is easy. For successor ordinals the proof can be done along the same lines as Claim \[proper\], or by a modification of the limit ordinal case which we do below. Suppose now that $i$ is a limit ordinal and ${{\tilde r}}$ is a ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$-name for a real. Consider any condition $p$. We must show that $p$ has an extension which determines all the values of ${{\tilde r}}$. Choose a countable $N$ so that $N \prec {({\rm H}({\kappa}), {\in}, <^*)}$ and $p, {{{\Bbb}P}}_i, {{\tilde r}}\in N$. Let $ p = p_{-1}, p_0, p_1, \ldots$ be a sequence of increasingly stronger conditions in $N$ so that $p_n$ is in the $n^{\rm th}$ dense subset of ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$ which is an element of $N$. Let ${\delta}= N \cap
{\omega}_1$. There is an obvious upper bound $q$ for the sequence. Of course $q$ is not a condition. We would like to extend $q$ to a condition $q'$ by choosing some $t \in
{}^{\delta}{\delta}$, letting $q'(0) =
q(0)^\frown\langle{\delta}, t\rangle$ and letting $q'(i) = q(i)$ for $i >
0$. Choose $t\in {}^{\delta}{\delta}$ so that $t\rest{\omega}\notin N$. By a density argument we can show that for all $i$ and $n$, if $p_n\rest
i{\Vdash}c \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}p$, then there are $m$, $g$, $X$ and $s \in
{}^{\omega}{\omega}\cup N$ so that $p_m {\Vdash}p_n(i) = (g, X) \mbox{ and }
g(c) = s$. It is straightforward to see that $t$ is as desired. (See the proof of Claim \[nobranch\] for a similar but more detailed argument.)
$\Box$
Let $G_{{\omega}_2}$ be ${{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2}$-generic. We have shown that in $V[G_{{\omega}_2}]$, for every stationary set $S$ there is an order preserving map from $T_S$ to ${{\frak C}}$. To finish the proof we must establish the following claim.
\[nobranch\] In $V[G_{{\omega}_2}]$, ${{\frak C}}$ has no uncountable branch.
Suppose that ${{\tilde b}}$ is forced (for simplicity) by the empty condition to be an uncountable branch of ${{}^{<{\omega}_1}{\omega}_1}$. We will show that there is a dense set of conditions which forces that ${{\tilde b}}$ is not a branch of ${{\frak C}}$. Hence ${{\frak C}}$ has no uncountable branch. Fix a condition $p \in {{{\Bbb}P}}$. Choose a countable $N$ so that $N \prec {({\rm H}({\kappa}), {\in}, <^*)}$ and $p, {{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2}, {{\tilde b}}\in N$. Let $ p = p_{-1}, p_0, p_1,
\ldots$ be a sequence of increasingly stronger conditions in $N$ so that $p_n$ is in the $n^{\rm th}$ dense subset of ${{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2}$ which is an element of $N$. Let ${\delta}= N \cap {\omega}_1$. The sequence ${\langle p_n\colon n <
{\omega}\rangle}$ determines a value for ${{\tilde b}}\rest {\delta}$. Let this value be $t$. There is an obvious upper bound $q$ for the sequence. Of course $q$ is not a condition. We would like to extend $q$ to a condition $q'$ by letting $q'(0) = q(0)^\frown\langle{\delta}, t\rangle$ and letting $q'(i) =
q(i)$ for $i > 0$. We will show by induction on $i$ that $q'\rest i$ is a condition in ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$.
The case $i = 1$ and limit cases are easy. So we can assume that $i \in N$ and $q'\rest i \in {{{\Bbb}P}}_i$. Since forcing with ${{{\Bbb}P}}_i$ adds no new reals and $N$ is an elementary submodel of ${({\rm H}({\kappa}), {\in}, <^*)}$, for all $n$ there is $m$ and $(g_n, X_n)$ so that $p_m\rest i {\Vdash}p_n(i) =
(g_n, X_n)$. Hence $q'\rest i {\Vdash}q'(i) = (h, Y)$, where $h
=\bigcup_{n< {\omega}} g_n$ and $Y = \bigcup_{n < {\omega}} X_n$. Suppose now that $c_0 < c_1 < \ldots \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(h)$. We need to show that $q'\rest i{\Vdash}\bigcup_{n < {\omega}} h(c_n) \in {{\frak C}}$. If there is some $m$ so that $c_n \in {\mbox{\rm dom}}(g_m)$ for all $n$, then we are done as in Claim \[proper\]. Otherwise $\ell(\bigcup_{n < {\omega}} h(c_n)) = {\delta}$ and we only need to show that $\bigcup_{n < {\omega}} h(c_n) \neq t$.
Notice that for all ${\alpha}< {\delta}$, $q'\rest i{\Vdash}(\bigcup_{n < {\omega}}
h(c_n))\rest {\alpha}\mbox{ is an }{{\tilde S}}_i\mbox{-node}$. We will show that there is ${\alpha}< {\delta}$ so that then $q'\rest i
{\Vdash}t\rest{\alpha}\mbox{ is not an ${{\tilde S}}_i$-node}$. This will complete the proof.
Let $G = {\{p \in N \cap {{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2} \colon \mbox{there is $n$ so
that $p_n$ extends }p\}}$. By the choice of the sequence, $G$ is $N$-generic. Note that by Claim \[proper\] and the iteration lemma for proper forcing (or by a direct argument similar to Claim \[proper\]), ${{{\Bbb}P}}_{{\omega}_2} {\Vdash}{{\tilde S}}_i \mbox{ is costationary}$. Hence for all $i \in N$, $N[G] \models
{{\tilde S}}_i^G \mbox{ is
costationary}$ and $N[G] \models {\{{\alpha}\colon {{\tilde b}}^G\rest{\alpha}\in
{}^{\alpha}{\alpha}\}} \mbox{ is a club}$. Hence $$N[G] \models \mbox{there is a
limit ordinal } {\alpha}\mbox{ so that } {{\tilde b}}^G\rest{\alpha}\in {}^{\alpha}{\alpha}\mbox{ and }
{\alpha}\notin {{\tilde S}}_i^G.$$ By the forcing theorem there is some $n$ so that $p_n\rest i {\Vdash}t\rest{\alpha}\in {}^{\alpha}{\alpha}\mbox{ and } {\alpha}\notin {{\tilde S}}_i$. So we have shown $q'\rest i{\Vdash}t\rest{\alpha}\mbox{ is not an ${{\tilde S}}_i$-node}$, which was our goal.
$\Box$
Note in the proof above it was necessary to force the embeddings. The forcing $Q_0$ is the same as adding a Cohen subset of ${\omega}_1$. So if we add two Cohen subsets of ${\omega}_1$ and use one to construct the tree, then, by the proof of Theorem \[notree\] the other one gives a stationary set which can be destroyed without adding an uncountable branch.
[99]{} Baumgartner, J., Harrington, L. and Kleinberg, G. [*Adding a closed unbounded set*]{}, J. Symbolic Logic [**41**]{}(1976) 481–482.
Hyttinen, T. and Tuuri, H. [*Constructing strongly equivalent nonisomorphic models for unstable theories*]{}, Ann. Pure and Appl. Logic [**52**]{}(1991) 203–248.
Hyttinen, T and Väänänen, J. [*On Scott and Karp trees of uncountable models*]{}, J. Symbolic Logic [**55**]{}(1990) 897–908.
Mekler, A. and Väänänen, J., [*Trees and $\Pi^1_1$-subsets of ${ }^{\omega_1}\omega_1$*]{}, submitted.
[^1]: Research partially supported by NSERC grant A8948. Research on this paper was begun while both authors were visiting MSRI.
[^2]: Publication \#398. Research supported by the BSF and NSF.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a measurement of the decay $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ using a data sample containing $657\times 10^6$ [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}pairs collected at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. A sample of $B^+B^-$ pairs are tagged by reconstructing one $B^+$ meson decaying semileptonically. We detect the $B^-\to \tau^-\overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ candidate in the recoil. We obtain a signal with a significance of 3.6 standard deviations including systematic uncertainties, and measure the branching fraction to be ${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau}) =
[{1.54}{^{+0.38}_{-0.37}}(\text{stat}){^{+0.29}_{-0.31}}(\text{syst})] \times 10^{-4}$. This result confirms the evidence for $B^{-}\to\tau^-\overline{\nu}_\tau$ obtained in a previous Belle measurement that used a hadronic $B$ tagging method.
author:
- 'K. Hara'
- 'T. Iijima'
- 'H. Aihara'
- 'V. Aulchenko'
- 'T. Aushev'
- 'T. Aziz'
- 'A. M. Bakich'
- 'E. Barberio'
- 'K. Belous'
- 'M. Bischofberger'
- 'A. Bondar'
- 'A. Bozek'
- 'M. Bračko'
- 'T. E. Browder'
- 'P. Chang'
- 'Y. Chao'
- 'A. Chen'
- 'B. G. Cheon'
- 'C.-C. Chiang'
- 'I.-S. Cho'
- 'Y. Choi'
- 'J. Dalseno'
- 'M. Danilov'
- 'Z. Doležal'
- 'W. Dungel'
- 'S. Eidelman'
- 'N. Gabyshev'
- 'P. Goldenzweig'
- 'B. Golob'
- 'H. Ha'
- 'Y. Hasegawa'
- 'K. Hayasaka'
- 'H. Hayashii'
- 'Y. Horii'
- 'Y. Hoshi'
- 'Y. B. Hsiung'
- 'H. J. Hyun'
- 'K. Inami'
- 'M. Iwabuchi'
- 'Y. Iwasaki'
- 'T. Julius'
- 'J. H. Kang'
- 'H. Kawai'
- 'T. Kawasaki'
- 'H. Kichimi'
- 'C. Kiesling'
- 'H. J. Kim'
- 'H. O. Kim'
- 'J. H. Kim'
- 'M. J. Kim'
- 'Y. J. Kim'
- 'K. Kinoshita'
- 'B. R. Ko'
- 'P. Kodyš'
- 'S. Korpar'
- 'M. Kreps'
- 'P. Križan'
- 'P. Krokovny'
- 'T. Kuhr'
- 'T. Kumita'
- 'A. Kuzmin'
- 'Y.-J. Kwon'
- 'S.-H. Kyeong'
- 'M. J. Lee'
- 'S.-H. Lee'
- 'J. Li'
- 'A. Limosani'
- 'Y. Liu'
- 'D. Liventsev'
- 'R. Louvot'
- 'A. Matyja'
- 'S. McOnie'
- 'K. Miyabayashi'
- 'H. Miyata'
- 'Y. Miyazaki'
- 'G. B. Mohanty'
- 'T. Mori'
- 'E. Nakano'
- 'M. Nakao'
- 'H. Nakazawa'
- 'S. Neubauer'
- 'S. Nishida'
- 'K. Nishimura'
- 'O. Nitoh'
- 'T. Nozaki'
- 'S. Ogawa'
- 'T. Ohshima'
- 'S. Okuno'
- 'S. L. Olsen'
- 'H. Ozaki'
- 'G. Pakhlova'
- 'C. W. Park'
- 'H. K. Park'
- 'R. Pestotnik'
- 'M. Petrič'
- 'L. E. Piilonen'
- 'M. Prim'
- 'M. Rozanska'
- 'S. Ryu'
- 'H. Sahoo'
- 'Y. Sakai'
- 'O. Schneider'
- 'J. Schümann'
- 'C. Schwanda'
- 'A. J. Schwartz'
- 'K. Senyo'
- 'M. E. Sevior'
- 'M. Shapkin'
- 'H. Shibuya'
- 'J.-G. Shiu'
- 'B. Shwartz'
- 'J. B. Singh'
- 'P. Smerkol'
- 'E. Solovieva'
- 'S. Stanič'
- 'M. Starič'
- 'K. Sumisawa'
- 'T. Sumiyoshi'
- 'Y. Teramoto'
- 'I. Tikhomirov'
- 'K. Trabelsi'
- 'S. Uehara'
- 'T. Uglov'
- 'Y. Unno'
- 'S. Uno'
- 'Y. Ushiroda'
- 'G. Varner'
- 'K. E. Varvell'
- 'K. Vervink'
- 'C. H. Wang'
- 'M.-Z. Wang'
- 'P. Wang'
- 'Y. Watanabe'
- 'R. Wedd'
- 'E. Won'
- 'B. D. Yabsley'
- 'Y. Yamashita'
- 'M. Yamauchi'
- 'C. Z. Yuan'
- 'C. C. Zhang'
- 'V. Zhilich'
- 'T. Zivko'
- 'A. Zupanc'
- 'O. Zyukova'
title: |
\
[ **Evidence for $B^- \to \tau^- \overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ with a Semileptonic Tagging Method\
**]{}
---
The purely leptonic decay $B^{-}\rightarrow \tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ [@conjugate] is of particular interest since it provides a unique opportunity to test the Standard Model (SM) and search for new physics beyond the SM. In the SM, the branching fraction of the decay $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ is given by $$\label{eq:BR_B_taunu}
{\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau) = \frac{G_{F}^{2}m_{B}m_{\tau}^{2}}{8\pi}\left(1-\frac{m_{\tau}^{2}}{m_{B}^{2}}\right)^{2}f_{B}^{2}|V_{ub}|^{2}\tau_{B},$$ where $G_{F}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $m_{\tau}$ and $m_{B}$ are the $\tau$ lepton and $B^-$ meson masses, $\tau_{B}$ is the $B^{-}$ lifetime, $|V_{ub}|$ is the magnitude of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element [@CKM], and $f_{B}$ is the $B$ meson decay constant. Dependence on the lepton mass arises from helicity conservation, which suppresses the muon and electron channels. A recent SM estimation of the branching fraction [@CKMfitter2010] is $(0.76^{+0.11}_{-0.06})\times 10^{-4}$. In the absence of new physics, measurement of the $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ decay can provide a direct experimental determination of $f_B$, which can be compared to lattice QCD calculations [@lattice]. Physics beyond the SM, however, could significantly suppress or enhance ${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau)$ via exchange of a new charged particle such as a charged Higgs boson from supersymmetry or two-Higgs doublet models [@Hou:1992sy; @Baek:1999ch]. Belle previously reported [@ikado-2006-97] the first evidence of $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ decay with a significance of $3.5$ standard deviations ($\sigma$), and measured the branching fraction to be ${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau}) =
(1.79^{+0.56}_{-0.49}(\mbox{stat})^{+0.46}_{-0.51}(\mbox{syst})) \times 10^{-4}$, using a hadronic reconstruction tagging method. The BaBar Collaboration reported a search for $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ decay with hadronic tagging [@Aubert:2007] using $383 \times 10^6$ [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}pairs and with semileptonic tagging [@Aubert:2009_semil] using $459 \times 10^6$ [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}pairs. Combining the two measurements, they obtained a 2.8$\sigma$ excess and a branching fraction ${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau})= (1.7\pm0.6)\times 10^{-4}$. These experimental results are slightly larger than the SM estimation in Ref. [@CKMfitter2010], though the statistical precision is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of physics beyond the SM. To better establish this decay mode and determine the branching fraction with greater precision, we present a measurement of $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ from Belle using a semileptonic tagging method. We use a $605~\textrm{fb}^{-1}$ data sample containing $657\times 10^{6}$ [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}pairs collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}e^{-}$ ($3.5$ on $8$ GeV) collider [@KEKB] operating at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance ($\sqrt{s} = 10.58$ GeV). We also use a data sample of 68 fb$^{-1}$ taken at a center of mass energy 60 MeV below the nominal $\Upsilon(4S)$ mass (off-resonance) for background studies. The Belle detector [@Belle] is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Cherenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is instrumented to detect $K_L^0$ mesons and to identify muons (KLM). Two inner detector configurations were used. A 2.0 cm beampipe and a 3-layer silicon vertex detector were used for the first sample of 152 $\times 10^6 B\overline{B}$ pairs, while a 1.5 cm beampipe, a 4-layer silicon detector and a small-cell inner drift chamber were used to record the remaining 505 $\times 10^6 B\overline{B}$ pairs [@svd2]. We use a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation based on GEANT [@GEANT] to determine the signal selection efficiency and study the background. In order to reproduce the effects of beam background, data taken with random triggers for each run period are overlaid on simulated events. The $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ signal decay is generated by the EvtGen package [@EvtGen]. Radiative effects are modeled using the PHOTOS code [@PHOTOS]. To model the background from $e^+e^- \to B\overline{B}$ and continuum $q\overline{q}~(q = u, d, s, c)$ production processes, we use large MC samples of $B\overline{B}$ meson pair decays to charm and continuum $q\overline{q}$ processes corresponding to about ten times and six times the data sample, respectively. We also use MC samples of rare $B$ decay processes such as charmless hadronic, radiative, electroweak decays and $b \to u$ semileptonic decays. The contamination from other low multiplicity backgrounds such as $e^+e^-\to \tau^+\tau^-$ and two-photon processes is also studied using dedicated MC samples.
The $B^-\to\tau^-\overline{\nu}_\tau$ candidate decays are selected using the feature that at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance $B$ meson pairs are produced with no additional particles. We first reconstruct one of the $B$ mesons decaying semileptonically (referred to hereafter as ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$) and then compare the properties of the remaining particle(s) in the event (${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$) to those expected for signal and background. In order to avoid experimental bias, the signal region in data is not examined until the event selection criteria are finalized.
Charged particles are selected from well measured tracks (reconstructed with the CDC and SVD) originating from the interaction point. Electron candidates are identified based on a likelihood calculated using the following information: $dE/dx$ measured in the CDC, the response of the ACC, the ECL shower shape and the ratio of the ECL energy deposited to the track momentum. Muon candidates are selected using KLM hits associated to a charged track. Both muons and electrons are selected with efficiency greater than 90% in the momentum region above 1.2 GeV/$c$, and misidentification rates of less than 0.2% (1.5%) for electrons (muons). After selecting leptons, we distinguish charged kaons from pions based on a kaon likelihood derived from the TOF, ACC, and $dE/dx$ measurements in the CDC. The typical kaon identification efficiency is greater than 85% and the probability of misidentifying pions as kaons is about 8%. Photons are identified as isolated ECL clusters that are not matched to any charged track. Neutral $\pi^0$ candidates are selected from pairs of photons with invariant mass between 0.118 and 0.150 GeV/$c^2$. The energy of the photon candidates must exceed: 50 MeV for the barrel, 100 MeV for the forward endcap and 150 MeV for the backward endcap, except for low momentum $\pi^0$ candidates from $\overline{D}^{*0}\to \overline{D}^{0}\pi^0$ decay for which we require the photon energy to be greater than 30 MeV.
We reconstruct the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ in $B^+\to \overline{D}^{*0}\ell^+\nu_\ell$ and $B^+\to \overline{D}^{0}\ell^+\nu_\ell$ decays, where $\ell$ is electron ($e$) or muon ($\mu$). $\overline{D}^0$ mesons are reconstructed in the $K^+\pi^-$, $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ and $K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ modes. For ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$, we use $\tau^-$ decays to only one charged particle and neutrinos i.e. $\tau^- \to \ell^- \overline{\nu}_\ell \nu_\tau$ and $\tau^- \to \pi^- \nu_\tau$.
We require the invariant mass of $\overline{D}^0$ candidates to be in the range $[1.851~\text{GeV}/c^2, 1.879~\text{GeV}/c^2]$ for $\overline{D}^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ decays, and $[1.829~\text{GeV}/c^2, 1.901$ GeV/$c^2]$ for $\overline{D}^0\to K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay. $\overline{D}^{*0}$ candidates are selected by combining the $\overline{D}^0$ candidates with low momentum $\pi^0$ candidates or photons. For $\overline{D}^{*0}$ candidates, we require the mass difference $\Delta M \equiv M_{D^{*0}} - M_{D^0}$ to be in the range $[0.1389~\text{GeV}/c^2, 0.1455~\text{GeV}/c^2]$ and $[0.123~\text{GeV}/c^2, 0.165~\text{GeV}/c^2]$ for $\overline{D}^{*0}\to \overline{D}^0\pi^0$ and $\overline{D}^{*0}\to \overline{D}^0\gamma$ decays, respectively. These regions correspond to three standard deviations in the corresponding resolutions. To suppress $\overline{D}^{*0}$’s from continuum background processes, the momentum of $\overline{D}^{*0}$ candidates calculated in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ center-of-mass system (cms) is required to be less than 2.5 GeV/$c$.
We select signal candidates from events with one $\overline{D}^0$ or $\overline{D}^{*0}$ and one $\ell^+$ to form ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$, and one $\ell^-$ or $\pi^-$ candidate for ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$. We require that no other charged particle or $\pi^0$ remain in the event after removing the particles from the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ and ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$ candidates. The ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ candidates are selected using the lepton momentum in the cms frame, $P^{\text{cms}}_\ell$, and the cosine of the angle between the direction of the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ momentum and the direction of the momentum sum of the $\overline{D}^{(*)0}$ and the lepton, $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$, measured in the cms frame. This angle is calculated using $$\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell} = \frac{2E^{\text{cms}}_{\text{beam}}E^{\text{cms}}_{D^{(*)}\ell}-m^2_B-M^2_{D^{(*)}\ell}}{2 P^{\text{cms}}_B\cdot P^{\text{cms}}_{D^{(*)}\ell}},$$ where $E^{\text{cms}}_{\text{beam}}$ is the beam energy, $P^{\text{cms}}_B$ is the momentum of $B$ meson calculated with $P^{\text{cms}}_B = \sqrt{(E^{\text{cms}}_{\text{beam}})^2 - m_B^2}$, $E^{\text{cms}}_{D^{(*)}\ell}$, $P^{\text{cms}}_{D^{(*)}\ell}$ and $M_{D^{(*)}\ell}$ are the energy sum, momentum sum and invariant mass, respectively, of the $\overline{D}^{(*)0}$ and lepton system. All parameters are calculated in the cms. Properly reconstructed ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ candidates are populated within the physical range $[-1,1]$, while combinatorial backgrounds can take unphysical values. For the signal side, the $\ell^-$ or $\pi^-$ candidate from the $\tau$ decay is selected using the momentum in the cms, denoted $P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig}$. The signal yield is obtained by fitting the distribution of the remaining energy in the ECL, denoted ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$, which is the sum of the energies of ECL clusters that are not associated with particles from the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ and ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$ candidates; here the ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ clusters satisfy the same minimum energy requirements as photon candidates. For signal events, ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ must be either zero or a small value arising from splitoff showers created by ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ and ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$ particles and residual beam background hits. Therefore, signal events peak at low ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$. On the other hand, background events are distributed toward higher ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ due to the contribution from additional particles. The selection criteria for $P^{\text{cms}}_\ell$, $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$ and $P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig}$ are optimized for each of the $\tau$ decay modes, because the background levels and the background components are mode-dependent. The optimization is done so that the figure of merit $s/\sqrt{s+n}$ is maximized, where $s$ and $n$ are the number of signal and background events expected in the signal-enhanced region ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }< 0.2$ GeV, calculated assuming a signal branching fraction of $1.79 \times 10^{-4}$. For leptonic $\tau$ decays, the dominant background is from [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}events tagged by a semileptonic decay with a correctly reconstructed combination of a $\overline{D}^{*0}$ and a $\ell^+$. For these decays loose selection criteria are chosen to maintain high signal efficiency: $0.5~\text{GeV}/c < P^{\text{cms}}_{\ell} < 2.5$ GeV/$c$, $-2.1 < \cos\theta_{B,D^{*}\ell}<1.3$ for the $\overline{D}^{*0}$ mode or $-2.6 < \cos\theta_{B,D\ell}<1.2$ for the $\overline{D}^0$ mode, and $0.3 \text{ GeV}/c < P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig}$. For the hadronic $\tau$ decay mode, there is more background from $e^+e^- \to q\overline{q}$ continuum and combinatorial $D^{(*)0}\ell$ background. Tighter criteria are used to reduce such backgrounds: $1.0 \text{ GeV}/c < P^{\text{cms}}_{\ell} < 2.2$ GeV/$c$, $-1.1 < \cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)0}\ell}<1.1$, and $1.0 \text{ GeV}/c < P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig} < 2.4 $ GeV/$c$. The upper bound on $P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig}$ is introduced to reject two-body $B$ decays. In addition, we suppress continuum background by requiring the cosine of the angle between the signal side pion track and the thrust axis of the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$, $\cos\theta_{ \text{thr} }$, to be less than 0.9. We select candidate events in the range ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }< 1.2$ GeV for further analysis. The number of candidate events are 2481 for $\tau^- \to e^- \overline{\nu}_e \nu_\tau$, 2011 for $\tau^- \to \mu^- \overline{\nu}_\mu \nu_\tau$ and 1018 for $\tau^- \to \pi^- \nu_\tau$ decays. Figure \[fig:cosbdl\] shows the $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$ distribution for the signal candidate events including both leptonic and hadronic $\tau$ decay modes with all selection criteria other than $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$ applied. The excess over the MC expectation for events without $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ decays indicates that the final sample contains candidate events with the correct combination of a $\overline{D}^{(*)0}$ and a $\ell^+$ forming a ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$. In the remaining candidates, according to a MC study, 4.6%, 13.4% and 12.0% are events without a ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ from $B^+B^-$, $B^0\bar{B}^0$ and non-[$B\overline{B}$ ]{}processes, respectively.
![ $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$ distribution for candidate events with ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }< 1.2$ GeV selected with all ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ and ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$ requirements except for those on $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$. Leptonic and hadronic $\tau$ decay modes are combined. The points with error bars are data. The dot-dashed, dotted and dashed histograms are the MC expectation for events without $B^+ \to \overline{D}^{(*)0} \ell^+ \nu_\ell$ decays for $B^+B^-$, sum of $B^+B^-$ and $B^0\bar{B}^0$, and sum of [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}and non-[$B\overline{B}$ ]{}events, respectively. []{data-label="fig:cosbdl"}](fig1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The number of signal events is extracted from an extended maximum likelihood fit to the [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}distribution of the candidate events. Probability density functions (PDFs) for each $\tau$ decay mode are constructed from the MC simulation. We use [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}histograms obtained from MC samples for each of the signal and the background components. The PDFs are combined into a likelihood function, $${\cal L} = \frac{e^{-\sum_j n_j}}{N!}
\prod_{i=1}^{N}\sum_j n_j f_j(E_{i})$$ where $j$ is an index for the signal and background contributions, $n_{j}$ and $f_{j}$ are the yield and the PDF, respectively, of the $j$th component, $E_{i}$ is the ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ value in the $i$th event, and $N$ is the total number of events in the data. The dominant background components are from [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}decays to a final state with charm and continuum processes. The small background from rare charmless $B$ decays and other low multiplicity processes such as $\tau$ pair and two-photon processes is also included in the fit. In the final sample with ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }< 1.2$ GeV, the fractions of the background from rare charmless $B$ decays and low multiplicity non-$B$ processes are estimated from MC to be 8% and 3% for leptonic $\tau$ decays and 11% and 8% for hadronic $\tau$ decay, respectively.
The ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ estimation in MC is validated using various control samples. The MC distributions of not only ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ but also $P^{\text{cms}}_{\ell}$, $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$, $P^{\text{cms}}_{\rm sig}$ and $\cos\theta_{ \text{thr} }$ are compared to those of the control samples to confirm that MC describes the background composition properly. The off-resonance data is used to calibrate the MC simulation of the continuum background. We find that our MC underestimates the overall normalization of the continuum background though the predicted shapes are consistent with data within statistical errors. We obtain the correction factor for the overall normalization of the continuum MC to be $1.43 \pm 0.11$ by comparing the number of remaining events in off-resonance data with the MC expectation. The sidebands in $\cos\theta_{B,D^{(*)}\ell}$, $\overline{D}^0$ mass, the mass difference between $\overline{D}^{*0}$ and $\overline{D}^0$, and ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ are used as control samples to check the overall background description including the $B\overline{B}$ contribution. The distributions in these variables obtained from MC with the continuum normalization correction applied are found to be consistent with the corresponding distributions in data. The agreement between MC and data is also confirmed in $B^0$ tagged events where the ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ is reconstructed in $B^0 \to D^{*-}\ell^+\nu$ decays. The contributions to the ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ distribution are not only from beam background but also include splitoff showers originating from ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm tag}} }$ and ${\ensuremath{B_{\rm sig}} }$ decay products. The relative fractions of these sources are 21%, 53% and 26%, respectively, in the signal MC sample. To take into account the possible difference between MC and data descriptions of splitoff showers, the signal ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ shape is calibrated using double tagged events, in which the $B_{\rm tag}$ is reconstructed in a semileptonic decay as described above and $B_{\rm sig}$ is reconstructed in the decay chain, $B^{-} \rightarrow D^{*0}\ell^{-}\overline{\nu}$ ($D^{*0}\rightarrow D^{0}\pi^{0}$), followed by $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$. Figure \[fig:doubletag\] shows the ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ distribution in the double tagged sample for data and for the MC simulation scaled to the same luminosity. The background in this control sample is negligibly small. We find the [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}distribution of data tends to have a slightly smaller width than MC. The difference between the data and MC is parameterized as a first-order polynomial function of [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}obtained by fitting the ratio of data to MC for the [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}histograms of the double tagged sample. The ratio and the fit result are also shown in Fig. \[fig:doubletag\]. The [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}histogram obtained from the signal MC sample is multiplied by this correction function.
![ [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}distribution for double semileptonic tagged events. The points with error bars are data and the solid histogram is the MC expectation scaled to the luminosity of the data. The dashed histogram is the MC expectation multiplied by the correction function described in the text. The inset shows the ratio of data to the MC expectation and the correction function. []{data-label="fig:doubletag"}](fig2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
In the final fit, four parameters are allowed to vary: the total signal yield and the sum of [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}and continuum backgrounds for each $\tau$ decay mode. The ratio of the [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}to the continuum background is fixed to the value obtained from MC with the normalization correction applied. Other background contributions are fixed to the MC expectation. We combine $\tau$ decay modes by constraining the ratios of the signal yields to the ratio of the reconstruction efficiencies obtained from MC including the branching fractions of $\tau$ decays [@pdg2010]. Figure \[fig:eecl\_fit\] shows the ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ distribution overlaid with the fit results. The [$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}distribution for each $\tau$ decay mode is also shown. We see a clear excess of signal events in the region near zero and obtain a signal yield of $n_{\rm s} = 143^{+36}_{-35}$. The branching fraction is calculated as ${\cal B} = n_{\rm s}/(2\varepsilon N_{B^{+}B^{-}})$, where $\varepsilon$ is the reconstruction efficiency including the branching fraction of the $\tau$ decay mode and $N_{B^{+}B^{-}}$ is the number of $\Upsilon(4S)\rightarrow B^{+}B^{-}$ events, assuming $N_{B^{+}B^{-}} = N_{B^{0}\overline{B}^{0}}$. Table \[tab:fit\_result\] lists the signal yields and the branching fractions obtained from separate fits to each $\tau$ decay mode and the fit with all three modes combined. The results of the individual fits are consistent within statistics. The $\chi^2$ of the three results is 2.43 for two degrees of freedom, corresponding to a $30$% confidence level.
![[$E_{\text{ECL}}$ ]{}distribution of semileptonic tagged events with the fit result for (a) all $\tau$ decay modes combined, (b) $\tau^- \to e^-\overline{\nu}_e\nu_\tau$, (c) $\tau^- \to \mu^-\overline{\nu}_\mu\nu_\tau$ and (d) $\tau^- \to \pi^-\nu_\tau$. The points with error bars are data. The hatched histogram and solid open histogram are the background and the signal contributions, respectively. []{data-label="fig:eecl_fit"}](fig3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Decay Mode Signal Yield $\varepsilon$, $10^{-4}$ ${\cal B}$, $10^{-4}$
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --
$\tau^-\to e^{-}\overline{\nu}_e \nu_{\tau}$ $73^{+23}_{-22}$ $5.9$ $1.90^{+0.59}_{-0.57}{}^{+0.33}_{-0.35}$
$\tau^-\to \mu^{-}\overline{\nu}_\mu \nu_{\tau}$ $12^{+18}_{-17}$ $3.7$ $0.50^{+0.76}_{-0.72}{}^{+0.18}_{-0.21}$
$\tau^-\to\pi^{-}\nu_{\tau}$ $55^{+21}_{-20}$ $4.7$ $1.80^{+0.69}_{-0.66}{}^{+0.36}_{-0.37}$
Combined $143^{+36}_{-35}$ $14.3$ $1.54^{+0.38}_{-0.37}{}^{+0.29}_{-0.31}$
: Results of the fit for signal yields and branching fractions. $\varepsilon$ is the reconstruction efficiency including the branching fraction of the $\tau$ decay mode. The first error in the branching fraction is statistical and the second is systematic. []{data-label="tab:fit_result"}
Systematic errors for the measured branching fraction are associated with the uncertainties in the signal yield, efficiencies and the number of $B^{+}B^{-}$ pairs. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the systematic errors for each source are obtained by varying the corresponding parameters individually by their uncertainties, repeating the fit procedure and adding differences from the nominal result in quadrature. The systematic errors for the signal yield arise from the uncertainties in the PDF shapes for the signal and for the background. The uncertainty in the signal shape correction function is estimated by changing the parameters of the correction function by their errors and replacing the function with a second-order polynomial ($^{+1.9}_{-2.4}$%). The systematic error from MC statistics is evaluated by varying the content of each bin in the signal ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ PDF histograms by its statistical uncertainty ($\pm0.9$%). The main contributions to the systematic errors for the background PDF shapes are statistical errors in the MC histograms ($^{+8.6}_{-8.3}$%), which is estimated in the same way as the signal PDF MC statistical uncertainty. Other large sources are the uncertainties in the background composition. The errors due to the uncertainties in the branching fractions of $B$ decay modes that peak near zero ${\ensuremath{E_{\text{ECL}}} }$ such as $B^-\to D^0\ell^-\overline{\nu}_\ell$ with $D^0\to K_L^0 K_L^0$, $K_L^0 \pi^0$ and $K^- \ell^+\nu_\ell$, and $\overline{B}^0 \to D^+ \ell^- \overline{\nu}_\ell$ with $D^+ \to
K_L^0 \ell^+ \nu_\ell$ are estimated by changing the branching fractions in MC by their errors [@pdg2010] ($^{+4.5}_{-8.8}$%). For branching fractions of $D$ decays with a $K^0_L$, we use the values for the corresponding $D$ decays with $K^0_S$’s. Uncertainties in the background from the possible contribution of rare charmless $B$ decays such as $B^- \to \pi^0 \ell^- \overline{\nu}_\ell$, $B^- \to K^-\nu\overline{\nu}$ and $\ell^- \overline{\nu}_\ell \gamma$, and from $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair and two photon processes are evaluated by changing the fractions obtained from MC by their experimental errors [@pdg2010] if available, or by $\pm50$% otherwise ($^{+7.6}_{-7.7}$%). The systematic error due to the uncertainty in the normalization correction factor for the continuum MC is $^{+2.6}_{-2.5}$%. The systematic error associated with the reconstruction efficiency of the tag-side $B$ is evaluated by comparing of the ${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow D^{*0}\ell^{-}\overline{\nu}_\ell)$ branching fraction measured with the double tagged sample in data to the world average value [@pdg2010]. We obtain the ratio to be $0.907\pm0.044$ and take the difference from unity plus one $\sigma$ as the systematic error (13.7%). The systematic errors in the signal-side efficiencies arise from the uncertainty in tracking efficiency (1.0%), particle identification efficiency (1.3%), branching fractions of $\tau$ decays (0.4%), and MC statistics (0.8%). The systematic error due to the uncertainty in $N_{B^{+}B^{-}}$ is 1.4%. The total fractional systematic uncertainty is $^{+19}_{-20}\%$, and the branching fraction is $${\cal B}(B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_{\tau}) = ({1.54}{^{+0.38}_{-0.37}}(\text{stat}){^{+0.29}_{-0.31}}(\text{syst}))\times 10^{-4}.$$ The significance of the observed signal is evaluated by $\Sigma = \sqrt{-2\ln({\cal L}_{0}/{\cal L}_{\rm max})}$ where ${\cal L}_{\rm max}$ and ${\cal L}_{0}$ denote the maximum likelihood value and likelihood value obtained assuming zero signal events, respectively. The systematic uncertainty is convolved in the likelihood with a Gaussian distribution having a width corresponding to the systematic error of the signal yield. We find the significance of the signal yield to be 3.6$\sigma$.
In summary, we have measured the decay $B^{-}\rightarrow\tau^{-}\overline{\nu}_\tau$ with [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}events tagged by semileptonic $B$ decays using a data sample containing $657\times 10^6$ [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}pairs collected at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. We measure the branching fraction to be $({1.54}{^{+0.38}_{-0.37}}(\text{stat}){^{+0.29}_{-0.31}}(\text{syst}))\times 10^{-4}$, with a significance of 3.6 standard deviations including systematics. This result is consistent with the previous Belle measurement using [$B\overline{B}$ ]{}events tagged by hadronic $B$ decays and is consistent with the results reported by the BaBar collaboration. Using the measured branching fraction and known values of $G_F$, $m_B$, $m_{\tau}$ and $\tau_B$ [@pdg2010], the product of the $B$ meson decay constant $f_B$ and the magnitude of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{ub}|$ is determined to be $$f_B |V_{ub}|= (9.3^{+1.2}_{-1.1}\pm0.9) \times 10^{-4}~\text{GeV}.$$ Using $|V_{ub}|=(3.89\pm0.44)\times 10^{-3}$ in Ref. [@pdg2010], $f_B$ is calculated to be $0.24\pm0.05~\text{GeV}$. The measured branching fraction is consistent within errors with the SM expectation from other experimental constraints [@CKMfitter2010]. The result can be used to extract constraints on new physics models.
We thank the KEKB group for excellent operation of the accelerator, the KEK cryogenics group for efficient solenoid operations, and the KEK computer group and the NII for valuable computing and SINET3 network support. We acknowledge support from MEXT, JSPS and Nagoya’s TLPRC (Japan); ARC and DIISR (Australia); NSFC (China); MSMT (Czechia); DST (India); MEST, NRF, NSDC of KISTI, and WCU (Korea); MNiSW (Poland); MES and RFAAE (Russia); ARRS (Slovenia); SNSF (Switzerland); NSC and MOE (Taiwan); and DOE (USA).
[99]{}
The charge-conjugate decays are implied throughout this paper unless otherwise stated.
M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{}, 652 (1973); N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963).
J. Charles [*et al.*]{} (CKMfitter Group) Eur. Phys. J. C [**41**]{}, 1 (2005); Preliminary results as of ICHEP 2010, http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/plots\_ICHEP10.
E. Gamiz, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu and M. Wingate (HPQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 014503 (2009); S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (JLQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 212001 (2003); C. Bernard [*et al.*]{} (MILC Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 094501 (2002); A. Ali Khan [*et al.*]{} (CP-PACS Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 054504 (2001).
W. S. Hou, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2342 (1993). S. Baek and Y. G. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 077701 (1999). K. Ikado [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration) Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 251802 (2006).
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 011107(R) (2008).
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 051101(R) (2010). S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**499**]{}, 1 (2003), and other papers included in this volume.
A. Abashian [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**479**]{}, 117 (2002).
Z. Natkaniec [*et al.*]{} (Belle SVD2 Group), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**560**]{}, 1 (2006).
R. Brun [*et al.*]{}, GEANT3.21, CERN Report DD/EE/84-1 (1984).
D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**462**]{}, 152 (2001).
E. Barbelio and Z. [Was]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**79**]{}, 291 (1994).
K. Nakamura [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**37**]{}, 075021 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Two signatures of quantum effects on radiation reaction in the collision of a $\sim$ GeV electron-beam with a high-intensity ($>3\times10^{20}$ Wcm$^{-2}$) laser-pulse have been considered. We show that the decrease in the average energy of the electron-beam may be used to measure the Gaunt factor $g$ for synchrotron emission. We derive an equation for the evolution of the variance in the energy of the electron-beam in the quantum regime, i.e. quantum efficiency parameter $\eta \nll 1$. We show that the evolution of the variance may be used as a direct measure of the quantum stochasticity of the radiation reaction and determine the parameter regime where this is observable. For example, stochastic emission results in a 25% increase in the standard deviation of the energy spectrum of a GeV electron beam, 1 fs after it collides with a laser pulse of intensity $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$. This effect should therefore be measurable using current high-intensity laser systems.'
author:
- 'C.P. Ridgers'
- 'T.G. Blackburn'
- 'D. Del Sorbo'
- 'L.E. Bradley'
- 'C.D. Baird'
- 'S.P.D. Mangles'
- 'P. McKenna'
- 'M. Marklund'
- 'C. D. Murphy'
- 'A.G.R. Thomas'
bibliography:
- 'stochastic\_arxiv.bib'
title: 'Signatures of quantum effects on radiation reaction in laser – electron-beam collisions'
---
Introduction
============
Radiation reaction is the effective recoil force on an accelerating charged particle caused by the particle emitting electromagnetic radiation. This effect will play an important role in laser-matter interactions at the intensities set to be reached by next generation high-intensity laser facilities ($\gtrsim10^{23}$ Wcm$^{-2}$), where radiation reaction can lead to almost complete absorption of the laser-pulse: [@Bashinov_13] (using a classical theory) and [@Zhang_15] (including quantum corrections), have shown that radiation reaction gives an imaginary part in the dispersion relation for waves in a plasma. At intensities $\gtrsim 10^{23}$ Wcm$^{-2}$, plasma electrons will become sufficiently energetic that in their individual rest frames the electric field $E_{RF}$ approaches the critical field for quantum electrodynamics $E_{\textnormal{crit}}=1.38\times10^{18}$ Vm$^{-1}$ ([@Heisenberg_36]). In this case, the emission of radiation by the electrons must be described in the framework of strong-field quantum-electrodynamics (QED), using the [@Furry_51] picture. Specifically, when the quantum efficiency parameter $\eta=E_{RF}/E_{\textnormal{crit}}\gtrsim0.1$ the radiation reaction force becomes stochastic ([@Duclous_11]) and electron’s dynamics are no longer well approximated by deterministic motion along a classical worldline ([@Shen_72]).
This quantum regime has been reached in experiments at CERN SPS in the interaction of $\sim 100$ GeV electrons with the strong fields of atoms in a crystal lattice, as described by [@Andersen_12], where the Gaunt factor for synchrotron emission was measured. The analogous process of non-linear Compton scattering was studied experimentally at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) in the interaction between an electron beam of energy $E=46.6$ GeV and a counter-propagating high-intensity ($10^{18}-10^{19}$ Wcm$^{-2}$) laser-pulse, as reported by [@Bula_96] (positron generation was also observed in this experiment – see [@Burke_97]). In this experiment the laser intensity was too low to access the very non-linear regime of relevance to next generation laser-matter interactions, where $a_0\approx\sqrt{I\lambda^2/10^{18}\textnormal{\ Wcm}^{-2}\mu \mbox{m}^2}\gg1$ ($\lambda$ is the laser wavelength). This is now possible with current Petawatt laser systems, which can achieve focused intensities of $I>10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$. In the interaction of an electron-beam with energy $\mathcal{E}$ with a counter-propagating laser-pulse of intensity $I$, $\eta$ can be estimated as $\eta \sim 0.1 (\mathcal{E}/500~\text{MeV}) \sqrt{I/10^{21}~\text{Wcm}^{-2}}$. The quantum, non-linear regime of Compton scattering and the resultant radiation reaction can therefore be studied by accelerating the electrons to energies greater than 500MeV. Laser wakefield acceleration ([@Tajima_79]) is a technique that can generate monoenergetic, well collimated and ultra-relativistic electron beams ([@Mangles_04],[@Geddes_04] & [@Faure_04]). Recent experiments have now demonstrated energies approaching 5 GeV ([@Leemans_14]). Laser wakefield accelerators are ideal for studying electron beam collisions with the tightly focused lasers required for studies of nonlinear Compton scattering due to the inherent synchronicity of the generated electron beam and the laser which allows precise overlap in space and time. Therefore, all-optical equivalents of the SLAC experiment are possible using PW lasers ([@Sokolov_10_2; @Thomas_12; @Bulanov_12; @Neitz_13; @Blackburn_14; @Vranic_14; @Blackburn_15]). Non-linear Compton scattering at $a_0 \simeq 2$ (but not radiation reaction) was recently observed in such a setup by [@Sarri_14]. Devising ways in which quantum effects on radiation reaction can be distinguished is therefore timely, as has been considered by [@DiPiazza_10; @Neitz_13; @Blackburn_14; @Wang_15; @Vranic_15; @Harvey_17].
To simplify the treatment of quantum radiation reaction, we use the quasi-classical approach described by [@Baier_68]. Here, we assume that the electromagnetic fields may be split into two types depending on their frequency scale. Fields varying on the scale of the laser frequency are treated as classical background fields. The photons emitted by the electrons on acceleration by these background fields, i.e. those responsible for the radiation reaction force, are treated in the framework of strong-field QED. These photons are of much higher energy (typically $h\nu\gtrsim$ MeV) than the laser photons ($h\nu\sim$ eV). Two further simplifying approximations are made (see [@Kirk_09]). By making the quasi-static approximation we assume that the formation length of the hard photons is much smaller than the scale over which the background fields vary and thus the background fields may thus be treated as constant over the space-time interval during which the emission occurs. This approximation is valid for $a_0\gg1$, which is the case in high-intensity laser matter interactions ([@DiPiazza_10] has shown that $a_0\gtrsim10$ is sufficient). By making the weak-field approximation, we assume that the emission rate of photons depends entirely on $\eta$ and not the field invariants $\mathcal{F}=(E^2-c^2B^2)/E_{\textnormal{crit}}^2$ and $\mathcal{G}=c\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}/E_{\textnormal{crit}}^2$. This is valid if these invariants are much smaller than $\eta$. For next-generation laser-matter interactions $E,cB\lesssim10^{-3}E_{\textnormal{crit}}$, so this approximation is also reasonable. The weak-field approximation allows us to assume that the rate of photon emission (and the energy spectrum of the emitted photons) is well described by the well known rate in an equivalent set of constant fields as given in [@Ritus_85] (for constant crossed electric and magnetic fields) and [@Erber_66] (for a constant magnetic field). The accuracy of this quasi-classical approach has recently been demonstrated by comparison to full QED calculations for the electron energies and laser intensities considered here by [@Dinu_16].
Using this quasi-classical model (making the quasi-static and weak-field approximations), it is possible to include the quantum radiation reaction force in a kinetic equation describing the evolution of the electron distribution, as given by [@Shen_72], [@Elkina_11], [@Sokolov_10_2], [@Neitz_13] and [@Ridgers_14]. Although this equation has been solved numerically using a Monte-Carlo algorithm (see [@Duclous_11; @Elkina_11; @Ridgers_14; @Gonoskov_15]) it has not been solved analytically for even the simplest configuration of electromagnetic fields (for example a uniform, static magnetic field as in [@Shen_72]). On the other hand, the electron equation of motion containing a classical model of radiation reaction, using the prescription of Landau & Lifshitz ([@Landau_87] – shown to be consistent with the classical limit of strong field QED by [@Krivitskii_91; @Ilderton_13]), has been solved analytically in several cases for example: for electron motion in a rotating electric field (by [@Bell_08]) and a plane electromagnetic wave (by [@DiPiazza_08]). A modified classical model, where the radiated power is reduced by the Gaunt factor, has been used to derive the dispersion relation for an electromagnetic wave moving through a plasma where the electrons experience significant radiation reaction by [@Zhang_15] (and the equivalent classical result by [@Bashinov_13]). The kinetic equation can be used to show that the modified classical model of radiation reaction is sufficient to describe the average energy loss of the electrons ([@Ridgers_14]). In addition, the kinetic equation can give insight into which observables can be used to measure various aspects of quantum radiation reaction. Here we show that the measurements of the average energy loss can be used to measure the Gaunt factor associated with the emission and that the evolution of the variance of the electron energy distribution can be used to measure the degree of stochasticity of the emission. To do the latter, we derive an equation of motion for the variance, which extends the results of @Vranic_15 to arbitrary $\eta$.
Radiation reaction models {#sec:RR_Models}
=========================
In this section we describe the radiation reaction models considered here: (i) classical – using the ultra-relativistic form of the Landau & Lifshitz prescription; (ii) modified classical – as the classical model but including a function describing the reduction in the power radiated due to quantum effects, the Gaunt factor $g$ ([@Baier_98]); (iii) stochastic – a probabilistic treatment of the emission consistent with the approximations made in the quantum emission model described above and in more detail by [@Ridgers_14]. The stochastic model is the most physical as it includes both the important quantum effects (the Gaunt factor and quantum stochasticity).
Using the quasi-classical approach we may write the evolution of the electron distribution function, including the radiation reaction force, as
$$\label{Vlasov}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + \mathbf{v}\cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial{\mathbf{r}}} - e(\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B})\cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial{\mathbf{p}}} = \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}\right)_{em}^X. \nonumber$$
$f d^3\mathbf{x}d^3\mathbf{p}$ is the number of electrons at position $\mathbf{x}$ with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ (velocity $\mathbf{v}$). $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are the low frequency classical background electromagnetic fields. $(\partial f/\partial t)_{em}^X$ is an operator describing how recoil from photon emission affects the electron distribution function – we will refer to this as the emission operator. The superscript $X$ denotes which of the classical ($cl)$, modified classical ($mod\ cl$) and stochastic ($st$) models is under consideration.
Note that we are neglecting pair production by the emitted gamma-ray photons in the background electromagnetic fields. This is reasonable in the moderately quantum regime described by [@DiPiazza_10], i.e. where $\eta\sim 0.1$.
Classical and modified classical emission operators
---------------------------------------------------
If the radiating electron is ultra-relativistic with $\gamma \gg 1$, we may assume that all photons are emitted in the direction of the electron’s instantaneous velocity ([@Duclous_11]). Using the Landau & Lifshitz prescription for radiation reaction (in the ultra-relativistic limit – [@Landau_87]) the classical and modified classical emission operators should describe radiation reaction forces of the form
$$\label{rad_reaction_force}
\mathbf{F}_{cl} = -\frac{P_{cl}}{c} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \quad\quad \mathbf{F}_{mod \ cl} = -\frac{gP_{cl}}{c}\hat{\mathbf{p}}$$
respectively. Here $g(\eta)$ is the Gaunt factor for synchrotron emission, i.e. a function that gives the reduction in the radiated power $P_{cl}$ due to quantum modifications to the synchrotron spectrum. $P_{cl}$ is parameterised in terms of $\eta$ as
$$P_{cl} = \frac{2\alpha_f c}{3\lambdabar_c}m_ec^2\eta^2 \nonumber$$
and $g(\eta)$ is defined as
$$g(\eta) = \frac{\int_0^{\eta/2}F(\eta,\chi)d\chi}{\int_0^{\infty}F_{cl}\left(\frac{4\chi}{3\eta^2}\right)d\chi} = \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2\pi\eta^2}\int_0^{\eta/2}F(\eta,\chi)d\chi. \nonumber$$
$F_{cl}$ and $F$ are the classical and quantum synchrotron spectra respectively. For completeness their forms are given in appendix \[special\_functions\]. An accurate fit to this function is $g(\eta)\approx [1 + 4.8(1+\eta)\ln(1+1.7\eta)+2.44\eta^2]^{-2/3}$ ([@Baier_98]).
The emission operators which yield radiation reaction forces as given in equation (\[rad\_reaction\_force\]), as shown in section \[moments\], are
$$\label{deterministic_emission_operators}
\left(\frac{\partial f}{{\partial{t}}}\right)_{em}^{cl} = \frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left( p^2 \frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right) \quad\quad \left(\frac{\partial f}{{\partial{t}}}\right)_{em}^{mod\ cl} = \frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left( p^2 g \frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right)$$
Stochastic emission operator
----------------------------
The stochastic emission operator should consist of two terms: a term describing the movement of electrons out of a given region of phase space due to emission and a term describing electrons moving into the region under consideration by leaving regions of higher energy as they emit. Assuming the electrons are ultra-relativistic and so photon emission is in the direction of propagation of the electron, we may formulate this as
$$\label{stochastic_emission_operator}
\left(\frac{\partial{}f}{\partial{}t}\right)_{em}^{st}=-\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \frac{b}{2m_ec}\int_{p}^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')\rho_{\chi}(\eta',\chi)\frac{p'^2}{p^2}f(\mathbf{p'}).$$
We define $\eta \equiv \gamma b$. For $\gamma \gg 1$, we may take $b = |\mathbf{E}_{\perp} +\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B}|/E_s$. $\chi=(h\nu b)/(2m_ec^2)$ is the quantum efficiency parameter for an emitted photon (with energy $h\nu$). The explicit form of the photon emission rate $\lambda_{\gamma}$ and the probability $\rho_{\chi}d\chi$ that an electron with energy parameterised by $\eta$ emits a gamma-ray photon with energy parameterised by $\chi$ are given in appendix \[special\_functions\].
Moment equations {#moments}
================
The average over the distribution function $f$ of a momentum dependent quantity $\psi(\mathbf{p})$ is defined as
$$\langle \psi(\mathbf{p}) \rangle \equiv \frac{1}{n_e}\int d^3\mathbf{p} \psi(\mathbf{p}) f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},t). \nonumber$$
where $n_e$ is the electron number density.
The temporal evolution of $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$
----------------------------------------------------
The equation for the evolution of the expectation value of the momentum of the electron population $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ has been derived previously by [@Elkina_11]. The equation for the evolution of the average energy $\langle\gamma\rangle$ of the population has been derived by [@Ridgers_14]:
$$\label{first_moment_stochastic}
\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st} = -\frac{\langle gP_{cl}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\rangle}{c}.$$
In appendix \[moment\_derivation\] we show how this equation can be derived by taking the first moment of the stochastic emission operator in equation (\[stochastic\_emission\_operator\]).
Taking the first moment of the classical and modified classical emission operators given in equation (\[deterministic\_emission\_operators\]), as detailed in appendix \[moment\_derivation\], yields
$$\label{first_moment_deterministic}
\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{cl} = -\frac{\langle P_{cl}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\rangle}{c} \quad\quad \left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod \ cl} = -\frac{\langle gP_{cl}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\rangle}{c}$$
The temporal evolution of $\sigma^2$
------------------------------------
Following the derivation in appendix \[moment\_derivation\] we can obtain the following equation for the evolution of the variance $\sigma^2$ in the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of the electron distribution:
$$\label{second_moment_stochastic}
\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{st} = -2\frac{\langle\Delta\gamma g P_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} + \frac{\langle S\rangle}{m_e^2c^4}.$$
$\sigma^2=\langle\gamma^2\rangle-\langle\gamma\rangle^2$ and $\Delta \gamma = \gamma - \langle\gamma\rangle$. The first term in equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]), which we label $T_{-}$, always acts to reduce the variance. It arises because higher energy electrons radiate more energy than those at lower energy. This term can be written $T_{-}=(2/m_ec^2)[\langle\Delta\gamma P_{cl}\rangle - \langle(1-g)\Delta\gamma P_{cl}\rangle]$, where the first term is purely classical and the second shows that quantum effects reduce the rate of decrease of the variance by reducing the power radiated below the classical prediction ($g\le 1$). The second term in equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) $T_{+}$ represents stochastic effects, is positive and so tends to increase the variance. The competition between these two terms determines whether the emission operator causes $\sigma^2(t)$ to increase or decrease.
The function $S(\eta)$ is given by
$$\label{s_func}
S(\eta) = \frac{55\alpha_fc}{24\sqrt{3}\lambdabar_cb}m_e^2c^4\eta^4g_2(\eta). \nonumber$$
$g_2(\eta)$, which is analogous to $g(\eta)$, is defined as
$$g_2(\eta) = \frac{\int_0^{\eta/2} \chi F(\eta,\chi)d\chi}{\int_0^{\infty}\chi F_{cl}\left(\frac{4\chi}{3\eta^2}\right) d\chi} = \frac{144}{55\pi\eta^4}\int_0^{\eta/2}\chi F(\eta,\chi)d\chi. \nonumber$$
As for $g$, it is useful to find an accurate fit to $g_2$. We find the following $g_2(\eta) \approx [1+(1+4.528\eta)\ln(1+12.29\eta)+4.632\eta^2]^{-7/6}$. This gives the correct limits for $\eta\ll1$ and $\eta\gg1$ ($g_2\approx1$ and $g_2\approx0.167\eta^{-7/3}$ respectively). $g_2$, as a function of $\eta$, along with the fit are shown in figure \[g\_2\_fig\].
![\[g\_2\_fig\] $g_2(\eta)$ (solid line) and the fit used here (dashed line).](figure1.pdf)
We may also derive the corresponding expressions for $d\sigma^2/dt$ from the classical and modified classical emission operators in equation (\[deterministic\_emission\_operators\]) (the derivation is given in appendix \[moment\_derivation\]).
$$\label{second_moment_deterministic}
\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{cl} = -2\frac{\langle\Delta\gamma P_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} \quad\quad \left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{mod \ cl} = -2\frac{\langle\Delta\gamma g P_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2}.$$
We now consider the specific case where a high-energy electron beam with Gaussian energy distribution collides with a plane electromagnetic wave. In the limit where $\eta\ll1$ and the energy distribution is Gaussian with $\sigma \ll \langle\gamma\rangle$ (and assumed to be a Gaussian at all times), equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) reduces to
$$\label{V_low_eta}
\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{st} \approx \frac{\alpha_fcb^2}{\lambdabar_c}\left(\frac{55b}{24\sqrt{3}}\langle\gamma\rangle^4-\frac{8}{3}\sigma^2\langle\gamma\rangle\right), \nonumber$$
which reproduces equation 14 in @Vranic_15.
Comparison to QED-PIC simulations
=================================
To test the validity of the expression for the evolution of $\sigma^2$ given above we have simulated the interaction of an electron-beam with a counter-propagating circularly polarised plane-wave using the QED-PIC code ([@Arber_15]). includes the stochastic emission model using a Monte-Carlo algorithm (described in detail by [@Ridgers_14]). For this work we have extended the code to include the classical and modified classical emission operators by directly solving equations (\[rad\_reaction\_force\]) using first-order Eulerian integration.
The simulation parameters were as follows. The laser pulse had peak intensity $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$, wavelength 1 micron, and a half-Gaussian temporal profile (rise time 1 fs). 4000 grid cells were used to discretise a spatial domain extending from $-40$ microns to $40$ microns. $10^5$ macroparticles were used to represent an electron bunch consisting of $10^9$ electrons. The electron bunch had a Gaussian spatial profile, centred on 39.7 microns, with a FWHM of 0.17 microns and had initial distribution $f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},t=0)=[n_e(\mathbf{x})/(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma)]\delta(p_y)\delta(p_z)\exp[-(p_x+\gamma_0m_ec)^2/(2\sigma^2)]$ where $\mathbf{p}=(p_x,p_y,p_z)$ is the momentum coordinate in phase space and $n_e$ the number density of electrons in the beam. $\gamma_0$ was the initial average energy of the bunch.
![\[energy\_dist\_snapshot\] Electron energy distribution, $10.5$ fs after collision of the electron bunch with the laser-pulse, compared to initial distribution using the stochastic, modified classical and classical emission operators.](figure2_new.pdf)
Figure \[energy\_dist\_snapshot\] shows a comparison of the spatially integrated electron energy distribution using classical, modified classical and stochastic emission operators with the initial spectrum $t=10.5$ fs after the collision. We see that the modified classical and classical emission operators both give a decrease in the variance of the electron distribution whereas the stochastic emission operator gives an increase in the variance. Figure \[mean\_var\_time\] shows the temporal evolution of the mean Lorentz factor $\langle\gamma\rangle$ and the standard deviation of the Lorentz factor $\sigma$. The QED-PIC simulations demonstrate the validity of equations (\[first\_moment\_stochastic\]), (\[first\_moment\_deterministic\]), (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) & (\[second\_moment\_deterministic\]).
![\[mean\_var\_time\] Left: mean Lorentz factor versus time using the various emission models from simulation and as predicted by equations (\[first\_moment\_stochastic\]) and (\[first\_moment\_deterministic\]). Right: standard deviation in Lorentz factor versus time from simulation and as predicted by equations (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) and (\[second\_moment\_deterministic\]).](figure3-new.pdf)
We saw earlier in equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) that the evolution of the variance is governed by the competition between $T_{-}$ and $T_{+}$. To characterise which of these terms is dominant (in a similar way to [@Vranic_15]), and thereby how stochastic quantum effects (prevalent when $T_{+}$ dominates), may be measured in a colliding beams experiment, we derive an analytical expression their ratio $\xi$:
$$\xi = \frac{T_{+}}{T_{-}} \quad\quad T_{+} = \frac{\langle S\rangle}{m_e^2c^4} \quad\quad T_{-} = 2\frac{\langle \Delta\gamma g P_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2}. \nonumber$$
Considering an electron bunch whose initial distribution is $f(\mathbf{x},p_x,t=0)= n_e(\mathbf{x})/(2W\gamma_0m_ec)\delta(p_y)\delta(p_z)$ for $\gamma_0m_ec(1-W)<|p_x|<\gamma_0m_ec(1+W)$ and assuming $g=g_2=1$, we obtain (as outlined in appendix \[xi\_deriv\])
$$\label{T_Q_over_T_C}
\xi \approx (3.0 + 1.5W^{-2} + 0.3 W^2) \eta_0$$
where $\xi$ is the ratio $T_{+}/T_{-}$ when the electron bunch first collides with the laser pulse (i.e. before the distribution $f$ has evolved under the action of radiation reaction) and $\eta_0=\gamma_0b$. As the variance increases and the expectation value of the $\gamma$ decreases we expect $T_{-}$ to eventually become dominant and so we would expect the variance to peak and then decrease after some time. This behaviour is clearly seen in the results from the simulation using the stochastic emission operator shown in figure \[mean\_var\_time\]. Therefore, we define $T_{+}$ as being important for $\xi>2$ initially in order to compensate for the increased importance of $T_{-}$ at later times. In the case where the width of the electron distribution is equal to the mean, $W=0.5$, equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) shows that $\eta_0>0.2$ is required for $\xi>2$. For a narrow electron distribution, $W\ll1$, $\eta_0>1.3W^2$ is required and so $T_{+}$ can be important at lower $\eta_0$.
![\[xi\_gamma\_I\] $\xi$ as a function of: laser intensity and average Lorentz factor of the electron bunch (left); laser intensity and width of the electron energy distribution (right). The solid white lines show $\xi=2$ and the dashed white lines show the prediction of where $\xi=2$ from equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]).](figure4_new.pdf)
From equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) we see that $\xi$ depends on three variables: the average Lorentz factor of the electron bunch $\gamma_0$; the width of the electron energy distribution $W$ and the laser intensity $I$ (which determines $b$). Figure \[xi\_gamma\_I\] shows $\xi$ (including $g$ & $g_2$) as a function of $I$ & $\gamma_0$ (for $W=0.2$) and $W$ & $I$ (for $\gamma_0m_ec^2=1.5$ GeV). The prediction of $\xi=2$ from equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]), i.e. making the assumption $g=g_2=1$, is shown to be reasonably accurate for $I\lesssim10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$.
To investigate whether the expression for $\xi$ in equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) predicts whether $T_{+}$ or $T_{-}$ dominates the evolution of the variance we performed further simulations of the interaction of an electron-beam (again with initial distribution $f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p},t=0)=[n_e/(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma)]\delta(p_y)\delta(p_z)\exp[-(p_x+\gamma_0m_ec)^2/(2\sigma)^2]$) and a counter-propagating plane-wave of intensity $I$. The following parameters were chosen: \
------------ ----------------------- ------------------------- ---------- -------------
Simulation $I/10^{21}$Wcm$^{-2}$ $\gamma_0m_ec^2$/GeV FWHM/GeV Symbol
1 1.0 1.0 0.81 $\triangle$
2 0.3 0.5 0.21 $\Diamond$
3 1.0 1.5 0.17 o
4 0.3 1.5 1.3 $\square$
------------ ----------------------- ------------------------- ---------- -------------
\
![\[var\_evolution\] Temporal evolution of the change in standard deviation in the electron energy distribution in simulations 1–4.](figure5_new.pdf)
We have shown where these simulations lie in the parameter space shown in figure \[xi\_gamma\_I\] according to the symbols given in the table and assuming $W=\sqrt{2}\sigma$. The time evolution of the change in the standard deviation of the electron energy distribution in these simulations is shown in figure \[var\_evolution\]. We see that only those simulations where equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) predicts that $T_{+}$ is dominant show an increase in the variance.
Discussion
==========
The results of this investigation can be summarised as follows:
1. [$\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ evolves in the same way for the stochastic and modified classical emission operators and differently for the classical emission operator.]{}
2. [$\sigma^2$ evolves differently for all operators. In particular, the stochastic emission operator can result in an increase in $\sigma^2$ whereas the classical and modified classical operators can only cause a decrease in $\sigma^2$ (as seen by [@Vranic_15] for $\eta\ll1$).]{}
Result (i) requires further explanation. Although we have shown that $(d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle/dt)_{st}$ and $(d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle/dt)_{mod\ cl}$ evolve according to the same equation, it does not necessarily follow that the expectation values themselves are the same for these two emission models (as noted by [@Elkina_11]). We have previously shown in [@Ridgers_14] that, in fact, the expectation values of the energy using these two models do agree to a high degree of accuracy and this was shown again for the parameters considered here in figure \[mean\_var\_time\]. We would expect this in the classical limit where $\eta\ll1$. In this case $T_{-}$ in equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) dominates (from equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) we see that $\xi\propto\eta_0$) and rapidly reduces the variance of the electron bunch; the electron distribution in both the modified classical and stochastic models approaches a delta-function $\delta(\mathbf{p}-\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle)$. The time evolution of $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ depends on $\langle P_{cl}\rangle$ ($g \approx 1$ in the classical limit) which is equal to $(\langle\eta\rangle)P_{cl}(\langle\eta\rangle)$ for both the stochastic and modified classical models when $f$ is narrow in momentum-space. However, in the simulation whose results are shown in figure \[mean\_var\_time\] $\eta>0.1$. From figure \[energy\_dist\_snapshot\] we see that in this case the electron energy distribution is very different when the stochastic emission operator is used compared to when the modified classical emission operator is used. Despite this the evolution of $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ is the same due to the functional form of $gP_{cl}$. When $\eta\gg1$, $gP_{cl}\propto\eta^{2/3}$. This almost linear dependence on $\eta$ means that the difference in the evolution of $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ between the models should be small. Finally we note that, as shown in figure \[mean\_var\_time\], $\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle$ predicted by the classical emission model differs markedly from that predicted by the modified classical and stochastic models due to the neglect of the Gaunt factor $g$ in the classical model.
$d\sigma^2/dt$ is always negative for both the classical and modified classical emission operators. Physically, this is because electrons at higher energy radiate more energy than those at lower energy, causing a decrease in the width of the energy distribution. The classical operator predicts a more rapid decrease than the modified classical operator due to the assumption that $g=1$ and the consequent overestimate of the scaling of the power radiated by the electrons with increasing $\eta$. For the stochastic emission operator $d\sigma^2/dt$ can be either positive or negative and so $\sigma^2$ can increase or decrease. The evolution of $\sigma^2$ is determined by the balance between $T_{+}$ (which causes $\sigma^2$ to increase due the probabilistic nature of the emission) and $T_{-}$ (which, as just described, causes $\sigma^2$ to decrease as higher energy electrons radiate more energy). We have shown (as did [@Vranic_15]) that which of these terms dominates depends on the width of the energy distribution and $\eta$. For large width $T_{-}$ increases in importance as it depends on $\Delta\gamma=\gamma-\langle\gamma\rangle$. For high $\eta$ $T_{+}$ becomes more important due to its scaling with $\eta^4$ compared to at most $\eta^3$ for $T_{-}$ (assuming $\Delta\gamma\sim\gamma$). In equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\]) we have provided a formula for the determination of which term is dominant.
The first of these results, i.e. that the evolution of the expectation value is the same for the modified classical and stochastic (but not classical) models, is useful in two ways. Firstly it shows that measuring the expectation value of an electron bunch after interaction with a high-intensity laser-pulse can give information about one quantum effect: the reduction of the total power emitted as expressed by $g$. It cannot, however, give information about the probabilistic nature of the emission. Secondly, this result suggests that the modified classical model of radiation reaction is sufficient for the calculation of laser absorption in high-intensity laser-plasma interactions [@Brady_12; @Zhang_15]. Laser absorption in this context depends on the average energy loss by the electrons (and positrons) in the plasma due to radiation reaction. The second result, i.e. the evolution of the variance differs between the models, can be used to measure the stochasticity of the radiation reaction. An increase in the variance of the energy distribution of electrons must be due to the probabilistic nature of the emission. As further work we propose a comparison of QED-PIC simulations of laser absorption in laser-plasma interactions using the different emission models and an investigation of the use of the variance to observe stochasticity in 3D simulations of the interaction of a focusing laser-pulse with a counter propagating electron bunch produced by laser wakefield acceleration (with a realistic energy spectrum).
Conclusions
===========
We have derived equations for the evolution of the expectation value of the momentum and variance in the energy of an electron population subject to three different radiation reaction models. We have considered classical and modified classical models, where the radiation reaction is deterministic and the power emitted is the classical synchrotron power in the former case and in the latter case accounts for reduction to the power emitted by quantum effects (the Gaunt factor $g$). We have also considered a stochastic model which calculates the emission using a more physically correct probabilistic treatment. We have shown that the expectation value of the energy evolves in almost the same way for the stochastic and modified classical models but differently for the classical model. The variance of the energy distribution evolves differently for all the models. This suggests that measuring the decrease in the expectation value of the energy is sufficient to measure the Gaunt factor but that a measurement of the variance is required to distinguish quantum stochastic effects.
\
**Acknowledgements** \
This work was funded by Engineering and Physical Science Research Council grants EP/M018156/1, EP/M018091/1 & EP/M018555/1 and partially by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (TB, MM). Data access: the data required to reproduce the simulation results presented here is freely available at doi:. The derivation of the analytical results presented here is given in appendix \[moment\_derivation\]. \
Functions describing synchrotron emission {#special_functions}
=========================================
The rate of photon emission (making the quasi-static and weak-field approximations) is
$$\label{rate_photons}
\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta) = \frac{\sqrt{3}\alpha_fc}{\lambda_c}\frac{\eta}{\gamma}h(\eta) \quad\quad h(\eta) = \int_0^{\eta/2}d \chi \frac{F(\eta,\chi)}{\chi}. \nonumber$$
The quantum synchrotron function is given in [@Sokolov_68] eq. (6.5). In our notation it is, for $\chi<\eta/2$, $$F(\eta,\chi)=\frac{4\chi^2}{\eta^2}y K_{2/3}(y)+
\left(1-\frac{2\chi}{\eta}\right)y\int_y^\infty\,\textrm{d}t\,K_{5/3}(t) \nonumber$$
where $y=4\chi/[3\eta(\eta-2\chi)]$ & $K_n$ are modified Bessel functions of the second kind. For $\chi\ge \eta/2$, $F(\eta,\chi)=0$. In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$ the quantum synchrotron spectrum reduces to the classical synchrotron spectrum $F(\eta,\chi)\rightarrow F_{cl}(y_c)=y_c\int_{y_c}^{\infty}du K_{5/3}(u)$; $y_c=4\chi/3\eta^2$. The probability that a photon is emitted with a given $\chi$ (by an electron with a given $\eta$) is $\rho_{\chi}(\eta,\chi)d\chi=[1/h(\eta)][F(\eta,\chi)/\chi]d\chi$.
Derivation of the moment equations {#moment_derivation}
==================================
We obtain an equation for the evolution of the expectation value of the electron momentum by multiplying equation (\[stochastic\_emission\_operator\]) by $\mathbf{p}$ and integrating over momentum.
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^3\mathbf{p} \mathbf{p}\frac{b}{2m_ec}\int_{p}^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')\rho_{\chi}(\eta',\chi)\frac{p'^2}{p^2}f(\mathbf{p'}). \nonumber$$
In spherical polars $d^3\mathbf{p} = p^2dpd^2\Omega$. We also write $\mathbf{p}=p\hat{\mathbf{p}}$. Therefore,
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^2\Omega \frac{b\hat{\mathbf{p}}}{2m_ec}\int_0^{\infty}dpp\int_{p}^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')\rho_{\chi}(\eta',\chi)p'^2f(\mathbf{p'}). \nonumber$$
We may exchange the order of integration over $p$ and $p'$ in the second term on the right-hand side
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^2\Omega \frac{b\hat{\mathbf{p}}}{2m_ec}\int_0^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')f(\mathbf{p'})p'^2 \int_0^{p'}dp p \rho_{\chi}(\eta',\chi). \nonumber$$
Here the $p$ dependence of $\rho_{\chi}$ is in $\chi=[(p'-p)b]/(2m_ec)$ (where we have assumed the electrons are ultra-relativistic). To simplify the identification of $g P_{cl}$ we define $\rho_{h\nu}dh\nu$ as the probability that an electron with energy parameterised by $\eta$ emits a photon with energy $h\nu$. $\rho_{\chi}=\rho_{h\nu}(dh\nu/d\chi)=\rho_{h\nu}(2mc^2)/b$. We may therefore write
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^2\Omega \hat{\mathbf{p}}\int_0^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')f(\mathbf{p'})p'^2 \int_0^{p'c}dh\nu \left(p'-\frac{h\nu}{c}\right)\rho_{h\nu}(\eta',h\nu). \nonumber$$
Now we use
$$\int_0^{p'c}dh\nu \rho_{h\nu}(\eta',h\nu)=1 \quad\quad \int_0^{p'c}dh\nu \rho_{h\nu}(\eta',h\nu)h\nu=(h\nu)_{av} \nonumber$$
to get
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^3\mathbf{p}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f(\mathbf{p})\left(p-\frac{(h\nu)_{av}}{c}\right). \nonumber$$
Cancelling the appropriate terms and identifying $g P_{cl}=\lambda_{\gamma}(h\nu)_{av}$ yields equation (\[first\_moment\_stochastic\]),
$$\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st} = - \frac{\langle gP_{cl}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\rangle}{c}. \nonumber$$
The equation for the evolution of $\sigma^2$ (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]) is obtained by using the same procedure to obtain an equation for $(d \langle \gamma^2\rangle/dt)_{st}$, i.e. we multiply equation (\[stochastic\_emission\_operator\]) by $\gamma^2$ and integrate over momentum,
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\gamma^2\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^3\mathbf{p} \gamma^2\frac{b}{2m_ec}\int_{p}^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')\rho_{\chi}(\eta',\chi)\frac{p'^2}{p^2}f(\mathbf{p'}). \nonumber$$
Which can be written as
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\gamma^2\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^2\Omega\int_0^{\infty}dp'\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta')f(\mathbf{p'})p'^2 \int_0^{p'c}dh\nu \left(\gamma'-\frac{h\nu}{m_ec^2}\right)^2\rho_{h\nu}(\eta',h\nu). \nonumber$$
where we have assumed $\gamma'=p'/m_ec$. Defining
$$\int_0^{p'c}dh\nu \rho_{h\nu}(\eta',h\nu)(h\nu)^2=[(h\nu)^2]_{av} \nonumber$$
gives
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}=-\int d^3\mathbf{p}\gamma^2\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f + \int d^3\mathbf{p}\lambda_{\gamma}(\eta)f(\mathbf{p})\left(\gamma^2-2\gamma\frac{(h\nu)_{av}}{m_ec^2}+\frac{[(h\nu)^2]_{av}}{m_e^2c^4}\right). \nonumber$$
We again cancel the appropriate terms and this time identify $S=\lambda_{\gamma}[(h\nu)^2]_{av}$ as well as $g P_{cl}=\lambda_{\gamma}(h\nu)_{av}$ to get
$$\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st} = - 2\frac{\langle\gamma gP_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} + \frac{\langle S\rangle}{m_e^2c^4}. \nonumber$$
To get an equation for $(d\sigma^2/dt)_{st}$ we identify $\sigma^2=\langle\gamma^2\rangle - \langle\gamma\rangle^2$. Therefore,
$$\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{st} = \left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st} - \left(\frac{d\langle\gamma\rangle^2}{dt}\right)_{st} = \left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st} - 2\langle\gamma\rangle\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma\rangle}{dt}\right)_{st}. \nonumber$$
Substituting the results for $(d\langle\gamma^2\rangle/dt)_{st}$ and $(d\langle\gamma\rangle/dt)_{st}=\langle g P_{cl}\rangle/(m_ec^2)$ (the latter is obtained by taking the dot product of equation (\[first\_moment\_stochastic\]) with $\hat{\mathbf{p}}$ and assuming $p=\gamma m_ec$) gives the result in equation (\[second\_moment\_stochastic\]):
$$\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{st} = -2\frac{\langle\gamma gP_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} + \frac{\langle S\rangle}{m_e^2c^4} + 2\langle\gamma\rangle\frac{\langle g P_{cl} \rangle}{m_ec^2} = -2\frac{\langle\Delta\gamma gP_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} + \frac{\langle S\rangle}{m_e^2c^4}. \nonumber$$
Here we have used $\Delta\gamma = \gamma - \langle\gamma\rangle$.
The moments of the classical and modified classical emission operators are straightforwardly obtained by integration by parts. To obtain equation (\[first\_moment\_deterministic\]) for $(d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle/dt)_{mod \ cl}$ we multiply the emission operator $(\partial f/\partial t)^{mod \ cl}_{em}$ in equation (\[deterministic\_emission\_operators\]) by $\mathbf{p}$ and integrate over momentum
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = \int d^3\mathbf{p}\frac{\mathbf{p}}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left( p^2g \frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right). \nonumber$$
Substituting $d^3\mathbf{p} = p^2dpd^2\Omega$ and $\mathbf{p} = p\hat{\mathbf{p}}$ and integrating by parts yields
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = \int d^2\Omega \hat{\mathbf{p}}\left(\left[p^3g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}f\right]_0^{\infty}-\int_0^{\infty}dp p^2g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right) = - \int d^2\Omega \hat{\mathbf{p}}\int_0^{\infty}dp p^2g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}f. \nonumber$$
We have used the fact that $f\rightarrow0$ as $p\rightarrow \infty$ (faster than $p^5$ diverges) to get the last result. We have now derived equation (\[first\_moment\_deterministic\])
$$\left(\frac{d\langle\mathbf{p}\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = - \frac{1}{n_e}\int d^3\mathbf{p} g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}\hat{\mathbf{p}}f = -\frac{\langle g P_{cl}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\rangle}{c}. \nonumber$$
To derive equation (\[second\_moment\_deterministic\]) for $(d\sigma^2/dt)_{mod \ cl}$ we first multiply the emission operator $(\partial f/\partial t)^{mod \ cl}_{em}$ in equation (\[deterministic\_emission\_operators\]) by $\gamma^2$ and integrate over momentum
$$n_e\left(\frac{d\langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = \int d^3\mathbf{p}\frac{\gamma^2}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left( p^2g \frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right). \nonumber$$
Substituting $d^3\mathbf{p} = p^2dpd^2\Omega$, $\gamma=p/(m_ec)$ and integrating by parts yields
$$n_e\left(\frac{d \langle\gamma^2\rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = \int d^2\Omega \left(\left[\frac{p^4}{m_e^2c^2}g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}f\right]_0^{\infty}-2\int_0^{\infty}dp \frac{p^3}{m_e^2c^2}g\frac{P_{cl}}{c}f \right) = - \int d^2\Omega \hat{\mathbf{p}}\int_0^{\infty}dp p^2 \gamma g\frac{P_{cl}}{m_ec^2}f. \nonumber$$
Again, we have used the fact that $f\rightarrow0$ as $p\rightarrow \infty$ (this time faster than $p^6$ diverges) to get the final result. We may write this more compactly as
$$\left(\frac{d \langle \gamma^2 \rangle}{dt}\right)_{mod\ cl} = - \frac{2}{n_e}\int d^3\mathbf{p} \gamma g\frac{P_{cl}}{m_ec^2}\hat{\mathbf{p}}f = -2\frac{\langle\gamma g P_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2}. \nonumber$$
We get equation (\[second\_moment\_deterministic\]) by identifying $\sigma^2=\langle\gamma^2\rangle - \langle\gamma\rangle^2$ and $\Delta\gamma=\gamma-\langle\gamma\rangle$,
$$\left(\frac{d\sigma^2}{dt}\right)_{mod \ cl} = -2\frac{\langle\gamma gP_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2} + 2\langle\gamma\rangle\frac{\langle g P_{cl} \rangle}{m_ec^2} = -2\frac{\langle\Delta\gamma gP_{cl}\rangle}{m_ec^2}. \nonumber$$
Derivation of $\xi$ {#xi_deriv}
===================
For simplicity in what follows we define $\tau_S$ and $\tau_R$ as
$$S = \frac{m_e^2c^4}{\tau_S}\gamma^4 \quad\quad P_{cl} = \frac{m_ec^2}{\tau_R}\gamma^2. \nonumber$$
Then we may write $\xi$ as
$$\label{xi_equation}
\xi = \frac{\tau_R}{2\tau_S}\frac{\langle\gamma^4\rangle}{\langle\Delta\gamma\gamma^2\rangle}.$$
where we have set $g_2=g=1$. We may evaluate the averages by substituting $f=[1/(2W\gamma_0m_ec)]\delta(p_y)\delta(p_z)$ for $\gamma_0m_ec(1-W)<p_x<\gamma_0m_ec(1+W)$.
$$\langle\gamma^4\rangle = \frac{1}{2W\gamma_0m_ec}\int_{\gamma_0m_ec(1-W)}^{\gamma_0m_ec(1+W)} \gamma^4dp_x = \frac{\gamma_0^4}{10W}[(1+W)^5-(1-W)^5]=\frac{\gamma_0^4}{5W}(10W^3+5W+W^5)\nonumber$$
and
$$\langle\Delta\gamma\gamma^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2W\gamma_0m_ec}\int_{\gamma_0m_ec(1-W)}^{\gamma_0m_ec(1+W)} (\gamma-\gamma_0)\gamma^2dp_x = \frac{\gamma_0^3}{24W}[(1-W)^3(1+3W)-(1+W)^3(1-3W)]=\frac{2\gamma_0^3}{3}W^2. \nonumber$$
Substituting these results into equation (\[xi\_equation\]) yields equation (\[T\_Q\_over\_T\_C\])
$$\xi = \frac{33}{64\sqrt{3}}(10+5W^{-2}+W^2)\eta_0 \approx (3.0+1.5W^{-2}+0.3W^2)\eta_0 \nonumber$$
where we have used $\tau_S/\tau_R = (55b)/(16\sqrt{3})$ and $\eta_0 = \gamma_0 b$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'One-dimensional gapped systems are often characterized by a ’hidden’ non-local order parameter, the so-called string order. Due to the gap, thermodynamic properties are robust against a weak higher-dimensional coupling between such chains or ladders. To the contrary, we find that the string order is not stable and decays for arbitrary weak inter-chain or inter-ladder coupling. We investigate the vanishing of the order for three different systems: spin-one Haldane chains, band insulators, and the transverse field Ising model. Using perturbation theory and bosonization, we show that the fragility of the string order arises from non-local commutation relations between the non-local order parameter and the perturbation.'
author:
- 'F. Anfuso and A. Rosch'
title: Fragility of String Orders
---
Since the pioneering work of Landau [@Landau] that led to the theory of 2nd order phase transitions, the concept of order parameter has become one of the main paradigms in condensed matter physics. The central observation is that when a symmetry is spontaneously broken and long range order appears into the system, certain correlation functions of operators [@footnote] $A(x)$ do not decay with distance, $$\lim_{|{{\bf x}}-{{\bf y}}| \to \infty} \langle A({{\bf x}}) A({{\bf y}})
\rangle =c \neq 0.
\label{local}$$ and it is possible to define an order parameter as $\langle A
\rangle=\sqrt{c}$. For example, it is known that a classical three-dimensional ferromagnet undergoes a phase transition, becoming ordered (all the spins point in the same direction) below a certain critical temperature. In this case, the order parameter can be identified with the spontaneous magnetization $\langle{{\bf S}}(x)\rangle=m$ and the spin-spin correlation function $\langle{{\bf S}}(x){{\bf S}}(y)\rangle=m^2$ is finite also in the limit $|x-y|\rightarrow\infty$. This simple way to describe and discriminate the different phases of matter has been successfully applied to a plethora of different systems both at finite and zero temperature. Classical and quantum magnetism (with many possible order parameters: uniform and staggered magnetization, dimerization...), superconductivity (Cooper pair amplitude), superfluidity (condensate amplitude) are only few of the many successful applications of the Landau paradigm.
In the context of low dimensional quantum systems, it has been also useful, under some circumstances, to identify ‘non-local’ order parameters which cannot be written in the form (\[local\]). Typically, this is the case of some gapped one-dimensional Hamiltonians with no local symmetries that are spontaneously broken and with any two-point correlation function that decays exponentially. In such systems an hidden long range order can nevertheless be present and this is encoded in the long distance behavior of certain non-local operators. Notice that a ‘non-local’ order parameter is not directly accessible to any experimental probe but can be equally used to mark theoretically the boundaries of the different phases. In this context, an important example is the so-called “string-order” defined by the non-local correlation function $$\lim_{|x-y| \to \infty} \langle A({{\bf x}}) \left(\prod_{{{\bf z}} \in S_{{{\bf x}},{{\bf y}}}} B({{\bf z}})\right) A({{\bf y}}) \rangle \neq 0,
\label{string}$$ where the operator $\prod_{z \in S_{{{\bf x}},{{\bf y}}}} B({{\bf z}})$ acts on a line (the string $S_{{{\bf x}},{{\bf y}}}$) connecting the points ${{\bf x}}$ and ${{\bf y}}$. One dimensional examples of this family (discussed further below) includes the spin-1 chain [@Den] and spin-1/2 ladders [@Kim], the transverse-field quantum Ising chain (dual order), band- and Mott- Fermionic insulators [@Anfuso] and, among Bosonic systems, some parameter regime of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian [@Altman].
Another important sub-class of these more exotic types of systems is characterized by the so-called ‘topological order’ (e.g. fractional quantum Hall fluids). This concept can be defined by the ground state degeneracy on non-trivial manifolds [@Wen; @Senthil; @Thooft]. Here we will only consider systems, as listed above, with unique ground states on a torus and no topological order.
In this paper, we want to address the following questions: Is the string order stable against small perturbations? And can it be generalized from one- to higher-dimensional systems? More precisely, we will investigate weakly coupled two- or three-dimensional arrays of one-dimensional systems. In the absence of the higher-dimensional coupling $\lambda_\perp$ they are characterized by various types of string order and a finite gap in the spectrum (but no topological order). Due to this gap, a sufficiently small $\lambda_\perp$ will never induce any thermodynamic phase transition. Therefore, one might naively expect that also the order parameter is robust against such a small perturbation. While this is correct for [*local*]{} order parameters, we will show that generically it does not hold for the non-local string order.
In the following, we will first consider, as a prototypical example, the disordered phase of the quantum Ising chain in transverse field characterized by a hidden string order parameter. Here the divergence of the perturbation theory indicates that string order is destroyed by arbitrary small higher-dimensional coupling $\lambda_\perp$. We connect this result – that also holds for the case of the spin-1 Haldane chain – to the band-insulators case where an exact calculation of the string order-parameter is possible, proving the absence of string order for any finite $\lambda_\perp$. Using the language of bosonization, we identify the general mechanism destabilizing non-local order. In contrast, local order (e.g. a charge density wave) remains stable.
[*Transverse field Ising model:*]{} As a starting point for our discussion, we introduce the Hamiltonian of the quantum Ising chain $$\label{ising}
H=-\sum_i J\sigma^z_i\sigma^z_{i+1}-B\sigma^x_i,$$ describing a quantum magnet in a transverse field. We will always consider $T=0$ and the ferromagnetic case $J>0$ ( $J<0$ leads nevertheless to completely equivalent physics). The transverse-field Ising chain is a text-book example in the context of quantum criticality. Upon increasing the tuning parameter $B/J$, the ground state experiences a quantum phase transition from a magnetic to a paramagnetic state and the model can be solved exactly with the use of the standard Fermionic representation for a quantum spin [@Sachdev]. Interestingly, there is a subtle way to identify the critical value of $B/J$ that exploits a hidden non-local property. In perfect analogy with the Kramers-Wannier [@Kramers] duality transformation for the classical two-dimensional Ising model, one can introduce the following mapping [@Savit] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu}_i^x&=&\hat{\sigma}^z_{i+1}\hat{\sigma}^z_{i}\nonumber \\
\hat{\mu}_i^z&=&\prod_{m\leq i}\sigma^x_m,\end{aligned}$$ that preserves the $SU(2)$ algebra and transforms Eq. (\[ising\]) into $$\label{isingdual}
H=\sum_i B\mu^z_i\mu^z_{i+1}+J\mu^x_i.$$ i.e. one obtains the same Hamiltonian as in (\[ising\]) when replacing $J
\leftrightarrow B, \mu^\alpha_i \leftrightarrow
\sigma^\alpha_i$. Therefore the quantum critical point has to be located at the self-dual point $J/B=1$.
As in the ferromagnetic phase $B<J$, $\langle \sigma^z \rangle$ is finite, one finds in the disordered phase, $B>J$, that $\langle \mu^z
\rangle$ is finite, or more precisely $$\lim_{(j-i)\to \infty} \langle \mu^z_i \mu^z_j \rangle=\lim_{(j-i)\to \infty}
\left\langle \prod_{i<m \le j}\sigma^x_m \right\rangle > 0$$ Therefore the disordered phase is characterized by non-local string order (\[string\]).
If we now take a pair of these quantum Ising chains, we can investigate the fate of the non-local order when a weak inter-chain coupling $J_\perp$ is present. For simplicity, we set $J=0$ and consider the Hamiltonian $$\label{isingcouple}
H=\sum_i B\sigma^x_{1,i}+B\sigma^x_{2,i}+J_{\perp}\sigma^z_{1,i}\sigma^z_{2,i}.$$ As we have set $J=0$, the system is a sum of independent two-site Hamiltonians and is trivial to calculate the string order exactly $$\label{ising3d}
\left\langle \prod_{i<m \le j}\sigma^x_{1,m}
\right\rangle=\left\langle\sigma^x_{1,1} \right\rangle^{|j-i|} \approx
e^{-\frac{J_\perp^2}{8 B^2} |j-i|}$$ where we used that $\langle \sigma^x
\rangle=2B/\sqrt{4B^2+J^2_{\perp}}\approx 1-J_\perp^2/(8 B^2)$ to leading order in $J_\perp/B$. The string order, being a product of factors strictly less then 1, decays exponentially for any $J_\perp \neq 0$.
So far, the vanishing of the string order can be an artifact due to the absence of interactions. To see that a finite $J<B$ cannot stabilized the order, it is instructive to repeat the calculation in the dual variables. In this language, the order parameter is now local but the coupling $J_\perp$ induces a non-local term in the Hamiltonian $$\label{isingcoupledual}
H=\sum_i B\mu^z_{1,i}\mu^z_{1,i+1}+
B\mu^z_{2,i}\mu^z_{2,i+1}+J_{\perp}(\prod_{m\leq
i}\mu^x_m)(\prod_{k\leq i}\mu^x_k).$$ With standard text-book techniques, we expand the S-matrix to second order in $J_\perp$ and obtain for the two-point correlation function $$\label{perturbcalc}
\langle\mu^z_{1,i} \,\,\, \mu^z_{1,j}\rangle\approx 1-
\frac{J^2_{\perp}|i-j|}{8 B^2}$$ consistent with (\[ising3d\]). Formally, the divergence with $|i-j|$ arises from the term $$\int_0^{\infty} dt_1\int_{-\infty}^0dt_2\sum_{k,l}\langle\prod_{m\leq
k}\mu_m^xe^{-iH_0t_1}\mu^z_i\mu^z_je^{+iH_0t_2}\prod_{s\leq l}\mu^x_s\rangle_0
\label{divergent}$$ as a consequence of the non-local commutation relation between the order parameter and the perturbation $$\label{commut1}
\left[\mu^z_i\,,\,\prod_{m\leq l}\mu^x_m\right]=\left[\mu^z_i\,,\,
\sigma^z_{l}\right]=i\Bigr(\mu^y_i\prod_{m\leq l, m\ne i}\mu_m^x\Bigl)\Theta (l-i).$$ Physically, $\prod_{m\leq l}\mu^x_m$ describes the creation of a domain wall. As any domain wall created between the points $i$ and $j$ destroys the correlations of $\mu^z_{1,i}$ and $\mu^z_{1,j}$, the perturbation theory diverges linearly in $|i-j|$. From the perturbative argument, it is easy to see that a finite $J<B$ does not change this picture qualitatively for $|i-j|$ large compared to the correlation length $\xi \sim
(B-J)^{-1}$. In fact, the interaction term $\sum J\sigma^z_i\sigma^z_{i+1}=\sum J\mu^x_i$ has local commutation relations with the order parameter and produces only regular corrections to the perturbation series. These additional non-singular terms cannot compensate for the linear divergence induced by the inter-chain coupling.
Even though the long range order vanishes, thermodynamics is unaffected by $J_\perp$ (up to a small renormalization of the gap): obviously no quantum phase transition is induced. Only the order parameter is sensitive to the non-locality of the perturbations. In the language of the original variables $\sigma^\alpha_i$, in contrast, the perturbation was local, the order parameter non-local, and the same type of divergence arises again due to their non-local commutation relations (\[commut1\]).
Finally, notice that in the ferromagnetic phase, $J>B$, the local magnetic order is stabilized rather than suppressed by $J_\perp$. While for $B>J$, $J_\perp$ induces a finite density of virtual ‘dual’ domain wall fluctuations, the ‘physical’ domain walls are suppressed for $B<J$ by $J_\perp$. More precisely, they are confined as the energy of a pair of domain walls with separation $|i-j|$ is proportional to $|i-j| J_\perp^2/\Delta$ in the ferromagnetic phase [@Chaikin].
[*Spin 1 chain:*]{} A second major type of non-local order that we want to consider is the so-called string order. This was introduced first in 1989 by Den Nijs and Rommelse [@Den] briefly after that Haldane conjectured the existence of a gap in the spin-1 antiferromagnetic chain as the hidden order of the Haldane phase. They observed that, even though true Néel order is absent, the ground state has still a form of long range order characterizing the entanglement of the spins: any site with $S^{z}=\pm
1$ is always followed by another with $S^{z}=\mp 1$, separated from the first by a string of $S^{z}=0$ of arbitrary length. This implies that the string order parameter $$\label{stringorderchain}
SO_{\text{chain}}(i-j)=\Bigl\langle
S^{z}_i\exp\Bigl(i\pi \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1} S^{z}_l\Bigr) S^{z}_j\Bigr\rangle$$ is always finite for $|i-j| \to \infty$ in the Haldane phase.
Kennedy and Tasaki[@Kennedy1; @Kennedy2] observed that this non-local order can be understood from the non-local mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KTmapping}
\tilde{S}^x_j&=&S^x_j\exp\bigl(i\pi\sum_{k=j+1}^{L}S^x_k\bigr)\nonumber\\
\tilde{S}^y_j&=&\exp\bigl(i\pi\sum_{k=1}^{j-1}S^z_k\bigr)S^y_j\exp\bigl(i\pi\sum_{k=j+1}^{L}S^x_k\bigr)\nonumber\\
\tilde{S}^z_j&=&\exp\bigl(i\pi\sum_{k=1}^{j-1}S^z_k\bigr)S^z_j\end{aligned}$$ as it maps the Heisenberg Hamiltonian with open boundary conditions to an effective [*local*]{} ferromagnetic Hamiltonian with a manifest $Z_2 \times Z_2$ symmetry that is fully broken in the ground-state (the origin of the 4-fold ground state degeneracy for such boundaries is well understood in the AKLT picture [@Affleck] and comes as a consequence of an effective spin 1/2 localized at each boundary). The same transformation, applied to the inter-chain coupling, introduces in the Hamiltonian domain-wall creation operators similar to the ones of Eq. (\[isingcoupledual\]). Therefore the absence of the string order in the presence of a finite $J_\perp$ can be shown as above. Indeed, the vanishing of the string order for two coupled spin-1 chains was observed numerically by Todo *et al.* [@Todo] using the quantum Monte Carlo method.
[*Ladders:*]{} Similar to the spin-1 chain, also gapped spin-$1/2$ ladders are characterized by a non-local string order [@Kim]. In this case, one can distinguish between two different types of string orders, $SO_{\rm odd}$ and $SO_{\rm even}$ (see Ref. \[\]) $$\begin{aligned}
SO_{\rm odd}(i-j)&=& -\, \Bigl\langle
(S^{z}_{1,i}+S^{z}_{2,i})\exp\Bigl(i\pi \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}\nonumber \\ &&+S^{z}_{2,l}\Bigr)
(S^{z}_{1,j}+S^{z}_{2,j})\Bigr\rangle \label{odd}\\
SO_{\rm even}(i-j)&=&-\, \Bigl\langle
(S^{z}_{1,i+1}+S^{z}_{2,i})\exp\Bigl(i\pi \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l+1}\nonumber\\ & &+S^{z}_{2,l}\Bigr)
(S^{z}_{1,j+1}+S^{z}_{2,j})\Bigr\rangle.\label{even}\end{aligned}$$ where the spin-$1$ of Eq. (\[stringorderchain\]) is replaced by the sum of two spin-$1/2$ operators on either the vertical or on the diagonal rung.
In a recent paper [@Anfuso], we have shown that the ground state of gapped spin-$1/2$ ladders (and of the spin-1 chain) is adiabatically connected to the one of an ordinary, non-interacting band insulator. In Ref. \[\], we introduced the following family of ladder Hamiltonians $$\begin{gathered}
H=\sum_{i,\alpha,\sigma} t_\alpha a^{\dagger}_{\alpha,i,\sigma}a_{\alpha,
i+1,\sigma}+h.c.-\frac{U}{2} n_{\alpha,i,\sigma}\\ + \sum_{i,\sigma} t_R a^{\dagger}_{1,i,\sigma}a_{2,i,\sigma}+
t_D a^{\dagger}_{1,i+1,\sigma}
a_{2,i,\sigma}+h.c.\\+ U \sum_{i,\alpha}
n_{\alpha,i,\uparrow}n_{\alpha,i,\downarrow}
+J_R \sum_i{\bf S}_{1,i}{\bf S}_{2,i}
\label{hamiltonian} \end{gathered}$$ (where $\alpha=1,2$ and $\sigma=\pm$ are the row and spin indices) whose phase diagram includes both Mott ($U,J_R\gg
t_{i}$) and band insulating phases ($U=J_R=0$). Remarkably, the string order (\[odd\],\[even\]) turns out to be finite also for the band insulator.
In the non-interacting case ($U=J_R=0$), the string order can be calculated exactly[@Anfuso] even for an array of such one-dimensional insulators. As shown in Fig. \[2dladder\],in the presence of an arbitrarily weak inter-ladder coupling $$H_\perp=t_\perp \sum_{i,l,\alpha,\sigma} a^{\dagger}_{2,i,l,\sigma}a_{1,i,l+1
,\sigma}+h.c.
\label{hamiltonian1}$$ (where the extra index $l$ labels the ladders), the string order decays exponentially $$\begin{aligned}
SO \sim e^{-\alpha |i-j|}, \qquad \alpha \propto t_\perp^2\end{aligned}$$ as in Eq. (\[ising3d\]). The prefactor $\alpha$ is quadratic in the inter-ladder hopping $t_\perp$ (see inset of Fig. \[2dladder\]).
![(Color online) The odd string order for a two-dimensional array of weakly coupled non-interacting band insulators decays as $SO_{\rm odd}\approx e^{-\alpha |i-j|}$. For $t_\perp=-0.5$ we also show the exponential fit. Inset: $\alpha$ as a function of $t_{\perp}^2$. Both plots are done for the set of parameters $t_1=0$, $t_2=-0.6$, $t_R=-1.5$, $t_D=-2$ of the model defined in Eqns. (\[hamiltonian\], \[hamiltonian1\]).[]{data-label="2dladder"}](2ddata.eps){width=".50\textwidth"}
[*Bosonization:*]{} To identify the precise origin of the fragility of string order, we now analyze a generic one-dimensional gapped phase using the language of (Abelian) bosonization. Within this approach, the relevant degrees of freedom are described by the fields $\Phi$ and $\Theta$ obeying the non-local commutation relation $$\bigl[\Phi(x),\Theta(x')\bigr]=i\theta(x-x')
\label{bosecommutation}$$ where $\theta(x)$ is the usual $\theta$-function. Gapped phases typically arise when one of the Bosonic fields, e.g. $\Phi$, is locked by a ’relevant’ non-linear interaction $$\label{bosehamilton}
H= \int dx \frac{v_F}{2} \left[ \frac{1}{K} (\partial_x\Theta)^2+ K (\partial_x\Phi)^2\right]
+g\cos(\chi \Phi)$$ where $K$ is the Luttinger liquid parameter and $g$ and $\chi$ parameterize the most relevant perturbation of the Luttinger liquid fixed point. The Hamiltonian has two symmetries: First, it is invariant under the shift $\Theta \to \Theta+c$ by an arbitrary constant $c$ reflecting the conservation of the ’charge’ $\int
\partial_x \Phi$ (typically either the total $S^z$ or the total number of electrons). Second, the field $\Phi$ is invariant under a shift $\Phi \to \Phi+ c_\phi$ by a [*fixed*]{} number $c_\phi$, reflecting charge quantization and giving rise to the constraint $\chi=n \, 2
\pi/c_\phi$ with integer $n$. For example, in the case of a non-interacting band-insulator $c_\phi=2\sqrt{\pi}$, $\chi=\sqrt{4
\pi}$, $K=1$ and $g$ is proportional to the $2 k_F$ (where $k_F$ is the Fermi momentum) component of the periodic potential.
In this language the origin of the string order is easy to understand. As the field $\Phi$ is locked in one of the minima of the cosine term, any correlation function of the form $$\begin{aligned}
O_\gamma(x-y) = \left\langle e^{i \gamma \Phi(x)} e^{-i \gamma \Phi(y)} \right \rangle
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ does not decay for $|x-y| \to \infty$ and has a finite value $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{|x-y| \to \infty} O_\gamma(x-y) = \mu_{SO}^2.\end{aligned}$$ For example, a ’string operator’ as in Eq. (\[odd\]) is bosonized in the continuum limit by[@Kim] $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\Bigl(i \bar\gamma \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}+S^{z}_{2,l}\Bigr)
\approx
\exp\Bigl[i\frac{\bar\gamma}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(\Phi_s(x)-\Phi_s(y))\Bigr]\nonumber
\\ \label{spinstring}\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_x \Phi_s$ is proportional to the total spin density. Note that in Eqs. (\[stringorderchain\]), (\[even\]) and (\[odd\]) besides the string operator, also extra boundary spins at site $i$ and $j$ have been included in the definition of the string order. However, these terms are not essential, as discussed in the caption of Fig. \[generalizedorder\], and string order is present as long as $
O_\gamma(x-y)$ is finite for $|x-y| \to \infty$.
![(Color online) The string order parameter without including the boundary spins defined as $\mu_{\bar\gamma}^2=\lim_{j\to
\infty} \left \langle
\exp\left(i \bar\gamma \sum_{l=1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}+S^{z}_{2,l}\right)\right\rangle$ for a one-dimensional band insulator on a ladder (for the value of the parameters, see Fig. \[2dladder\]) as a function of $\bar\gamma$. By construction $\mu_{\bar\gamma}=1$ for $\bar\gamma=4 \pi n$. Inset: String order $SO_{\bar\gamma}=\lim_{j\to \infty} \left \langle
(S^{z}_{1,j}+S^{z}_{2,j}) \exp\left(i \bar\gamma \sum_{l=1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}+S^{z}_{2,l}\right)(S^{z}_{1,0}+S^{z}_{2,0})\right\rangle$ including the boundary spins. Notice that at $\bar\gamma=2\pi$ the $SO_{2\pi}$ is exactly zero while the $\mu^2_{2\pi}$ has a small but finite value. This arises because the operator $e^{i2\pi S_z}$ is independent of the spin configuration.[]{data-label="generalizedorder"}](order.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
We can make use of this formalism to understand the consequence of an inter-chain coupling. In the presence of such a perturbation, the total ’charge’ $\int \partial_x \Phi$ on a [*single*]{} chain is not conserved any more. This is reflected in the appearance of the dual field $\Theta$ in the Hamiltonian (more specifically, of the exponential $e^{i \beta \Theta(x)}$). For instance, for chains coupled by single-electron hopping one obtains $$\begin{gathered}
H_\perp=t_\perp \sum_{l,\sigma=\uparrow/\downarrow}
\Psi^\dagger_{l,\sigma}\Psi_{l+1,\sigma}+h.c.\\
\sim \frac{1}{2\pi a}\sum e^{i\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}(\Phi_{c,l}\pm\Phi_{s,l}+\Theta_{c,l}\pm\Theta_{s,l})}\\\times
e^{-i\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}(\Phi_{c,l+1}\pm\Phi_{s,l+1}+\Theta_{c,l+1}\pm\Theta_{s,l+1})}+...
\label{hperp}\end{gathered}$$ where the summation index $l$ spans the different ladders and we introduced the spin and charge Bosonic fields (and their duals). In the last equality only the $\Psi^{\dagger}_{L,l,\sigma}\Psi_{L,l+1,\sigma}$ component is shown. According to the commutation relations (\[bosecommutation\]), the operator $e^{i \beta \Theta(x)}$ increases the $\Phi(x')$ field by $\beta$ for $x'<x$. In a semi-classical picture, $e^{i \beta \Theta(x)}$ therefore creates a domain wall at $x$ by shifting $\Phi$ for $x'<x$ from one minimum of the cosine to another (note that $\beta$ is always an integer multiple of $2 \pi/\chi$ as a consequence of charge quantization).
In analogy to the calculation for the transverse field Ising model, Eq. (\[divergent\]), we can now proceed by calculating the corrections to the string order parameter perturbatively in $H_\perp= \int d x
h_\perp(x)$. Here we assume that the string order is calculated on the chain with index $l=0$ and is defined in terms of the spin field $\Phi_{s,0}$, $O_\gamma(x-y)= \langle e^{ i \gamma
(\Phi_{s,0}(x,0)-\Phi_{s,0}(y,0))} \rangle$. To second order we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx_1\, d t_1\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx_2\, d
t_2
\big\langle T e^{ i
\gamma
(\Phi_{s,0}(x,0)-\Phi_{s,0}(y,0))}\times\\ h_\perp(x_1,t_1)
h_\perp(x_2,t_2)
\big\rangle_c
\label{perturbboson}\end{gathered}$$ Here, $\langle ... \rangle_c$ denotes the connected part of the correlation function (i.e. $\langle e^{ i \gamma
(\Phi_{s,0}(x)-\Phi_{s,0}(y))}\rangle \langle h_\perp h_\perp
\rangle$ has been subtracted) and the time-ordering $T$ splits the integral in the four different contributions $(t_{1}<0<t_{2})$, $(t_{2}<0<t_{1})$ $(t_1,t_2>0)$ and $(t_1,t_2<0)$. As our system is massive, correlations decay on scale $1/\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the gap, and therefore most contributions to (\[perturbboson\]) are only of order $(t_\perp/\Delta)^2$. There is, however, one important exception: if a domain wall is created at time $t_1<0$ and position $x_1$ with $x \ll x_1 \ll y$ and destroyed at time $t_2>0$, the order parameter changes by $e^{\pm i
\gamma \beta}$ as at time $t=0$ a domain wall is enclosed between $x$ and $y$. Here we assume that $|x-y|$, $|x_1-x|$ and $|x_1-y|$ are much larger than the correlation length $\xi\sim 1/\Delta$. We therefore obtain (up to corrections of order $\xi/|x-y|$) $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx_1\, d t_1 \, dx_2\, d
t_2
(e^{\pm i\gamma \beta \theta(x-x_1)}
e^{\mp i\gamma \beta \theta(y-x_2)}-1)\times \\
\left \langle e^{ i
\gamma
(\Phi_{s,0}(x)-\Phi_{s,0}(y))} \right\rangle_0 \, \left \langle h_\perp(x_1,t_1)
h_\perp(x_2,t_2)
\right \rangle\ \\
\approx
\mu_{SO}^2 |x-y| (\cos(\gamma \beta)-1) \times \\
\int_{-\infty}^0 d t_1 \int_{0}^\infty d t_2 \int_{-\infty}^\infty dx'
\left \langle h_\perp(x',t_1)
h_\perp(0,t_2)
\right\rangle \\ \sim
\mu_{SO}^2 \frac{|x-y|}{a} z (\cos(\gamma \beta)-1)
\left(\frac{t_\perp}{\Delta}\right)^2 \left(\frac{\xi}{a}\right)^{1-2\eta}
\label{perturbboson2}\end{gathered}$$
where $\mu^2_{SO}$ is the order parameter in absence of the perturbation, $a$ is the lattice spacing, $z$ the number of neighboring chains and $\eta$ is the scaling dimension of $h_\perp$. The last factor $(\xi/a)^{1-2\eta}$ is only of relevance in the asymptotic regime $|x-y|\gg\xi\gg a$, i.e. for a gap $\Delta$ small compared to the band width.
In the cases of the transverse-field Ising model with $J=0$ and the non-interacting band insulator, we have shown that the linear correction (\[perturbboson2\]) resums to an exponential. Physically, it is clear that this also will happen for the arbitrary systems considered above: The finite $t_\perp$ induces a finite density of domain walls and the probability of having no domain walls between $x$ and $y$ is therefore exponentially small. As the non-local string correlations are destroyed by domain walls, the string order vanishes exponentially, $$SO \approx \mu_{SO}^2 e^{-\alpha |x-y|}$$ where $\alpha$ can be read off from Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) in the limit of small $t_\perp \ll \Delta$.
In Fig. \[provaformula\], we compare Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) with the exact calculation available for the weakly coupled band insulators ($\eta=1$, $\beta=\sqrt{\pi/2}$). We find nice agreement with the expected $\alpha\approx 1/\Delta^2$ and $\alpha\approx 1/\Delta$ behavior both deep in the gapped phase, where $\xi\approx a$ (left upper panel of Fig. \[provaformula\]) and close to the critical point where $\xi\gg a$ (right upper panel of Fig. \[provaformula\]). Also the angular dependence is very well described by the factor $(1-\cos(\gamma\beta))$ (see lower panel of Fig. \[provaformula\]).
For the case of the quantum Ising chain in transverse field, the $J=0$ case has already been considered in Eq. (\[ising3d\]). We can now use our result to predict the leading behavior of the decay exponent for $B \gtrsim J$. As the scaling dimension for the $S_z$$S_z$ coupling between neighboring chains is given [@Sachdev] by $\eta=1/4$, it follows from Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) that the string order decays as $$SO(x-y)\approx \mu_{SO}^2 e^{-\frac{cJ_{\perp}^2|x-y|}{a \Delta^{5/2}/ \sqrt{J}}}$$ where $c$ is a dimensionless constant of order $1$.
From Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) we can directly infer the conditions of stability of the string order. in fact, if the relation $$\gamma \beta=2 \pi n
\label{result}$$ holds, the order parameter commutes with $h_\perp$ and remains finite. For example, in the case of the band insulator, we have $\beta=\sqrt{\pi/2}$ and the string order is formally stable for $\bar \gamma= 4 \pi n$ in Eq. (\[spinstring\]). However, in this case the operator $\exp\left(i \bar\gamma \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}+S^{z}_{2,l}\right)$ becomes trivially the identity and the correlation function $ \left\langle S^z_{j1} \exp\left(i
\bar\gamma \sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}
S^{z}_{1,l}+S^{z}_{2,l}\right)S^z_{i1}\right \rangle =
\left\langle S^z_{j1} S^z_{i1}\right \rangle$ decays exponentially even for the purely one-dimensional model (see Fig. \[generalizedorder\]). Therefore no stable order parameter exists for a band insulator (or the Haldane chain).
![(Color online) We test the different limits of Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) in the case of an array of band insulators (the Hamiltonian is defined in Eqns. (\[hamiltonian\],\[hamiltonian1\])) where we can calculate the SO parameters exactly ($SO_{\rm odd/even}\sim e^{-\alpha|i-j|}$). Upper left panel: $\alpha$ multiplied by the ratio $\Delta^2/t^2_{\perp}$ versus $1/\Delta$ in the limit of $\Delta$ much bigger then the band width ($\xi\approx a$) for the set of parameters $t_1=0$, $t_2=0$, $t_R=-1$, $t_D=[-80,-6]$, $t_{\perp}=-0.2$. The corrections to Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) are of order $1/\Delta$. Upper right panel: $\alpha$ multiplied by the ratio $\Delta/t^2_{\perp}$ versus $1/\Delta$ in the scaling limit ($\xi\gg a$) for the set of parameters $t_1=0$, $t_2=0$, $t_R=-1$, $t_D=[-1.2,-1.05]$, $t_{\perp}=-0.02$. The corrections to Eq. (\[perturbboson2\]) are of order $\Delta$. Lower panel: $\alpha$ divided by the predicted angular dependence $(1-\cos(\gamma\beta))$ for the set of parameters $t_1=0$, $t_2=0$, $t_R=-1$, $t_D=-4$, $t_{\perp}=-0.4$ ($\beta=\sqrt{\pi/2}$ is fixed by the low energy expression of the inter-chain coupling and we vary $\gamma$ in Eq. (\[gamma\])). Lower panel inset: the decay exponent versus $\gamma\beta$ for the same set of parameters.[]{data-label="provaformula"}](provaformula1.eps){width=".50\textwidth"}
As a consistency check, we now analyze a case where the order is purely local and therefore stable with respect to small perturbations. For example, spinless Fermions form a charge density wave for sufficiently strong interactions (of sufficient long range). Within bosonization such a system is described by [@Gogolin] $$\label{bosehamilton3}
H= \int dx \frac{v_F}{2} \left[ \frac{1}{K} (\partial_x\Theta)^2+ K (\partial_x\Phi)^2\right]
+g\cos(\sqrt{16 \pi} \Phi)$$ and for $K>1/2$ the cosine term becomes relevant locking the $\Phi$ field, which implies a spontaneous breaking of the translational invariance for the underlying lattice model. Equivalently, (\[bosehamilton3\]) describes the physics of the XXZ spin-1/2 chain where the condition $K<\frac{1}{2}$ translates to $J_z>J_{xy}$. In this case, long-ranged Néel order develops in the ground state. In both cases the relevant order parameter, the staggered component of the Fermionic density $\Psi_R^\dagger \Psi_L$, is local. Within bosonization it can be extracted from $\lim_{|x-y|\to \infty} \langle
e^{i 2 \sqrt{\pi} (\Phi(x)-\Phi(y))} \rangle$. A perturbation due to hopping to the neighboring chain or due to a spin-flip is proportional to $e^{\pm i \sqrt{\pi} \Theta}$. This implies $\gamma=2 \sqrt{\pi}$, $\beta=\sqrt{\pi}$ and therefore $\gamma \beta = 2 \pi$, fulfilling the condition of stability (see Eq. (\[result\])): the charge density wave or the Nèel order are “true” local orders in a gapped system which are stable with respect to small perturbations.
In conclusion, we have shown that the string order of gapped one-dimensional systems is very fragile: an arbitrarily small coupling to neighboring chains or ladders is sufficient for its vanishing. This has to be contrasted with the behavior of essentially all other ground state properties which are minimally affected. The finite energy gap protects them such that a critical coupling is needed to induce a quantum phase transition.
One may think about possible generalizations of the string order parameter for higher dimensional systems. Indeed, for two coupled spin-1 chains, Todo[@Todo] suggested a generalization of the string-order parameter (also used in Ref. \[\] to characterize the phases of frustrated spin-1 chains) $$\tilde{SO}_2=\lim_{|i-j| \to \infty}S^z_{1,i}S^z_{2,i}
e^{\sum_{l=i+1}^{j-1}(S^z_{l,1}+S^z_{l,2})}S^z_{1,j}S^z_{2,j}
\label{Todo}$$ where $S_{x,y}$ of Eq. (\[string\]) now includes the spins of both chains. The stability of $\tilde{SO}_2$ comes from the fact that all non-local commutation relations of the string-order and the inter-chain coupling vanish as $\sum S^z_{\alpha i}$ commutes with $H_\perp$. In a completely analogous way, one can define for any finite number of chains $N$ a generalized order parameter $\tilde{SO}_N$ (with or without boundary spins) that is non-zero. However, a generalization of the above formula for a two- or three-dimensional system is not possible. First, $SO_{N}$ vanishes exponentially even in the [*absence*]{} of any coupling between the chains. Second, if the string of Eq. (\[string\]) is generalized to a square, a cube or any other finite subset of spins, this will immediately lead again to non-local commutation due the presence of ’dangling singlets’ at the boundaries of such structures. As for dimensions $d>1$ the surface of any non-local structure of infinite extension is infinite, we conclude that no direct extensions of string order to higher dimensional systems can be deviced and generalized string orders will decay as $e^{-\alpha A}$ where $A$ is the area of the boundary [@foot].
An interesting question for the future is the investigation of the stability of various types of topological order. For example, Senthil and Fisher[@Senthil] have shown that the ground state degeneracy of the deconfined phase of a two-dimensional $Z_2$ gauge theory is stable with respect to a small inter-layer coupling. Finally, a related problem is the stability of various types of entanglement measures [@Verstraete; @Venuti].
We acknowledge useful discussions with J.I. Cirac, M. Garst, R. Moessner, E. Müller-Hartmann, A.A. Nersesyan, A. Schadschneider, A.M. Tsvelik and J. Zaanen, J. Zittartz and, especially, G.I. Japaridze. We thank for financial support of the DFG under SFB 608.
[999]{} L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, *Statistical Physics*, Pergamon Press (1958).
Here we assume that $\langle A \rangle=0$ in the absence of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
M.P.M. Den Nijs and K. Rommelse, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [ **40**]{}, 4709 (1989).
E.H. Kim, [*et al.*]{}, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**62**]{}, 14965 (2000).
F. Anfuso and A. Rosch, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**75**]{}, 144420 (2007).
E.G. Dalla Torre, E. Berg and E. Altman, preprint cond-mat/0609937.
G. ’t Hooft, [ Nucl. Phys. B]{} [**153**]{}, 141 (1979).
X.G. Wen and Q. Niu, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**41**]{}, 9377 (1990).
T. Senthil and M.P.A. Fisher, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**63**]{}, 134521 (2001).
S. Sachdev, *Quantum Phase Transitions*, Cambridge (1999).
H.A. Kramers and G.H. Wannier, [ Phys. Rev.]{} [**60**]{}, 252 (1941).
R. Savit, [ Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [**52**]{}, 453 (1980).
P.M. Chaikin and T.C. Lubensky, *Principles of condensed matter physics*, Cambridge (2000).
T. Kennedy, H. Tasaki, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**45**]{}, 304 (1992).
T. Kennedy, H. Tasaki,[ Comm. Math. Phys.]{} [ **147**]{}, 431 (1992).
I. Affleck, [*et al.*]{}, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [ **59**]{}, 799 (1987); [ Comm. Math. Phys.]{} [ **115**]{}, 477 (1988).
S. Todo [*et al.*]{}, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**64**]{}, 224412 (2001).
A.O. Gogolin, A.A. Nersesyan, A.M. Tsvelik, *Bosonization of Strongly Correlated Systems* , Cambridge (1998).
A.K. Kolezhuk and U. Schollwöck, [ Phys. Rev. B.]{} [ **65**]{}, 100401(R) (2002).
Our discussion refers to order parameters defined as a string, area or volume which begins and ends at two points $i$ and $j$, respectively, such that the surface of the structure diverges in the limit $|i-j| \to \infty$. It does not cover, for example, the case of possible generalizations involving all the sites in the system.
F. Verstraete, M.A.M. Delgado and J.J. Cirac, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [ **92**]{}, 087201 (2004).
L.C. Venuti and M. Roncaglia, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [ **94**]{}, 207207 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new measurement of the left-right cross section asymmetry (${A_{LR}}$) for ${Z}$ boson production by collisions. The measurement was performed at a center-of-mass energy of 91.28 GeV with the SLD detector at the SLAC Linear Collider (SLC). The luminosity-weighted average polarization of the SLC electron beam was (77.23$\pm$0.52)%. Using a sample of 93,644 ${Z}$ decays, we measure the pole-value of the asymmetry, ${A_{LR}^0}$, to be 0.1512$\pm$0.0042([stat.]{})$\pm$0.0011([syst.]{}) which is equivalent to an effective weak mixing angle of ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}=0.23100\pm0.00054({\rm stat.})\pm0.00014({\rm syst.})$.'
address: |
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\
Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94309\
author:
- 'The SLD Collaboration$^*$'
title: 'An Improved Measurement of the Left-Right Z$^0$ Cross Section Asymmetry$^\dagger$'
---
‘=11 versim\#1\#2
0.3in
[Submitted to [*Physical Review Letters*]{}]{}
1.3in
$^*$ *Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530 INFN Sezione di Bologna, I-40126 Bologna, Italy Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106 University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 INFN Sezione di Ferrara and Università di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy INFN Lab. Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677 Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics 119899 Moscow, Russia Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464 Japan University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403 INFN Sezione di Padova and Università di Padova, I-35100 Padova, Italy INFN Sezione di Perugia and Università di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy INFN Sezione di Pisa and Università di Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom Sogang University, Seoul, Korea Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea 156-743 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 Tohoku University, Sendai 980 Japan Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 Deceased Also at the Università di Genova Also at the Università di Perugia*
In 1993, the SLD Collaboration performed a precise measurement of the left-right cross section asymmetry in the production of ${Z}$ bosons by collisions [@alr93]. In this letter, we present a substantially improved measurement based upon new data recorded during the 1994/95 run of the SLAC Linear Collider (SLC) with larger beam polarization and better control of systematic uncertainties.
The left-right asymmetry is defined as ${A_{LR}^0}\equiv\left(\sigma_L-\sigma_R\right)/
\left(\sigma_L+\sigma_R\right)$, where $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_R$ are the ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ production cross sections for ${Z}$ bosons at the ${Z}$-pole energy with left-handed and right-handed electrons, respectively. The Standard Model predicts that this quantity depends upon the effective vector ($v_e$) and axial-vector ($a_e$) couplings of the ${Z}$ boson to the electron current, $${A_{LR}^0}=\frac{2v_ea_e}{v_e^2+a_e^2}\equiv \frac{
2\left[1-4{\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}\right]}{1+\left[1-4{\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}\right]^2}, \label{eq:alrswein}$$ where the effective electroweak mixing parameter is defined [@swdef] as ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}\equiv(1-v_e/a_e)/4$. Note that ${A_{LR}^0}$ is a sensitive function of ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}$ and depends upon virtual electroweak radiative corrections including those which involve the top quark and Higgs boson and those arising from new phenomena. The recent measurement of the top quark mass [@top] has, as a determination of a previously unknown parameter of the Standard Model, greatly enhanced the power of this measurement as a test of the prevailing theory.
We measure the left-right asymmetry by counting hadronic and (with low efficiency) $\tau^+\tau^-$ final states produced in collisions near the ${Z}$-pole energy for each of the two longitudinal polarization states of the electron beam. The asymmetry formed from these rates, ${A_{LR}}$, must then be corrected for residual effects arising from pure photon exchange and ${Z}$-photon interference to extract ${A_{LR}^0}$. The measurement requires knowledge of the absolute beam polarization, but does not require knowledge of the absolute luminosity, detector acceptance, or efficiency [@accept].
The operation of the SLC with a polarized electron beam has been described previously [@oldslc]. In 1994, the beam polarization at the SLC source [@source] was increased from 63% to $\sim 80\%$ by the use of a thinner (0.1 $\mu$m) strained-lattice GaAs photocathode [@strlat] which was illuminated by a pulsed Ti:Sapphire laser operating at 845 nm. The circular polarization state of each laser pulse (and hence, the helicity of each electron pulse) was chosen randomly. The electron spin orientation was manipulated in the SLC North Arc by a pair of large amplitude betatron oscillations to achieve longitudinal polarization at the SLC interaction point (IP) [@rot]. The maximum luminosity of the collider was approximately 6$\times$10$^{29}$ cm$^{-2}$sec$^{-1}$. The luminosity-weighted mean ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ center-of-mass energy ($E_{cm}$) is measured with precision energy spectrometers [@enspa] to be 91.280$\pm$0.025 GeV.
The longitudinal electron beam polarization (${{\cal P}_e}$) is measured by a Compton scattering polarimeter [@polarimeter] located 33 m downstream of the IP. After it passes through the IP and before it is deflected by dipole magnets, the electron beam collides with a circularly polarized photon beam produced by a pulsed frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser of wavelength 532 nm operating at $\sim$17 Hz. Since the accelerator produces electron pulses at 120 Hz, the polarimeter samples each seventh machine pulse. The scattered and unscattered components of the electron beam remain unseparated until they pass through a dipole-quadrupole spectrometer. The scattered electrons are dispersed horizontally and exit the vacuum system through a thin window. A multichannel Cherenkov detector observes the scattered electrons in the interval from 17 to 30 GeV/c.
The counting rates in each detector channel are measured for three combinations of electron and photon beam parameters: parallel electron and photon helicities, antiparallel helicities, and photon beam absent. The latter combination is used to measure detector background. The asymmetry formed from the background-subtracted counting rates is equal to the product ${{\cal P}_e}{{\cal P}_\gamma}{{\cal A}}_i$ where ${{\cal P}_\gamma}$ is the circular polarization of the laser beam at the electron-photon crossing point and ${{\cal A}}_i$ is the analyzing power of the $i^{th}$ detector channel. The laser polarization was maintained at (99.6$\pm$0.2)% by continuously monitoring and correcting phase shifts in the laser transport system. The analyzing powers of the detector channels incorporate resolution and spectrometer effects and differ slightly from the theoretical Compton asymmetry function at the mean accepted energy for each channel [@comref]. The minimum energy of a Compton-scattered electron for the initial electron and photon energies is 17.36 GeV. The location of this kinematic endpoint at the detector was monitored by frequent scans of the detector horizontal position during polarimeter operation. This technique determines and monitors the analyzing powers of each detector channel.
Polarimeter data are acquired continually during the operation of the SLC. The absolute statistical precision attained in a 3 minute measurement is typically $\delta{{\cal P}_e}=0.8\%$. The systematic uncertainties that affect the polarization measurement are summarized in Table \[table1\]. The total relative systematic uncertainty is estimated to be $\delta{{\cal P}_e}/{{\cal P}_e}=0.64\%$.
Due to energy-spread-induced spin diffusion in the SLC arc and imperfect spin orientation, the longitudinal polarization of the electron beam at the IP was typically 98% of the polarization in the linac. This estimate follows from a measurement of the arc spin rotation matrix performed with a beam of very small energy spread ($\lsim0.05\%$) using a pair of spin rotation solenoids and the Compton polarimeter. The electron polarization in the linac was determined to be (78.6$\pm$0.9)% and was consistent with a direct measurement using a diagnostic Møller polarimeter [@levchuk] of (81$\pm$3)%.
In our previous Letter [@alr93], we examined an effect that causes the beam polarization measured by the Compton Polarimeter, ${{\cal P}_e}$, to differ from the luminosity-weighted beam polarization, ${{\cal P}_e}(1+\xi)$, at the SLC IP. While the Compton polarimeter measures the polarization of the entire electron bunch, chromatic aberrations in the SLC final focus optics reduce the contribution of off-energy electrons to the luminosity. The on-energy electrons with larger average longitudinal polarization therefore contribute more to the total luminosity and $\xi$ can be non-negligible. To first order, the magnitude of $\xi$ depends quadratically on the width of the beam energy distribution $N(E)$, the energy dependence of the arc spin rotation $d\Theta_s/dE$, and the dependence of the luminosity per electron on beam energy $d{{\cal L}}(E)/dE$.
During the 1994/95 run, a number of measures in the operation of the SLC and in monitoring procedures significantly reduced the size of this [*chromaticity*]{} correction and its associated error. The fractional RMS beam energy spread was reduced to approximately 0.12% (0.20% in 1993) and non-Gaussian tails in the beam energy distribution were reduced to a negligible level[@decker]. Optimization of the SLC arc spin transport system reduced the measured energy dependence of the spin rotation in the arc to $d\Theta_s/dE=1.4$ rad/GeV (2.5 rad/GeV in 1993). Finally, $d{{\cal L}}(E)/dE$ was reduced by improvements in the SLC final focus optics [@FFupgrade]. Constraints on $d{{\cal L}}(E)/dE$ were made directly from our data via a determination of the Z production rate as a function of beam energy, with consistent results obtained from the observed energy dependence of the beam size and from simulations of the final focus optics [@FFupgrade]. We then determine a contribution to $\xi$ of $+0.0020\pm0.0014$ due to the chromaticity effect, which is smaller by a factor of eight than it was in 1993. An effect of similar magnitude arises due to the small precession of the electron spin in the final focusing elements between the SLC IP and the polarimeter. This effect contributes $-0.0011\pm0.0001$ to $\xi$. The depolarization of the electron beam by the collision process is expected to be negligible [@chenyok]. The contribution of depolarization to $\xi$ is determined to be 0.000$\pm$0.001 by comparing polarimeter data taken with and without beams in collision. Combining the three effects described above, the overall correction factor is determined to be $\xi = 0.0009\pm0.0017$.
The ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ collisions are measured by the SLD detector which has been described elsewhere [@sld]. The trigger relies on a combination of calorimeter and tracking information; the event selection is based on the liquid argon calorimeter (LAC) [@lac] and the central drift chamber tracker (CDC) [@cdc]. For each event candidate, energy clusters are reconstructed in the LAC. Selected events are required to contain at least 22 GeV of energy observed in the clusters and to manifest a normalized energy imbalance of less than 0.6 [@eimb]. The left-right asymmetry associated with final state ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ events is expected to be diluted by the t-channel photon exchange subprocess. Therefore, we exclude ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ final states by requiring that each event candidate contain at least 4 selected CDC tracks, with at least 2 tracks in each hemisphere defined with respect to the beam axis, or at least 4 tracks in either hemisphere (this track topology requirement excludes Bhabha events which contain a reconstructed gamma conversion). The selected CDC tracks are required to extrapolate to within 5 cm radially and 10 cm along the beam direction of the IP, to have a minimum momentum transverse to the beam direction of 100 MeV/c, and to form a minimum angle of 30 degrees with the beam direction.
We estimate that the combined efficiency of the trigger and selection criteria is (89$\pm$1)% for hadronic ${Z}$ decays. Tau pairs constitute (0.3$\pm$0.1)% of the sample. Because muon pair events deposit little energy in the calorimeter, they are not included in the sample. The residual background in the sample is due primarily to ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ final state events. We use our data and a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate this background fraction to be ($0.08\pm 0.08)\%$. The background fraction due to cosmic rays, two-photon events and beam related processes is estimated to be (0.03$\pm$0.03)%.
A total of 93,644 ${Z}$ events satisfy the selection criteria. We find that 52,179 ($N_L$) of the events were produced with the left-handed electron beam and 41,465 ($N_R$) were produced with the right-handed beam. The measured left-right cross section asymmetry for ${Z}$ production is [@helicity] $$\begin{aligned}
{A_m}\equiv(N_L-N_R)/(N_L+N_R)=0.11441\pm0.00325.\end{aligned}$$ We have verified that the measured asymmetry ${A_m}$ does not vary significantly as more restrictive criteria (calorimetric and tracking-based) are applied to the sample and that ${A_m}$ is uniform when binned by the azimuth and polar angle of the thrust axis.
The measured asymmetry ${A_m}$ is related to ${A_{LR}}$ by the following expression which incorporates a number of small correction terms in lowest-order approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
{A_{LR}}& = & \frac{{A_m}}{{\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}}+\frac{1}
{{\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}}\biggl[f_b({A_m}-{A_b})-{A_{\cal L}}+{A_m}^2{A_{\cal P}}\nonumber \\
& & -E_{cm}\frac{\sigma^\prime(E_{cm})}{\sigma(E_{cm})}{A_E}-{A_\varepsilon}+ {\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}{{\cal P}_p}\biggr], \label{eq:alrcor}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}$ is the mean luminosity-weighted polarization for the 1994-5 run; $f_b$ is the background fraction; $\sigma(E)$ is the unpolarized ${Z}$ cross section at energy $E$; $\sigma^\prime(E)$ is the derivative of the cross section with respect to $E$; ${A_b}$, ${A_{\cal L}}$, ${A_{\cal P}}$, ${A_E}$, and ${A_\varepsilon}$ are the left-right asymmetries [@asymdef] of the residual background, the integrated luminosity, the beam polarization, the center-of-mass energy, and the product of detector acceptance and efficiency, respectively; and ${{\cal P}_p}$ is any longitudinal positron polarization which is assumed to have constant helicity [@ppol].
The luminosity-weighted average polarization ${\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}$ is estimated from measurements of ${{\cal P}_e}$ made when ${Z}$ events were recorded, $${\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}= (1+\xi)\cdot\frac{1}{N_Z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_Z}{{{\cal P}}}_i
=(77.23\pm0.52)\%, \label{eq:poldef}$$ where $N_Z$ is the total number of ${Z}$ events, and ${{{\cal P}}}_i$ is the polarization measurement associated in time with the $i^{th}$ event. The error on ${\langle{\cal P}_e\rangle}$ is dominated by the systematic uncertainties on the polarization measurement.
The corrections defined in equation (\[eq:alrcor\]) are found to be small. The correction for residual background contamination is moderated by a non-zero left-right background asymmetry ($A_b=0.055\pm0.021$) arising from ${\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}$ final states which remain in the sample. Residual electron current asymmetry ($\lsim10^{-3}$) from the SLC polarized source was reduced by twice reversing a spin rotation solenoid at the entrance to the SLC damping ring. The net luminosity asymmetry is estimated from the measured asymmetry of the rate of radiative Bhabha scattering events observed with a monitor located in the North Final Focus region of the SLC to be ${A_{\cal L}}=(-1.9\pm0.3)\times10^{-4}$. A less precise cross check is performed by examining the left-right asymmetry of the sample of 246,845 small-angle Bhabha scattering events detected by the luminosity monitoring system (LUM) [@berridge]. Since the theoretical left-right asymmetry for small-angle Bhabha scattering is very small \[${\cal O} (10^{-4}){{\cal P}_e}$ within the LUM acceptance\], the measured asymmetry of ($-$18$\pm$20)$\times$10$^{-4}$ is a direct determination of ${A_{\cal L}}$ and is consistent with the more precisely determined one. The polarization asymmetry is directly measured to be ${A_{\cal P}}=(+2.4\pm1.0)\times10^{-3}$. The left-right beam energy asymmetry arises from the small residual left-right beam current asymmetry due to beam-loading of the accelerator and is measured to be (+9.2$\pm$0.2)$\times$10$^{-7}$. The coefficient of the energy asymmetry in equation (\[eq:alrcor\]) is a very sensitive function of the center-of-mass energy and is found to be $0.0\pm2.5$ for $E_{cm}=91.280\pm0.025$ GeV. The SLD has a symmetric acceptance in polar angle [@accept] which implies that the efficiency asymmetry ${A_\varepsilon}$ is negligible. As was discussed in our previous publication [@alr93], the positron polarization at the SLC IP is less than 1.5$\times$10$^{-5}$. The corrections listed in equation (\[eq:alrcor\]) change ${A_{LR}}$ by ($+0.2\pm 0.06$)% of the uncorrected value.
Using equation (\[eq:alrcor\]), we find the left-right asymmetry to be $$\begin{aligned}
{A_{LR}}(91.28~{\rm GeV}) =
0.1485\pm0.0042({\rm stat.})\pm0.0010({\rm syst.}).\end{aligned}$$
The various contributions to the systematic error are summarized in Table \[table1\]. Correcting this result to account for photon exchange and for electroweak interference which arises from the deviation of the effective center-of-mass energy from the ${Z}$-pole energy (including the effect of initial-state radiation), we find the pole asymmetry ${A_{LR}^0}$ and the effective weak mixing angle to be [@ewcorr] $$\begin{aligned}
{A_{LR}^0}& = & 0.1512\pm0.0042({\rm stat.})\pm0.0011({\rm syst.}) \\
{\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}& = & 0.23100\pm0.00054({\rm stat.})\pm0.00014({\rm syst.})\end{aligned}$$ where the systematic uncertainty includes the uncertainty on the electroweak interference correction (see Table \[table1\]) which arises from the $\pm$25 MeV uncertainty on center-of-mass energy scale. Combining this value of ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}$ with our previous measurements [@oldalr; @alr93] we obtain the value, $$\begin{aligned}
{A_{LR}^0}& = & 0.1543\pm0.0039 \\
{\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}& = & 0.23060\pm0.00050.\end{aligned}$$ This ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}$ determination is smaller by 2.5 standard deviations than the recent average of 23 measurements performed by the LEP Collaborations [@lepew].
We thank the personnel of the SLAC accelerator department and the technical staffs of our collaborating institutions for their outstanding efforts on our behalf. This work was supported by the Department of Energy; the National Science Foundation; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; the Japan-US Cooperative Research Project on High Energy Physics; and the Science and Engineering Research Council of the United Kingdom.
K. Abe [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 25 (1994) \[hep-ex/9404001\]. We follow the convention used by the LEP Collaborations in [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B276**]{}, 247 (1992). CDF Collaboration: F. Abe, [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 2626 (1995) \[hep-ex/9503002\]; D0 Collaboration: S. Abachi, [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 2632 (1995) \[hep-ex/9503003\]. The value of ${A_{LR}}$ is unaffected by decay-mode-dependent variations in detector acceptance and efficiency provided that the efficiency for detecting a fermion at some polar angle (with respect to the electron direction) is equal to the efficiency for detecting an antifermion at the same polar angle. M. Woods, AIP Conference Proceedings 343, 230 (1995). R. Alley, [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Nuc. Inst. Meth.*]{} [**A365**]{}, 1 (1995). T. Maruyama [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B46**]{}, 4261 (1992). T. Limberg, P. Emma, and R. Rossmanith, SLAC-PUB-6210, May 1993. J. Kent [[*et al.*]{}]{}, SLAC-PUB-4922, March 1989. R. King, SLAC-Report-452; changes to the polarimeter for the 1994-95 SLD run are not described in this report and include a higher repetition rate Nd:YAG laser, improved laser polarization diagnostics, and the addition of a quadrupole magnet to the Compton spectrometer magnets. See S.B. Gunst and L.A. Page, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**92**]{}, 970 (1953). M. Swartz [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Nucl. Instr. Meth.*]{} [**A363**]{}, 526 (1995) \[hep-ex/9412006\]. F.-J. Decker, R. Holtzapple, and T. Raubenheimer, Proceedings of the 17th International Linear Accelerator Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (1994), p. 47. F.Zimmermann [[*et al.*]{}]{}, SLAC-PUB-95-6790, June 1995. P. Chen and K. Yokoya, [*Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on High-Energy Spin Physics*]{}, Minneapolis, MN, 1988, pg. 938. The SLD Design Report, SLAC Report 273, 1984. K. Abe [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{}, 2515 (1993). Details of the calorimetric event selection can be found in J. Yarmartino, SLAC REPORT 426, February 1994. D. Axen [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Nucl. Instr. Meth.*]{} [**A328**]{}, 472 (1993). M. Fero [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*Nucl. Instr. Meth.*]{} [**A367**]{}, 111 (1995). The energy imbalance is defined as a normalized vector sum of the energy clusters as follows, $ E_{imb}=|\sum \vec E_{cluster}|/\sum |E_{cluster}|$. The absolute sign of ${A_m}$ is inferred from the sign of the measured Compton scattering asymmetry, the measured helicity of the polarimeter laser, and the theoretical sign of the Compton scattering asymmetry. The left-right asymmetry for a quantity $Q$ is defined as $A_Q\equiv(Q_L-Q_R)/(Q_L+Q_R)$ where the subscripts $L$,$R$ refer to the left- and right-handed beams, respectively. Since the colliding electron and positron bunches are produced on different machine cycles and since the electron helicity of each cycle is chosen randomly, any positron helicity arising from the polarization of the production electrons is uncorrelated with electron helicity at the IP. The net positron polarization from this process vanishes rigorously. However, positron polarization of constant helicity does affect the measurement. S.C. Berridge [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.*]{} [**NS-39**]{}, 242 (1992). The quantities ${A_{LR}^0}$ and ${\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}}$ are related by equation (\[eq:alrswein\]) and are completely equivalent. The correction for electroweak interference and pure photon exchange, ${A_{LR}^0}-{A_{LR}}(91.280)$ is determined with the ZFITTER 4.9 program of D. Bardin, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (CERN-TH. 6443/92, May 1992) and is found to be $0.00265\pm0.00049$. A. Blondel, [*Proceedings of the XXVIII$^{th}$ International Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, 25-31 July 1996, Warsaw, Poland.
Systematic Uncertainty $\delta{{\cal P}_e}/{{\cal P}_e}$ (%) $\delta{A_{LR}}/{A_{LR}}$ (%) $\delta{A_{LR}^0}/{A_{LR}^0}$ (%)
------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Laser Polarization 0.20
Detector Linearity 0.50
Analyzing Power Calibration 0.29
Electronic Noise 0.20
Total Polarimeter Uncertainty 0.64 0.64
Chromaticity and I.P. Corrections ($\xi$) 0.17
Corrections in Equation (\[eq:alrcor\]) 0.06
${A_{LR}}$ Systematic Uncertainty 0.67 0.67
Electroweak Interference Correction 0.33
${A_{LR}^0}$ Systematic Uncertainty 0.75
: Systematic uncertainties that affect the ${A_{LR}}$ measurement. The uncertainty on the electroweak interference correction is caused by the $\pm$25 MeV on the SLC energy scale.[]{data-label="table1"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work utilizes soft-particle discrete element simulations to examine the rheology of steady two-dimensional granular flows with reference to a unidirectional shear flow, which has been extensively employed for validating the local visco-plastic model of Jop *et al.* \[Nature **441**, 727–730 (2006)\]. The $\mu$-$I$ scaling proposed by Jop *et al.* is found to be valid in both two-dimensional and unidirectional flows, as observed in previous studies, however, each flow type results in a different curve. Here $\mu$, ratio of the shear stress magnitude to the pressure, is the friction coefficient and $I$ is the dimensionless inertial number, which is proportional to the ratio of the magnitude of the rate of strain tensor, $\dot{\gamma}$, to the square root of the pressure. The friction coefficient is found not to scale in a simple way with the flow classification parameter $\psi$, which characterizes the local flow type. All the data collapse to a single curve using the scaling proposed by Zhang and Kamrin \[Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 058001 (2017)\], in which the scaled granular fluidity ($f=1/(\mu T)$, where $T \propto u/\dot{\gamma}$ and $u$ is the fluctuation velocity) is found to depend only on the solid fraction $\phi$. The data for variation of $\phi$ with inertial number $I$ collapse to a single curve for all the flows.'
author:
- Ashish Bhateja
- 'Devang V. Khakhar'
title: 'Rheology of dense granular flows in two dimensions: Comparison of fully two-dimensional flows to unidirectional shear flow'
---
The development of theories for granular flows, in which the granular material is treated as a continuum, has a long history and many successes [@drucker1952; @jenkins1983; @mancini1987; @campbell1990; @lun1991; @nedderman; @degennes1999; @mohan1999; @midi2004; @dacruz2005; @jop2006; @forterre2008; @kamrin2012; @henann2013; @bouzid2015; @jop2015; @delannay2017]. The approach is particularly attractive for application to large systems, natural or industrial, which are comprised of billions of particles, making a particle scale analysis very expensive [@cleary2002; @cleary2004]. A key element of such granular flow theories is a constitutive model to describe the rheology of the flowing material, and several models have been proposed based on different approaches and assumptions [@campbell1990; @nedderman; @campbell2006; @forterre2008; @jop2015; @bouzid2015; @delannay2017]. In the case of dense flows, a local visco-plastic model, proposed by Jop *et al.* [@jop2006] has been validated for a number of systems, including for mixtures [@rognon2007; @tripathi2011], non-spherical particles [@mandal2016] and unsteady flows [@lacaze2009]. Most of the systems used in the validation of the visco-plastic model correspond to unidirectional flows, an exception being the work of @lacaze2009, who showed its validity for the collapse of a cylindrical granular column, which is a three-dimensional unsteady flow. In addition, previous two-dimensional [@staron2012; @staron2014] and three-dimensional [@kamrin2010] investigations also largely validate the visco-plastic model by comparing the velocity and stress fields from the discrete element simulations [@cundall79] with that of continuum predictions in a discharging silo. However, the model is known to break down in many instances, particularly, for slow creeping flows [@seguin2016], in the presence of shear-localization near boundaries [@midi2004], and in the case of thickness-dependent response of grains over an incline [@pouliquen2009; @kamrin2015]. A more recent approach based on granular fluidity has shown promise to address several of the above issues [@kamrin2012; @henann2013; @henann2014; @kamrin2015; @kamrin2017].
In this work, we characterize in detail the rheology of steady, two-dimensional granular flows in two different geometries (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\]), with the flow over a rough inclined surface (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](a)) chosen as a reference for comparison. The objective of the work is to understand the applicability of models developed for simple shear flows to fully two-dimensional flows using identical particles in different geometries of flow. The flow on a rough inclined surface with an intruder (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](b)) represents a small deviation from a shear flow and the flow in a planar silo (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](c)) is a fully two dimensional flow. Particles flowing out of the silo are uniformly reinserted at the top boundary of the silo at zero velocity, to maintain a constant height in the silo. Periodic boundary conditions are applied at the side boundaries (dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:snapshot\]) in all the cases. The data are used to evaluate the viscoplastic model [@jop2006] as well as the granular fluidity based model [@kamrin2017].
Soft-particle discrete element computations [@cundall79] are utilized, considering grains as inelastic, frictional and non-cohesive disks of mean diameter $d$ with $\pm 10\%$ polydispersity so as to prevent ordering in the system. The mass density $\rho$ is kept the same for all grains. The interaction between particles is modelled as a linear-spring-dashpot force along with a Coulomb friction force [@cundall79; @shafer1996; @zhang1996; @poschel]. The normal spring stiffness is $k_n = 10^6 \, mg/d$, and no tangential spring is employed, i.e., $k_t=0$. The restitution and friction coefficients for interaction between grains are $e_p = 0.9$ and $\mu_p = 0.4$, respectively. The same values are considered for grain-wall interactions. In the case of flow on a bumpy inclined surface, the length and the layer height along $x$ and $y$ directions are $25d$ and $56d$, respectively. The bumpy base, consisting of randomly placed immovable particles of size $d$, is inclined at an angle $\theta$ with the horizontal (see Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](a)). We choose $\theta=13.5^{o}-19.5^{o}$, for which steady and fully-developed flow occurs. Moreover, the range of shear rates achieved is roughly the same as that obtained for the silo. In the case of the inclined surface flow with an intruder, the intruder radius is $5d$ and three angles $\theta=18^{o},19^{o}$ and $19.5^{o}$ are considered for this case. The silo width $W$ and the initial fill height $H$ of grains are $60d$ and $46d$, respectively. The orifice size $D_o$ is varied between $10d$ and $30d$ in steps of $5d$, with $D_o$ always being larger than $6d$ so as to prevent stoppage of flow due to arch formation [@mankoc2007; @kondic2014]. The number of grains used in the inclined flow and inclined flow with intruder is $N=1500$, whereas $N=3000$ grains are employed in the silo flow.
At steady state, the data are averaged over 20, 100 and 200 simulation runs for the inclined flow, inclined flow with an intruder and silo flow, respectively, with each simulation beginning with a different initial configuration. The averaging procedure follows the coarse-graining technique [@goldhirsch2010; @weinhart2013; @artoni2015], employing a Heaviside step function with coarse-grained width $w$ equal to $d$. The stress tensor ($\bm{\sigma}$) is computed as given in Tripathi and Khakhar [@tripathi2010]. The quantities of interest do not change upon varying $w$ in the range $1d-5d$. In particular, we ensured independence of fluctuation velocity on $w$ following Artoni and Richard [@artoni2015].
![*Simulation snapshots*: (a) A classical unidirectional granular flow down a bumpy inclined surface. (b) Unidirectional flow on a bumpy inclined surface with an intruder. (c) A two-dimensional discharging silo. The coordinate axes and the direction of gravitational acceleration ($g$) are also displayed.[]{data-label="fig:snapshot"}](fig1){width="3.2in"}
Fig. \[fig:psi\] shows the streamlines for the two-dimensional flows at steady state. In the inclined surface flow with an intruder, the streamlines near the free surface are straight lines as in the case of a uni-directional shear flow. However, near the base, the streamlines deviate from the shear flow case and a two-dimensional flow is obtained with compression of the streamlines above the intruder. The irregular streamlines at the base reflect the bumpy nature of the base. In the case of the silo, the streamlines converge into the orifice. No stagnant regions are seen because of the smooth base. Fig. \[fig:psi\] also shows the nature of the local flow, characterized in terms of a local flow parameter [@hudson2004; @lee2007; @wagner2016], $\psi$, defined below. Two-dimensional isochoric flows may be linearized and transformed to the following form $$v_{x^{'}}=\dot{\gamma}{y^{'}}, \qquad v_{y^{'}}=\psi\dot{\gamma}{x^{'}},$$ where $(v_{x^{'}},v_{y^{'}})$ are the velocity components in the transformed coordinate directions ($x^{'},y^{'}$), $\dot{\gamma}$ is the shear rate and $\psi$ is a parameter which describes the nature of the flow: $\psi=0$ corresponds to shear flow, $\psi=1$ to pure extensional flow and $\psi=-1$ to solid body rotation.
![Streamlines and spatial distribution of $\psi$ in case of (a) the discharging silo for $D_o = 20d$, and (b) the intruder-flow at $\theta=19.5^{o}$. Qualitatively similar distribution is obtained for other orifice sizes and inclinations for the silo and intruder-flow, respectively. The color scale for both plots is provided on top.[]{data-label="fig:psi"}](fig2){width="3.2in"}
The flow parameter is the ratio of the eigenvalues of $\bm{Q}^T\bm{\cdot G}$, where $\bm{G}=[\nabla\bm{v}-(\nabla\bm{\cdot v})\bm{I}/2$\] is the traceless velocity gradient tensor, $\bm{v}$ is the velocity vector, $\bm{I}$ is the unit tensor and $\bm{Q}=[0,-1;1,0]$ is the rotational matrix. This approach gives the same result as that of Hudson *et al.* [@hudson2004] and Lee *et al.* [@lee2007] for the calculation of the flow parameter ($\psi$). The flow parameter varies spatially in both two-dimensional flows (see Fig. \[fig:psi\]). In the inclined surface flow with an intruder, the flow is extensional ($\psi\approx1$) just above the intruder but is close to a shear flow ($\psi=0$) in most of the region. The variation of $\psi$ is over a greater range in the silo flow. The flow is extensional ($\psi\approx1$) near the exit along the centreline and the magnitude of $\psi$ reduces with distance from the centerline. There are some regions in which $\psi<0$ indicating that the flow in these regions is more rotational than a shear flow. Thus, the two-dimensional flows chosen span a wide range of flow types. We note that, as shown in Sec. A of Supplementary Material below, the scaled dilation rate, $\epsilon = (\nabla\bm{\cdot v})/\dot{\gamma}$, is small in both cases (less than 5%) except in small regions of the flow, indicating that the flows are nearly isochoric, where $\dot{\gamma}=\sqrt{2\bm{D}:\bm{D}}$ with $\bm{D}=(\bm{G}+\bm{G}^T)/2$ being the rate of deformation tensor.
We consider the rheology of the above systems in terms of the model of @jop2006 in which the material is assumed to be a Bingham fluid given by $\bm{\tau}=2\eta\bm{D}$ for $|\bm{\tau}| >\tau_s$, where $\bm{\tau}=\bm{\sigma}-P\bm{I}$ is the deviatoric stress tensor, $P=\mbox{tr}(\bm{\sigma})/2$ is the pressure, and $\eta$ is the viscosity, given in terms of the effective friction coefficient as $\eta=\mu P/\dot{\gamma}$. The friction coefficient is defined as $\mu=|\bm{\tau}|/P$, where $|\bm{\tau}|=(\bm{\tau:\tau}/2)^{1/2}$. We note that in the case of two-dimensional systems, the pressure and shear stress magnitude are related to the principal components of the stress tensor ($\sigma_1,\sigma_2$) as $P=(\sigma_1+\sigma_2)/2$ and $|\bm{\tau}|=(\sigma_1-\sigma_2)/2$, so that $\mu=(\sigma_1-\sigma_2)/(\sigma_1+\sigma_2)$. In the limit of no flow, we have $\mu=\mu_s=\tau_s/P$ and on applying the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in this case, we have $\mu_s=\sin(\beta_s)$, where $\beta_s$ is the angle of internal friction. An assumption of the model of @jop2006 is that the friction coefficient ($\mu$) depends only on the *inertial number* defined as $I=\dot{\gamma}d/\sqrt{P/\rho}$, and the following phenomenological relationship relating the two was proposed $$\mu(I) = \mu_s + \frac{\mu_m - \mu_s}{(1+I_0/I)}
\label{eqn:mulaw}$$ where $\mu_s, \mu_m$ and $I_0$ are fitting parameters. The dilatancy of the flow is also assumed to depend only on the inertial number and the solid fraction is given by a power-law expression [@hatano2007] $$\phi = \phi_{m} - b~I^{n},
\label{eqn:phi}$$ where $\phi_{m}$, $b$ and $n$ are fitting parameters.
We found that the stress tensor was symmetric, ruling out Cosserat effects [@mohan1999], and that the principal directions of the stress tensor ($\bm{\sigma}$) and rate of deformation tensor ($\bm{D}$) were nearly coaxial (see Sec. B of Supplementary Material below), as also reported by @rycroft2009, indicating the validity of the tensor form of the constitutive equation proposed by @jop2006. Fig. \[fig:muphi\](a) shows the variation of the effective friction coefficient ($\mu$) with the inertial number ($I$) for all three systems studied and Fig. \[fig:muphi\](b) gives variation of the packing fraction ($\phi$) with $I$. Data points lying within $5d$ and $10d$ of the boundaries and free surface, respectively, and those points where relative error of any variable is more than 1.5% are not shown in Figs. \[fig:muphi\] and \[fig:muT\]. The data for the inclined surface flow follow previously reported results [@forterre2008; @jop2015]. The silo data appear to collapse quite well for different orifice sizes, as also reported by Lacaze & Kerswell [@lacaze2009] and @cortet2009 for inhomogeneous flow configurations other than the silo, but do not fall on the inclined flow data. The data for the inclined surface flow with an intruder lie between the two data sets. Equation (\[eqn:mulaw\]) describes each data set quite well, and the fitted values of the parameters are given in the legend. The inset in Fig. \[fig:muphi\](a) shows the variation of the friction coefficient ($\mu$) with the flow parameter ($\psi$). There does not appear to be any correlation indicating that a modification of Eq. (\[eqn:mulaw\]) incorporating the flow parameter may not be a useful approach. In contrast, we obtain a very good collapse of data for the solid fraction ($\phi$) variation with the inertial number ($I$) for all the three systems considered and Eq. (\[eqn:phi\]) fits very well (Fig. \[fig:muphi\](b)). The above results indicate that an additional parameter may be needed to describe the rheology of two-dimensional flows.
![(a) Variation of $\mu$ with $I$. The example error bars for $\mu$ and $I$ at their highest values are displayed on the bottom left corner of the plot for silo. The solid (silo) and dashed (inclined flow) lines are fits of Eq. \[eqn:mulaw\]. *Inset*: Variation of $\mu$ with $\psi$. Points are used instead of symbols for ease of presentation, keeping colors the same as used for symbols for corresponding $D_o$. Relative error constraint is imposed only on $\mu$, not on $\psi$. Note that (average) $\psi=0$ for inclined flow (simple shear). (b) Variation of $\phi$ with $I$. The solid (silo) and dashed (inclined flow) lines are fits of Eq. \[eqn:phi\]. The respective fitting parameters for $\mu$ and $\phi$ are specified in the rectangular boxes.[]{data-label="fig:muphi"}](fig3){width="3.2in"}
![Scaled granular fluidity $1/\mu T$ versus $\phi$. The example error bar for $1/\mu T$ at its highest value is displayed on top right corner for silo. Inset shows variation of $1/\mu T$ with $I$. The legend is provided in Fig. \[fig:muphi\].[]{data-label="fig:muT"}](fig4){width="3.2in"}
We next analyze the rheology in terms of the scaled granular fluidity ($f$), which for steady granular flows is found to depend only on the solid fraction ($\phi$) [@kamrin2017]. In the present notation, the scaled granular fluidity is given by $f=1/(\mu T)$, where $T = u/\dot{\gamma}d$ and $u$ is the root mean square (r.m.s.) fluctuation velocity. Fig. \[fig:muT\] shows the variation of $1/\mu T$ with $\phi$ for all three flow configurations. The data collapse to a single curve reasonably well and the variation obtained is similar to what is obtained by Zhang and Kamrin [@kamrin2017], i.e., $f$ is nearly constant at low $\phi$ and decreases in close to linear fashion at large packing densities. Importantly, the range of $f$ obtained in the current two-dimensional systems is close to what is obtained in [@kamrin2017] for three dimensional flows. A minor departure is seen for smaller orifice sizes at low $\phi$. Given the close correlation between the solid fraction and the inertial number, we replot the data in Fig. \[fig:muT\] in terms of the inertial number in the inset. The collapse of the data for $I$ appears to be better in this case.
We investigated in detail, by means of numerical simulations, the rheology of steady, dense granular flows in three different planar geometries of increasing complexity. The local nature of the flows, as determined by the flow parameter ($\psi$), is shown to vary considerably, spanning the range from pure rotational flow to pure extensional flow. The data are analyzed in terms of the model of @jop2006 and the $\mu$–$I$ scaling is found to be valid for each geometry, but the data for the three geometries do not collapse to a single curve. Thus the scaling does not extend to two-dimensional flows. Analyzing the data in terms of the scaled granular fluidity yields a better collapse of the data to a single curve. This finding indicates the importance of including velocity fluctuations in the constitutive relation. The solid fraction scales with inertial number quite well and all the data collapse to a single curve, with $\phi(I)$ for all the geometries considered.
We thank Neeraj Kumbhakarna for providing access to his computational cluster for running simulations presented in this paper. Ashish Bhateja is grateful to Ken Kamrin for a useful discussion. Financial support of IIT Bombay and SERB, India (Grant No. SR/S2/JCB-34/2010) is gratefully acknowledged.
Supplementary Material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
Scaled dilation rate
--------------------
Figure \[fig:drate\] displays spatial distribution of scaled dilation rate $\epsilon=\nabla \cdot \bm{v}/\dot{\gamma}$ for the silo and inclined flow with intruder. The distribution is shown in the case of silo for domain excluding the points lying within $5d$ and $10d$ of the base and free surface, respectively. This region is that we consider for plotting $\mu$, $\phi$ and $1/\mu T$ with inertial number $I$ in Figs. 3 and 4 of the main text. The spatial distribution for the inclined flow is provided in the same vertical range as what is given for $\psi$ in the main text in Fig. 2, i.e., from the base to $y=20d$. We note that $\epsilon$ is largely below $5\%$ in both flows except for a few regions lying close to the base in the silo and in proximity to the intruder in the case of inclined flow. This demonstrates that the flow is nearly incompressible in the region that we consider for rheological measurements.
![Spatial distribution of scaled dilation rate $\epsilon=\nabla \cdot \bm{v}/\dot{\gamma}$ in case of (a) the discharging silo for $D_o = 20d$ and (b) the inclined flow with intruder for $\theta=19.5^o$. Qualitatively similar distribution is obtained for other orifice sizes and inclinations as well in the case of silo and inclined flows, respectively. The color scale for both plots is provided on top.[]{data-label="fig:drate"}](fig5.pdf)
Principal direction
-------------------
Figure \[fig:pdir\] shows spatial distribution of the angle ($\alpha$) between a principal direction of the stress tensor $\bm{\sigma}$ with that of the rate of deformation tensor $\bm{D}$, in the case of discharging silo for $D_o=20d$ and inclined flow with intruder for $\theta=19.5^{o}$. Again, as mentioned in the previous section, the data are considered for the domain excluding the points lying within $5d$ and $10d$ of the base and free surface, respectively. As displayed in Fig. \[fig:pdir\], the principal directions of $\bm{\sigma}$ and $\bm{D}$ nearly aligns with each other as $\alpha$ is mostly below $5^{o}$, barring a small fraction of the domain at the top in the case of silo (see Fig. \[fig:pdir\](a)) and adjacent to the intruder in the case of inclined flow (see Fig. \[fig:pdir\](b)). This shows largely the existence of coaxiality in the most of the flow region under investigation.
![Spatial distribution of the angle ($\alpha$) between the principal directions of $\bm{\sigma}$ and $\bm{D}$ in case of (a) the silo for $D_o=20d$ and (b) the inclined flow with intruder for $\theta=19.5^o$. Color scales for both plots are provided separately on their right side and the values on the color scales are given in degrees.[]{data-label="fig:pdir"}](fig6.pdf)
[48]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present inelastic neutron scattering data on highly overdoped $\rm Bi_2 Sr_2 Ca Cu_2 O_{8+\delta}$ single crystals with superconducting transition temperature $T_C=70$ K and, for comparison, a nearly optimally doped crystal with $T_C=87$ K. In both samples, magnetic resonant modes with odd and even symmetry under exchange of the two CuO$_2$ layers in the unit cell are observed. In the overdoped sample, the linewidth of the odd mode is reduced compared with the optimally doped sample. This finding is discussed in conjunction with recent evidence for intrinsic inhomogeneities in this compound. The data on odd and even resonant excitations are otherwise fully consistent with trends established on the basis of data on YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$. This confirms the universality of these findings and extends them into the highly overdoped regime of the phase diagram.'
author:
- 'L. Capogna$^{1,2,3,\ast}$, B. Fauqué$^{4}$, Y. Sidis$^4$, C. Ulrich$^3$, P. Bourges$^4$, S. Pailhès$^5$, A. Ivanov$^2$, J.L. Tallon$^6$, B. Liang$^{3,\ast\ast}$, C.T. Lin$^3$, A.I. Rykov $^7$, and B. Keimer$^3$'
title: 'Odd and even magnetic resonant modes in highly overdoped $\bf Bi_2 Sr_2 Ca Cu_2 O_{8+\delta}$ '
---
In high-$T_C$ superconducting (SC) copper oxides, the experimental study of low-energy excitations is essential to building and testing microscopic models incorporating strong electronic correlations. Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and inelastic neutron scattering (INS) are complementary momentum-resolved techniques to probe charge and spin excitation spectra, respectively. Comparison of ARPES and INS data is expected to shed light on the interaction between spin and charge excitations, which according to many models is at the root of the mechanism of high-$T_C$ superconductivity [@eschrig]. Among the different cuprate families, $\rm Bi_2 Sr_2 Ca Cu_2
O_{8+\delta}$ (Bi2212) is particularly suitable to carry out such a comparative study. Due to the high quality of its surface, this system has been widely investigated by ARPES [@campuzano]. However, INS measurements were prohibited for a long time because of the small size of the single crystals.
This problem has recently been overcome thanks to the improvement in neutron flux on triple axis spectrometers, and to the use of arrays of co-aligned single crystals [@fong; @he; @ybco]. ARPES studies have shown that in the underdoped and optimally doped regimes of the Bi2212 phase diagram, the system displays non-Fermi liquid properties with incoherent charge transport. The charge excitation spectrum displays pronounced anomalies around the $(\pi/a,0)$ and $(0, \pi /a)$ wave vectors in the SC state: the so-called peak-dip-hump feature. At the same time, a spin-triplet excitation referred to as the magnetic resonant mode has been observed by INS in optimally doped [@fong] and slightly overdoped [@he] Bi2212 at the planar wave vector $(\pi/a,
\pi/a)$ approximately connecting the wave vectors at which the peak-dip-hump feature is observed in ARPES, and at a characteristic energy $E_r$=43 meV that corresponds to the energy difference between the peak and the dip. As its counterpart in ARPES, this mode is only observed in the superconducting state. These observations point to a strong scattering process involving spin-charge coupling.
Extensive INS studies of the magnetic resonant mode have been performed in $\rm YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}$ (Y123) [@ybco], which shares its bilayer structure with Bi2212. In particular, it was shown that magnetic interactions between the two CuO$_2$ layers in a bilayer unit lead to the formation of two non-degenerate modes characterized by even and odd symmetries with respect to exchange of the layers [@pailhes1; @pailhes3]. The relative spectral weight of the two modes allows incisive tests of microscopic models of the resonant mode as well as a determination of the bulk superconducting energy gap as a function of doping [@pailhes2]. However, several drawbacks of the Y123 system make similar work on other families of high-temperature superconductors highly desirable. First, owing to problems with surface stability only limited ARPES data are available on this system [@lu; @borisenko], so that a quantitative comparison between ARPES and neutron scattering data has thus far not been carried out. Further, the Y123 crystal structure contains CuO chains, an electronically active but non-generic structural element. Although magnetic excitations originating from the CuO chains have thus far not been clearly identified, the influence of the chains on magnetic excitations in the CuO$_2$ planes is a matter of current debate [@manske; @yamase]. Finally, even with Ca substitution the doping levels accessible in Y123 are limited to the slightly overdoped regime.
Here we report the observation of even and odd magnetic excitations in the superconducting state of optimally doped and heavily overdoped Bi2212. The data encompass a doping level of $\delta=0.21$ that has thus far only been reached in neutron scattering experiments on La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (Ref. ). They are fully consistent with prior observations in Y123 [@pailhes1; @pailhes3; @pailhes2] and unequivocally demonstrate the universal nature of the bilayer spin excitations, independent of materials-specific aspects of the crystal structure. They also greatly extend our capability to correlate the results of INS and ARPES measurements in order to develop a quantitative description of the interaction between spin and charge excitations in the cuprates.
The INS measurements were performed, using the triple axis IN8 at the Institut Laue Langevin, Grenoble (France), on two $\rm Bi_2 Sr_2 Ca Cu_2
O_{8+\delta}$ single crystal specimens grown by the travelling solvent-floating zone method. The first one (OD87) was a monolithic, nearly optimally doped crystal of mass $\sim$1.5 g and superconducting transition temperature $T_C = 87$ K. Though this sample is lightly overdoped, for convenience, we refer to it hereafter as optimally doped. The second sample (OD70) was an array of smaller crystals co-aligned using x-ray Laue diffraction on aluminium plates. Prior to alignment, the crystals were annealed at 420 $^\circ$C under 7 bar of oxygen pressure for 5 days in order to increase the doping level well into the overdoped regime, so that $T_C$ was reduced to 70 K. The quality of each crystal was assessed by inspecting the Laue diffraction pattern and the width of the superconducting transition (about 3 K) as determined by susceptibility measurements. The mosaic spread of the array was $\sim 1.6^\circ$, and its total mass was $\sim$3 g. The INS experimental setup consisted of a pyrolytic graphite (PG) monochromator and a PG analyser, both set for the (002) reflection. No collimators were used in order to maximize the neutron flux. The samples were mounted in a He flow cryostat with the (H,H,0) and (0,0,L) crystal axes in the scattering plane. The wave vector transfer $\bf{Q}$ = (H,K,L) is given in units of reciprocal lattice vectors $a^* \sim b^* = 1.64 {\rm \AA}^{-1}$ and $c^* = 0.20 {\rm \AA}^{-1}$. In most measurements the final neutron wave vector was fixed to $k_f =4.1$ Å$^{-1}$, and a PG-filter was inserted between the sample and the analyser to cut higher order contaminations. The energy resolution in this configuration is $\sim 5$ meV at the energy transfers studied. In order to extend the energy range, a configuration with $k_f=5.5$ Å$^{-1}$ (with no PG-filter and energy resolution $\sim 8$ meV) was also adopted, and intensity corrections were applied accordingly.
The dynamical spin susceptibility $\chi(Q,\omega)$ of a bilayer system can be written as[@pailhes1]
$$\chi(Q,\omega) = sin^2(\pi zL) \chi_o(Q,\omega) + cos^2(\pi zL)
\chi_e(Q,\omega)$$
where $\chi_o$ and $\chi_e$ denote components that are odd and even, respectively, under exchange of the layers. $z$ denotes the layer separation expressed as a fraction of the unit cell dimension; $z=0.108$ for Bi2212. The component of the momentum transfer perpendicular to the layers, $L$, can hence be used to select either odd or even components of $\chi$.
In order to extract the magnetic contribution to the neutron scattering cross section, we followed procedures established in prior work on Y123 and Bi2212 [@ybco; @fong; @he]. In particular, it was shown that the magnetic resonant mode is sharply defined only in the superconducting state. The mode can thus be experimentally identified as a sharp enhancement in the difference of the neutron scattering intensity between a low temperature (5K) and a temperature just above the superconducting transition temperature. Figures \[fig1\] and \[fig2\] show const-[**Q**]{} scans at the in-plane wave vector transfer ${\bf
Q}_{\|}=(0.5, 0.5)$, where the spectral weight of the magnetic resonant mode is known to be maximum. The out-of-plane component of the wave vector transfer was adjusted such that only odd excitations contribute to the signal. Both data sets indeed reveal the characteristic low-temperature enhancement of the cross section associated with the magnetic resonant mode [@ybco; @fong; @he]. In order to ascertain the magnetic origin of the difference signal, the scans were repeated at ${\bf Q}_{\|}= (1.5,1.5)$, keeping $L$ fixed. At this position, a substantial reduction of the signal was observed. As phononic signals generally increase in higher Brillouin zones, this indicates that the signal is of magnetic origin. In both samples, the observed signals also exhibit other characteristic signatures of the magnetic resonant mode. Notably, the intensity enhancement is maximum around ${\bf Q}_{\|}=(0.5, 0.5)$ (not shown), and the intensity is gradually reduced upon heating and vanishes in an order-parameter-like fashion at the superconducting transition temperature (Fig. 3).
A comparison between the magnetic resonant modes in the odd channel of optimally doped and highly overdoped Bi2212 reveals interesting information. First, the mode energy decreases with doping. The energy of the mode in OD87, $E_r^o
= 42$ meV, is consistent with prior work on optimally doped Bi2212. In the highly overdoped sample $E_r^o = 34$ meV, substantially lower than that determined in a previously studied, slightly overdoped sample /cite[he]{}, but consistent with the relationship $E_r^o = 5.4 k_B T_C$ established on the basis of extensive work on Y123 and Bi2212 [@ybco]. The new data therefore underscore our conclusion that this relation holds generally in the cuprates, and extend its range of validity into the highly overdoped regime.
Another interesting observation concerns the energy width of the resonant mode. In the optimally doped sample, the energy width of the resonant mode is much broader than the instrumental resolution. This agrees with prior work on optimally doped and slightly overdoped samples [@fong; @he]. Due to the high quality of our samples, combined with the fact that samples from different origins exhibit the same broadening, $\Delta_{\omega}\sim$11 meV after a deconvolution of the energy resolution, it is unlikely that this broadening is of extraneous origin (arising, for instance, from a macroscopic oxygen concentration gradient). Remarkably, the odd peak in the overdoped sample is sharper, yielding $\Delta_{\omega}\sim$6 meV after the resolution deconvolution. This observation mirrors the doping dependence of the inhomogeneity of the superconducting energy gap extracted from scanning tunnelling spectroscopy data on Bi2212 [@mcelroy]. This inhomogeneity arises from nanometer-sized patches with different SC gap magnitudes, which follow the distribution of oxygen dopant ions. In the overdoped range, the distribution of gap amplitudes is significantly reduced[@jlee]. The parallel evolution of the width of (bulk-sensitive) neutron data on the magnetic resonant mode suggests that the SC gap distribution is not a pure surface phenomenon. In Y123, however, the resonant mode is resolution-limited even at optimum doping [@ybco]. The inhomogeneity is thus not generic to the cuprates, and it is not a precondition for high-temperature superconductivity.
We now turn to the measurements in the even channel, which is probed for $L=n/z$ with $n$ integer (Figs. 1b and 2b). At optimum doping, the signal at this position (determined in the same way as the odd signal discussed above) exhibits an enhancement in the superconducting state centered at an energy transfer of $E_r^e =54$ meV. Within the experimental error, this is identical to the energy of the even resonant mode recently identified in optimally doped Y123 [@pailhes3]. In the highly overdoped sample, a similar superconductivity-induced enhancement is observed around $E_r^e=35$ meV. As in Y123, the even mode exhibits the same characteristics as the odd mode, including the temperature dependence of the intensity with its onset at $T_C$ (Fig. 3). The even-odd splitting is thus dramatically reduced in the highly overdoped regime. This confirms and extends the trend established on the basis of data on overdoped Y123 [@pailhes1; @pailhes2]. In the overdoped sample, the even mode exhibits a larger energy linewidth compared with its odd counterpart. This feature is actually also observed in Y123 at all doping[@pailhes1; @pailhes3; @pailhes2]. The similarity of data on two distinct families of cuprates allows us to rule out materials-specific disorder as the origin of this broadening, so that an intrinsic mechanism appears to be at work.
As also observed in Y123[@pailhes1; @pailhes3; @pailhes2], the intensity ratio of both modes intensities changes significantly with doping. More quantitatively, we have extracted the energy-integrated spectral weights of odd and even modes, $W_r^{o,e}$[@pailhes2]. Using the fits of Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig2\] and taking into account the fact that the scattering intensity is further weighted by the magnetic form factor (which is $L$-dependent[@pailhes1]), one deduces a ratio $W_r^{o}/W_r^{e}$ varying from $\sim$ 2.8 in OD87 to $\sim$ 1.5 in OD70. As discussed in Refs. , an estimate of the threshold for particle-hole excitations in the superconducting state, $\omega_c$, can then be obtained in the framework of the spin exciton model, where the spectral weight is approximately proportional to the binding energy of the resonant mode: $W_r^{o,e}\propto (\omega_c -
E_r^{o,e})/\omega_c$. Fig. 4 provides a synopsis of the continuum threshold extracted in this way on the Bi2212 samples investigated here, along with analogous data on Y123. It is gratifying to see that the data on both systems are consistent. They are also consistent with the maximum superconducting energy gap extracted from ARPES[@mesot] and electronic Raman scattering (ERS)[@raman] data also shown in Fig. 4. This finding is important, because neutron scattering is a bulk probe, while ARPES and ERS are sensitive to surface preparation. It also provides further reassurance of the validity of the spin exciton model.
In conclusion, our experiments have shown that the magnetic excitations in Y123 and Bi2212 evolve in a strikingly similar way, despite the different crystal structures and the presence of the electronically active CuO chains in Y123. This represents a significant step in the quest for a generic spin response of the cuprates. We were also able to establish parallels between the doping evolution of the width of the magnetic resonant mode and the gap disorder recently observed by scanning tunnelling spectroscopy on Bi2212 surfaces, indicating that at least part of this effect may be also representative of the bulk of Bi2212.
This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Grant No. KE923/1–2 in the consortium FOR538.
[99]{}
To whom correspondence should be addressed; E-mail: [email protected]\
Present address: Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA. For a review, see M. Eschrig, Adv. Phys. [**55**]{}, 47 (2006). For a review, see J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman, and M. Randeria in “Physics of Conventional and Unconventional Superconductors", Vol. II, ed. K. H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer, Berlin, 2004), p. 167-273 (cond-mat/0209476). H.F. Fong, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, L.P. Regnault, A. Ivanov, G.D. Gu, N. Koshizuka, and B. Keimer, Nature [**398**]{}, 588 (1999). H. He, Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, G.D. Gu, A.Ivanov, N. Koshizuka, B. Liang, C.T. Lin, L. P. Regnault, E. Schoenherr, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1610 (2001). For a review, see Y. Sidis, S. Pailhès, B. Keimer, P. Bourges, C. Ulrich, and L. Regnault, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) [**241**]{}, 1204 (2004). S. Pailhès, Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, C. Ulrich, V. Hinkov, L.P. Regnault, A. Ivanov, C. Bernhard, B. Liang, C.T. Lin, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 237002 (2003). S. Pailhès, Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, V. Hinkov, A. Ivanov, C. Ulrich, L. P. Regnault, and B. Keimer Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 167001 (2004). S. Pailhès, C. Ulrich, B. Fauqué, V. Hinkov, Y. Sidis, A. Ivanov, C.T. Lin, B. Keimer, and P. Bourges, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 257001 (2006). D. H. Lu, D. L. Feng, N. P. Armitage, K. M. Shen, A. Damascelli, C. Kim, F. Ronning, Z.-X. Shen, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, W. N. Hardy, A. I. Rykov, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4370 (2001). S. V. Borisenko, A. A. Kordyuk, V. Zabolotnyy, J. Geck, D. Inosov, A. Koitzsch, J. Fink, M. Knupfer, B. Büchner, V. Hinkov, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, T. Wolf, S. G. Chiuzbian, L. Patthey, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 117004 (2006). H. Yamase and W. Metzner, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 214517 (2006). I. Eremin and D. Manske, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 067006 (2005). S. Wakimoto, H. Zhang, K. Yamada, I. Swainson, H. Kim, and R.J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 217004 (2004). K. McElroy, J. Lee, J.A. Slezak, D.H. Lee, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, J.C. Davis, Science [**309**]{}, 1048 (2005). J. Lee, K. Fujita, K. McElroy, J. A. Slezak, M. Wang, Y. Aiura, H. Bando, M. Ishikado, T. Masui, J.-X. Zhu, A. V. Balatsky, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Nature [**442**]{} 546 (2006). A.J. Millis and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 16172 (1996). J. Mesot, M. Norman, H. Ding, M. Randeria, J. Campuzano, A. Paramekanti, H. Fretwell, A. Kaminski, T. Takeuchi, T. Yokoya, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, and K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 840 (1999). See a compilation of ERS data in A. V. Chubukov, T. P. Devereaux, M. V. Klein, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 094512 (2006).
![Resonant magnetic modes in nearly optimally doped $\rm
Bi_2 Sr_2 Ca Cu_2 O_{8+\delta}$ ($T_C$=87 K) (OD87) measured at ${\bf Q}
=(0.5,0.5,L)$ in the (a) odd channel ($L$=14) and (b) even channel ($L$=18). The signal is obtained by subtracting the intensity at T=5K from the intensity above $T_C$. The full lines are the result of a fit by a Gaussian profile on top of a background (dotted lines). The shape of this background is given by the difference between the phonon populations at the two temperatures, yielding negative values at low energy. The diamond symbols correspond to the background level obtained by constant energy scans. Mn stands for monitor. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps.eps){width="12cm"}
![Same as Fig. \[fig1\] in OD70, highly overdoped $\rm Bi_2 Sr_2
Ca Cu_2 O_{8+\delta}$ ($T_C$=70 K), in (a) odd channel ($L$=13.2) and (b) even channel ($L$=9.6). Note that the magnitude of the odd mode in absolute units is actually $\sim$ 3 times weaker in OD70 than in OD87. An accurate value cannot be given due to uncertainties in the calibration procedure. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps.eps){width="12cm"}
![Temperature dependence of the peak intensity of both odd (left panel) and even (right panel) resonant modes (empty symbols) in OD70. The solid symbols show the temperature evolution of the intensity at a background point away from the magnetic wave vector. The solid lines are the results of fits to the data obtained using a power law in the superconducting state on top of a phononic background. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig3.eps.eps){width="12cm"}
![Evolution of the magnetic resonant mode energy as a function of the hole concentration $\delta$ in the Bi2212 system. (see Ref. for the definition of $\delta$ ). The full symbols represent the odd ($E_r^{o}$) and even ($E_r^{e}$) modes, and the threshold energy ($\omega_c$)as explained in the legend. The open symbols are the energy gap measured by ARPES[@mesot] and by Electronic Raman Scattering (ERS)[@raman]. The inset shows the equivalent diagram for Y123 [@pailhes2].[]{data-label="fig5mod"}](fig4.eps.eps){width="12cm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider equivariant dimensional reduction of Yang-Mills theory on Kähler manifolds of the form $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. This induces a rank two quiver gauge theory on $M$ which can be formulated as a Yang-Mills theory of graded connections on $M$. The reduction of the Yang-Mills equations on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ induces quiver gauge theory equations on $M$ and quiver vortex equations in the BPS sector. When $M$ is the noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$ both BPS and non-BPS solutions are obtained, and interpreted as states of D-branes. Using the graded connection formalism, we assign D0-brane charges in equivariant K-theory to the quiver vortex configurations. Some categorical properties of these quiver brane configurations are also described in terms of the corresponding quiver representations.'
---
hep-th/0603232\
ITP–UH–07/06\
HWM–06–6\
EMPG–06–03\
1.8cm
[**Rank Two Quiver Gauge Theory, Graded Connections\
and Noncommutative Vortices**]{}
[Olaf Lechtenfeld${}^1$]{}, [Alexander D. Popov${}^{1,2}$]{} and [Richard J. Szabo${}^3$]{}\
${}^1$[*Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hannover\
Appelstraße 2, 30167 Hannover, Germany* ]{}\
${}^2$[*Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR\
141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia*]{}\
${}^3$[*Department of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences\
Heriot-Watt University, Colin Maclaurin Building, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, U.K.*]{}\
[Email: [lechtenf, popov @itp.uni-hannover.de , [email protected]]{}]{}
Introduction and summary \[Intro\]
==================================
It has become clear in recent years that a proper description of the nonperturbative vacuum in string theory will require detailed understanding of the properties of systems of both BPS and non-BPS brane configurations (see [@Senrev1] for a recent review). The basic non-BPS system is the unstable brane-antibrane configuration which corresponds to a pair of vector bundles with a tachyon field mapping between them. The dynamics of this system can be cast as a Yang-Mills theory of superconnections [@AIO1]. In some instances the branes can be realized as instantons of gauge theory in the appropriate dimensionality [@Douglas1]. Important examples of this are noncommutative solitons and instantons which find their most natural physical interpretations in terms of D-branes [@DMR1]. This is related [@Matsuo1] to the fact that the charges of D-branes are classified by K-theory [@MM1]. Reviews on noncommutative solitons and D-branes can be found in [@Haman], while applications of BPS soliton solutions in noncommutative (supersymmetric) Yang-Mills theory to D-brane dynamics are given e.g. in [@BPSNCD1].
One way to generate both stable and unstable states of D-branes is by placing them at singularities of orbifolds [@quiverG; @quivercat]. Regular representation D-branes then decay into irreducible representation fractional branes under the action of the discrete orbifold group. The low-energy dynamics of the D-brane decay is succinctly described by a quiver gauge theory. Resolving orbifold singularities by non-contractible cycles blows up the fractional D-branes into higher dimensional branes wrapping the cycles. Another way of obtaining quiver gauge theories on a $q$-dimensional manifold $M$ is to consider $k$ coincident D($q{+}r$)-branes wrapping the worldvolume manifold $X=M{{\times}}G/H$ where $G/H$ is an $r$-dimensional homogeneous space for a Lie group $G$ with a closed subgroup $H$. In the standard interpretation this system of D-branes corresponds to a rank $k$ hermitean vector bundle $\cal E$ over $X$ with a connection whose dynamics are governed by Yang-Mills gauge theory. For Kähler manifolds $X$ the stability of such bundles (BPS conditions) is controlled by the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau (DUY) equations [@DUY1]. For $G$-equivariant bundles ${\cal E}\to X$ one finds that Yang-Mills theory on $X$ reduces to a quiver gauge theory on $M$ [@Garcia1]–[@A-CG-P2].
In this paper we will focus on some of these issues in quiver gauge theories on Kähler manifolds $M$ which arise via a quotient by the natural action of the Lie group ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$ on equivariant Chan-Paton bundles over $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. Our analysis generalizes previous work on brane-antibrane systems from reduction on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ [@Garcia1; @IL; @LPS], and on the generalization to chains of branes and antibranes arising from ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-equivariant dimensional reduction on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ [@A-CG-P3; @PS1]. In particular, we will expand on the formalism introduced in [@PS1] which merged the low-energy dynamics of brane-antibrane chains with quiver gauge theory into a Yang-Mills gauge theory of new objects on $M$ termed “graded connections”, which generalize the usual superconnections on the worldvolumes of coincident brane-antibrane pairs. This formalism is particularly well-suited to describe such physical instances and their novel effects, such as the equivalence between non-abelian quiver vortices on $M$ and symmetric multi-instantons on the higher-dimensional space $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. Moreover, when $M$ is the noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$, it enables one to interpret noncommutative quiver solitons in the present case as states of D-branes in a straightforward manner, whilst providing a categorical approach to D-branes which characterizes their moduli beyond their K-theory charges. These quiver brane configurations require a more complex description than just that in terms of branes and antibranes, and we construct a category of D-branes which incorporates both their locations and their bindings to abelian magnetic monopoles.
The essential new ingredients of the present paper are that our quivers are of rank two, as opposed to the rank one quivers considered in [@PS1], and the necessity of imposing relations on the quiver. The resulting quiver D-brane configuration is new, and comprises a two-dimensional lattice of branes and antibranes coupled to ${{{\rm U}(1)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm U}(1)}}$ Dirac monopole fields with interesting dynamics formulated through a higher-rank gauge theory of graded connections. We will also elaborate further on some of the constructions introduced in [@PS1].
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section \[Eqgauge\] we describe general features of the ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-equivariant reduction of gauge theories on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ to an arbitrary Kähler manifold $M$, including the special case of the noncommutative euclidean space $M={{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$. In Section \[QGT\] we describe various features of the induced quiver gauge theory on $M$ and develop the associated formalism of graded connections in this case. In Section \[NCinst\] we analyse the general structure of quiver gauge theory on $M$ and the quiver vortex equations which describe the BPS sector. We then construct both BPS and non-BPS solutions of the Yang-Mills equations on the noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\theta{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, describe their induced quiver representations, and analyse in detail the structure of the moduli space of noncommutative instantons. Finally, in Section \[Dcharges\] we realize our noncommutative instantons as configurations of D-branes by computing their topological charges, by computing their K-theory charges through a noncommutative equivariant version of the ABS construction, and by realizing them as objects in the category of quiver representations using some techniques of homological algebra.
Equivariant gauge theory \[Eqgauge\]
====================================
In this section we will analyse some aspects of ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-equivariant gauge theory on spaces of the form $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, where $M$ is a Kähler manifold. After some preliminary definitions, we describe the equivariant decomposition of generic gauge bundles over $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, and of their connections and curvatures. We then write down the corresponding Yang-Mills action functional and explain the generalization to noncommutative gauge theory. Equivariant dimensional reduction is described in general in [@A-CG-P1], while general aspects of noncommutative field theories are reviewed in [@Harvey].
The Kähler manifold ${M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1}$ \[Mdef\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a Kähler manifold of real dimension $2n$ with local real coordinates $x=(x^\m )\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$, where the indices $\m ,\n
,\ldots$ run through $1,\ldots , 2n$. Let $S^2_{(\ell)}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$, $\ell=1,2$, be two copies of the standard two-sphere of constant radii $R_\ell$ with coordinates $\vt_\ell\in[0,\pi]$ and $\vp_\ell\in[0,2\pi]$. We shall consider the product $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(2)}^1$ which is also a Kähler manifold with local complex coordinates $(z^1,\dots,z^n,y_1,y_2)\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^{n+2}$ and their complex conjugates, where $$\label{zz}
z^a\=x^{2a-1}-{\,\mathrm{i}\,}\,x^{2a} \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{a}}}}\=x^{2a-1}+{\,\mathrm{i}\,}\,x^{2a} \qquad\textrm{with}\quad
a\=1,\ldots,n$$ while $$\label{zn1}
y_\ell\=\frac{\sin\vt_\ell}{1+\cos\vt_\ell}\,\exp{(-{\,\mathrm{i}\,}\vp_\ell)}
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
{{\bar{y}}}_\ell\=\frac{\sin\vt_\ell}{1+\cos\vt_\ell}\,\exp{({\,\mathrm{i}\,}\vp_\ell)}
\qquad\textrm{with}\quad \ell\=1,2 \ .$$ In these coordinates the riemannian metric s\^2=g\_ x\^ x\^ \[metrichat\]on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ takes the form \[metric3\] s\^2 &=& g\_ x\^ x\^ + R\_1\^2(\_1\^2 + \^2\_1 \_1\^2) + R\_2\^2(\_2\^2 + \^2\_2 \_2\^2)\
&= & 2g\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} z\^a [[|[z]{}]{}]{}\^[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} + y\_1 [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 + y\_2 [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 , where hatted indices $\hat\mu,\hat\nu,\dots$ run over $1,\dots,2n+4$. The Kähler two-form $\Omega $ is given by \[kahler\] &=&\_ x\^x\^+ R\^2\_1\_1 \_1\_1 + R\^2\_2\_2 \_2\_2\
&=&- 2g\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} z\^a[[|[z]{}]{}]{}\^[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} - y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 - y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 .
Equivariant vector bundles \[eqvecbun\]
---------------------------------------
Let ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(2)}^1$ be a hermitean vector bundle of rank $k$. We wish to impose the condition of $G$-equivariance on this bundle with the group $G:={{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$ of rank $2$ acting trivially on $M$ and in the standard way on the homogeneous space ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1\cong G/H$, where $H:={{{\rm U}(1)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm U}(1)}}$ is a maximal torus of $G$. This means that we should look for representations of the group $G$ inside the ${{{\rm U}(k)}}$ structure group of the bundle $\cal E$, i.e. for $k$-dimensional unitary representations of $G$. For every pair of positive integers $k_i$ and $k_\alpha$, up to isomorphism there are unique irreducible ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-modules $\underline{V}_{\,k_i}$ and $\underline{V}_{\,k_\alpha}$ of dimensions $k_i$ and $k_\alpha$, respectively, and consequently a unique irreducible representation $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\alpha}}:=\underline{V}_{\,k_i}\otimes
\underline{V}_{\,k_\alpha}$ of $G$ with dimension $k_{i\alpha}:=k_i\,k_\alpha$. Thus, for each pair of positive integers $m_1$ and $m_2$, the module =\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{} \^[k\_[i]{}]{}\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}k\_[i]{}k \[genrepSU2Uk\]gives a representation of ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$ inside ${\rm U}(k)$. The structure group of the bundle $\cal E$ is correspondingly broken as (k) \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}[U]{}(k\_[i]{}) . \[gaugebroken\]As a result, we must construct bundles ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(2)}^1$ whose typical fibres $\underline{\cal
V}$ are complex vector spaces with a direct sum decomposition as in (\[genrepSU2Uk\]). We will now describe how this is done explicitly.
There are natural equivalence functors between the categories of $G$-equivariant vector bundles over $M{{\times}}G/H$ and $H$-equivariant bundles over $M$, where $H$ acts trivially on $M$ [@A-CG-P1]. If $E\to
M$ is an $H$-equivariant bundle, then it defines a $G$-equivariant bundle ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ by induction as =G\_HE , \[calEind\]where the $H$-action on $G{{\times}}E$ is given by $h\cdot(g,e)=(g\,h^{-1},h\cdot e)$ for $h\in H$, $g\in G$ and $e\in
E$. We therefore focus our attention on the structure of $H$-equivariant bundles $E\to M$. For this, it is more convenient to work in a holomorphic setting by passing to the universal complexification $G^{\rm c}:=G\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}={{{\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}$ of the Lie group $G$. If ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ is a $G$-equivariant vector bundle, then the $G$-action can be extended to an action of $G^{\rm c}$. Let $K={{\rm P}}{{\times}}{{\rm P}}$ be the Borel subgroup of $G^{\rm c}$ with ${{\rm P}}$ the group of lower triangular matrices in ${{{\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}$. Its Levi decomposition is given by $K=U\ltimes H^{\rm c}$, where $H^{\rm c}:=H\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}={{\mathbb{C}}}^\times{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}^\times$. A representation $\underline{V}$ of $K$ is irreducible if and only if the action of $U$ on $\underline{V}$ is trivial and the restriction $\underline{V}\,|_{H^{\rm c}}$ is irreducible. It follows that there is a one-to-one correspondence between irreducible representations of $K$ and irreducible representations of the Cartan subgroup $H^{\rm
c}\subset G^{\rm c}$. The natural map ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1=G/H\to G^{\rm c}/K$ is a diffeomorphism of projective varieties. The categorical equivalence above can then be reformulated as a one-to-one correspondence between $G^{\rm c}$-equivariant bundles ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ and $K$-equivariant bundles over $M$, with $K$ acting trivially on $M$.
The Lie algebra ${{{\rm sl}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}$ is generated by the three Pauli matrices \_3=
1&0\
0&-1
, \_+=
0&1\
0&0
\_-=
0&0\
1&0
\[sl2cmatrices\]with the commutation relations =2\_=\_3 . \[sl2cLie\]The Lie algebra of $U$ is generated by two independent copies of the element $\sigma_-$, while the Cartan subgroup $H^{\rm c}$ is generated by two independent copies of the element $\sigma_3$. For each $p\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ there is a unique irreducible representation $\underline{S}_{\,p}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}$ of ${{\mathbb{C}}}^\times$ given by $\zeta\cdot
v=\zeta^p\,v$ for $\zeta\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^\times$ and $v\in\underline{S}_{\,p}$. Thus for each pair of integers $p_1,p_2$ there is a unique irreducible module $\underline{S}^{(1)}_{\,p_1}\otimes\underline{S}^{(2)}_{\,p_2}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}$ over the subgroup $H^{\rm
c}={{\mathbb{C}}}^\times_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}^\times_{(2)}$. Since the manifold $M$ carries the trivial action of the group $H^{\rm c}$, any $K$-equivariant bundle $E\to M$ admits a finite Whitney sum decomposition into isotopical components as $E=\bigoplus_{p_1,p_2}\,E_{p_1\,p_2}\otimes
\underline{S}^{(1)}_{\,p_1}\otimes\underline{S}^{(2)}_{\,p_2}$, where the sum runs over the set of eigenvalues for the $H^{\rm c}$-action on $E$ and $E_{p_1\,p_2}\to M$ are bundles with the trivial $H^{\rm
c}$-action. From the commutation relations (\[sl2cLie\]) it follows that the $U$-action on $E_{p_1\,p_2}\otimes
\underline{S}^{(1)}_{\,p_1}\otimes\underline{S}^{(2)}_{\,p_2}$ corresponds to independent bundle morphisms $E_{p_1\,p_2}\to
E_{p_1-2\,p_2}$ and $E_{p_1\,p_2}\to E_{p_1\,p_2-2}$, along with the trivial $\sigma_-$-actions on the irreducible $H^{\rm c}$-modules $\underline{S}^{(1)}_{\,p_1}\otimes\underline{S}^{(2)}_{\,p_2}$.
After an appropriate twist by an $H^{\rm c}$-module and a relabelling, the $\sigma_3$-actions are given by the $H^{\rm c}$-equivariant decomposition E=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}E\_[k\_[i]{}]{} \^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_2-2]{} , \[Hceqdecomp\]while the $U$-action is determined through the diagram
E\^\_[k\_[m\_10]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_10]{}]{}>> E\^\_[k\_[m\_1-10]{}]{}@>[\_[m\_1-10]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}>>@> [\_[10]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}>>E\^\_[k\_[00]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_11]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_1-11]{}]{}AA@.@AA[\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}]{}A\
@.@.@.\
@A[\_[m\_1m\_2-1]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_1-1m\_2-1]{}]{}AA@.@AA [\^[(2)]{}\_[0m\_2-1]{}]{}A\
E\^\_[k\_[m\_1m\_2-1]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1m\_2-1]{}]{}>> E\^\_[k\_[m\_1-1m\_2-1]{}]{}@>[\_[m\_1-1m\_2-1]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}>> @>[\^[(1)]{}\_[1m\_2-1]{}]{}>>E\^\_[k\_[0m\_2-1]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_1m\_2]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_1-1m\_2]{}]{}AA@.@AA [\^[(2)]{}\_[0m\_2]{}]{}A\
E\^\_[k\_[m\_1m\_2]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1m\_2]{}]{}> E\^\_[k\_[m\_1-1m\_2]{}]{}@>>[\_[m\_1-1m\_2]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}> @>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[1m\_2]{}]{}>E\^\_[k\_[0m\_2]{}]{}
\[bundlediag\]of holomorphic bundle maps with ${\phi^{(1)}_{m_1+1\;
\a}}=0=\phi^{(1)}_{0 \a}$ for $\a = 0,1,\ldots ,m_2$ and ${\phi^{(2)}_{i\; m_2+1}}=0=\phi^{(2)}_{i0}$ for $i = 0,1,\ldots
,m_1$. Since the Lie algebra of $U$ is abelian, these maps generate a [*commutative*]{} bundle diagram (\[bundlediag\]), i.e. for each $i,\alpha$ one has \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1+1]{}= \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1+1]{} . \[phicommrels\]Finally, we can now consider the underlying $H$-equivariant hermitean vector bundle and introduce the standard $p_\ell$-monopole line bundles [[L]{}]{}\_[()]{}\^[p\_]{}=[[[SU]{}(2)]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[()]{}\_[p\_]{} \[monbundles\]over the homogeneous spaces ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ for $\ell=1,2$. Then the original rank $k$ hermitean vector bundle (\[calEind\]) over $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ admits an equivariant decomposition =\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}[E]{}\_[i]{} \_[i]{}Ē\_[k\^\_[i]{}]{}[[L]{}]{}\^[m\_1-2i]{}\_[(1)]{}[[L]{}]{}\^[m\_2-2]{}\_[(2)]{} , \[calEansatz\]where $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$ is a hermitean vector bundle of rank $k_{i\a}$ with typical fibre the module $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}$ in (\[genrepSU2Uk\]), and ${\cal E}_{i\a}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ is the bundle with fibres ([E]{}\_[i]{})\_[(x,y\_1,[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1,y\_2,[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2)]{}= (E\_[k\_[i]{}]{})\_[x]{}([[L]{}]{}\_[(1)]{}\^[m\_1-2i]{} )\_[(y\_1,[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1)]{} ([[L]{}]{}\_[(2)]{}\^[m\_2-2]{})\_[(y\_2,[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2)]{} .
Equivariant gauge fields \[invgauge\]
-------------------------------------
Let ${{\cal{A}}}$ be a connection on the hermitean vector bundle ${{\cal E}}\to
M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ having the form ${{\cal{A}}}={{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\mu}\,{\mathrm{d}}x^{\hat\mu}$ in local coordinates $(x^{\hat\mu})$ and taking values in the Lie algebra ${\rm u}(k)$. We will now describe the $G$-equivariant reduction of ${{\cal{A}}}$ on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2_{(2)}$. The spherical dependences are completely determined by the unique ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-invariant connections $a_{p_\ell}^{(\ell)}$, $\ell=1,2$, on the monopole line bundles (\[monbundles\]) having, in local complex coordinates on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$, the forms \[f1\] a\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{} = ([[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_ y\_-y\_ [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_) . The curvatures of these connections are f\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{}=a\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{}= - y\_[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_ , \[f2\] and their topological charges are given by the degrees of the complex line bundles ${{\cal L}}_{(\ell)}^{p_\ell}\to{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ as [[L]{}]{}\^[p\_]{}\_[()]{} = \_[P\^1\_[()]{}]{}f\^[()]{}\_[p\_]{} = p\_ . \[f3\] In the spherical coordinates $(\vt^{}_\ell,\vp^{}_\ell)\in S_{(\ell)}^2$ the monopole fields can be written as a\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{}=-(1-\_) \_f\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{}=a\_[p\_]{}\^[()]{}=-\_ \_\_ . \[am\] Related to the monopole fields are the unique, covariantly constant ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-invariant forms of types $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ given respectively by $$\label{f8}
\beta_\ell\= \frac{{\mathrm{d}}y_\ell}{1 +y_\ell{{\bar{y}}}_\ell} \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad
\bar{\b}_\ell\= \frac{{\mathrm{d}}{{\bar{y}}}_\ell}{1 +y_\ell{{\bar{y}}}_\ell}\ .$$ They take values respectively in the components ${{\cal L}}_{(\ell)}^2$ and ${{\cal L}}_{(\ell)}^{-2}$ of the complexified cotangent bundle $T^*{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}={{\cal L}}_{(\ell)}^2\oplus{{\cal L}}_{(\ell)}^{-2}$ over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$. Note that there is no summation over the index $\ell$ in (\[f1\])–(\[f8\]).
With respect to the isotopical decomposition (\[calEansatz\]), the twisted ${\rm u}(k)$-valued gauge potential ${{\cal{A}}}$ thus splits into $k^{}_{i\a}{{\times}}k^{}_{j\b}$ blocks as $$\label{f4}
{{\cal{A}}}\=\left({{\cal{A}}}^{i\a ,\,j\b}\right) \qquad\mbox{with}\quad
{{\cal{A}}}^{i\a ,\,j\b}~\in~\mbox{Hom}\bigl(\,\underline{V}^{}_{\,k_{j\b}}\,,\,
\underline{V}^{}_{\,k_{i\a}}\bigr) \ ,$$ where \^[i,i]{}&=&A\^[i]{}(x)11 + \_[k\^\_[i]{}]{}(a\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}(y\_1)1 + 1a\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}(y\_2) ) , \[f6a\]\
\[f6\] \^[i,i+1]{}&=:&\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} = \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}(x)|\_1(y\_1)1 ,\
\[f7\] \^[i+1,i]{}&=&-(\^[i,i+1]{})\^ =-(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}(x))\^ \_1(y\_1)1 ,\
\[ff6\] \^[i,i+1]{}&=:&\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} = \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}(x)1|\_2(y\_2) ,\
\[ff7\] \^[i+1,i]{}&=&-(\^[i,i+1]{})\^ =-(\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}(x))\^ 1\_2(y\_2) . All other components ${{\cal{A}}}^{i\a ,\,j\b}$ vanish, while the bundle morphisms $\Phi_{i+1\,\a}^{(1)}\in{\rm Hom}({{\cal E}}_{i+1\,\a},{{\cal E}}_{i\a})$ and $\Phi_{i\,\a+1}^{(2)}\in {\rm Hom}({{\cal E}}_{i\,\a+1},{{\cal E}}_{i\a})$ obey ${\Phi^{(1)}_{m_1+1\;\a}}=0=\Phi^{(1)}_{0 \a}$ for $\a = 0,1,\ldots
,m_2$ and ${\Phi^{(2)}_{i\; m_2+1}}=0=\Phi^{(2)}_{i0}$ for $i = 0,1,\ldots
,m_1$. The gauge potentials $A^{i\a}\in{\rm u}(k_{i\a})$ are connections on the hermitean vector bundles $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$, while the bi-fundamental scalar fields $\phi_{i+1\,\a}^{(1)}$ and $\phi_{i\,\a+1}^{(2)}$ transform in the representations $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}\otimes\underline{V}_{\,k_{i+1\,\a}}^\vee$ and $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}\otimes\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\,\a+1}}^\vee$ of the subgroups ${\rm U}(k_{i\a}){{\times}}{\rm U}(k_{i+1\,\a})$ and ${\rm U}(k_{i\a}){{\times}}{\rm U}(k_{i\,\a+1})$ of the original ${{{\rm U}(k)}}$ gauge group.
The curvature two-form ${{\cal{F}}}={\mathrm{d}}{{\cal{A}}}+ {{\cal{A}}}\wedge{{\cal{A}}}$ of the connection ${{\cal{A}}}$ has components ${{\cal{F}}}_{\hat\mu\hat\nu}=
\pa_{\hat\mu}{{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\nu} - \pa_{\hat\nu}{{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\mu} + [{{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\mu},
{{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\nu}]$ in local coordinates $(x^{\hat\mu})$, where $\pa_{\hat\mu}:=\pa /\pa x^{\hat\mu}$. It also take values in the Lie algebra ${\rm u}(k)$, and in local coordinates on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ it can be written as &=&\_ x\^x\^ + \_[y\_1]{} x\^y\_1 + \_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} x\^[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 +\_[y\_2]{} x\^y\_2\
&&+\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} x\^[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 + \_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1+ \_[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 + \_[y\_1 y\_2]{} y\_1y\_2\
&&+\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 + \_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2 + \_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 y\_2]{} [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1y\_2 . \[curvprod\] The calculation of the curvature (\[curvprod\]) for ${{\cal{A}}}$ of the form (\[f4\])–(\[ff7\]) yields $$\label{f10}
{{\cal{F}}}\=\left({{\cal{F}}}^{i\a ,\, j\b}\right) \qquad\mbox{with}\quad
{{\cal{F}}}^{i\a ,\, j\b} \= {{\mathrm{d}}}{{\cal{A}}}^{i\a ,\, j\b} +
\sum_{l =0}^{m_1}~\sum_{\g =0}^{m_2}\,{{\cal{A}}}^{i\a ,\, l\g}\wedge {{\cal{A}}}^{l\g ,\, j\b}
\ ,$$ where \^[i, i]{}&=&F\^[i]{}+f\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{} +f\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}\
&& +(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{}(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{})\^ - (\_[i]{}\^[(1)]{})\^ \_[i]{}\^[(1)]{} ) (\_1\_1)\
&& +(\^[(2)]{}\_[i +1]{} (\^[(2)]{}\_[i +1]{})\^ - (\_[i]{}\^[(2)]{} )\^ \_[i]{}\^[(2)]{} ) (\_2\_2) , \[f11\]\
\[f12\] \^[i,i+1]{}&=&D \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}\_1 ,\
\[f13\] \^[i+1,i]{}&=&-( \^[i,i+1]{})\^ =-(D \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ \_1 ,\
\[ff12\] \^[i,i+1]{}&=&D \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}\_2 ,\
\[ff13\] \^[i+1,i]{}&=&-( \^[i,i+1]{})\^ =-(D \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ \_2 ,\
\[fc1\] \^[i, i+1+1]{}&=&(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1 +1]{}- \_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{} \_[i+1+1]{}\^[(1)]{} ) [|]{}\_1\_2 ,\
\[fc2\] \^[i+1+1, i]{}&=&- (\^[i, i+1+1]{})\^ = - (\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1 +1]{}-\_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1+1]{}\^[(1)]{} )\^ \_1\_2 ,\
\[fc3\] \^[i+1, i+1]{}&=&((\^[(2)]{}\_[i +1]{} )\^\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{}- \_[i+1+1]{}\^[(1)]{}(\_[i+1+1]{}\^[(2)]{})\^ ) [|]{}\_1\_2 ,\
\[fc4\] \^[i+1, i+1]{}&=&- (\^[i+1, i+1]{})\^ = ((\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1 ]{} )\^\^[(2)]{}\_[i +1]{}-\_[i+1+1]{}\^[(2)]{} (\_[i+1+1]{}\^[(1)]{})\^ ) [|]{}\_2\_1 \[f14\] with all other components vanishing. We have suppressed the tensor product structure pertaining to $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ in (\[f11\])–(\[f14\]). Here $F^{i\a}:={\mathrm{d}}A^{i\a} +
A^{i\a}\wedge A^{i\a}=\frac12\,F_{\mu\nu}^{i\a}~{\mathrm{d}}x^\mu\wedge{\mathrm{d}}x^\nu$ are the curvatures of the bundles $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$, and we have introduced the bi-fundamental covariant derivatives D \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}&:=& \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{} ,\
D \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}&:=& \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{} . \[covderivs\]
From (\[f11\])–(\[f14\]) we find the non-vanishing field strength components \[f15\] \^[i,i]{}\_[ ]{}&=&F\^[i]{}\_[ ]{} ,\
\[f16\] \^[i,i+1]{}\_[ [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}&=& D\_[ ]{} \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} = - (\^[i+1,i]{}\_[ y\_1]{})\^ ,\
\[fc16\] \^[i,i+1]{}\_[ [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}&=& D\_[ ]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} = - (\^[i+1,i]{}\_[ y\_2]{})\^ ,\
\[fc17\] \^[i,i]{}\_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}&=& - ((m\_1-2i) \_[k\_[i]{}]{}+(\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{} )\^\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^) ,\
\[fc18\] \^[i,i]{}\_[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}&=& - ((m\_2-2) \_[k\_[i]{}]{}+(\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{})\^ \^[(2)]{}\_[i]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}(\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^) and \^[i,i+1+1]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}&=& =- (\^[i+1+1, i]{}\_[y\_1y\_2]{})\^ , \[Fyy\]\
\^[i+1,i+1]{}\_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}&=& =-(\^[i+1, i+1]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1y\_2]{})\^ . \[Fyyb\]Note that at this stage we do not generally require the imposition of the holomorphic constraints (\[phicommrels\]) in this ansatz, which ensure that the bundle diagram (\[bundlediag\]) commutes. Later on we will see that they arise as a [*dynamical*]{} constraint for BPS solutions of the Yang-Mills equations on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ that force the vanishing of the cross-components (\[Fyy\]) of the field strength tensor between the two copies of the sphere. In fact, our particular ansatz in the noncommutative gauge theory will automatically satisfy this condition, as well as the analogous ones which force the cross-components (\[Fyyb\]) to vanish.
The Yang-Mills functional\[YMfunct\]
------------------------------------
Let us now consider the equivariant reduction of the Yang-Mills lagrangian L\^[ ]{}\_[YM]{}&:=&- [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[kk]{}\_\^[ ]{}\
&=&- [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[kk]{} {\_\^+ g\^ g\^[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} (\_[y\_1]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}+\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}\_[y\_1]{} ).\
&& +g\^ g\^[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} (\_[y\_2]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}+\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[y\_2]{} )-2(g\^[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}\_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{})\^2- 2(g\^[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{})\^2\
&& +2 .g\^[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} g\^[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} (\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[y\_1 y\_2]{}+ \_[y\_1 y\_2]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} + \_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 y\_2]{}\_[y\_1 [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}+ \_[y\_1 [[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1 y\_2]{} )} , \[lagrprod\] where $\hat g=\det (g_{\hat\mu\hat\nu})=g~g^{}_{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}}~g^{}_{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}}$ with $g=\det(g_{\mu\nu})$ and = =(g\^[y\_[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{})\^[-1]{} . For the ansatz of the Section \[invgauge\] above we substitute (\[f15\])–(\[Fyyb\]). After integration over the spherical factors ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$, the dimensional reduction of the corresponding Yang-Mills action functional is given by S\^[ ]{}\_[YM]{}&:=&\_[M[P\^1\_[(1)]{}]{}[P\^1\_[(2)]{}]{}]{} [\^[2n+4]{}]{}x L\_[YM]{}\^[ ]{}\
&=&R\_1\^2R\_2\^2 \_M\^[2n]{}x \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}[[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[k\_[i]{}k\_[i]{}]{} .
All individual terms in (\[SYMred\]) are $k_{i\a}{{\times}}k_{i\a}$ matrices. Recall that $\phi^{(1)}_{i+1\,\a}$ are $k^{}_{i\a}{{\times}}k^{}_{i+1\,\a}$ matrices, $\phi^{(2)}_{i\,\a+1}$ are $k^{}_{i\a}{{\times}}k^{}_{i\,\a+1}$ matrices and $A^{i\a}_{\m }$ are $k^{}_{i\a}{{\times}}k^{}_{i\a}$ matrices. The action (\[SYMred\]) is non-negative, and it can be regarded as an energy functional for static fields on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,1}{{\times}}M$ in the temporal gauge.
Noncommutative gauge theory \[NGT\]
-----------------------------------
When we come to construct explicit solutions of the Yang-Mills equations we will specialize to the Kähler manifold $M={{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ with metric tensor $g_{\m\n}=\de_{\m\n}$ and pass to a noncommutative deformation ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\th$. The spherical factors ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$, $\ell=1,2$, will always remain commutative spaces. The noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\th$ is defined by declaring its coordinate functions ${\hat{x}}^1,\ldots,{\hat{x}}^{2n}$ to obey the Heisenberg algebra relations $$[ {\hat{x}}^\mu\,,\,{\hat{x}}^\nu\,] = {\,\mathrm{i}\,}\th^{\mu\nu}
\label{Heisenalg}$$ with a constant real antisymmetric tensor $\th^{\mu\nu}$ of maximal rank $n$. Via an orthogonal transformation of the coordinates, the matrix $\theta=(\th^{\m\n})$ can be rotated into its canonical block-diagonal form with non-vanishing components $$\label{tha}
\th^{{2a-1}\ {2a}} \= -\th^{{2a}\ {2a-1}} \ =:\ \th^a$$ for $a=1,\dots,n$. We will assume for definiteness that all $\th^a>0$. The noncommutative version of the complex coordinates (\[zz\]) has the non-vanishing commutators $$\label{zzb}
\big[{\hat{z}}^a\,,\,{\hat{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}}\,\big] \= -2\,\de^{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,\th^a \
=:\ \th^{a{{\bar{b}}}} \= -\th^{{{\bar{b}}}a}\ < \ 0 \ .$$ Taking the product of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\th$ with the commutative spheres ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ means extending the noncommutativity matrix $\th$ by vanishing entries along the four new directions.
The algebra (\[Heisenalg\]) can be represented on the Fock space ${{\cal H}}$ which may be realized as the linear span $${{\cal H}}=\bigoplus_{r_1,\dots,r_n=0}^\infty\,{{\mathbb{C}}}|r_1,\ldots,r_n\> \ ,
\label{Fockspace}\eeq
where the orthonormal basis states
\beq
|r_1,\ldots,r_n\>=\prod_{a=1}^{n}\,\left(2\,
\th^a\,r_a!\right)^{-1/2}\,({\hat{z}}^{a})^{r_a}|0,\ldots,0\>$$ are connected by the action of creation and annihilation operators subject to the commutation relations $$\Bigl[\,\frac{{\hat{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}}}{\sqrt{2\,\th^b}}\ ,\ \frac{{\hat{z}}^a}{\sqrt{2\,\th^a}}\,
\Bigr] = \de^{a{{\bar{b}}}} \ .$$ In the Weyl operator realization $f\mapsto{\hat{f}}$ which maps Schwartz functions $f$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ into compact operators ${\hat{f}}$ on ${{\cal H}}$, coordinate derivatives are given by inner derivations of the noncommutative algebra according to $$\label{pazzf}
\widehat{\pa_{z^a} f}\=\th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,\big[{\hat{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}} \,,\, {\hat{f}}\,\big]
\ =:\ \pa_{{\hat{z}}^a} {\hat{f}}\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\widehat{\pa_{{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{a}}}}} f}\=\th_{{{\bar{a}}}b}\,\big[{\hat{z}}^b \,,\, {\hat{f}}\,\big]
\ =:\ \pa_{{\hat{\bar{z}}}^{\,{{\bar{a}}}}} {\hat{f}}\ ,$$ where $\th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}$ is defined via $\th_{b\bar{c}}\,\th^{\bar{c}a}=\de^a_b$ so that $\th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}=-\th_{{{\bar{b}}}a}=\frac{\de_{a{{\bar{b}}}}}{2\,\th^a}$. On the other hand, integrals are given by traces over the Fock space ${{\cal H}}$ as $$\label{intNC}
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}} {\mathrm{d}}^{2n} x~f(x)=
{\rm Pf}(2\pi\,\th)~\textrm{Tr}^{~}_{{\cal H}}~{\hat{f}}\ .$$
Vector bundles $E\to{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ whose typical fibres are complex vector spaces $\underline{V}$ are replaced by the corresponding (trivial) projective modules $\underline{V}\otimes{{\cal H}}$ over ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\theta$. The field strength components along ${{\mathbb{R}^{2n}_\theta}}$ in (\[curvprod\]) read $\hat{{{\cal{F}}}}_{\m\n}=\pa_{{\hat{x}}^{\m}}\hat{{{\cal{A}}}}_{\n}-
\pa_{{\hat{x}}^{\n}}\hat{{{\cal{A}}}}_{\m}+[\hat{{{\cal{A}}}}_{\m},\hat{{{\cal{A}}}}_{\n}]$, where $\hat{{{\cal{A}}}}_{\m}$ are simultaneously valued in ${\rm u}(k)$ and in ${\rm End}({{\cal H}})$. To avoid a cluttered notation, we will omit the hats over operators, so that all equations will have the same form as previously but considered as equations in ${\rm
End}(\,\underline{V}\otimes{{\cal H}})$. The main advantage of this prescription will arise from the fact that, unlike ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$, the noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$ has a non-trivial K-theory which allows for gauge field configurations of non-trivial topological charge while retaining the simple geometry of flat contractible space.
Quiver gauge theory and graded connections\[QGT\]
=================================================
In this section we will exploit the fact that the $G$-equivariant reduction carried out in the previous section has a natural interpretation as the representation of a particular class of quivers in the category of vector bundles over the Kähler manifold $M$, i.e. as a quiver bundle over $M$ [@A-CG-P1; @A-CG-P2; @GK1]. The most natural notion of gauge field on a quiver bundle is provided by that of a [*graded connection*]{} as introduced in [@PS1]. After describing some general aspects of the quivers related to our analysis, we will rewrite the equivariant decomposition of the gauge fields of the previous section in terms of graded connections on the pertinent quivers. Besides its mathematical elegance, the main advantage of this representation is that it will make the physical interpretations of our field configurations completely transparent later on. Treatments of the theory of quivers can be found in [@Quiverbooks].
The ${\rm A}_{m_1+1}\oplus{\rm A}_{m_2+1}$ quiver and its representations\[CPquiver\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quiver is an oriented graph, i.e. a set of vertices together with a set of arrows between the vertices. For a given pair of positive integers $m_1,m_2$, it is clear that the bundle diagram (\[bundlediag\]) can be naturally associated to a quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. The nodes of this quiver are labelled by monopole charges giving the vertex set ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(0)}=\{(v^{(1)}_i,v^{(2)}_\a)=(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)~|~0\leq
i\leq m_1\,,\,0\leq\a\leq m_2\}$. The arrow set is given by ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}=\{\zeta^{(\ell)}_{i\a}~|~\ell=1,2\,,\,0\leq i\leq
m_1\,,\,0\leq\a\leq m_2\}$ with $\zeta_{i+1\,\a}^{(1)}:(v_{i+1}^{(1)},v_\a^{(2)})
\mapsto(v_{i}^{(1)},v_\a^{(2)})$ and $\zeta_{i\,\a+1}^{(2)}:(v_i^{(1)},v_{\a+1}^{(2)})
\mapsto(v_{i}^{(1)},v_{\a}^{(2)})$. A path in ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ is a sequence of arrows in ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}$ which compose. If the head of $\zeta_{i\a}^{(\ell)}$ is the same node as the tail of $\zeta_{i'\a'}^{(\ell'\,)}$, then we may produce a path $\zeta_{i'\a'}^{(\ell'\,)}\,\zeta_{i\a}^{(\ell)}$ consisting of $\zeta_{i\a}^{(\ell)}$ followed by $\zeta_{i'\a'}^{(\ell'\,)}$. To each vertex $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)$ we associate the trivial path $e_{i\a}$ of length $0$. Each arrow $\zeta_{i\a}^{(\ell)}$ itself may be associated to a path of length $1$. A relation $r$ of the quiver is a formal finite sum of paths. From (\[phicommrels\]) it follows that the set ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of relations of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ are given by $r_{i\a}=\zeta^{(1)}_{i+1\:\a}\,\zeta^{(2)}_{i+1\:\a+1}-
\zeta^{(2)}_{i\:\a+1}\,\zeta^{(1)}_{i+1\:\a+1}$ for $0\leq i\leq m_1$, $0\leq \a\leq m_2$.
If we set $M={\rm point}$ in the construction of Section \[eqvecbun\], then we obtain a representation $\underline{\cal V}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ obtained by placing the $G$-modules $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}$ in (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) at the vertices $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)$. Recalling that the nodes of the quiver arose as the set of weights for the action of the Borel subgroup $K$ on the bundle $E\to M$, we obtain natural equivalence functors between the categories of holomorphic representations of $K$ and indecomposable representations of the quiver with relations $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$, and also with the category of holomorphic homogeneous vector bundles over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1\cong G^{\rm c}/K$. In particular, there is a one-to-one correspondence between $G$-equivariant vector bundles over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ and commutative diagrams on the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. In the case of a generic Kähler manifold $M$, any $G$-equivariant bundle over $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ defines a quiver representation obtained by placing the vector bundles $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$ at the vertices $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)$, as in (\[bundlediag\]). It follows that there is a one-to-one correspondence between such bundles and indecomposable $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$-bundles over $M$. Neither the holomorphicity of the quiver representation nor the relations need generically hold for the decomposition of gauge fields given in Section \[invgauge\], but instead will arise as a dynamical effect from a specific choice of ansatz. Note that when one passes to the corresponding noncommutative gauge theory, one is faced with infinite-dimensional quiver representations $\underline{\cal
V}\otimes{{\cal H}}$, and one of the goals of our later constructions will be to find appropriate truncations to finite-dimensional modules over ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$.
To aid in the construction of quiver representations, one defines the path algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ to be the vector space over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ generated by all paths, together with the multiplication given by concatenation of paths. If two paths do not compose then their product is defined to be $0$. The trivial paths are idempotents, $e_{i\a}^2=e^{~}_{i\a}$, and thereby define a collection of projectors on the finite-dimensional free algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. Imposing relations on the quiver then amounts to taking the quotient of ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ by the ideal generated by the $r_{i\a}$. Given a representation $\underline{\cal
V}$ of the algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, we can form the vector spaces $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}=\underline{\cal V}\cdot
e_{i\a}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}^{k_{i\a}}$. The elements of ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ corresponding to arrows in ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ yield linear maps between the $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}$ which have to satisfy the relations $r_{i\a}=0$. It follows that representations of the path algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}/{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ are equivalent to quiver representations of $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$ [@Quiverbooks]. Such a representation is specified by giving the ordered collection of positive integers $\vec k=\vec k_{\underline{\cal
V}}:=(k_{i\a})_{0\leq i\leq m_1,0\leq\a\leq m_2}$, called the dimension vector of the quiver representation, at the vertices of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$.
A useful set of quiver representations $\underline{\cal P}_{\,i\a}$ is defined for each vertex of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ by $\underline{\cal
P}_{\,i\a}:=e_{i\a}\cdot{{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, which is the subspace of ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ generated by all paths starting at the node $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)$. Multiplying on the right by elements of the path algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ makes $\underline{\cal P}_{\,i\a}$ into a right ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-module and hence a quiver representation. This path algebra representation has many special properties. The collection of all modules $\underline{\cal
P}_{\,i\a}$, $0\leq i\leq m_1$, $0\leq\a\leq m_2$ are exactly the set of all indecomposable projective representations of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, with the natural isomorphism [[A]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[i]{} \[pathalgPiso\]as right ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules. Furthermore, for any quiver representation (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) there is a natural isomorphism (\_[i]{}, )=\_[k\_[i]{}]{} , \[HomPViso\]and in particular (\_[j]{},\_[i]{} )=(\_[i]{})\_[j]{}= e\_[i]{}[[A]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}e\_[j]{} \[HomPPiso\]is the vector space spanned by all paths from vertex $(v_i^{(1)},v_\a^{(2)})$ to vertex $(v_j^{(1)},v_\b^{(2)})$. Imposing the relations $r_{i\a}$ identifies all such paths and one has $(\,\underline{\cal P}_{\,i\a})_{j\b}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}$ for the corresponding quiver representation of $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$.
A morphism $\,\underline{ f}\,:\underline{\cal
V}\to\underline{{\cal V}'}$ of two quiver representations is given by linear maps $ f_{i\a}:\underline{{V}}_{\,k_{i\a}}\to\underline{{
V}'}_{\,k_{i\a}'}$ for each vertex such that $\phi_{i+1\,\a}^{\prime\,(1)}\, f_{i\a}=
f_{i+1\,\a}\,\phi_{i+1\,\a}^{(1)}$ and $\phi_{i\,\a+1}^{\prime\,(2)}\, f_{i\a}=
f_{i\,\a+1}\,\phi_{i\,\a+1}^{(2)}$. This notion defines the abelian category of quiver representations (or equivalently of right ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules). If all linear maps $ f_{i\a}$ are invertible, then $\,\underline{ f}\,$ is called an isomorphism of quiver representations. Any two isomorphic representations necessarily have the same dimension vector $\vec k$. This provides a natural notion of gauge symmetry in quiver gauge theory. We will return to the issue of equivalence of representations of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ in Section \[modsp\].
Matrix presentation of equivariant gauge fields\[Matrixpres\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
A convenient way of combining the reductions of equivariant gauge fields is through the formalism of graded connections introduced in [@PS1]. The first step in this procedure is to rewrite the decompositions of Section \[invgauge\] in a particular matrix form that reflects the representations of the path algebra given in (\[pathalgPiso\])–(\[HomPPiso\]). The basic idea is that, given the isomorphisms $(\,\underline{\cal P}_{\,i\a})_{j\b}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}$, one can identify (\[pathalgPiso\]) with an algebra of upper triangular complex matrices. For this, let us write the rank $k$ equivariant bundle $E\to M$ in the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$-graded form \[E\] E := \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}E\_[k\_[i]{}]{}= \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}E\_[(m\_1)]{} E\_[(m\_1)]{} := \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{}E\_[k\_[i]{}]{} . The algebra $\Omega_\sharp(M,E)$ of differential forms on the manifold $M$ with values in the bundle $E$ has a total ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$ grading defined by combining the grading in (\[E\]) with the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-grading by form degree. Similarly, the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$ grading of the endomorphism bundle (E)=\_[i,j=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[,=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (E\_[k\_[i]{}]{},E\_[k\_[j]{}]{})=\_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (E\_[(m\_1)]{}) \_\^[m\_2]{}(E\_[(m\_1)]{},E\_[(m\_1)]{}) \[EndEgrad\]induces a total ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$ grading on the endomorphism algebra $\Omega_\sharp(M,\End~E)$.
A graded connection on $E$ is a derivation on $\Omega_\sharp(M,E)$ which shifts the total ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$ grading by $1$, and is thus an element of the degree $1$ subspace of $\Omega_\sharp(M,\End~E)$. For a given module (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) over the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, the zero-form components in this subspace represent the arrows of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ and are defined by appropriately assembling the Higgs fields of the equivariant gauge potentials into off-diagonal operators in (\[EndEgrad\]) acting on the decomposition in (\[E\]). To this end we introduce square matrices of morphisms acting on the bundles $E_{(m_1)\a}$ through [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1)]{} :=
0&\^[(1)]{}\_[1]{}&0&…&0\
0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[2]{}&&\
&&&&0\
0&0&…&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1]{}\
0&0&…&0&0
0,1,…,m\_2 \[mphi1alph\]and assemble them into a $k{{\times}}k$ matrix with respect to the grading (\[E\]) and (\[EndEgrad\]) as [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}:=
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1)0]{}&0& 0&…&0\
0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1)1]{}&0&…&0\
0&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1)2]{}&&\
&&&&0\
0&0&…&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1)m\_2]{}
. \[mphi1m\]Remembering that $\p^{(2)}_{i\: m_2+1}:=0~~\forall i=0,1,\dots,m_1$, we similarly define matrices of morphisms on $E_{(m_1)\,\a+1}$ through [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1)+1]{} :=
\^[(2)]{}\_[0+1]{}&0&0&…&0\
0&\^[(2)]{}\_[1+1]{}&0&…&0\
0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[2+1]{}&&\
&&&&0\
0&0&…&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[m\_1+1]{}
0,1,…,m\_2 \[mphi2alph\]and assemble them into a $k{{\times}}k$ matrix acting on (\[E\]) as [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}:=
0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1)1]{} &0&…&0\
0&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1)2]{}&&\
&&&&0\
0&0&…&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1)m\_2]{}\
0&0&…&0&0
. \[mphi2m\]
The finite dimensionality of the path algebra (\[pathalgPiso\]) corresponds to the generic nilpotency properties [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{},([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} )\^2,…,([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^[m\_1]{}&& 0 ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^[m\_1+1]{}= 0 ,\
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{},([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^2, …,([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^[m\_2]{}&& 0 ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^[m\_2+1]{}= 0 . \[nilconds\]The holomorphic relations (\[phicommrels\]) now take the simple algebraic form of commutativity of the matrices (\[mphi1m\]) and (\[mphi2m\]) as =0 . \[mphicommrels\]Although a very natural requirement, the condition (\[mphicommrels\]) is not necessary for the present formulation and the relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ will only play a prominent role in the subsequent sections.
The one-form components of the graded connection represent the vertices of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ and correspond to diagonal operators in the decomposition (\[EndEgrad\]). They can be written using the canonical orthogonal projections $\Pi_{i\a}: E\to
E_{k_{i\a}}$ of rank $1$ obeying \_[i]{}\_[j]{}=\_[ij]{}\_ \_[i]{} \[Piortho\]which may be represented, with respect to the decomposition (\[E\]), by the diagonal matrices \_[i]{}= (\_[ij]{}\_[il]{}\_\_ )\^[j,l=0,1,…,m\_1]{}\_[,=0,1,…,m\_2]{} . The gauge potentials living at the vertices of the quiver may then be assembled into the $k{{\times}}k$ matrix \[mA\] [[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}:=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} A\^[i]{}\_[i]{} .
To rewrite the equivariant decomposition of the components of the gauge potentials on the bundle ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$, we assemble the monopole connections into the matrices \[ma1\] [[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1)]{}&:=&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{}a\_[m\_1-2i]{}\^[(1)]{}\_i \_i := \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}\_[i]{} ,\
[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_2)]{}&:=&\_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}a\_[m\_2-2]{}\^[(2)]{}\_\_ := \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{}\_[i]{} \[ma2\] and the monopole charges labelling the vertices of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ into the matrices [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}&:=&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{}(m\_1-2i)\_i ,\
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}&:=&\_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(m\_2-2)\_ . Then the ansatz (\[f4\])–(\[ff7\]) can be rewritten in terms of the matrix operators (\[mphi1alph\])–(\[mphi2m\]) and (\[mA\])–(\[ma2\]) as \_&=&([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\_11 , \[calAgradedmu\]\
\_[y\_1]{}&=&\_k([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1)]{})\_[y\_1]{}1- ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^ (\_1)\_[y\_1]{}1 , \[calAy1\]\
\_[y\_2]{}&=&\_k1([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_2)]{})\_[y\_2]{}- ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^ 1(\_2)\_[y\_2]{} , \[calAy2\]\
\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}&=&\_k([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}1 +[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}(|\_1)\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}1 , \[calAyb1\]\
\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}&=&\_k1([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_2)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}+ [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}1(|\_2)\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} . \[calAgraded\]As we will see in Section \[gradedconn\], the scalar potential in (\[SYMred\]) can be rewritten entirely in terms of the natural algebraic operators ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\Upsilon} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)} -
\big[ {{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)}, ({{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)})^\+\big]$, ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\Upsilon} }}}}}^{(2)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)} - \big[{{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(2)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)},
({{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(2)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)})^\+\big]$, $\big[{{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(m_1,\,
m_2)}, {{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(2)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)}\big]$ and $\big[
{{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)}, ({{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(2)}_{(m_1,\, m_2)})^\+\big]$ on the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$.
Examples\[MatrixEx\]
--------------------
To help understand the forms of the matrix presentations introduced above, it is instructive to look at some explicit examples of $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$-bundles over $M$ before proceeding further with more of the general formalism.
[${{\boldsymbol {(m_1,m_2)=(m,0)} }}$. ]{} In this case the vertical arrows $\zeta_{i\a}^{(2)}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m,0)}$ are all $0$ and the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) collapses to the holomorphic [ *chain*]{} [@A-CG-P3]
E\^\_[k\_[m0]{}]{} @>[\^[(1)]{}\_[m0]{}]{}>> E\^\_[k\_[m-10]{}]{} @>[\_[m-10]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}>> @> [\_[10]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}>> E\^\_[k\_[00]{}]{}
\[holchain\]considered in [@PS1]. The quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m,0)}$ is called the ${\rm
A}_{m+1}$-quiver. The set of relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m,0)}$ is empty and the non-vanishing Higgs fields are assembled into the zero-form graded connection component [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m,0)]{}[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m)0]{}=
0&\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}&0&…&0\
0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}&&\
&&&&0\
0&0&…&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[m0]{}\
0&0&…&0&0
EĒ\_[(m)0]{}=\_[i=0]{}\^[m]{}E\_[k\_[i0]{}]{} . \[mphim0\]The simplest case $m=1$ gives a holomorphic [ *triple*]{} [@Garcia1] and corresponds to the more standard superconnections, having $({{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(1)}_{(1,0)})^2=0$, which characterize the low-energy field content on brane-antibrane systems with the tachyon field $\phi^{(1)}_{10}$ between the branes and antibranes [@AIO1; @LPS]. A completely analogous characterization holds for the charge configuration $(m_1,m_2)=(0,m)$. As we will discuss further in the subsequent sections, for generic $m_1,m_2$ the set of relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, making the vector space $(\,\underline{\cal
P}_{\,i\a})_{j\b}$ one-dimensional, implies that the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ can always be naturally mapped (e.g. via a lexicographic ordering) onto an ${\rm A}_{m+1}$-quiver. This will become evident from the other examples considered below, and will have important physical ramifications later on.
[${{\boldsymbol {(m_1, m_2)=(1,1)} }}$. ]{} In this case the quiver bundle truncates to a square
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[10]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}]{}>>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[00]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}]{}AA@AA[\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}]{}A\
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[11]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}]{}>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[01]{}]{}
and uniqueness of the bundle morphism on $E_{k_{11}}\to E_{k_{00}}$ (or of the corresponding path in the path algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(1,1)}$) yields the single holomorphic relation \^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}=\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{} . \[singleholrel\]The equivariant graded connection admits the matrix presentation =
\^[[00,00]{}]{}&\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}&\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}&0\
-(\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{})\^& \^[[10,10]{}]{}&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}\
-(\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{})\^&0& \^[[01,01]{}]{}&\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}\
0&-(\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{})\^&-(\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{})\^& \^[[11,11]{}]{}
.
[${{\boldsymbol {(m_1, m_2)=(2,1)} }}$. ]{} The quiver bundle over $M$ associated to ${{\sf Q}}_{(2,1)}$ is given by
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[20]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}]{}>>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[10]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}]{}>> [E]{}\^\_[k\_[00]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[21]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}]{}AA@AA[\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}]{}A\
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[21]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[21]{}]{}>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[11]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}]{}> [E]{}\^\_[k\_[01]{}]{}
with the pair of holomorphic relations \^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[21]{}=\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[21]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}=\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{} . \[pairholrels\]The graded connection zero-form components [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(2,1)]{} :=
0&\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}&0&0&0&0\
0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}&0\
0&0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[21]{}\
0&0&0&0&0&0
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(2,1)]{} :=
0&0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}&0&0\
0&0&0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}&0\
0&0&0&0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[21]{}\
0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0
satisfy the nilpotent relations ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(2,1)]{})\^2 0 ,([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(2,1)]{})\^3 = 0([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(2,1)]{})\^2= 0 . It is straightforward to check that the holomorphic relations (\[pairholrels\]) follow from the commutativity condition (\[mphicommrels\]) in this case.
[${{\boldsymbol {(m_1, m_2)=(2,2)} }}$. ]{} Finally, the $({{\sf Q}}_{(2,2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(2,2)})$-bundle is given by
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[20]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}]{}>>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[10]{}]{}@>[\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}]{}>> [E]{}\^\_[k\_[00]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[21]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}]{}AA@AA[\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}]{}A\
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[21]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[21]{}]{}>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[11]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}]{}> [E]{}\^\_[k\_[01]{}]{}\
@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[22]{}]{}AA@A[\^[(2)]{}\_[12]{}]{}AA@AA[\^[(2)]{}\_[02]{}]{}A\
[E]{}\^\_[k\_[22]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[22]{}]{}>[E]{}\^\_[k\_[12]{}]{}@>>[\^[(1)]{}\_[12]{}]{}> [E]{}\^\_[k\_[02]{}]{}
with [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(2,2)]{}[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(2,2)]{}=
0&\^[(1)]{}\_[10]{}&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[01]{}&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[20]{}&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[11]{}&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[21]{}&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[11]{}&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[02]{}&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[21]{}&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[12]{}&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\^[(2)]{}\_[22]{}\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[12]{}&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\^[(1)]{}\_[22]{}\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0
satisfying ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[()]{}\_[(2,2)]{})\^2 0([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[()]{}\_[(2,2)]{})\^3 = 0 1,2 .
Graded connections on ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$\[gradedconn\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
We would now like to write the graded connections as intrinsic objects to the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) over $M$, without explicit reference to their origin as connections on the equivariant gauge bundle ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$. For this, we will introduce a more direct dimensional reduction of the gauge potential ${{\cal{A}}}$. The construction exploits the usual canonical isomorphism between the complexified exterior algebra bundle over $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ and the corresponding graded Clifford algebra bundle, which sends the exterior product into completely antisymmetrized Clifford multiplication and the local cotangent basis ${\mathrm{d}}x^{\hat\mu}$ onto the Clifford algebra generators $\Gamma^{\hat\mu}$ obeying the anticommutation relations \^\^+\^\^= -2g\^ \_[2\^[n+2]{}]{} ,1,…,2n+4 . \[2n2Cliffalg\]The gamma-matrices in (\[2n2Cliffalg\]) may be decomposed as \[gamma2n2decomp\] {\^}={\^,\^[y\_1]{}, \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{},\^[y\_2]{},\^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}} where \^=\^\_2\_2 , \[Gammamug\]and $\gamma^\mu=-(\gamma^\mu)^\dag$ are the $2^n{{\times}}2^n$ matrices which locally generate the Clifford algebra bundle over $M$ and which obey the anticommutation relations \^\^+\^\^=-2g\^ \_[2\^n]{} ,1,…,2n . \[2nCliffalg\]The spherical components are given by \^[y\_1]{}&=&\^[y\_1]{}\_2 , \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} = \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}\_2 ,\
\^[y\_2]{}&=&\_3\^[y\_2]{} , \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} = \_3\^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} , where \^[y\_]{}=-1[R\_]{}(1+y\_[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_)\_+ \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}=1[R\_]{}(1+y\_[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_)\_- \[CP1Cliffalg\]are the Clifford algebra generators over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ for $\ell=1,2$, with the constant ${{{\rm sl}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}$ generators given by (\[sl2cmatrices\],\[sl2cLie\]). The chirality operator over $M$ is = \_[\_1\_[2n]{}]{} \^[\_1]{}\^[\_[2n]{}]{} ()\^2=\_[2\^n]{} \^=-\^ . \[chiralityop\]
With this set-up we may now write the equivariant gauge potential given by (\[f4\])–(\[ff7\]) as the graded connection &:=&\^\_= \^\_ + \^[y\_1]{}\_[y\_1]{} + \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} + \^[y\_2]{} \_[y\_2]{} + \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\
&=&\^([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\_\_2\_2+ 1[R\_1]{}([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}) \_-\_2 +1[R\_1]{}([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^ \_+\_2\
&& +1[R\_2]{}([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{}) \_3\_- + 1[R\_2]{} ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{})\^ \_3\_+\
&& +(\^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}+\^[y\_1]{} ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1)]{})\_[y\_1]{})\_2 +\_3(\^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_2)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}+\^[y\_2]{} ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_2)]{})\_[y\_2]{}) ,\
&& \[calAgammas\]where \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}+\^[y\_]{} ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[y\_]{} =1[R\_]{}(1+y\_[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_) (([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}\^\_- - ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[y\_]{}\^\_+) 1,2 . As desired, the zero-form components in (\[calAgammas\]) involving ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\phi} }}}}}^{(\ell)}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ are independent of the coordinates $(y_\ell,{{\bar{y}}}_\ell)\in{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ and they anticommute with the one-form components involving ${{{{\boldsymbol {A} }}}}^{(m_1,m_2)}$ due to their couplings with the chirality operator (\[chiralityop\]). From (\[f15\])–(\[Fyyb\]) the curvature of the graded connection (\[calAgammas\]) is found to be &:=&\_\
&=& ([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{})\_\_2\_2\
&&- 1[R\_1]{}(\^ D\_[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} )\^\_-\_2 +1[R\_1]{}(\^ D\_[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} )\^\^\_+\_2\
&&- 1[R\_2]{}(\^ D\_[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} )\^\_3\^\_- +1[R\_2]{}(\^ D\_[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} )\^\^\_3 \^\_+\
&& + 1[2R\_1\^2]{} ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} -)\^\_[2\^n]{}\^\_3\_2\
&& + 1[2R\_2\^2]{} ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1, m\_2)]{} -)\^\_[2\^n]{}\_2\^\_3\
&& + 1[R\_1R\_2]{} \^\_[2\^n]{}\^\_-\^\_-\
&& + 1[R\_1R\_2]{}\^ \^\_[2\^n]{}\^\_+\^\_+\
&& + 1[R\_1R\_2]{} \^\_[2\^n]{}\^\_-\^\_+\
&& + 1[R\_1R\_2]{}\^ \^\_[2\^n]{}\^\_+\^\_- \[gradedcurv\]where ${{{{\boldsymbol {F} }}}^{(m_1,\,m_2)}}:={\mathrm{d}}{{{{\boldsymbol {A} }}}}^{(m_1,\, m_2)}+{{{{\boldsymbol {A} }}}}^{(m_1,\,
m_2)}\wedge{{{{\boldsymbol {A} }}}}^{(m_1,\, m_2)}=\frac12\,\bigl({{{{\boldsymbol {F} }}}^{(m_1,\,m_2)}}\bigl)_{\mu\nu}~{\mathrm{d}}x^\mu\wedge{\mathrm{d}}x^\nu$.
The graded curvature (\[gradedcurv\]) is completely independent of the spherical coordinates. Using (\[gradedcurv\]) and standard gamma-matrix trace formulas [@PS1], it is possible to recast the dimensionally reduced Yang-Mills action functional (\[SYMred\]) in the compact form S\^[ ]{}\_[YM]{}=\_[M]{}\^[2n]{}x [[tr]{}]{}\_[kk]{}\^[ ]{} [[Tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[\^[2\^[n+2]{}]{}]{} \^2 , \[EFgraded\]where the trace ${{\rm Tr}}^{~}_{{{\mathbb{C}}}^{2^{n+2}}}$ is taken over the representation space of (\[2n2Cliffalg\]) and may be thought of as an “integral” over the Clifford algebra. Thus the entire equivariant gauge theory on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ may be elegantly rewritten as an [*ordinary*]{} Yang-Mills gauge theory of [*graded connections*]{} on the corresponding [*quiver bundle*]{} over $M$.
Noncommutative instantons and quiver vortices\[NCinst\]
=======================================================
We will now proceed to the construction of explicit equivariant instanton solutions. We will build both BPS and non-BPS configurations of the Yang-Mills equations on the noncommutative space ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. We then describe some general properties of the moduli space of noncommutative instantons in this instance.
BPS equations\[BPSeqs\]
-----------------------
The equations of motion which follow from varying the Yang-Mills lagrangian (\[lagrprod\]) on the Kähler manifold $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ are given by $$\label{YM}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat g}}\, \pa_{\hat\m}\bigl(\sqrt{\hat g}~
{{\cal{F}}}^{\hat{\m}\hat{\n}}\bigr) +
\bigl[{{\cal{A}}}_{\hat\m}\,,\, {{\cal{F}}}^{\hat\m\hat\n}\bigr]=0 \ .$$ The BPS configurations which satisfy (\[YM\]) are provided by solutions of the DUY equations [@DUY1] $$\label{DUY}
*\Omega\wedge {{{\cal{F}}}}\ =\ 0 \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
{{{\cal{F}}}}^{2,0}\=0\={{\cal{F}}}^{0,2}\ ,$$ where $*$ is the Hodge duality operator and ${{\cal{F}}}={{\cal{F}}}^{2,0}+{{\cal{F}}}^{1,1}+{{\cal{F}}}^{0,2}$ is the Kähler decomposition of the gauge field strength. In the local complex coordinates $(z^a,y_1,y_2)$ these equations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DUY1}
g^{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,{{{\cal{F}}}}_{z^a{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}}}+ g^{y_1{{\bar{y}}}_1}\,{{{\cal{F}}}}_{y_1{{\bar{y}}}_1}+
g^{y_2{{\bar{y}}}_2}\,{{{\cal{F}}}}_{y_2{{\bar{y}}}_2}&=&0 \ ,
\\[4pt]\label{DUY2}
{{{\cal{F}}}}_{{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{a}}}}{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}}}&=&0\ , \\[4pt] {{{\cal{F}}}}_{{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{a}}}}{{\bar{y}}}_1}&=&0~~=~~
{{{\cal{F}}}}_{{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{a}}}}{{\bar{y}}}_2} \ ,\\[4pt]
{{\cal{F}}}_{{{\bar{y}}}_1{{\bar{y}}}_2}&=&0\ ,\label{DUY3}\end{aligned}$$ along with their complex conjugates for $a,b=1,\dots,n$.
In terms of the equivariant decomposition (\[f15\])–(\[Fyyb\]), the DUY equations read g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^[i]{}\_[a[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}&=&\
&+& \[f24\]and \[f240\] F\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}&=&0 ,\
\[f25\] \^[ ]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[|a]{}&=&0 ,\
\[f25a\] \^[ ]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[|a]{}&=&0 ,\
\[f25b\] \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1+1]{}&=&0 , along with their complex conjugates. Eq. (\[f24\]) gives hermitean conditions on the curvatures of $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$, while (\[f240\]) implies that $E_{k_{i\a}}$ are holomorphic vector bundles with connections $A^{i\a}$. The conditions (\[f25\]) and (\[f25a\]) then mean that the bundle maps on the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) are holomorphic. Eq. (\[f25b\]) imposes the relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ on the quiver bundle. Note that the analogous non-holomorphic relations, specified by the vanishing of (\[Fyyb\]), do not arise as BPS conditions.
The BPS energies may be computed by noting that the action functional (\[SYMred\]) evaluated on equivariant connections ${{\cal{A}}}$ of the bundle ${\cal E}\to M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ may be written as [@A-CG-P2] S\_[YM]{}\^[ ]{}=14 \_[MP\^1P\^1]{}\^[2n+4]{}x [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[kk]{}(\^ \_)\^2-2\^2 [Ch]{}\_2([E]{}) , \[SYMhol\]where \_2([E]{})=-1[8\^2]{}\_[MP\^1P\^1]{} [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[kk]{} \[Ch2def\]is a Chern-Weil topological invariant of $\cal E$. Eq. (\[SYMhol\]) shows that the Yang-Mills action is bounded from below as $S_{\rm YM}^{~}\geq S^{~}_{\rm BPS}:=-2\pi^2~{\rm
Ch}_2({\cal E})$, with equality precisely when the DUY equations (\[DUY\]) are satisfied. By substituting in (\[kahler\]) and the equivariant decomposition (\[f15\])–(\[Fyyb\]), after integration over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ one finds &&S\^[ ]{}\_[BPS]{} = 2\^2\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}{ [vol]{}M-64\^2R\_1\^2R\_2\^2 [Ch]{}\_2 (E\_[k\_[i]{}]{})\
&&+\_M\^[2n]{}x g [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[k\_[i]{}k\_[i]{}]{}} , \[SBPSgen\]where ${\rm vol}\,M=\int_M\,\omega^n/n!$ is the volume of the Kähler manifold $M$ and E\_[k\_[i]{}]{}=\_M [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[k\_[i]{}k\_[i]{}]{} F\^[i]{} \[degreeEdef\]is the degree of the rank $k_{i\a}$ bundle $E_{k_{i\a}}\to M$.
To cast these equations on the noncommutative space $M={{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$, we introduce the operators $$\label{X}
X_{a}^{i\a}\ :=\ A_{a}^{i\a} + \th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,{{\bar{z}}}^{{{\bar{b}}}}
\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
X_{{{{\bar{a}}}}}^{i\a}\ :=\ A_{{{{\bar{a}}}}}^{i\a} + \th^{~}_{{{\bar{a}}}b}\,z^b\ .$$ In terms of these operators the antiholomorphic bi-fundamental covariant derivatives take the form D\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}= X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}-\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i+1]{} D\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}= X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}-\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i+1]{} , \[bifundX\]while the components of the field strength tensor become $$F_{{a}{{{\bar{b}}}}}^{i\a}\ =\ \big[X_{a}^{i\a}\,,\,X_{{{{\bar{b}}}}}^{i\a}\,\big] + \th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}
\ , ~~ F_{{{{\bar{a}}}}{{{\bar{b}}}}}^{i\a}\ =\ \big[X_{{{{\bar{a}}}}}^{i\a}\,,\, X_{{{\bar{b}}}}^{i\a}\,\big]
\quad\textrm{and}\quad F_{{a}{b}}^{i\a}\ =\ \big[X_{{a}}^{i\a}\,,\,
X_{b}^{i\a}\,\big]\ .
\label{fieldstrengthX}$$ The noncommutative DUY equations (without the complex conjugates) then read \^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}(+ \_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{})&=&\[ddd1\]\
&+& ,\
&=& 0 , \[ddd1a\]\
X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}-\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i+1]{}&=&0 ,\
X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}-\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} X\_[[|[a]{}]{}]{}\^[i+1]{}&=&0 ,\
\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1+1]{}&=&0 . \[ddd2\]
Examples\[BPSEx\]
-----------------
Before proceeding with a more general analysis, we will provide some illustration of the meaning of the quiver vortex equations (\[f24\])–(\[f25b\]) through special cases and limiting solutions.
[**Chain vortex equations. **]{} Consider a holomorphic chain (\[holchain\]) with $(m_1,m_2)=(m,0)$. Its equations, obtainable from (\[f24\])–(\[f25b\]) by taking $\phi^{(2)}_{i\,\a+1}=0$ in the ansatz for ${{\cal{A}}}$ and ${{\cal{F}}}$, read && g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^i\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = ( m-2i+\_i\^\^[ ]{}\_i-\^[ ]{}\_[i+1]{}\_[i+1]{}\^ ) ,F\^i\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 , \[chvort1\]\
&& |\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[i+1]{} +A\^i\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[i+1]{} - \_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 i=0,1,…,m , \[chvort2\] where $\phi^{~}_i:=\phi^{(1)}_{i\,0}$, $A^i:=A^{i0}$, $F^i:=F^{i0}$ and $R=R_1$. Noncommutative chain vortex configurations solving (\[chvort1\]) and (\[chvort2\]) on $M={{\mathbb{R}^{2n}_\theta}}$ were constructed in [@PS1].
[**Holomorphic triples.** ]{} For $m=1$ the holomorphic chain (\[holchain\]) reduces to a holomorphic triple $({{\cal E}}_1,{{\cal E}}_2,\phi)$ [@Garcia1] described by the equations && g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^0\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = +( 1 - \^ ) ,F\^0\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 , \[holtri1\]\
&& g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^1\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = -( 1 - \^) ,F\^1\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 , \[holtri2\]\
&& |\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} + A\^0\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} - A\^1\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}= 0 . \[holtri3\] Solutions of (\[holtri1\])–(\[holtri3\]) for $M={{\mathbb{R}^{2n}_\theta}}$ and their D-brane interpretation were presented in [@IL; @LPS].
[**Four-dimensional case.** ]{} For $\textrm{dim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}M=4$, $k_0=k_1=r$ and $\phi={\mathbf{1}}_r$, we infer from (\[holtri3\]) that $A^0=A^1$, hence both (\[holtri1\]) and (\[holtri2\]) simplify to the self-dual Yang-Mills equations on $M$. In the case of $M={{\mathbb{R}^4_\theta}}$ their solutions are noncommutative instantons (see e.g. [@Ncinst1; @Ncinst2] and references therein). In string theory they are interpreted as states of noncommutative D-branes (see e.g. [@Dbranes] and references therein). On the other hand, when $k_0=k_1=1$ and $\phi$ is non-constant eqs. (\[holtri1\])–(\[holtri3\]) reduce to the perturbed abelian Seiberg-Witten monopole equations [@Witten]. For $M={{\mathbb{R}^4_\theta}}$ one encounters the noncommutative ${\rm U}_+(1){{\times}}{\rm U}_-(1)$ Seiberg-Witten monopole equations studied in [@PSW].
[**Vortices in two dimensions.** ]{} For $\textrm{dim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}M=2$ and $k_0=k_1=1$, the set (\[holtri1\])–(\[holtri3\]) coincides with the standard vortex equations, whose solutions on $M={{\mathbb{R}}}^2_\theta$ were considered e.g. in [@Vortex].
[**Quiver Toda equations.** ]{} Let us investigate the equations (\[f24\])–(\[f25b\]) in the limit $R_1,R_2\to\infty$ which decompactifies the spherical parts of our Kähler manifold $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. With the redefinitions $\phi^{(\ell)}_{i\a}\to R_\ell\,\phi^{(\ell)}_{i\a}$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,m_1$ and $\a=0,1,\ldots,m_2$, the quiver vortex equations then descend to the [*quiver Toda equations*]{} 2 g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^[i]{}\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} (\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{})\^\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{} -\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ &+& (\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{})\^\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{} -\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}(\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ ,\
F\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{}&=&0 ,\
\^[ ]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\_[|a]{} \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[|a]{}&=&0 ,\
\^[ ]{}\_[|a]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} + A\^[i]{}\_[|a]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[|a]{}&=&0 ,\
\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1+1]{} - \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1+1]{}&=&0 . In this limit the induced quiver gauge theory on $M$ is independent of the additional spherical dimensions. In the case $\phi^{(2)}_{i\a}=0\ ~\forall i,\a$ and $\phi^{~}_i:=\phi^{(1)}_{i\,0}$ we arrive at 2 g\^[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}F\^i\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = \_i\^\^[ ]{}\_i -\^[ ]{}\_[i+1]{}\_[i+1]{}\^ ,F\^i\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 ,|\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[i+1]{} +A\^i\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[i+1]{} - \_[i+1]{}A\^[i+1]{}\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} = 0 , which may be called the [*holomorphic chain Toda equations*]{} on the Kähler manifold $M$.
[**Symmetric instantons on ${{\boldsymbol {{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1} }}$.** ]{} A somewhat opposite limit to the decompactification limit above comes from choosing the vacuum solution for generic monopole charges $(m_1,m_2)$ on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. Let us set $A^{i\alpha}=0$ in (\[f6a\]), $\phi_{i+1\,\alpha}^{(1)}$ and $\phi^{(2)}_{i\,\alpha+1}$ to constant matrices in (\[f6\])–(\[ff7\]), and $F^{i\alpha}=0$ in (\[f11\]). Then the field strength components (\[f12\])–(\[ff13\]) are identically zero, but (\[fc1\])–(\[fc4\]) are generically non-vanishing. The components (\[f15\])–(\[fc16\]) vanish, while (\[fc17\])–(\[Fyyb\]) are non-vanishing and give the components of the gauge fields on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. The BPS equations (\[f240\])–(\[f25a\]) are identically satisfied in this case, while eqs. (\[f24\]) and (\[f25b\]) should be solved with constant matrices $\phi^{(\ell)}_{i\alpha}$. The simplest choice is square matrices with $(m_1,m_2)=(1,1)$. The BPS equations (\[f24\]) and (\[f25b\]) are respectively equivalent in this case to the equations \^[i,i]{}\_[y\_1 [|y]{}\_1]{} + [F]{}\^[i,i]{}\_[y\_2 [|y\_2]{}]{}&=&0 ,\
[F]{}\^[i+1+1,i]{}\_[y\_1 y\_2]{}&=&0 = [F]{}\^[i,i+1+1]{}\_[[|y]{}\_1 [|y]{}\_2]{} . \[redvaceqs\]Furthermore, ${\cal F}^{i\,\alpha+1,i+1\,\alpha}_{y_1\bar y_2}$ is given by (\[Fyyb\]). The equations (\[redvaceqs\]) give ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-equivariant solutions of the self-dual Yang-Mills equations on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ which are vacuum BPS solutions of the original DUY equations. These solutions have non-zero energy, and the entire structure of these non-abelian instantons on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ is reduced to equations for finite-dimensional matrices from our equivariant fields.
Finite energy solutions\[NCYMsols\]
-----------------------------------
Let us fix monopole charges $m_1,m_2>0$ and an arbitrary integer $0<r\le k$. Consider the ansatz \[ansatz3\] X\_[a]{}\^[i]{} &=& \_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}[[|[z]{}]{}]{}\^[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ X\_[[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[i]{} = \^[ ]{}\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}b]{} T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} z\^[b]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ ,\
\[ansatz3p1\] \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} &=& \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} T\_[N\_[i+1]{}]{}\^(\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ = |\^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{} T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i+1]{}]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ ,\
\[ansatz3p\] \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} &=& \^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{}T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} T\_[N\_[i+1]{}]{}\^(\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{})\^ = |\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i+1]{}]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ , where $\lambda^{(1)}_{i\a}, \lambda^{(2)}_{i\a}\in{{\mathbb{C}}}$ are some constants with $\lambda^{(1)}_{0\a}=0=\lambda^{(1)}_{m_1+1\,\a}$ and $\lambda^{(2)}_{i0}=0=\lambda^{(2)}_{i\,m_2+1}$ for $i=0,1,\dots,m_1$, $\a=0,1,\dots,m_2$. Denoting by ${{\cal H}}$ the $n$-oscillator Fock space as before, the Toeplitz operators T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} :\^r[[H]{}]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}are partial isometries described by [*rectangular*]{} $k_{i\a}{{\times}}r$ matrices (with values in ${\rm End}~{{\cal H}}$) possessing the properties $$\label{ansatz4}
T_{N_{i\a}}^\+\,T^{~}_{N_{i\a}}\={\mathbf{1}}_r \qquad\textrm{while}\qquad
T^{~}_{N_{i\a}}\,T_{N_{i\a}}^\+\ =\ {\mathbf{1}}_{k_{i\a}} - P^{~}_{N_{i\a}}\ ,$$ where $P^{~}_{N_{i\a}}$ is a hermitean projector of finite rank $N_{i\a}$ on the Fock space $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}\otimes{{\cal H}}$ so that P\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^2P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}P\^\_[N\_[i]{}]{} [[Tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[\_[k\_[i]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}]{} P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}N\_[i]{} . \[PNiTrace\] It follows that T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}{0} T\^\_[N\_[i]{}]{}īmP\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} \^[N\_[i]{}]{} . \[dimkerTNi\]
For the ansatz (\[ansatz3\])–(\[ansatz3p\]) the equations (\[ddd1a\])–(\[ddd2\]) are satisfied along with the non-holomorphic relations (\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{})\^ \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1-1]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_[i+1]{}(\^[(2)]{}\_[i+1]{} )\^=0 , \[antiholrels\]or equivalently in terms of graded connections one has the commutativity condition =0 . \[mphiantiholcommrels\]The non-vanishing gauge field strength components are given by $$F_{a{{{\bar{b}}}}}^{i\a} \= \th_{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,P^{~}_{N_{i\a}}\=\frac1{2\,\theta^a}\,
\delta_{a{{\bar{b}}}}\,P^{~}_{N_{i\a}} \ .
\label{ansatzfieldstrength}$$ It follows that our ansatz determines a [*finite-dimensional*]{} representation of the quiver with relations $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$. The projectors $P^{~}_{N_{i\a}}$ give representations of the trivial path idempotents $e_{i\a}$ and project the infinite-dimensional Fock module $\underline{\cal V}\otimes{{\cal H}}$ over the path algebra ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, given by the noncommutative quiver bundle, onto finite-dimensional vector spaces $P^{~}_{N_{i\a}}\cdot(\,\underline{\cal
V}\otimes{{\cal H}})=\ker T^\dag_{N_{i\a}}$. This module will be denoted as :=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} T\^\_[N\_[i]{}]{} \[calTdef\]with dimension vector N := k\_= (N\_[i]{})\^[i=0,1,…,m\_1]{}\_[=0,1,…,m\_2]{} . \[Ndimvec\]These dimensions correspond to the degrees of the corresponding noncommutative sub-bundles determined by (\[ansatzfieldstrength\]).
The noncommutative Yang-Mills action for the ansatz (\[ansatz3\])–(\[ansatz3p\]) can be evaluated by using (\[SYMred\]), (\[intNC\]), (\[ddd2\]), (\[ansatz4\]), (\[antiholrels\]) and (\[ansatzfieldstrength\]) to get S\^[ ]{}\_[YM]{}&=&-R\_1\^2R\_2\^2 [Pf]{}(2) \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} [[Tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[\_[k\_[i]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}]{}{ [[tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[2n2n]{}(\^[-2]{}) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}.\
&&-1[2R\_1\^4]{}\^2\
&& -.1[2R\_2\^4]{}\^2 } . \[SNCYMansatz\]Requiring that $S_{\rm YM}^{~}<\infty$ yields a pair of equations determining the moduli of the complex coefficients $\lambda^{(1)}_{i\a}$ and $ \lambda^{(2)}_{i\a}$ respectively. Up to a phase they are thus uniquely fixed, by demanding that the ansatz (\[ansatz3\])–(\[ansatz3p\]) be a finite energy field configuration, as |\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{}|\^2ī(m\_1-i+1) |\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{}|\^2=(m\_2-+1) . \[lambdafixed\]The corresponding finite action (\[SNCYMansatz\]) then reads S\_[YM]{}\^[ ]{}&=&R\_1\^2R\_2\^2 [Pf]{}(2) \_[i=0]{}\^[2]{} \_[=0]{}\^[2]{}(N\_[i]{}+ N\_[m\_1-im\_2-]{}+N\_[m\_1-i]{}+N\_[im\_2-]{})\
&& , \[SNCYMfinitegen\]where we have split the sum over nodes of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ into contributions from Dirac monopoles and antimonopoles which each have the same Yang-Mills energies on the spheres ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}$ and ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$. This splitting will be the crux later on for the physical interpretation of our instanton solutions.
Finally, let us check that the Yang-Mills equations on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\theta{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ are indeed satisfied by our choice of ansatz. We have \[chia\] \_a- \_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}[[|[z]{}]{}]{}\^[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} & =& \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} X\^[i]{}\_a\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} = \_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}[[|[z]{}]{}]{}\^[[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ \^[ ]{}\_[i]{} ,\
\[chiab\] \_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} - \_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}b]{} z\^[b]{} & =& \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} X\^[i]{}\_[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} = \_[[[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} b]{}\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}z\^[b]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ \^[ ]{}\_[i]{} , while ${{\cal{A}}}_{y_{1}}$, ${{\cal{A}}}_{y_{2}}$, ${{\cal{A}}}_{{{\bar{y}}}_{1}}$ and ${{\cal{A}}}_{{{\bar{y}}}_{2}}$ are given by (\[calAy1\])–(\[calAgraded\]). For our ansatz the field strength tensor has components \[cfabb\] \_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} &=&\_[a[[|[b]{}]{}]{}]{} \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} ,\
\[cfvtvp1\] \_[y\_1[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} &=& \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (m\_1-2i) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} ,\
\[cfvtvp2\] \_[y\_2[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{} &=& \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (m\_2-2) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} , where we have imposed the finite energy conditions (\[lambdafixed\]). One can now easily check in the same way as in [@PS1] that the Yang-Mills equations (\[YM\]) are satisfied.
BPS solutions\[BPSsolns\]
-------------------------
The configurations described above are generically non-BPS solutions of the Yang-Mills equations on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\theta{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$. Let us now describe the structure of the BPS states. Substituting (\[ansatz3p1\]), (\[ansatz3p\]) and (\[ansatzfieldstrength\]) into the remaining DUY equations (\[ddd1\]) and using the finite energy constraints (\[lambdafixed\]), one finds the BPS conditions \_[a=1]{}\^n1[\^a]{}=+ \[BPScondn\]for all $i,\a$ with $N_{i\a}>0$. Generically, these conditions are incompatible with one another unless only one of the degrees, say $N_{00}$ for definiteness, is non-zero. Then the solution (\[ansatz3\])–(\[ansatz3p\]) is truncated by setting $T^{~}_{N_{i\a}}={\mathbf{1}}_r$ for all $(i,\a)\neq(0,0)$ which correspond to vacuum gauge potentials $A^{i\a}=0$ with trivial bundle maps $\phi^{(\ell)}_{i\a}$ acting as multiplication by the complex numbers $\lambda^{(\ell)}_{i\a}$ satisfying (\[lambdafixed\]). The BPS solutions are also restricted to the special class of quiver representations (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) having dimension vectors $\vec k$ with $k_{i\a}=r~~\forall(i,\a)\neq(0,0)$ and $k_{00}+m_1\,m_2\,r=k$. As we will see in Section \[modsp\], these quiver representations are essentially generic and hence BPS solutions always exist. The corresponding BPS energy (\[SNCYMfinitegen\]) is proportional to the degree $N_{00}$ and corresponds to the topological invariants displayed in (\[SBPSgen\]), with the remaining terms vanishing due to the non-holomorphic relations (\[antiholrels\]).
Notice that there are special points in the quiver vortex moduli space where the generic BPS gauge symmetry ${\rm U}(k_{00}){{\times}}{\rm
U}(r)^{m_1\,m_2}$ is enhanced. For example, if $R_1=R_2$ and $p$ is any fixed integer with $0\leq p\leq\min(m_1,m_2)$, then a BPS solution with $N_{i\,p-i}>0$ for $i=0,1,\dots,p$ is possible. This solution corresponds to a holomorphic chain along the diagonal vertices $(i,\a)$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ with $i+\a=p$. The corresponding BPS energies depend on $p$ and are minimized precisely at $p=0$.
The BPS solution having $N_{i\a}>0$ may be characterized in quiver gauge theory as $N_{i\a}$ copies of the simple Schur representation $\underline{{{\cal L}}}_{\,i\a}$ for each $i=0,1,\dots,m_1$, $\a=0,1,\dots,m_2$. This is the ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-module given by a one-dimensional vector space at vertex $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)$ with all maps equal to $0$, i.e. the ${{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-module with $(\,\underline{{{\cal L}}}_{\,i\a})_{j\b}=\delta_{ij}\,\delta_{\a\b}~{{\mathbb{C}}}$ and dimension vector $(\vec
k_{\underline{{{\cal L}}}_{\,i\a}})_{j\b}=\delta_{ij}\,\delta_{\a\b}$. The generic non-BPS configurations give modules $\underline{\cal T}$ which are extensions of the BPS modules $(\,\underline{{{\cal L}}}_{\,i\a})^{\oplus N_{i\a}}$ [@PS1] describing noncommutative quiver vortex configurations.
Instanton moduli space\[modsp\]
-------------------------------
We will now describe the moduli space of the generic (non-BPS) solutions that we have obtained. The equations of motion are fixed first of all by the positive integers $n$ and $k$. The condition of $G$-equivariance then specifies a quiver representation (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) with dimension vector $\vec k$. The Yang-Mills action (\[SNCYMfinitegen\]) is independent of $\vec k$, and later on we will find that in fact no physical quantities depend on the particular choice of quiver representation. As we now proceed to demonstrate, this independence is due to the triviality of the moduli space of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules.
Let us fix a dimension vector $\vec k$. Then with the identifications $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}^{k_{i\a}}$ we can regard the module (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) as an element in the space of quiver representations [*into*]{} $\underline{\cal V}$ given by ([[Q]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{},k):= \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}( [Hom]{}(\^[k\_[i+1]{}]{},\^[k\_[i]{}]{}) (\^[k\_[i+1]{}]{},\^[k\_[i]{}]{})) \[RepQkdef\]with $k_{m_1+1\,\a}:=0=:k_{i\,m_2+1}$. This is the space of representations with fixed dimension vector $\vec
k$. The set of representations of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ into $\underline{\cal V}$ satisfying the relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ is an affine variety inside the space (\[RepQkdef\]).
The gauge group of the corresponding quiver gauge theory is given by (\[gaugebroken\]). As in Section \[eqvecbun\], it is useful to work instead with the complexified gauge group (k)=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} [GL]{}(k\_[i]{},) . \[Qcomplexgaugegp\]Suppose that $\underline{\cal V}\,,\,\underline{{\cal V}'}\in{\rm
Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ and $\,\underline{ f}\,:\underline{\cal
V}\to\underline{{\cal V}'}$ is an isomorphism of quiver representations. Then $\,\underline{ f}\,$ can be naturally regarded as an element of the gauge group (\[Qcomplexgaugegp\]). Conversely, any element $\,\underline{ f}\,=\{ f_{i\a}\in{\rm GL}(k_{i\a},{{\mathbb{C}}})\}_{0\leq
i\leq m_1,0\leq\a\leq m_2}\in{\sf G}(\vec k\,)$ acts on $\underline{\cal V}\in{\rm Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ in the same fashion. It follows that the gauge group ${\sf G}(\vec k\,)$ acts on ${\rm Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ and two quiver representations are isomorphic if and only if they lie in the same orbit of ${\sf G}(\vec k\,)$. Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence between ${\sf G}(\vec k\,)$-orbits in ${\rm
Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ and isomorphism classes of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules with dimension vector $\vec k$.
This set defines the moduli space ${\cal M}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec
k\,)$ of quiver representations. It has virtual dimension [@Kac1] \^[vir]{}&=&1+ [Rep]{}([[Q]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{},k)- [G]{}(k)\
&=& 1-\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}k\_[i]{} (k\_[i]{}-k\_[i+1]{}-k\_[i+1]{}) . \[dimcalMvir\]Restricting to representations which satisfy the relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ lowers (\[dimcalMvir\]) by $\sum_{i,\a}\,k_{i\a}\,k_{i+1\,\a+1}$. Representations with moduli space dimension greater than the virtual dimension can arise due to additional unbroken gauge symmetry, as described in Section \[BPSsolns\]. Schur representations, describing generic BPS states, are those modules for which the stable dimension equals the virtual dimension. Rigid representations carry no moduli and have vanishing virtual dimension. As we now show, it is these latter ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules that parametrize our noncommutative quiver vortices.
The scalar subgroup ${{\mathbb{C}}}^\times\subset{\sf G}(\vec k\,)$ acts trivially on ${\rm Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$, and we are left with a free action of the projective gauge group ${\sf PG}(\vec k\,):={\sf
G}(\vec k\,)/{{\mathbb{C}}}^\times$. Since ${\sf PG}(\vec k\,)$ is not compact, we must use geometric invariant theory to obtain a quotient which is well-defined as a projective variety [@GIT]. The representation space $X={\rm Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ is an affine variety. Let ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]$ denote the ring of polynomial functions on $X$. The ${\sf
PG}(\vec k\,)$-action on $X$ induces a ${\sf PG}(\vec k\,)$-action on ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]$ in the usual way by pull-back. Let ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]^{{\sf PG}(\vec
k\,)}\subset{{\mathbb{C}}}[X]$ be the subalgebra of ${\sf PG}(\vec
k\,)$-invariant polynomials. Since the gauge group (\[Qcomplexgaugegp\]) is reductive, the graded ring ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]^{{\sf
PG}(\vec k\,)}$ is finitely generated and by the Gel’fand-Naimark theorem it can be regarded as the polynomial ring of a complex projective affine variety $X\,/\!\!/\,{\sf PG}(\vec k\,)$. This defines the desired moduli space ([[Q]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{},k) := [Rep]{}([[Q]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{},k)// [PG]{}(k)Proj \^[[PG]{}(k)]{} . \[calMdef\]
Now since the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ has no oriented cycles, we may lexicographically order its vertex set as ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(0)}=\{1,2,\dots,(m_1+1)\,(m_2+1)\}$ and assume that the integer label of the tail node of each arrow is smaller than that of the head node. For $\zeta\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^\times$ we define $\,\underline{ f}\,_\zeta\in{\sf G}(\vec k\,)$ by $(\,\underline{ f}\,_\zeta)_i=\zeta^i~{\mathbf{1}}_{k_i}\in{\rm
GL}(k_i,{{\mathbb{C}}})$ for each $i\in{{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(0)}$. Then by considering the action of $\,\underline{ f}\,_\zeta$ on $X={\rm
Rep}({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)},\vec k\,)$ and on ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]^{{\sf PG}(\vec k\,)}$, one easily deduces that ${{\mathbb{C}}}[X]^{{\sf
PG}(\vec k\,)}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}$. This means that the moduli space (\[calMdef\]) is trivial, ([[Q]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{},k)=[point]{} , \[calMtrivial\]and all quiver representations are gauge equivalent.
Thus the only moduli of our solutions arise from the moduli space of noncommutative solitons [@GHS1]. They are parametrized by the pair of monopole charges $(m_1,m_2)$ and by the dimension vector $\vec N$ of the quiver representation (\[calTdef\]). The above argument again shows that there are no extra moduli associated with the ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules $\underline{\cal T}$. For each $i,\a$ we let $b_{l_{i\a}}=(b_{l_{i\a}}^a)$, $l_{i\a}=1,\dots,N_{i\a}$ be the holomorphic components of fixed points in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^n$, and let $|b_{l_{i\a}}\rangle$ be the corresponding coherent states in the $n$-oscillator Fock space ${{\cal H}}$. For the projector $P_{N_{i\a}}$ in the solution of Section \[NCYMsols\] we may take the orthogonal projection of ${{\cal H}}$ onto the linear span $\bigoplus_{l_{i\a}=1}^{N_{i\a}}\,{{\mathbb{C}}}|b_{l_{i\a}}\rangle$. Modulo the standard action of the noncommutative gauge group ${\rm U}({{\cal H}})\cong{\rm
U}(\infty)$, the moduli space of these projectors can be described as an ideal $\cal I$ of the ring of polynomials ${{\mathbb{C}}}[{{\bar{z}}}^1,\dots,{{\bar{z}}}^n]$ in the noncommutative coordinates acting on the vacuum state $|0,\dots,0\rangle$. The zero set of $\cal I$ gives the locations of the instantons in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^n$ and the codimension of $\cal
I$ in ${{\mathbb{C}}}[{{\bar{z}}}^1,\dots,{{\bar{z}}}^n]$ is the number $N_{i\a}$ of instantons. The moduli space of partial isometries $T^{~}_{N_{i\a}}$ thereby coincides with the Hilbert scheme ${\rm Hilb}^{N_{i\a}}({{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ of $N_{i\a}$ points in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^n$ [@GHS1], and thus the total moduli space of the solutions constructed in Section \[NCYMsols\] is \^n\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}(N)=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} [Hilb]{}\^[N\_[i]{}]{}(\^n) . \[totmodsp\]The quiver representation (\[calTdef\]) thereby specifies the supports of the noncommutative quiver vortices in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$. Explicit forms for the Toeplitz operators $T^{~}_{N_{i\a}}$ corresponding to specific points in (\[totmodsp\]) may be constructed exactly as in [@PS1] by using the noncommutative ABS construction. We will return to this point in the next section.
D-brane realizations\[Dcharges\]
================================
In this final section we will elucidate the physical interpretation of our solutions as particular configurations of branes and antibranes in Type IIA superstring theory. We will first compute, in the original gauge theory on ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, the topological charges of the multi-instanton solutions constructed in Section \[NCYMsols\]. This will make clear the D-brane interpretation which we describe in detail. We then present two independent checks of the proposed identification. Firstly, we work out the K-theory charges associated to the noncommutative quiver vortices. Secondly, we compute the topological charge in the quiver gauge theory arising after dimensional reduction to ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$. While formally similar to the construction of [@PS1] in the case of holomorphic chains, the new feature of the higher rank quiver is that all of these computations of D-brane charges agree [*only*]{} when one imposes the appropriate relations derived earlier. The ensuing calculations thereby also provide a nice physical realization of the quiver with relations $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$. Details of the homological algebra techniques used in this section may be found in [@Quiverbooks; @Hom].
Topological charges\[Topcharge\]
--------------------------------
Let us compute the topological charge of the configurations (\[ansatz3\])–(\[PNiTrace\]). The non-vanishing components of the field strength tensor along ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}$ are given by \^[ ]{}\_[2a-1 2a]{} = 2 \^[ ]{}\_[a[[|[a]{}]{}]{}]{} = - \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} , \[calFalongR\]while the non-vanishing spherical components can be written in terms of angular coordinates on $S_{(1)}^2{{\times}}S^2_{(2)}$ as \^[ ]{}\_[\_1\_1]{} &= &- \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (m\_1-2i) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} \^[ ]{}\_[i]{} ,\
\^[ ]{}\_[\_2\_2]{} &= &- \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (m\_2-2) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} \^[ ]{}\_[i]{} . This gives && \^[ ]{}\_[12]{}\^[ ]{}\_[34]{}\^[ ]{}\_[2n-1 2n]{} \^[ ]{}\_[\_1\_1]{}\^[ ]{}\_[\_2\_2]{}\
&& = (-)\^[n]{}(\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} )\^n\
&& (\_[j\_1=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[\_1=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(m\_1-2j\_1) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[j\_1\_1]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[j\_1\_1]{}) (\_[j\_2=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[\_2=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(m\_2-2j\_2) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[j\_2\_2]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[j\_2\_2]{})\
&& = (-)\^[n]{}\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (m\_1-2i) (m\_2-2) P\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{} . The instanton charge is then given by the $(n+2)$-th Chern number Q:= ()\^[n+2]{} [Pf]{}(2) \_[S\_[(1)]{}\^2S\_[(2)]{}\^2]{} [[Tr]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_ \_[n+2]{} . \[topchargedef\]The calculation now proceeds exactly as in [@PS1] and one finds Q=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(m\_1-2i)(m\_2-2)N\_[i]{} . \[Qsame\]For the BPS configurations described in Section \[BPSsolns\] the energy functional (\[SNCYMfinitegen\]) is proportional to the topological charge (\[Qsame\]), as expected for a BPS instanton solution.
As we did in (\[SNCYMfinitegen\]), let us rewrite (\[Qsame\]) in the form Q=\_[i=0]{}\^[2]{} \_[=0]{}\^[2]{} (m\_1-2i)(m\_2-2) . \[Qsugg\]This formula suggests that one should regard the nodes of the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) which live in the upper right and lower left quadrants as branes (with positive charges), and those in the upper left and lower right quadrants as antibranes (with negative charges). The branes and antibranes are realized as a quiver vortex configuration on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}_\theta$ of D0-branes in a system of $k=\sum_{i,\a}\,k_{i\a} \ $ D$(2n)$-branes. The twisting of the Chan-Paton bundles by the Dirac multi-monopole bundles over the ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ factors is crucial in this construction. This system is equivalent to a configuration of spherical D2-branes, wrapping ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(\ell)}$ for $\ell=1,2$, inside a system of D$(2n+4)$-branes on ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(1)}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$. The monopole flux through each ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ factor stabilizes the D2-branes. After equivariant dimensional reduction, the D$(2n)$-branes which carry negative magnetic flux on their worldvolume have opposite orientation with respect to those which carry positive magnetic flux, and are thus antibranes. The bi-fundamental scalar fields $\phi^{(\ell)}_{i\a}$ correspond to massless open string excitations between nearest neighbour D-branes on the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. The relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of the quiver, given by (\[phicommrels\]), imply that there is a unique Higgs excitation marginally binding any given pair of D-branes. As will become apparent in Section \[Kcharge\], only those brane-antibrane pairs whose total monopole charge vanishes are actually unstable and possess tachyonic excitations causing them to annihilate to the vacuum. Other pairs are stabilized by the non-trivial monopole bundles over the two ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ factors which act as a source of flux stabilization. This interpretation is consistent with the form of the energy (\[SNCYMfinitegen\]) of our solutions, and the stability of the brane configuration is consistent with the structure of BPS solutions found in Section \[BPSsolns\]. In the remainder of this section we will justify and expand on these statements.
Symmetric spinors\[Symspinors\]
-------------------------------
The standard explicit realization of the basic partial isometry operators $T_{N_{i\a}}^{~}$ describing the noncommutative multi-instanton solutions is provided by a $G$-equivariant version of the (noncommutative) Atiyah-Bott-Shapiro (ABS) construction of tachyon field configurations [@PS1], where $G={{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$. Let us now describe some general aspects of this construction. We begin with the equivariant excision theorem [@Segal1] which computes the $G$-equivariant K-theory of the space $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$ through the isomorphism [[K]{}]{}\_G(MP\_[(1)]{}\^1P\^1\_[(2)]{}) [[K]{}]{}\_G(G\_HM)[[K]{}]{}\_H(M) . \[excisiongen\]Since the closed subgroup $H={{{\rm U}(1){\times}{\rm U}(1)}}\subset G$ acts trivially on $M$, from the Künneth theorem we arrive at [[K]{}]{}\_G(MP\_[(1)]{}\^1P\^1\_[(2)]{})= [[K]{}]{}(M)[[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}[[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(2)]{} , \[excisionslc\]where ${{\rm R}}_{{{\rm U}(1)}}$ is the representation ring of the group ${{{\rm U}(1)}}$. Setting $M={\rm point}$ in this isomorphism and using (\[monbundles\]), we may describe this representation ring as the formal Laurent polynomial ring ${{\rm R}}_H={{\rm K}}_G({{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)})={{\mathbb{Z}}}[{{\cal L}}_{(1)}^{~},{{\cal L}}^\vee_{(1)}]\otimes
{{\mathbb{Z}}}[{{\cal L}}_{(2)}^{~},{{\cal L}}^\vee_{(2)}]$. Then (\[excisionslc\]) is just the generalization of the isomorphism described in Section \[eqvecbun\] to the case of virtual bundles.
In the case of main interest, $M={{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$, we can make the above isomorphism very explicit. Let ${{\rm R}}_{{{\rm Spin}}_H(2n)}$ be the Grothendieck group of isomorphism classes of finite-dimensional ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded $H{{\times}}{{{\rm C}\ell}}_{2n}$-modules, where ${{{\rm C}\ell}}_{2n}:={{{\rm C}\ell}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n})$ denotes the Clifford algebra of the vector space ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ with the canonical inner product $\delta_{\mu\nu}$. Extending the standard ABS construction [@ABS1], we may then compute the $H$-equivariant K-theory ${{\rm K}}_H({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n})$ with $H$ acting trivially on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ and commuting with the Clifford action. Any such $H{{\times}}{{{\rm C}\ell}}_{2n}$-module is a direct sum of products of an $H$-module and a spinor module, and hence [[R]{}]{}\_[[[Spin]{}]{}\_H(2n)]{}= [[R]{}]{}\_[[[Spin]{}]{}(2n)]{}[[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}[[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(2)]{} . \[spinortrivdecomp\]The first factor can be treated by the standard ABS construction and yields the ordinary K-theory group ${{\rm K}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n})$. Therefore, our equivariant K-theory group reduces to [[K]{}]{}\_H(\^[2n]{})=[[K]{}]{}(\^[2n]{}) [[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}[[R]{}]{}\_[[[U]{}(1)]{}]{}\^[(2)]{} . \[eqABSiso\]In the present context of the equivariant ABS construction, this isomorphism may be described in terms of the isotopical decomposition of the spinor module \_[2n]{} := (\^[2n]{} )=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[i]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}\^[(2)]{} \[spinmoddecomp\]obtained by restricting $\underline{\Delta}_{\,2n}$ to representations of ${{{\rm U}(1){\times}{\rm U}(1)}}\subset{{\rm Spin}}(2n)\subset{{{\rm C}\ell}}_{2n}$. Let $\iota:H\hookrightarrow G$ be the inclusion map. It induces a restriction map from representations of $G$ to representations of $H$, and hence a homomorphism of representation rings \^\*:[[R]{}]{}\_G [[R]{}]{}\_H . \[represtrmap\]The $\Delta_{i\a}$’s in (\[spinmoddecomp\]) are then the corresponding multiplicity spaces \_[i]{}=[Hom]{}\^[ ]{}\_H(\^\*\_[2n]{}, \^[(1)]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}\^[(2)]{} ) . \[multspaces\]
To compute the spaces (\[multspaces\]) explicitly, consider the homomorphism of representation rings \_\*:[[R]{}]{}\_H [[R]{}]{}\_G \[repindmap\]induced by the induction map from representations of $H$ to representations of $G$. On generators it is given by the space of sections \_\*(\^[(1)]{}\_[p\_1]{}\_[p\_2]{}\^[(2)]{})=([[L]{}]{}\_[(1)]{}\^[p\_1]{} [[L]{}]{}\_[(2)]{}\^[p\_2]{}) \[spacesections\]of the homogeneous line bundle ${{\cal L}}_{(1)}^{p_1}\otimes{{\cal L}}_{(2)}^{p_2}=G{{\times}}_H\big(\,
\underline{S}^{(1)}_{\,p_1}\otimes\underline{S}_{\,p_2}^{(2)}\big)$ over the base space $G/H\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}P_{(1)}^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1_{(2)}$, with $G$-action induced by the standard action on the base. By Frobenius reciprocity we have $\dim\,{\rm
Hom}^{~}_G(\,\underline{V}\,,\,\iota_*\underline{W}\,)=\dim\,{\rm
Hom}^{~}_H(\iota^*\underline{V}\,,\,\underline{W}\,)$ for $\underline{V}$ a representation of $G$ and $\underline{W}$ a representation of $H$. As a consequence we can identify the multiplicity spaces (\[multspaces\]) as \_[i]{}=[Hom]{}\^[ ]{}\_G(\_[2n]{}, ([[L]{}]{}\_[(1)]{}\^[m\_1-2i]{}[[L]{}]{}\_[(2)]{}\^[m\_2-2]{})) . \[multspHomG\]
We may now calculate the isotopical decomposition (\[spinmoddecomp\]) by using (\[multspHomG\]) to construct the ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-invariant dimensional reduction of spinors from ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ to ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$. To this end, we introduce the twisted Dirac operator on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ using the graded connection formalism of Section \[gradedconn\] to write the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_1+1}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{m_2+1}$-graded Clifford connection := \^D\_= \^D\_\_2\_2 &+& ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{})\^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_1]{} \_2- ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{})\^\^[y\_1]{}\_[y\_1]{} \_2\
&+& ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{})\_2 \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_2]{}- ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{})\^\_2 \^[y\_2]{}\_[y\_2]{}\
&+& \_[P\^1]{}\^[(1)]{} \_2+ \_2 \_[P\^1]{}\^[(2)]{} \[Diracgradeddef\]where \_[P\^1]{}\^[()]{} := \^[y\_]{}( \_[y\_]{}+\_[y\_]{}+([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[y\_]{} ) + \^[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}( \_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}+\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{}+([[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}\^[(m\_)]{})\_[[[|[y]{}]{}]{}\_]{} ) \[DiracS2def\]with $\ell=1,2$, and $\omega_y,\omega_{{\bar{y}}}$ are the components of the Levi-Civita spin connection on the tangent bundle of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. The operator (\[Diracgradeddef\]) acts on sections $\Psi$ of the twisted spinor bundle = \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(E\_[k\_[i]{}]{}\_[2n]{})
[[L]{}]{}\_[(1)]{}\^[m\_1-2i+1]{}\
[[L]{}]{}\_[(1)]{}\^[m\_1-2i-1]{}
[[L]{}]{}\_[(2)]{}\^[m\_2-2+1]{}\
[[L]{}]{}\_[(2)]{}\^[m\_2-2-1]{}
\[spinortotgen\]over ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, where ${{\cal L}}^{p+1}\oplus{{\cal L}}^{p-1}$ are the twisted spinor bundles of rank $2$ over the sphere ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. We are therefore interested in the product of the spinor module $\underline{\Delta}_{\,2n}\otimes\underline{\Delta}\,({{\mathbb{C}}}P^1)\otimes\underline{\Delta}\,({{\mathbb{C}}}P^1)$ with the fundamental representation (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) of the gauge group ${\rm U}(k)$ broken as in (\[gaugebroken\]).
The symmetric fermions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ that we are interested in correspond to ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-invariant spinors on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. They belong to the kernels $\ker(\Dirac_{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1}^{(1)})\otimes\ker(\Dirac_{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1}^{(2)})$ of the two Dirac operators (\[DiracS2def\]) on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. By using (\[ma1\]), (\[ma2\]) and (\[CP1Cliffalg\]) one can write chiral decompositions of the Dirac operators (\[DiracS2def\]) acting on (\[spinortotgen\]) in the form \^[(1)]{}\_[P\^1]{}= \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{}
0&\^[(1)+]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}\
\^[(1)-]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}&0
\^[(2)]{}\_[P\^1]{}= \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}
0&\^[(2)+]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}\
\^[(2)-]{}\_[m\_2-2]{}&0
, \[DiracS2decomp\]where \^[(1)+]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}&=&-1[R\_1\^2]{} ,\
\^[(1)-]{}\_[m\_1-2i]{}&=&1[R\_1\^2]{}\[Dirac1pm\]and analogously for $\Dirac^{(2)\,\pm}_{m_2-2\a}$. The non-trivial kernels are naturally isomorphic to irreducible ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-modules [@PS1] given by \^[()+]{}\_p{0} && \^[()-]{}\_p=\_[|p|]{} p<0 ,\
\^[()+]{}\_p=\_[p]{} && \^[()-]{}\_p {0} p>0 , \[kersumod\]with $p=m_1-2i$ for $\ell=1$ and $p=m_2-2\a$ for $\ell=2$. Thus the chirality gradings are by the signs of the corresponding magnetic charges.
It follows that the ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-equivariant reduction of the twisted spinor representation of ${{{\rm C}\ell}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1)$ decomposes as a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded bundle giving \_\^[[[[SU]{}(2)]{}]{}[[[SU]{}(2)]{}]{}]{} =\_[2n]{}(\_\^[++]{} \_[ ]{}\^[+-]{} \_\^[-+]{} \_\^[–]{}) , \[twistedspingrad\]where
&\_\^[++]{}= \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1\^-]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2\^-]{}\_[i]{}\_\^[+-]{}= \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1\^-]{} \_[=m\_2\^+]{}\^[m\_2]{}\_[i]{} ,\
&\_\^[-+]{}=\_[i=m\_1\^+]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2\^-]{}\_[i]{}\_\^[–]{}=\_[i=m\_1\^+]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=m\_2\^+]{}\^[m\_2]{}\_[i]{}
\[twistedspinpm\]with \_[i]{} = \_[k\_[i]{}]{} \_[|m\_1-2i|]{} \_[|m\_2-2|]{} m\_\^= . \[Deltaiadef\]The reduction (\[twistedspingrad\]) is valid for $m_1\,m_2$ odd, which we henceforth assume for brevity. When $m_1\,m_2$ is even, one should also couple eigenspaces of spinor harmonics in the appropriate manner [@PS1].
The chirality bi-grading in (\[twistedspingrad\]) is by the signs of the magnetic charges. The multiplicative ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading induced by this ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading coincides with the grading into brane-antibrane pairs infered from (\[Qsugg\]). The corresponding actions of the two Clifford multiplications \^[(1)]{}\_: \_\^[-]{} \_\^[+]{} \^[(2)]{}\_: \_\^[-]{} \_\^[+]{} \[CliffmultV\]are uniquely fixed on isotopical components in the same manner as in [@PS1]. They give the tachyon fields which are maps between branes of equal and opposite charge.
The equivalence between D-brane charges on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ and on $M$ asserted by the isomorphism (\[excisionslc\]) can now be understood heuristically through equivariant dimensional reduction as follows. The graded Clifford connection (\[Diracgradeddef\]) defines a class $[\hat\Dirac]$ in the analytic K-homology group ${{\rm K}}^{\rm
a}(M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1)$. Corresponding to $[\hat\Dirac]$, we may define a fermionic action functional on the space of sections $\Psi$ of the bundle (\[spinortotgen\]) by S\_[D]{}\^[ ]{}:=\_[MP\^1P\^1]{}\^[2n+4]{}x g \^ . \[SDdef\]Let us evaluate (\[SDdef\]) on symmetric spinors given by =\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}\_[i]{} \_[i]{}=
\^[(1)+]{}\_[(m\_1-2i)]{}\
\^[(1)-]{}\_[(m\_1-2i)]{}
\^[(2)+]{}\_[(m\_2-2)]{}\
\^[(2)-]{}\_[(m\_2-2)]{}
\[symmspindecomp\]with respect to the decomposition (\[spinortotgen\]), where $\psi_{(p)}^{(\ell)\,\pm}$ are sections of ${{\cal L}}^{p\pm1}$ and $\Psi_{i\a}$ takes values in $\underline{\Delta}_{\,2n}\otimes\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}$ with coefficient functions on $M$. After integration over ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$, one easily computes analogously to [@PS1] that the action functional (\[SDdef\]) on symmetric spinors becomes && S\_[D]{}\^[ ]{}16\^2R\_1\^2R\_2\^2 \_M\^[2n]{}x \[SDred\]\
&& , where $\Dirac:=\gamma^\mu\,D_\mu$ and the component functions $\psi^{(\ell)\,\pm}_{(p)\,k}(x)$ on $M$ with $k=0,1,\dots,|p|-1$ form the irreducible representation $\underline{V}_{\,|p|}\cong{{\mathbb{C}}}^{|p|}$ of the group ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}$. The action functional (\[SDred\]) corresponds to a K-homology class $[\Dirac]$ in ${{\rm K}^{\rm a}}(M)$ twisted by appropriate monopole contributions and ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-modules. We shall now proceed to describe this class more precisely.
K-theory charges\[Kcharge\]
---------------------------
Consider a holomorphic chain as in (\[holchain\]) and suppose that it is a complex at the same time. Let us set $E_+=\bigoplus_{i\,{\rm even}}\,E_{k_{i0}}$ and $E_-=\bigoplus_{i\,{\rm odd}}\,E_{k_{i0}}$, and define \[newphi\] := .\_[E\_-]{} . With respect to this grading, the graded connection (\[newphi\]) is an odd map $\Phi:E_-\to E_+$. Hence, the triple $\big[E_-,E_+;\Phi\big]$ represents the K-theory class of a brane-antibrane system with tachyon field $\Phi$ [@Fold]. The same construction would carry through for a higher-rank quiver bundle of the form (\[bundlediag\]) if the latter was also a bi-complex, i.e. if both the horizontal and vertical arrows defined complexes. In this case the commutativity conditions (\[mphicommrels\]) and (\[mphiantiholcommrels\]) would allow us to lexicographically map the lattice onto a chain, and hence make contact with the above well-known K-theory construction.
However, for generic monopole numbers $m_1$ and $m_2$ the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) does not have the requisite feature of a bi-complex due to the nilpotency properties (\[nilconds\]). Following the interpretation of Section \[Topcharge\] above, we need to fold the holomorphic lattice into maps between branes and antibranes [@PS1; @Fold]. This accomplished by decomposing the quiver module (\[genrepSU2Uk\]) with respect to the multiplicative ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading induced by the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading defined by the signs of the monopole charges $m_1-2i$ and $m_2-2\a$ at each vertex of ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. As a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded vector space we have =\_[+]{}\_[-]{} \_[+]{}=\_[++]{}\_[–]{} \_[-]{}=\_[-+]{}\_[+-]{} , \[calVZ2grading\]where the bi-graded components are given analogously to (\[twistedspinpm\]) as
&\_[++]{}=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1\^-]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2\^-]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{}\_[–]{}=\_[i=m\_1\^+]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=m\_2\^+]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{} ,\
&\_[+-]{}=\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1\^-]{}\_[=m\_2\^+]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[k\_[i]{}]{}\_[-+]{}=\_[i=m\_1\^+]{}\^[m\_1]{}\_[=0]{}\^[m\_2\^-]{}\_[k\_[i]{}]{} .
\[calVZ2gradcomps\]Using (\[mphi1alph\])–(\[mphicommrels\]), we now introduce the operators [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{} := ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{})\^[m\_1\^-]{} [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{} := ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{})\^[m\_2\^-]{} \[mmudef\]constructed from the finite-energy Yang-Mills solutions of Section \[NCYMsols\]. With respect to the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2{{\times}}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading in (\[calVZ2grading\]), they are odd maps [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}:\_[-]{}&& \_[+]{} ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{})\^20 ,\
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}:\_[-]{}&& \_[+]{} ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{})\^20 \[mmuoddmap\]which together form the requisite bi-complex of noncommutative tachyon fields between branes and antibranes.
Let ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}}}{}^{~}_{i\a}$ and ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(2)}}}{}^{~}_{i\a}$ denote the restrictions of the operators (\[mmudef\]) to the isotopical component $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}$. These operators can be written in terms of bundle morphisms as [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}=\^[(1)]{}\_[i-m\_1\^-]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[i]{}[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}= \^[(2)]{}\_[i-m\_2\^-]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{} , \[mmuiamorph\]where it is understood that $\phi^{(1)}_{i\a}=0=\phi^{(2)}_{i\a}$ if $i<0$ or $\a<0$. From (\[ansatz3p1\]) and (\[ansatz3p\]) it follows that the pair of operators (\[mmuiamorph\]) are respectively proportional to the Toeplitz operators T\_[i]{}\^[(1)]{} := T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i-m\_1\^–1]{}]{}T\^\_[N\_[i]{}]{} T\^[(2)]{}\_[i]{} := T\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i-m\_2\^–1]{}]{}T\^\_[N\_[i]{}]{} . The tachyon fields (\[mmudef\]) are thus holomorphic maps between branes of equal and opposite magnetic charges, [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}:\_[k\_[i]{}]{} && \_[k\_[i-m\_1\^–1]{}]{}[[H]{}]{} ,\
[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}:\_[k\_[i]{}]{} &&\_[k\_[i-m\_2\^–1]{}]{} [[H]{}]{} , \[mmuiabranemap\]with the implicit understanding that $\underline{V}_{\,k_{i\a}}=\{0\}$ when $i<0$ or $\a<0$. Furthermore, from (\[dimkerTNi\]) it follows that when the operators (\[mmuiamorph\]) are non-vanishing their kernels and cokernels are the finite dimensional vector spaces given by ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})īmP\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} && ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})\^īmP\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i-m\_1\^–1]{}]{} ,\
([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})īmP\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i]{}]{} && ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})\^īmP\^[ ]{}\_[N\_[i-m\_2\^–1]{}]{} \[dimkermmuia\]with $N_{i\a}:=0$ for $i<0$ or $\a<0$.
The operators ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}}}$ and ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(2)}}}$ are $k{{\times}}k$ matrices whose sum can be written as [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}=
0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[-+]{}&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[+-]{}&0\
0&0&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{}\
0&0&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{}\
0&0&0&0
\[mu12sum\]on $\underline{\cal V}\otimes{\cal H}$ with $\underline{\cal V}=\underline{\cal
V}_{\,++}\oplus\underline{\cal V}_{\,-+}\oplus\underline{\cal
V}_{\,+-}\oplus\underline{\cal V}_{\,--}$, where ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}}}{}^{~}_{-\pm}:={{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(1)}}}|_{\underline{\cal
V}_{\,-\pm}\otimes{\cal H}}$ and ${{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(2)}}}{}^{~}_{\pm-}:={{{{{\boldsymbol {\mu} }}}_{(m_1,m_2)}^{(2)}}}|_{\underline{\cal
V}_{\,\pm-}\otimes{\cal H}}$. This matrix presentation corresponds to the bundle diagram
\_[-+]{}@>[[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[-+]{}]{}>> \_[++]{}\
@A[[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{}]{}AA@AA[[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[+-]{}]{}A\
\_[–]{}@>>[[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{}]{}> \_[+-]{} .
\[mu12diag\]Via an appropriate change of basis of the Hilbert space $\underline{\cal V}\otimes{\cal H}$, from (\[mu12diag\]) it follows that the operator (\[mu12sum\]) can be rewritten as [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}:=
0&0&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[-+]{}&[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[+-]{}\
0&0&([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{})\^&([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[–]{} )\^\
0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0
\[mTdef\]on $\underline{\cal V}\otimes{\cal H}$ with $\underline{\cal
V}=\underline{\cal V}_{\,++}\oplus\underline{\cal V}_{\,--}\oplus
\underline{\cal V}_{\,-+}\oplus\underline{\cal V}_{\,+-}$.
The important ingredients in this construction are the holomorphic relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ which enable us to commute the graded connections as in (\[mphicommrels\]), along with the non-holomorphic relations (\[mphiantiholcommrels\]). Together they imply that, with respect to the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading in (\[calVZ2grading\]), the operator (\[mTdef\]) is an odd map [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}:\_[-]{}[[H]{}]{} \_[+]{}[[H]{}]{}([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{})\^20 \[mToddmap\]and hence it produces the appropriate two-term complex representing the brane-antibrane system with noncommutative tachyon field (\[mTdef\]). Again, when acting on isotopical components the operator ${{{{{\boldsymbol {T} }}}^{~}_{(m_1,m_2)}}}{}^{~}_{i\a}$ relates a given brane to the two possible antibranes of equal but opposite charge as .[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}|\_[\_[-+]{}]{} :\_[k\_[i]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}&& (\_[k\_[i-m\_1\^–1]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}) (\_[k\_[i+m\_2\^-+1]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}) ,\
.[[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{}|\_[\_[+-]{}]{} :\_[k\_[i]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}&&( \_[k\_[i-m\_2\^–1]{}]{}[[H]{}]{}) (\_[k\_[i+m\_1\^-+1]{}]{} [[H]{}]{}) . \[mTiabranemap\]From (\[dimkermmuia\]) it then follows that the operators (\[mTiabranemap\]) have kernels and cokernels of finite dimensions given by .([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})\^|\_[ \_[++]{}]{}&=& = N\_[i-m\_1\^–1-m\_2\^–1]{} ,\
.([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})\^|\_[ \_[–]{}]{}&=& = N\_[i]{} ,\
.([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})|\_[ \_[-+]{}]{}&=& = N\_[i-m\_2\^–1]{} ,\
.([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[i]{})|\_[ \_[+-]{}]{}&=& = N\_[i-m\_1\^–1]{} . \[dimkermTia\]
To incorporate the twistings by the magnetic monopole bundles, we use the ABS construction of Section \[Symspinors\] above to modify the tachyon field (\[mTdef\]) to the operator [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{} := [[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{}:\_\^[-]{}[[H]{}]{} \_\^[+]{}[[H]{}]{}\[mcalTdef\]where $\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal
V}}^{+}:=\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal
V}}^{++}\oplus\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal V}}^{--}$ and $\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal
V}}^{-}:=\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal
V}}^{-+}\oplus\underline{\Delta}_{\,\underline{\cal V}}^{+-}$. The corresponding tachyon operators (\[mmudef\]) then define noncommutative versions of the Clifford multiplications (\[CliffmultV\]). Since $\dim\underline{V}_{\,|p|}=|p|$, from (\[twistedspinpm\]), (\[Deltaiadef\]) and (\[dimkermTia\]) it follows that the index of the tachyon field (\[mcalTdef\]) is given by ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{})&=&([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{})- ([[[[[ ]{}]{}]{}\^[ ]{}\_[(m\_1,m\_2)]{}]{}]{})\^\
&=& \_[i=m\_1\^+]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=m\_2\^+]{}\^[m\_2]{}|m\_1-2i||m\_2-2|\
&&\
&=& -Q . \[indextachyon\]The virtual Euler class generated by the cohomology of the complex (\[mToddmap\]) is the analytic K-homology class in ${{\rm K}^{\rm a}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n})$ of the configuration of D-branes represented by the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]). The formula (\[indextachyon\]) then asserts that the K-theory charge of the noncommutative quiver vortex configuration constructed in Section \[NCYMsols\], i.e. the virtual dimension of this index class, coincides with the Yang-Mills instanton charge (\[topchargedef\])–(\[Qsugg\]) on ${{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n}{{\times}}S^2{{\times}}S^2$. The corresponding geometric worldvolume description in terms of topological K-cycles may now also be worked out in exactly the same way as in [@PS1]. It relies crucially on the equivariant excision theorem (\[excisionslc\]) which asserts the equivalence of the brane configurations on $M{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1{{\times}}{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ and on $M$.
D-brane categories\[ERform\]
----------------------------
The K-theory construction in Section \[Kcharge\] above of the brane configuration corresponding to the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) is somewhat primitive in that it only builds the system at the level of topological charges. In particular, it relies crucially on the equivariant excision theorem (\[excisionslc\]). We can get a more detailed picture of the dynamics of these D-branes, and in particular how the original configuration folds itself into branes and antibranes, by modelling our instanton solutions in the category of quiver representations of $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$. The ensuing homological algebra of this category will then exemplify the roles of the ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-modules and of the relations of the quiver in computing the equivariant charges. Our previous approach based on intersection pairings at the K-theory level misses certain quantitative aspects of the brane configurations corresponding to the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]), while the category of quiver representations provides a rigorous and complete framework for understanding these systems [@quivercat].
Let us fix a vertex $(m_1-2i,m_2-2\a)\in{{\sf Q}}^{(0)}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ of the quiver and consider the distinguished representations $\underline{{{\cal P}}}_{\,i\a}$ and $\underline{{{\cal L}}}_{\,i\a}$ introduced in Sections \[CPquiver\] and \[BPSsolns\] respectively. Then one has a canonical projective resolution given by the exact sequence [@Quiverbooks] 0 \_[i-1-1]{} \_[i-1]{}\_[i-1]{} \_[i]{} \_[i]{} 0 . \[Ringelres\]The first term corresponds to the independent relations of the quiver which are indexed by $(i,\a)$ with paths starting at $(i,\a)$ and ending at $(i-1,\a-1)$. The second sum corresponds to the arrows which start at node $(i,\a)$. Since there are no “relations among the relations”, there are no further non-trivial modules to the far left of the exact sequence (\[Ringelres\]).
Consider now the module (\[calTdef\]) generated by a fixed noncommutative instanton solution. From Section \[modsp\] it follows that this quiver representation specifies the loci of the D-branes in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$, and since all the moduli of our solutions come from the noncommutative quiver solitons it will suffice to recover the appropriate topological charge. Taking the tensor product of (\[Ringelres\]) with the components $\ker T_{N_{i\a}}^\dag$ of $\underline{\cal T}$ and summing over all nodes $(i,\a)$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$ gives the projective Ringel resolution of $\underline{\cal T}$ as 0 \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[i-1-1]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^& &\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(\_[i-1]{}\_[i-1]{})T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ \
&& \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[i]{}T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^ 0 . \[RingelresT\]Let =\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} \_[i]{}k\_=(w\_[i]{})\^[i=0,1,…,m\_1]{}\_[=0,1,…,m\_2]{} \[calWany\]be any other representation of $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$. It will be fixed below to correctly incorporate the monopole fields at the vertices of the quiver. Applying the contravariant functor ${\rm
Hom}(-\,,\,\underline{\cal W}\,)$ to the projective resolution (\[RingelresT\]) using (\[HomPViso\]) then induces the complex 0&&(,) \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^, \_[i]{}) \
&&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} ((T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^,\_[i-1]{} )(T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^, \_[i-1]{})) \
&&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^, \_[i-1-1]{}) \^2(,) 0 . \[gencomplex\]
The group $\Ext^p(\,\underline{\cal T}\,,\,\underline{\cal W}\,)$ is defined to be the cohomology of the complex (\[gencomplex\]) in the $p$-th position. One has $\Ext^0(\,\underline{\cal T}\,,\,\underline{\cal
W}\,)=\Hom(\,\underline{\cal T}\,,\,\underline{\cal W}\,)$ corresponding to the vertices of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. This group classifies morphisms $\underline{ f}:\underline{\cal T}\to\underline{\cal W}$ of quiver representations as in Section \[CPquiver\] and represents the partial gauge symmetries of the combined system of D-branes and magnetic monopoles. The group $\Ext^1(\,\underline{\cal T}\,,\,\underline{\cal
W}\,)=\Ext(\,\underline{\cal T}\,,\,\underline{\cal W}\,)$ corresponds to the arrows of the quiver and classifies the ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$-modules $\underline{\cal U}$ which can be defined by short exact sequences 0 0 . \[Ext1seq\]We may regard the module $\underline{\cal U}$ as a deformation of $\underline{\cal T}\oplus\underline{\cal W}$ which simulates the attaching of magnetic monopoles to the D-branes to form a bound state $\underline{\cal U}$. The arrows of (\[Ext1seq\]) are given by morphisms $\underline{ f}\in\Hom(\,\underline{\cal
T}\,,\,\underline{\cal U}\,)$ and $\underline{ g}\in\Hom(\,\underline{\cal U}\,,\,\underline{\cal
W}\,)$, reflecting the fact that $\underline{\cal T}$ and $\underline{\cal W}$ are constituents of $\underline{\cal U}$ arising from partial gauge symmetries. Finally, the non-trivial $\Ext^2$ group accounts for the relations ${{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, while $\Ext^p=0$ for all $p\geq3$ since there are no relations among our relations.
We now define the charge of the given configuration of noncommutative instantons relative to the $({{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}\,,\,{{\sf R}}_{(m_1,m_2)})$-module (\[calWany\]) through the relative Euler character (,):= \_[p0]{}(-1)\^p \^p(, ) . \[relEulerdef\]This coincides with the Ringel form on the representation ring ${{\rm R}}_{{{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$. Using (\[gencomplex\]) we may compute the Euler form as (,)&=& (, )+\^2(, )-(, )\
&=&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}(T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^, \_[i]{})+\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{} (T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^,\_[i-1-1]{} )\
&& -\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}( (T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^,\_[i-1]{} )+(T\_[N\_[i]{}]{}\^, \_[i-1]{}))\
&=&\_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}N\_[i]{}(w\_[i]{} +w\_[i-1-1]{}-w\_[i-1]{}-w\_[i-1]{}) . \[chicomputegen\]
Following [@PS1], we choose the coupling representation (\[calWany\]) to the brane configuration of the quiver bundle (\[bundlediag\]) to correctly incorporate the magnetic monopole charges through the appropriate folding of ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-representations appearing in the ABS construction (\[twistedspingrad\])–(\[Deltaiadef\]). We define a non-decreasing sequence $\underline{W}_{\,i\a}\subseteq\underline{W}_{\,j\b}$, $i\leq
j,\a\leq\b$ of representations as we move along the quiver of constituent D-branes such that the ${{{\rm SU}(2)}}{{\times}}{{{\rm SU}(2)}}$-module $\underline{W}_{\,i\a}$ gives an extension of the monopole fields carried by the elementary brane state at node $(i,\a)$. Thus we take \_[i]{}=\_[j=0]{}\^[i-1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[-1]{} \_[|m\_1-2j|]{}\_[|m\_2-2|]{} . \[Wiadef\]As an element of the representation ring ${{\rm R}}_{{{\sf A}}_{(m_1,m_2)}}$ of the quiver ${{\sf Q}}_{(m_1,m_2)}$, we view the module (\[Wiadef\]) as a graded sum of representations with respect to the signs of the monopole charges such that its virtual dimension is given by w\_[i]{}&=&\^[vir]{}\
&=&\_[j=0]{}\^[i-1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[-1]{}(m\_1-2j) (m\_2-2)ī(m\_1-i+1)(m\_2-+1) . \[wiavirtual\]One easily checks that the integers (\[wiavirtual\]) obey the inhomogeneous recursion relation w\_[i]{}+w\_[i-1-1]{}-w\_[i-1]{}-w\_[i-1]{}=(m\_1-2i)(m\_2-2) . \[wiarecrel\]Consequently, the Euler-Ringel form (\[chicomputegen\]) in this case becomes (,)= \_[i=0]{}\^[m\_1]{} \_[=0]{}\^[m\_2]{}N\_[i]{}(m\_1-2i)(m\_2-2)Q , \[ERformQ\]reproducing again the instanton charge (\[topchargedef\]). The equivalence between the Euler characteristic (\[relEulerdef\]) and the K-theory charge of Section \[Kcharge\] above is a consequence of the index theorem applied to the complex generating the cohomology groups ${\rm H}^p({{\mathbb{R}}}_\theta^{2n},\underline{\cal
T}\otimes\underline{\cal W}^\vee\otimes{{\cal H}})$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The work of R.J.S. was supported in part by PPARC Grant PPA/G/S/2002/00478 and by the EU-RTN Network Grant MRTN-CT-2004-005104.
[99]{} A. Sen, “Tachyon dynamics in open string theory,”\
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**20**]{} (2005) 5513 \[hep-th/0410103\]. M. Alishahiha, H. Ita and Y. Oz, “On superconnections and the tachyon effective action,”\
Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{} (2001) 181 \[hep-th/0012222\];\
R.J. Szabo, “Superconnections, anomalies and non-BPS brane charges,”\
J. Geom. Phys. [**43**]{} (2002) 241 \[hep-th/0108043\]. M.R. Douglas, “Branes within branes,” in: [*Cargese 1997: Strings, branes and dualities*]{}\
(Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999), p. 267 \[hep-th/9512077\]. K. Dasgupta, S. Mukhi and G. Rajesh, “Noncommutative tachyons,”\
JHEP [**0006**]{} (2000) 022 \[hep-th/0005006\];\
J.A. Harvey, P. Kraus, F. Larsen and E.J. Martinec, “D-branes and strings as noncommutative solitons,” JHEP [**0007**]{} (2000) 042 \[hep-th/0005031\];\
M. Aganagic, R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, “Unstable solitons in noncommutative gauge theory,” JHEP [**0104**]{} (2001) 001 \[hep-th/0009142\];\
J.A. Harvey, P. Kraus and F. Larsen, “Exact noncommutative solitons,”\
JHEP [**0012**]{} (2000) 024 \[hep-th/0010060\];\
D.J. Gross and N.A. Nekrasov, “Solitons in noncommutative gauge theory,”\
JHEP [**0103**]{} (2001) 044 \[hep-th/0010090\]. Y. Matsuo, “Topological charges of noncommutative soliton,”\
Phys. Lett. B [**499**]{} (2001) 223 \[hep-th/0009002\];\
J.A. Harvey and G.W. Moore, “Noncommutative tachyons and K-theory,”\
J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{} (2001) 2765 \[hep-th/0009030\]. R. Minasian and G.W. Moore, “K-theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,”\
JHEP [**9711**]{} (1997) 002 \[hep-th/9710230\];\
E. Witten, “D-branes and K-theory,” JHEP [**9812**]{} (1998) 019 \[hep-th/9810188\];\
P. Hořava, “Type IIA D-branes, K-theory and matrix theory,”\
Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 1373 \[hep-th/9812135\];\
K. Olsen and R.J. Szabo, “Constructing D-branes from K-theory,”\
Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1999) 889 \[hep-th/9907140\];\
E. Witten, “Overview of K-theory applied to strings,”\
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**16**]{} (2001) 693 \[hep-th/0007175\];\
T. Asakawa, S. Sugimoto and S. Terashima, “D-branes, matrix theory and K-homology,”\
JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 034 \[hep-th/0108085\];\
R.J. Szabo, “D-branes, tachyons and K-homology,”\
Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**17**]{} (2002) 2297 \[hep-th/0209210\];\
J.J. Manjarín, “Topics on D-brane charges with $B$-fields,”\
Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. [**1**]{} (2004) 545 \[hep-th/0405074\]. J.A. Harvey, “Komaba lectures on noncommutative solitons and D-branes,” hep-th/0102076;\
M. Hamanaka, “Noncommutative solitons and D-branes,” hep-th/0303256;\
R.J. Szabo, “D-branes in noncommutative field theory,” hep-th/0512054. D.J. Gross and N.A. Nekrasov, “Dynamics of strings in noncommutative gauge theory,”\
JHEP [**0010**]{} (2000) 021 \[hep-th/0007204\];\
L. Hadasz, U. Lindström, M. Roček and R. von Unge, “Noncommutative multisolitons:\
Moduli spaces, quantization, finite $\theta$ effects and stability,”\
JHEP [**0106**]{} (2001) 040 \[hep-th/0104017\];\
O. Lechtenfeld and A.D. Popov, “Noncommutative multi-solitons in 2+1 dimensions,”\
JHEP [**0111**]{} (2001) 040 \[hep-th/0106213\]; “Scattering of noncommutative solitons in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**523**]{} (2001) 178 \[hep-th/0108118\];\
M. Hamanaka, Y. Imaizumi and N. Ohta, “Moduli space and scattering of D0-branes in noncommutative super Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**529**]{} (2002) 163 \[hep-th/0112050\];\
K. Furuta, T. Inami, H. Nakajima and M. Yamamoto, “Low-energy dynamics of noncommutative ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ solitons in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**537**]{} (2002) 165 \[hep-th/0203125\];\
M. Wolf, “Soliton-antisoliton scattering configurations in a noncommutative sigma model in 2+1 dimensions,” JHEP [**0206**]{} (2002) 055 \[hep-th/0204185\];\
M. Ihl and S. Uhlmann, “Noncommutative extended waves and soliton-like configurations in $N{=}2$ string theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**18**]{} (2003) 4889 \[hep-th/0211263\]. M.R. Douglas and G.W. Moore, “D-branes, quivers and ALE instantons,” hep-th/9603167;\
C.V. Johnson and R.C. Myers, “Aspects of Type IIB theory on ALE spaces,”\
Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 6382 \[hep-th/9610140\];\
M.R. Douglas, B. Fiol and C. Romelsberger, “The spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau,” JHEP [**0509**]{} (2005) 057 \[hep-th/0003263\]. M.R. Douglas, “D-branes, categories and ${\cal N}{=}1$ supersymmetry,”\
J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{} (2001) 2818 \[hep-th/0011017\];\
D. Berenstein and M.R. Douglas, “Seiberg duality for quiver gauge theories,” hep-th/0207027;\
P.S. Aspinwall and I.V. Melnikov, “D-branes on vanishing del Pezzo surfaces,”\
JHEP [**0412**]{} (2004) 042 \[hep-th/0405134\]. S.K. Donaldson, “Anti-self-dual Yang-Mills connections on a complex algebraic surface and stable vector bundles,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. [**50**]{} (1985) 1; “Infinite determinants, stable bundles and curvature,” Duke Math. J. [**54**]{} (1987) 231;\
K.K. Uhlenbeck and S.-T. Yau, “On the existence of hermitian Yang-Mills connections on stable bundles over compact Kähler manifolds,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math. [**39**]{} (1986) 257; “A note on our previous paper,” [*ibid.*]{} [**42**]{} (1989) 703.
O. García-Prada, “Invariant connections and vortices,”\
Commun. Math. Phys. [**156**]{} (1993) 527; “Dimensional reduction of stable bundles, vortices and stable pairs,” Int. J. Math. [**5**]{} (1994) 1.
L. Álvarez-Cónsul and O. García-Prada, “Dimensional reduction, ${{{\rm SL}(2,{{\mathbb{C}}})}}$-equivariant bundles and stable holomorphic chains,” Int. J. Math. [**12**]{} (2001) 159.
L. Álvarez-Cónsul and O. García-Prada, “Dimensional reduction and quiver bundles,”\
J. Reine Angew. Math. [**556**]{} (2003) 1 \[math.DG/0112160\]. L. Álvarez-Cónsul and O. García-Prada, “Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence, quivers and vortices,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**238**]{} (2003) 1 \[math.DG/0112161\]. T.A. Ivanova and O. Lechtenfeld, “Noncommutative multi-instantons on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}{{\times}}S^2$,”\
Phys. Lett. B [**567**]{} (2003) 107 \[hep-th/0305195\]. O. Lechtenfeld, A.D. Popov and R.J. Szabo, “Noncommutative instantons in higher dimensions, vortices and topological K-cycles,” JHEP [**0312**]{} (2003) 022 \[hep-th/0310267\]. A.D. Popov and R.J. Szabo, “Quiver gauge theory of nonabelian vortices and noncommutative instantons in higher dimensions,” J. Math. Phys. [**47**]{} (2006) 012306 \[hep-th/0504025\]. A. Konechny and A.S. Schwarz, “Introduction to matrix theory and noncommutative geometry,” Phys. Rept. [**360**]{} (2002) 353 \[hep-th/0012145\]; \[hep-th/0107251\];\
M.R. Douglas and N.A. Nekrasov, “Noncommutative field theory,”\
Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{} (2002) 977 \[hep-th/0106048\];\
R.J. Szabo, “Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces,”\
Phys. Rept. [**378**]{} (2003) 207 \[hep-th/0109162\]. P.B. Gothen and A.D. King, “Homological algebra of twisted quiver bundles,”\
J. London Math. Soc. [**71**]{} (2005) 85 \[math.AG/0202033\]. M. Auslander, I. Reiten and S.O. Smalø, [*Representation theory of Artin algebras*]{}\
(Cambridge University Press, 1995);\
D.J. Benson, [*Representations and cohomology*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
N.A. Nekrasov and A.S. Schwarz, “Instantons on noncommutative ${{\mathbb{R}}}^4$ and (2,0) superconformal six dimensional theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**198**]{} (1998) 689 \[hep-th/9802068\];\
N.A. Nekrasov, “Noncommutative instantons revisited,”\
Commun. Math. Phys. [**241**]{} (2003) 143 \[hep-th/0010017\];\
C.-S. Chu, V.V. Khoze and G. Travaglini, “Notes on noncommutative instantons,”\
Nucl. Phys. B [**621**]{} (2002) 101 \[hep-th/0108007\];\
M. Hamanaka, “ADHM/Nahm construction of localized solitons in noncommutative gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 085022 \[hep-th/0109070\]. O. Lechtenfeld and A.D. Popov, “Noncommutative ’t Hooft instantons,”\
JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 040 \[hep-th/0109209\];\
Y. Tian and C.-J. Zhu, “Comments on noncommutative ADHM construction,”\
Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 045016 \[hep-th/0210163\];\
Z. Horváth, O. Lechtenfeld and M. Wolf, “Noncommutative instantons via dressing and splitting approaches,” JHEP [**0212**]{} (2002) 060 \[hep-th/0211041\];\
T.A. Ivanova, O. Lechtenfeld and H. Müller-Ebhardt, “Noncommutative moduli for multi-instantons,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**19**]{} (2004) 2419 \[hep-th/0404127\]. N. Dorey, T.J. Hollowood, V.V. Khoze and M.P. Mattis, “The calculus of many instantons,”\
Phys. Rept. [**371**]{} (2002) 231 \[hep-th/0206063\];\
R. Wimmer, “D0–D4 brane tachyon condensation to a BPS state and its excitation spectrum in noncommutative super Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP [**0505**]{} (2005) 022 \[hep-th/0502158\];\
M. Billo, M. Frau, S. Sciuto, G. Vallone and A. Lerda, “Noncommutative (D-)instantons,”\
hep-th/0511036;\
O. Lechtenfeld and C. Sämann, “Matrix models and D-branes in twistor string theory,”\
JHEP [**0603**]{} (2006) 002 \[hep-th/0511130\]. E. Witten, “Monopoles and four-manifolds,” Math. Res. Lett. [**1**]{} (1994) 769 \[hep-th/9411102\]. A.D. Popov, A.G. Sergeev and M. Wolf, “Seiberg-Witten monopole equations on noncommutative ${{\mathbb{R}}}^4$,” J. Math. Phys. [**44**]{} (2003) 4527 \[hep-th/0304263\];\
A. Sako and T. Suzuki, “Dimensional reduction of Seiberg-Witten monopole equations, $N{=}2$ noncommutative supersymmetric field theory and Young diagram,” hep-th/0511085. A.P. Polychronakos, “Flux tube solutions in noncommutative gauge theories,”\
Phys. Lett. B [**495**]{} (2000) 407 \[hep-th/0007043\];\
D.P. Jatkar, G. Mandal and S.R. Wadia, “Nielsen-Olesen vortices in noncommutative Abelian Higgs model,” JHEP [**0009**]{} (2000) 018 \[hep-th/0007078\];\
D. Bak, “Exact multi-vortex solutions in noncommutative Abelian-Higgs theory,”\
Phys. Lett. B [**495**]{} (2000) 251 \[hep-th/0008204\];\
D. Bak, K.M. Lee and J.H. Park, “Noncommutative vortex solitons,”\
Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 125010 \[hep-th/0011099\]. V.G. Kac, “Infinite root systems, representations of graphs and invariant theory,”\
Invent. Math. [**56**]{} (1980) 57.
D. Mumford, J. Fogarty and F. Kirwan, [*Geometric invariant theory*]{}\
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994).
R. Gopakumar, M. Headrick and M. Spradlin, “On noncommutative multi-solitons,”\
Commun. Math. Phys. [**233**]{} (2003) 355 \[hep-th/0103256\];\
T. Amdeberhan and A. Ayyer, “Towards the moduli space of extended partial isometries,”\
hep-th/0508014. Yu.A. Drozd and V.V. Kirichenko, [*Finite dimensional algebras*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1994);\
C.A. Weibel, [*Introduction to homological algebra*]{}, Cambridge Studies Adv. Math. [**38**]{}\
(Cambridge University Press, 1995).
G.B. Segal, “The representation ring of a compact Lie group,”\
Publ. Math. IHES (Paris) [**34**]{} (1968) 113; “Equivariant K-theory,” [*ibid.*]{} [**34**]{} (1968) 129.
M.F. Atiyah, R. Bott and A. Shapiro, “Clifford modules,” Topology [**3**]{} (1964) 3.
E. Sharpe, “D-branes, derived categories, and Grothendieck groups,”\
Nucl. Phys. B [**561**]{} (1999) 433 \[hep-th/9902116\];\
Y. Oz, T. Pantev and D. Waldram, “Brane-antibrane systems on Calabi-Yau spaces,”\
JHEP [**0102**]{} (2001) 045 \[hep-th/0009112\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ellipsoids possess several beautiful properties associated with classical potential theory. Some of them are well known, and some have been forgotten. In this article we hope to bring a few of the “lost” pieces of classical mathematics back to the limelight.'
address:
- 'Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620'
- 'Dept. of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906'
author:
- Dmitry Khavinson
- Erik Lundberg
date: July 2013
title: A tale of ellipsoids in potential theory
---
[^1]
Dirichlet’s problem
===================
Let us start our story with the Dirichlet problem. This problem of finding a harmonic function in a, say, smoothly bounded domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ matching a given continuous function $f$ on $\partial \Omega$ gained huge attention in the second half of the nineteenth century due to its central role in Riemann’s proof of the existence of a conformal map of any simply connected domain onto the disk. Later on Riemann’s proof was criticized by Weierstrass, and, after a considerable turmoil, corrected and completed by Hilbert and Fredholm - cf. [@Reid96] for a very nice historical account. Here, we want to focus on algebraic properties of solutions to the Dirichlet problem when $\Omega$ is an ellipsoid and the data $f$ possess nice algebraic properties. Thus, we first present the following proposition.
\[prop:DP\] Let $$\Omega = \left\{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n : \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2} -1 \leq 0, \quad a_1 \geq a_2 \geq .. \geq a_n > 0 \right\}$$ be an ellipsoid. The solution $u$ to the Dirichlet problem $$\label{eq:DP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta u = 0 \quad \text{in } \Omega \\
u|_{\partial \Omega} = p
\end{array}\right.,$$ where $p$ is a polynomial of $n$ variables, is a harmonic polynomial. Moreover, $$\label{eq:deg}
\deg u \leq \deg p.$$
Proposition \[prop:DP\] was widely known in the nineteenth century for $n=2,3$ (perhaps due to Lamé) and was proved with the use of ellipsoidal harmonics (see [@Akh90 Section 58] for a discussion of Laplace’s equation in elliptic coordinates). It is still widely known nowadays for balls but often disbelieved for ellipsoids. The elder author has won a substantial number of bottles of cheap wine betting on its truthfulness at various math events and then producing the following proof that was related to him by Harold S. Shapiro. We do not know who thought of it first, but we hope the reader will agree that it deserves to be called, following P. Erdös, the “proof from the book”.
Denote by $P_{n,m} = P_m$ the finite-dimensional space of polynomials of degree $\leq m$ in $n$ variables. Let $q(x) = \sum{\frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2}}-1$ be the defining quadratic for $\partial \Omega$. Consider the linear operator $T : P_m \rightarrow P_m$ defined by $$T ( r) := \Delta(q r).$$ The maximum principle yields at once that $\ker T = 0$, so $T$ is injective. Since $\dim P_m < \infty$, this implies that $T$ is surjective.
Hence, given $P \in P_m$ with $m \geq 2$, we can find a polynomial $r \in P_{m-2}$ such that $T r = \Delta P$. The function $$u = P - q r$$ is then the solution of (\[eq:DP\]).
Proposition \[prop:DP\] was extended [@KS92] to the case of entire data. Namely, entire data $f$ (i.e., an entire function of variables $x_1, x_2, .., x_n$) yields an entire solution to the Dirichlet problem in ellipsoids. This result was sharpened by Armitage in [@Arm2004] who showed that the solution’s order and type are dominated by that of the data.
One might get bold at this point and ask does the Proposition \[prop:DP\] extend to say rational or algebraic data, i.e., does a smooth data function in (\[eq:DP\]) that is a rational (algebraic) function of $x_1,x_2,..,x_n$ imply rational (algebraic) solution $u$? The answer is a resounding “no” but the proofs become technically more involved - see [@BEKS2006; @BEKS2007; @Eben92; @EKS2005].
The Dirichlet problem, ellipsoids, and Bergman orthogonal polynomials
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It was conjectured in [@KS92] that Prop. \[prop:DP\] (without the degree condition (\[eq:deg\])) characterizes ellipsoids. Recently, using “real Fischer spaces”, H. Render confirmed this conjecture for many algebraic surfaces [@Render]. In two dimensions, the conjecture was confirmed under a degree-related condition on the solution in terms of the data [@KhSt]. This utilized a suprising equivalence, established by N. Stylianopoulos and M. Putinar [@PutSty], of the conjecture to the existence of finite-term recurrence relations for Bergman orthogonal polynomials. In order to state the degree conditions and the associated recurrence conditions, assume $\Omega$ is a domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with $C^2$-smooth boundary. Let $\{p_m\}$ be the Bergman orthogonal polynomials (orthogonal w.r.t. area measure over $\Omega$), and consider the following properties for $\Omega$.
1. There exists $C$ such that for a polynomial data of degree $m$ there always exists a polynomial solution of the Dirichlet problem posed on $\Omega$ of degree $\leq m + C$.
2. There exists $N$ such that for all $k,m$, the solution of the Dirichlet problem with data $\bar{z}^kz^m$ is a harmonic polynomial of degree $\leq (N-1)k+m$ in $z$ and of degree $\leq (N-1)m +k$ in $\bar{z}$.
3. There exists $N$ such that $\{p_m\}$ satisfy a finite $(N+1)$-recurrence relation, i.e. there are constants $a_{m-j,m}$ such that $$zp_m = a_{m+1,m}p_{m+1}+a_{m,m}p_m+...+a_{m-N+1,m}p_{m-N+1}.$$
4. The Bergman orthogonal polynomials of $\Omega$ satisfy a finite-term recurrence relation, i.e., for every fixed $\ell > 0$, there exists an $N(\ell) > 0$, such that $a_{\ell,m} = \langle zp_m, p_\ell \rangle = 0$, $m \geq N(\ell)$.
5. For any polynomial data there exists a polynomial solution of the Dirichlet problem posed on $\Omega$.
Properties $(4)$ and $(5)$ are essentially equivalent [@PutSty], and $(1) \Rightarrow (2)$, $(2) \Leftrightarrow (3)$, and $(3) \Rightarrow (4)$. In [@KhSt] the authors used ratio asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials to show that $(2)$ and equivalently $(3)$ each characterize ellipses. The weaker statement that $(1)$ characterizes ellipsoids was proved in arbitrary dimensions [@LundRend2011]. For more about the Khavinson-Shapiro conjecture stated in [@KS92], we refer the reader to [@ChS2001; @Eben92; @KhLund; @KhSt; @KS89; @Khav96; @Lund2009; @LundRend2011; @PutSty; @Render; @Render2010] and the references therein.
The mean value property for harmonic functions {#sec:MVP}
==============================================
The mean value property for harmonic functions can be rephrased as saying that *the average of any harmonic function over concentric balls is a constant*. As we formulate precisely below, there is a mean value property for ellipsoids which says *the average of any harmonic function over confocal ellipsoids is a constant*.
Consider a heterogeneous ellipsoid $$\Gamma:= \left\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^N:\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2}-1=0, \quad a_1>a_2>\cdots >a_N>0 \right\},$$ and let $\Omega$ be its interior.
A family of ellipsoids $\left\{\Gamma_\lambda\right\}$, $$\Gamma_\lambda=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^N:\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2+\lambda}-1=0\right\},$$ where $-a_N^2<\lambda<+\infty$ is called a confocal family for $N=2$ these are ellipses with the same foci.
Note that the shapes of confocal ellipsoids differ, and as $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$, $\Gamma_\lambda$ look like a spheres.
Observe that when $\lambda \to - a_N^2$, $$\Gamma_\lambda\to\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^N:
x_N=0,\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2+\lambda}-1=0\right\}=:E.$$ $E$ is called the *focal ellipsoid*.
The following classical theorem goes back to MacLaurin who considered prolate spheroids in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ ($a_1 > a_2 =a_3$). General ellipsoids were treated later by Laplace [@Mac58 Ch. 2].
![The mean value over confocal ellipsoids is constant.[]{data-label="fig:confocal"}](Confocal.jpg)
Let $u$ be, say, an entire harmonic function. Then $$\label{eq:Mac}
\frac{1}{| \Omega_\lambda|}\int_{\Omega_\lambda}u(x) dx=\text{const.}$$ for all $\lambda:\lambda>-a_N^2$.
From now on, for the sake of brevity, we shall only consider the case $N\ge 3$.
MacLaurin’s theorem is a corollary (via a simple change of variables, see [@CH Ch. VI, Sec. 16] or [@Khav96 Ch. 13]) of the following result of Ásgeirsson [@Asg37].
“Suppose $u=u(x,y)$, where $x\in\mathbb{R}^{m_1}$, $y\in\mathbb{R}^{m_2}$ satisfy the ultrahyperbolic equation $$\Delta_xu=\Delta_yu.$$ Then if $\mu_i(x,y,r)$, $i=1,2$ denote respectively the mean values of $u$ over $m_i$-dimensional balls of radius $r$ centered at $(x,y)$, we have $\mu_1(x,y,r)=\mu_2(x,y,r)$.”
Here, we offer a purely algebraic approach to MacLaurin’s theorem [@KS89], [@Khav96 Ch. 13]. The following notions are due to E. Fischer [@Fischer] (see also [@SteinWeiss1971 Ch. IV]). Let $H_k$ be the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $k$. If $f\in H_k$, then $$f(z)=\sum_{|\alpha|=k}f_\alpha z^\alpha.$$ Introduce an inner product on $H_k$ (called the Fischer inner product), by letting $$\label{eq:Fischer}
\left\langle z^\alpha,z^\beta\right\rangle
=\begin{cases}
0, & \alpha\ne\beta \\
\alpha!, & \alpha=\beta
\end{cases}.$$ If $f=\sum\limits_{|\alpha|=k}f_\alpha z^\alpha$, $g=\sum\limits_{|\alpha|=k}g_\alpha z^\alpha$ then $\displaystyle \langle f,g\rangle=\sum_{|\alpha|=k}a!f_\alpha\overline{g_\alpha}. $
The main point of introducing such an inner product is that the operators $\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right)^\alpha$ and multiplication by $z^\alpha$ are adjoint with respect to the Fischer inner product.
Let $\mathcal{H}_m$ denote the space of homogeneous harmonic polynomials of degree $m$. It follows from the definition (\[eq:Fischer\]) that $\frac{1}{m!}\left( z\cdot\bar{\xi}\right)^m $ is a reproducing kernel for $\mathcal{H}_m$, i.e., for all $f\in \mathcal{H}_m$, $$\frac{1}{m!}\left\langle f, \left( z\cdot\bar{\xi}\right)^m\right\rangle=f(\xi).$$ This fact, along with Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz, easily yields the following lemma (see [@Khav96 Ch. 13] for a detailed proof).
\[lemma:span\] The linear span of harmonic polynomials $\left( z\cdot\bar{\xi} \right)^m$ for all $\xi\in\Gamma_0=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{C}^N:\sum\limits_{j=1}^N\xi_j^2=0\right\}$ the isotropic cone equals $\mathcal{H}_m$.
It suffices to check (\[eq:Mac\]) for harmonic homogeneous polynomials, and in view of Lemma \[lemma:span\], we just have to check it for polynomials $$\left( z\cdot\bar{\xi}\right)^m,\quad\xi\in\Gamma_0.$$ Fix $\lambda$. Let $b_i=\left(a_i^2+\lambda\right)^{1/2}$ be the semi-axes of $\Omega_\lambda$. We have to show that $$\frac{1}{| \Omega_\lambda |}\int_{\Omega_\lambda}\left( x\cdot\bar{\xi}\right)^mdx
=\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega\left( y\cdot\bar{\xi}\right)^mdy,\quad
\forall\xi\in\Gamma_0.$$ Changing variables in both integrals $x_k = a_k x_k'$, $y_k = b_k y_k'$ we see that it suffices to show the following: $$\int_B\left(\sum_{k=1}^Na_k x_k\overline{\xi_k}\right)^mdx
=\int_B\left(\sum_{k=1}^N b_k x_k\overline{\xi_k}\right)^mdx,$$ where $B$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^N$. Or, since for $\xi\in\Gamma_0$ $$\sum_{k=1}^N \left( (a_k \xi_k)^2 - (b_k \xi_k)^2 \right) = -\lambda^2 \sum_{k=1}^N \xi_k^2 = 0,$$ it suffices to check the following assertion.
**Assertion.** The polynomial $$P(t):=\int_B\left(\sum_{k=1}^Nt_kx_k\right)^mdx$$ depends only on $\sum\limits_{k=1}^Nt_k^2$, for $t\in\mathbb{C}^N$.
The assertion follows at once from the rotation invariance of $P$ [@Khav96 Ch. 13], [@KS89].
The following application is noteworthy. Let $\Omega$ be an ellipsoid with semiaxes $a_1>a_2>\dotsb>a_N>0$, and $$u_\Omega(x):=C_N\int_\Omega\frac{dy}{|x-y|^{N-2}},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega$$ be the exterior potential of $\Omega$.
Recall that $E$ denotes the focal ellipsoid defined above. The following corollary of MacLaurin’s theorem describes a so-called *mother body* [@Gust98], i.e., a measure supported inside the ellipsoid which generates the same gravitational potential as the uniform density (outside the ellipsoid) but is in some sense minimally supported (in this case supported on $E$, a set of codimension one with connected complement).
\[cor:motherbody\] For $x\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\bar{\Omega}$ $$u_\Omega(x)=C_N\int_E\frac{d\mu(y)}{|x-y|^{N-2}},$$ where $$d\mu(y)=2\left( \prod_{j=1}^Na_j\right)\left( \prod_{j=1}^{N-1}\left( a_j^2-a_N^2 \right) \right)^{-1/2}
\left(1-\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{y_j^2}{a_j^2-a_N^2}\right)^{1/2}dy'\mid_E$$ $dy'$ is Lebesgue measure on $\left\{y_N=0\right\}$.
Since the integrand is harmonic, we have by MacLaurin’s theorem $$u_\Omega(x)=\frac{\prod\limits_{j=1}^Na_j}
{\prod\limits_{j=1}^N\left(a_j^2+\lambda\right)^{1/2}}
\int_{\Omega_\lambda}v(y)\,dy,$$ where we set $v(y):\frac{C_N}{|x-y|^{N-2}}$. After simplifying this integral using Fubini’s theorem, the corollary is established by applying the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem as $\lambda \rightarrow - a_n^2$ [@Khav96 Ch. 13].
We note in passing that finding relevant mother bodies for oblate and prolate spheroids (supported on a disk and segment respectively) could be a satisfying exercise.
Since the density of the distribution $d\mu$ is real analytic in the interior of $E$ (viewed as a set in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$) we note the following corollary:
The potential $u_\Omega(x)$ extends as a multivalued harmonic function into $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\partial E$.
An extension of this fact and a “high ground” explanation based on holomorphic PDE in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ is discussed in Section \[sec:CP\].
The equilibrium potential of an ellipsoid. Ivory’s Theorem {#sec:Ivory}
==========================================================
Considering that force is the gradient of potential, the following theorem, due to Newton, can be paraphrased in a rather catchy way: “there is no gravity in the cavity”.
\[thm:Newton\] Let $t>1$, and consider the ellipsoidal shell $S := t\Omega \setminus \Omega$ between two homothetic ellipsoids. The potential $U_S$ of uniform density on $S$ is constant inside the cavity $\Omega$.
In fact, ellipsoids are characterized by this property, i.e., Newton’s theorem has a converse [@DF86; @Di; @Ni; @Karp; @Khav96].
A consequence of Newton’s theorem is that the gravitational potential $U_\Omega$ of $\Omega$ is a quadratic polynomial inside $\Omega$. Namely, $$U_\Omega(x) = B - \sum_{i=1}^N A_j x_j^2, \quad \text{for } x \in \Omega,$$ with $B=C_N \int_\Omega \frac{dV(y)}{|y|^{N-2}} = U_\Omega(0)$, where $C_N=\frac{1}{{\text{Vol}}(S^{N-1})}$. Indeed, denoting by $\Omega_t = t \Omega$ (for $t>1$) the dilated ellipsoid, one computes that its gravitational potential is $u_t(x)=t^2u(x/t)$. Since Newton’s theorem implies that ($u$ is the potential of the original ellipsoid), $u_t-u =const$ inside $\Omega$, the smaller ellipsoid, then taking partial derivatives $\partial^\alpha$, w.r.t. $x$, $|\alpha| = 2$, yields that $\partial^\alpha u_t(x)$= $\partial^\alpha u(x/t)=\partial^\alpha u(x)$. Thus all these partial derivatives are homogeneous of degree zero inside $\Omega$. They are also obviously continuous and, hence, are constants, thus yielding $U_\Omega$ to be a quadratic as claimed.
Denoting $\Gamma := {\partial}\Omega$, consider the single layer potential $$V(x) = C_N \int_{\Gamma} \frac{\rho (y)}{|x-y|^{N-2}} dA(y),$$ where $\rho(y)$ is the mass density and $dA(y)$ on $\Gamma$ is the surface area measure. $V(x)$ is called an *equilibrium potential* if $V(x) \equiv 1$ on $\Gamma$ and hence inside $\Omega$. For the sake of brevity we focus on $N \geq 3$ leaving the case $N=2$ as an exercise. The quantity $$\sigma := \lim_{|x| \rightarrow \infty} |x|^{N-2} V(x) = C_N \int_{\Gamma} \rho(y) dA(y)$$ is called capacity.
On the way to proving Ivory’s theorem, we note an explicit formula for the equilibrium potential. Again, $N \geq 3$ [@Khav96; @KS89].
With $B$ as above, in ${\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus {\overline}{\Omega}$ $$\label{eq:Ivory}
V(x) = \frac{1}{B}\left( \hat{\mu} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N x_i \frac{{\partial}\hat{\mu}}{{\partial}x_i} \right),$$ where $\hat{\mu}(x) = C_N \int_E \frac{d\mu(y')}{|x-y|^{N-2}}$, $y'=(y_1,y_2,..,y_{N-1},0)$, and $d\mu(y')$ is the MacLaurin “quadrature measure” supported on the focal ellipsoid $E$ (cf. Cor. \[cor:motherbody\]).
The RHS of (\[eq:Ivory\]) is harmonic in ${\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus {\overline}{\Omega}$ (in fact, in ${\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus E$) since $\hat{\mu}$ is harmonic there and $\Delta( x \cdot \nabla \hat{\mu}) = n \Delta \mu = 0$. On $\Gamma$, by MacLaurin’s theorem and Newton’s theorem $$\label{eq:mu}
\hat{\mu} = U_\Omega(x) = B - \sum_{i=1}^N A_j x_j^2 .$$ Moreover since $U_\Omega(x)$ has continuous first derivatives throughout ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, we can differentiate (\[eq:mu\]) on $\Gamma$ and thus obtain $$\frac{1}{B}\left( \hat{\mu} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N x_i \frac{{\partial}\hat{\mu}}{{\partial}x_i} \right) = \frac{1}{B} \left( B - \sum_{i=1}^N A_j x_j^2 + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^N 2 A_j x_j^2 \right) = 1$$ Thus, the RHS of (\[eq:Ivory\]) equals $V(x)$ on $\Gamma$. Both functions are harmonic in ${\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus {\overline}{\Omega}$ and vanish at infinity and the statement follows.
The equipotential surfaces of the equilibrium potential $V(x)$ are confocal with $\Gamma$.
For the proof, one simply notes that the RHS of (\[eq:Ivory\]) changes only by a constant factor when $\Omega$ is replaced by a confocal ellipsoid $$\Omega_\lambda := \left\{ x : \sum_{}^N \frac{x_j^2}{a_j^2 + \lambda} \leq 1, \lambda \geq 0 \right\}.$$ Namely, $B \rightarrow B_\lambda$ while $\frac{d \mu_\lambda}{d \mu} = \frac{{\text{Vol}}(\Omega_\lambda)}{{\text{Vol}}(\Omega)}$.
For the classical proof of Ivory’s Theorem, see [@Mac58], [@FuchsTab2007 Lecture 30].
Ellipsoids in fluid dynamics
============================
Let us pause for a moment and apply these properties of ellipsoids to two problems in fluid dynamics. In the first problem, involving a slowly moving interface, viscosity plays an important role. In the second problem, viscosity is completely neglected, while vorticity plays the dominant role.
Moving interfaces and Richardson’s theorem
------------------------------------------
Imagine a blob of incompressible viscous fluid within a porous medium surrounded by an inviscid fluid. Suppose there is a sink at position $x_0$ in the region occupied by viscous fluid. Averaging the Navier-Stokes equations over pores [@Brinkman49] leads to Darcy’s law for the fluid velocity $v$ in terms of the pressure $P$ $$\label{eq:Darcy}
v = -\nabla P.$$ Incompressibility implies that $$\nabla \cdot v = -\Delta P = 0,$$ except at the sources/sinks. The pressure of the inviscid fluid is assumed constant. Neglecting surface-tension (by far, the most controversial of these assumptions [@Howison86; @Mineev98; @Tanveer]) the pressure matches at the interface, which gives a constant (assume zero) boundary condition for $P$, so $P$ is nothing more than the harmonic Green’s function with a singularity at $x_0$. The mathematical problem is then to track the evolution of a domain $\Omega_t$ whose boundary velocity is determined by the gradient of its own Green’s function. See [@EV92] for an engaging exposition of the two-dimensional case of this problem.
Given a harmonic function $u(x)$, Richardson’s theorem [@Rich72] describes the time dependence of the integration of $u$ over the domain occupied by the viscous fluid. In the language of integrable systems this represents “infinitely many conservation laws”.
Let $u(x)$ be a function harmonic in $\Omega_t$ for all $t$. Then $$\label{eq:rich}
\frac{d}{dt} \int_{\Omega_t} u(x) dV(x) = -Q u(x_0) ,$$ where $x_0$ is the position of the sink with pumping rate $Q>0$.
An alternative setup places the viscous fluid in an unbounded domain with a single sink at infinity [@DF86]; a reformulation of Richardson’s theorem implies that the potential inside the cavity of the shell regions $\Omega_t \setminus \Omega_{s>t}$ is constant. Thus, it is a consequence of Newton’s Thm. \[thm:Newton\] that an increasing family of homothetic ellipsoids is an exact solution. In fact, this is the only solution starting from a bounded inviscid fluid domain that exists for all time and fills the entire space [@DF86] (also, cf. [@Karp]).
![Viscous fluid occupies the exterior. The ellipsoid grows homothetically.[]{data-label="fig:LG"}](homothetic.jpg)
Returning to the case when the viscous fluid is bounded, suppose the initial domain $\Omega_0$ is an ellipsoid and consider the problem of determining sinks and pumping rates such that $\{ \Omega_t \}_{t=0}^T$ shrinks to zero volume as $t \rightarrow T$. As a consequence of the mean value property, one can solve this problem exactly thus removing all of the fluid provided we can stretch our imaginations to allow a continuum of sinks. Starting from the given ellipsoid $\Omega_0$, the evolution $\Omega_t$ is a family of ellipsoids confocal to $\Omega_0$ shrinking down to the (zero-volume) focal set $E$, and the pumping rate is given by the time-derivative of the quadrature measure appearing in Corollary \[cor:motherbody\].
The quasigeostrophic ellipsoidal vortex model
---------------------------------------------
Based on the observation that motion in the atmosphere is roughly stratified into horizontal layers, the quasigeostrophic approximation [@Ph63] provides a simplified version of the Euler equations (governing inviscid incompressible flow). Further assumptions reduce the entire dynamics to a scalar field, the potential vorticity, which in the high Reynold’s number limit, forms coherent regions of uniform density [@RY52]. Even with these simplifications, the problem can still be quite complicated. For instance, approximating the regions of potential vorticity by clouds of point-vortices, one encounters the notoriously difficult $n$-body problem.
![Top row: A vortex simulation using “contour dynamics”. Bottom row: A faster, but still accurate, simulation using the ellipsoidal vortex model.[]{data-label="fig:Vortex"}](VortexBoth)
The *quasigeostrophic ellipsoidal vortex model* developed by Dritschel, Reinaud, and McKiver [@DRM2004], simulates the interaction of ellipsoidal regions of vorticity (see Fig. \[fig:Vortex\], included here with their kind permission). As these regions interact, the length and alignment of semiaxes can change, but non-ellipsoidal deformations are filtered out. (Note that a single ellipsoid is stable for a certain range of axis ratios [@DSR2005].) The effect that one ellipsoid has on another is determined by its exterior potential, and thus the mean value property can be used to replace the ellipsoid by a two-dimensional set of potential vorticity on its focal ellipse (with density determined by Corollary \[cor:motherbody\]) which can be further approximated by point vortices.
![Viscous fingering in a Hele-Shaw cell.[]{data-label="fig:HS"}](HSC3.jpg)
It is interesting to single out the two-dimensional case of the moving interface problem which serves as a model for viscous fingering in a Hele-Shaw cell [@GustVas]. Conformal mapping techniques lead to explicit exact solutions [@Mineev] that can even exhibit the tip-splitting depicted in Fig. \[fig:HS\]. The vortex dynamics problem also admits many sophisticated analytic solutions in the two-dimensional case [@CrowdyMarshall]. For a compelling survey discussing *quadrature domains* as a common thread linking these and several other fluid dynamic problems, see [@Crowdy].
 
\[fig:TwoPhase\]
In yet another physically distinct setting, ellipsoids appear as exact solutions to a certain two-phase problem in fluid dynamics [@BuchakCrowdy]. In this case there are no sources or sinks, but rather a linear straining flow at infinity (see Fig. \[fig:TwoPhase\]). The (fixed-volume) ellipsoid changes shape but remains an ellipsoid (see [@BuchakCrowdy] for details).
The Cauchy problem: A view from ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ {#sec:CP}
================================================
The problem mentioned in Section \[sec:MVP\] of analytically continuing the exterior potential $U_{\Omega}$ inside the region $\Omega$ occupied by mass was studied by Herglotz [@Herglotz1914], and can be reformulated as studying the singularities of the solution to the following Cauchy problem posed on the initial surface $\Gamma:= {\partial}\Omega$. $$\label{eq:MSP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta M = 1 \quad \text{near } \Gamma\\
M \equiv_{\Gamma} 0
\end{array}\right.,$$ where the notation $M\equiv_{\Gamma} 0$ indicates that $M$ along with its gradient vanishes on $\Gamma$.
The fact that $M$ carries the same singularities in $\Omega$ as the analytic continuation $u$ of $U_\Omega$ is a consequence of the fact that $u$ itself is given by the piecewise function $$\label{eq:piecewise}
u:=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
U_{\Omega}, \text{ outside } \Omega \\
U_{\Omega} - M, \text{ inside } \Omega
\end{array}\right..$$ The reason is that $u$ is harmonic on both sides of $\Gamma$ and $C^1$-smooth across $\Gamma$. An extension of Morera’s theorem (attributed to S. Kovalevskaya) implies that $u$ is actually harmonic across $\Gamma$, i.e., $\Gamma$ is a removable singularity set for $u$. Thus, $u$ is the desired analytic continuation of $U_\Omega$ across $\Gamma$, and the singularities of $u$ in $\Omega$ are carried by $M$.
Further reformulating the problem, note that the so-called *Schwarz potential* of $\Gamma$, $W = \frac{1}{2}|x|^2 - M$, has the same singularities as $M$ and solves a Cauchy problem for Laplace’s equation: $$\label{eq:SP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta W = 0 \quad \text{near } \Gamma \\
W \equiv_{\Gamma} \frac{1}{2} |x|^2
\end{array}\right..$$
This is a rather delicate (ill-posed according to Hadamard) problem, and our discussion of it will pass from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ to the complex domain ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let us first consider the more intuitive Cauchy problem for a hyperbolic equation where similar behavior can be observed while staying in the real domain. $$\label{eq:hyperbolic}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
v_{xy} = 1 \quad \text{near } \gamma \\
v \equiv_{\gamma} 0
\end{array}\right.,$$ where $\gamma$ is, say, a real analytic curve in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
For hyperbolic equations the mantra is “singularities propagate along characteristics”. If the solution is singular at some point $(x_0,y_0)$, then one can trace the source of this singularity back to $\gamma$ by following the characteristic cone with vertex at $(x_0,y_0)$. One expects to find a singularity in the data itself at a point where this cone intersects $\gamma$, but what if the data function has no singularities as in (\[eq:hyperbolic\])? It is still possible for a singularity to propagate to the point $(x_0,y_0)$ if the characteristic cone from $(x_0,y_0)$ is tangent to $\gamma$. The point of tangency is called a *characteristic point* of $\gamma$.
![The solution to (\[eq:hyperbolic\]) is regular except on the tangent characteristic $\{y=0\}$.[]{data-label="fig:char"}](leray)
For example, suppose $\gamma := \{ y=x^3 \}$. We can solve (\[eq:hyperbolic\]) exactly: $$v(x,y) = x \cdot y - \frac{x^{4}}{4} - \frac{3}{4}y^{4/3}.$$ The solution is singular on the characteristic $\{y=0 \}$ which is tangent to the initial curve $\gamma$ at the point $(0,0)$.
The singularities in the solution of (\[eq:SP\]) also propagate along tangent characteristics, but the characteristic points (the “birth places” of singularities) reside on the complexification of $\Gamma$, the complex hypersurface given by the same defining equation.
![The characteristic lines tangent to $\Gamma$ at four characteristic points intersect ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ precisely at the foci.[]{data-label="fig:CS"}](EllipseFoci.jpg)
All solutions of the Cauchy problem (\[eq:SP\]) with entire data $f$ on $\Gamma := \left\{z\in\mathbb{C}^n:\sum\limits_1^nz_1^2/a_i^2=1\right\}$ extend holomorphically along all paths in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ that avoid the characteristic surface $\Sigma$ (consisting of all characteristic lines tangent to $\Gamma$).
The intersection $\Sigma \cap {\mathbb{R}}^n = E$ is the focal ellipsoid. According to the properties of the Schwarz potential discussed above, this provides a ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-explanation of a rather physical fact that $E$ supports a measure solving an inverse potential problem. Johnsson’s proof of this theorem can be described as a globalization of Leray’s principle, a local theory governing propagation of singularities. As Johnsson notes, there is an unexpected coincidence between potential-theoretic foci (points where singularities of $W$ are located) and algebraic foci in the classical sense of Plücker [@Johnsson94]. Understanding this correspondence and extending it to higher-degree algebraic surfaces is part of a program advocated by the first author and H. S. Shapiro. The case $n=2$ is more transparent [@KS90], and for $n>2$ it is virtually unexplored except for some axially-symmetric fourth-degree examples [@Lund2011].
Epilogue
========
Newton’s theorem can be reformulated in terms of a single layer potential obtained by shrinking a constant-density ellipsoidal shell to zero thickness (while rescaling the constant), leading to a non-constant density $\rho(x) = 1 / |\nabla q(x)|$, where $q(x)$ is the defining quadratic of the ellipsoid. This is sometimes called the *standard single layer potential* (it is different from the equilibrium potential discussed in Section \[sec:Ivory\]). The modern approach due to V. I. Arnold and, then, A. Givental [@Arnold; @Givental], views the force at $x_0$ induced by infinitesimal charges at two points $x_1, x_2$ on a line $\ell$ through $x_0$ as a sum of residues for a contour integral in the complex extension $L$ of $\ell$. The vanishing of force follows from deforming the contour to infinity. The detailed proof can be found in [@Khav96 Ch. 14].
![The force from two points is realized as a sum of residues in the complex line $L$. []{data-label="fig:givental"}](Givental)
The same proof can be used to extend Newton’s theorem beyond ellipsoids to any *domain of hyperbolicity* of a smooth, irreducible real algebraic variety $\Gamma$ of degree $k$. A domain $\Omega$ is called a domain of hyperbolicity for $\Gamma$ if for any $x_0 \in \Omega$, each line $\ell$ passing through $x_0$ intersects $\Gamma$ at precisely $k$ points. For example, the interior of an ellipsoid is a domain of hyperbolicity, and if a hypersurface of degree $2k$ consists of an increasing family of $k$ ovaloids then the smallest one is the domain of hyperbolicity.
Defining the standard single layer density on $\Gamma$ in exactly the same way as before, except that the sign $+$ or $-$ is assigned on each connected component of $\Gamma$ depending whether the number of obstructions for “viewing” this component from the domain of hyperbolicity of $\Gamma$ is even or odd, the Arnold-Givental generalization of Newton’s theorem implies, in particular, that the force due to the standard layer density vanishes inside the domain of hyperbolicity (cf. [@Arnold; @Givental] for more general statements and proofs).
As a final remark, returning to ellipsoids, and even taking $n=2$, let us note an application to gravitational lensing of Corollary \[cor:motherbody\]. The two-dimensional version of MacLaurin’s theorem plays a key role in formulating analytic descriptions for the gravitational lensing effect for certain elliptically symmetric lensing galaxies [@FKK; @KhLund; @BE; @Rhie] (cf. [@KhN; @Petters; @PLW] for terminology). Here the projected mass density that is constant on confocal ellipses produces at most 4 lensed images [@FKK]. The density that is constant on homothetic ellipses produces at most 6 images [@BE], also cf. [@KhLund]. The same technique that applies MacLaurin’s theorem to density that is not constant but is constant on each scaled ellipse can also be applied to the case when the ellipses are allowed to rotate as they are scaled. This leads to a lensing equation involving a Gauss hypergeometric function that describes the images lensed by a spiral galaxy [@BEFKL] (an investigation initiated during an REU). In connection to the converse to Newton’s theorem, whenever the rare focusing effect in graviataional lensing produces a continuous “halo” (aka Einstein ring - cf. [@KhN] for some striking NASA pictures) around the lensing galaxy (of any shape), the “halo” necessarily turns out to be either a circle or an ellipse [@FKK]. But this alley leads to the beginning of another story.
[9]{}
N. I Akhiezer, Elements of the theory of elliptic functions, AMS, Providence, RI, 1990.
D. H. Armitage, *The Dirichlet problem when the boundary function is entire,* J. Math. Anal. Appl. 291 (2004), no. 2, 565-577.
V. I. Arnold, *Magnetic analogs of the theorems of Newton and Ivory*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 38 (1984), no. 5, 253-254 (Russian).
L. Ásgeirsson, Über eine Mittelwerteigenschaft von Lösungen homogener, linearer partieller Differential-gleichungen 2. Ordnung mit konstanten Koeffizienten, Math. Ann. 113 (1937) 321-346.
S. R. Bell, P. Ebenfelt, D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro, *On the classical Dirichlet problem in the plane with rational data*, J. d’Analyse Math., 100 (2006), 157-190.
S. R. Bell, P. Ebenfelt, D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro, *Algebraicity in the Dirichlet problem in the plane with rational data*, Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 52 (2007), Nos. 2-3, 235-244.
S. R. Bell, B. Ernst, S. Fancher, A. Komanduru, E. Lundberg, *Gravitational lensing by a spiral galaxy*, preprint.
W. Bergweiler, A. Eremenko, *On the number of solutions of a transcendental equation arising in the theory of gravitational lensing*, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory, 10 (2010), 303-324.
H. C. Brinkman, *A calculation of the viscous force exerted by a flowing fluid on a dense swarm of particles*, Applied Scientific Research, 1 (1949), 27-34.
P. Buchak, D. G. Crowdy, *Exact solutions for the evolution of ellipsoidal inclusions in porous media*, Quarterly Jnl. of Mechanics and App. Math., 61 (2007), 161-180.
M. Chamberland, D. Siegel, *Polynomial solutions to Dirichlet problems,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 129 (2001), 211-217.
R. Courant and D. Hilbert, *Methods of mathematical physics. Vol. II: Partial differential equations*, Interscience Publishers (a division of John Wiley & Sons), New York-London, 1962.
D. G. Crowdy, *Quadrature domains and fluid dynamics*, Oper. Thy.: Adv. and Appl., Volume 156 (2005), 113-129.
D. G. Crowdy, J. Marshall, *Analytical solutions for rotating vortex arrays involving multiple vortex patches*, J. Fluid Mech. 523 (2005), 307-337.
E. DiBenedetto, A. Friedman, *Bubble growth in porous media*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 35 (1986), 5730-606.
P. Dive, *Attraction des ellipsoides homogènes et réciproques d’un théorème de Newton*, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 59 (1931), 128-140.
D. G. Dritschel, J. N. Reinaud, W. J. McKiver, *The quasi-geostrophic ellipsoidal vortex model*, J. Fluid Mech., 505 (2004), 201-223.
D. G. Dritschel, R. K. Scott, J. N. Reinaud, *The stability of quasi-geostrophic ellipsoidal vortices*, Fluid Mech., 536 (2005), 401-421.
P. Ebenfelt, *Singularities encountered by the analytic continuation of solutions to Dirichlet’s problem,* Complex Variables, 20 (1992), 75-91.
P. Ebenfelt, D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro, *Algebraic aspects of the Dirichlet problem with rational data*, Quadrature domains and their applications, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 156, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, 151-172.
C. D. Fassnacht, C. R. Keeton, D. Khavinson, *Gravitational lensing by elliptical galaxies and the Schwarz function*, in B. Gustafsson and A. Vasilev (eds.), Trends in Complex and Harmonic Analysis, Birkhäuser (2007), 115-129.
E. Fischer, *Uber die Differentiationsprozesse der Algebra*, J.fiir Math. 148 (1917), 1-78.
D. Fuchs, S. Tabachnikov, *Mathematical omnibus: thirty lectures on classic mathematics*, AMS, 2007.
A. B. Givental, *Polynomiality of electrostatic potentials*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 39 (1984), no. 5, 253-254 (Russian).
B. Gustafsson, *On mother bodies of convex polyhedra*, SIAM J. Math.Anal. 29 (1998), 1106-1117.
B. Gustafsson, A. Vasiliev, *Conformal and potential analysis in Hele-Shaw cells*, Birkhäuser-Verlag, 2006.
G. Herglotz, *Über die analytische fortsetzung der potentials ins innere der anziehenden massen*, Preisschr. der Jablonowski Gesellschaft, 4 (1914)
S. D. Howison, *Cusp development in Hele-Shaw flow with a free surface*, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 46 (1986), 20-26.
G. Johnsson, *The Cauchy problem in $\mathbb{C}^n$ for linear second order partial differential equations with data on a quadric surface*, Trans. of the Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 344, No. 1 (1994), 1-48.
L. Karp, *On the Newtonian potential of ellipsoids*, Complex Variables, Thy. Appl., (25) 1994, 367-371.
D. Khavinson, *Holomorphic Partial Differential Equations and Classical Potential Theory*, Universidad de La Laguna Press, 1996.
D. Khavinson, E. Lundberg, *Transcendental harmonic mappings and gravitational lensing by isothermal galaxies*, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory, 4 (2010), 515-524.
D. Khavinson, E. Lundberg, *The search for singularities of solutions to the Dirichlet problem: recent developments*, CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes, Vol. 51 (2010), 121-132.
D. Khavinson, G. Neumann, *From the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra to Astrophysics: A “Harmonious” Path*, Notices of the Amer. Math. Soc., 55 (2008) No. 6, 666-675.
D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro *The Schwarz potential in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and Cauchy’s problem for the Laplace equation*, TRITA-MAT-1989-36, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 112.
D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro, *Dirichlet’s Problem when the data is an entire function,* Bull. London Math. Soc. 24 (1992), 456-468.
D. Khavinson, H. S. Shapiro, *The Vekua hull of a plane domain*, Complex Variables 14 (1990), 117-128.
D. Khavinson, N. Stylianopoulos, *Recurrence relations for orthogonal polynomials and the Khavinson-Shapiro conjecture*, in “Around the Research of Vladimir Maz’ya II, Partial Differential Equations”, pp. 219-228, International Mathematical Series, Vol. 12, ed. by A. Laptev, Springer, 2010.
E. Lundberg, *Dirichlet’s problem and complex lightning bolts,* Computational Methods and Function Theory, 9 (2009), 111-125.
E. Lundberg, *Laplacian growth, elliptic growth, and singularities of the Schwarz potential*, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44 (2011), 135202.
E. Lundberg, H. Render, *The Khavinson-Shapiro conjecture and polynomial decompositions*, J. Math. Analysis Appl, 376 (2011), 506-513.
W. D. MacMillan, *The theory of the potential*, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1958.
M. Mineev-Weinstein, S. P. Dawson, *Class of nonsingular exact solutions for Laplacian pattern formation*, Phys. Rev. E 50 (1994), R24–R27.
M. Mineev-Weinstein, *Selection of the Saffman-Taylor finger width in the absence of surface tension: an exact result*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2113 (1998).
W. Nikliborc, *Eine Bemerkung [ü]{}ber due Volumpotentiale*, Math. Zeitschrift, 35 (1932), 625-631.
A. O. Petters, *Gravity’s action on light*, Notices of the AMS, 57 (2010), 1392 - 1409.
A. O. Petters, H. Levine, and J. Wambsganss, *Singularity theory and gravitational lensing*, Birkhäuser, Boston (2001).
N. A. Phillips, *Geostrophic motion*, Reviews of Geophysics, 1 (1963) 123-176.
M. Putinar, N. Stylianopoulos, *Finite-term relations for planar orthogonal poly1nomials*, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 1 (2007), no. 3, 447-456.
C. Reid, *Hilbert*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
H. Render, *Real Bargmann spaces, Fischer decompositions and sets of uniqueness for polyharmonic functions,* Duke Math. J. 142 (2008), 313-352.
H. Render, *Cauchy, Goursat and Dirichlet problems for holomorphic partial differential equations*, Comput. Meth. Function Theory, 10 (2010), 519-554.
S. Rhie, *Elliptically symmetric lenses and violation of Burke’s theorem*, arxiv:1006.0782 (2010).
P. B. Rhines, W. R. Young, *Homogenization of potential vorticity in planetary gyres*, J. Fluid Mech 122 (1952), 347-367.
S. Richardson, *Hele-Shaw flows with a free boundary produced by the injection of fluid into a narrow channel*, J. Fluid Mech., 56 (1972), 609-618.
H. S. Shapiro, *The Schwarz function and its generalizations to higher dimensions*, Wiley-Interscience, 1992.
E. M. Stein and G. Weiss, *Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean spaces*, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton NJ, 1971.
S. Tanveer, *Surprises in viscous fingering*, J. Fluid Mech., 409 (2000), 273-308.
A. N. Varchenko, P. I. Etingof, *Why the boundary of a round drop becomes a curve of order four*, AMS university lecture series Vol. 3, 1992.
[^1]: The first author acknowledges support from the NSF grant DMS - 0855597
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we address the problem of blindly reconstructing compressively sensed signals by exploiting the co-sparse analysis model. In the analysis model it is assumed that a signal multiplied by an analysis operator results in a sparse vector. We propose an algorithm that learns the operator adaptively during the reconstruction process. The arising optimization problem is tackled via a geometric conjugate gradient approach. Different types of sampling noise are handled by simply exchanging the data fidelity term. Numerical experiments are performed for measurements corrupted with Gaussian as well as impulsive noise to show the effectiveness of our method.'
author:
- 'Julian Wörmann, Simon Hawe, and Martin Kleinsteuber[^1][^2] [^3][^4]'
title: Analysis Based Blind Compressive Sensing
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Regularization in Compressive Sensing {#subsec:11}
-------------------------------------
In recent years, Compressive Sensing (CS) has influenced many fields in signal processing. Basically, the theory states that if an unknown signal ${\bf{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ can be sparsely represented, only a few $m < n$ linear and non-adaptive measurements ${\bf{y}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ of the signal suffice to accurately reconstruct it. Denoting the measurement vectors by $\{ \phi_{i} \in\mathbb{R}^{n} \}_{i = 1}^{m}$, the measurement process can be compactly written as $$\label{eq:measurements}
{\bf{y}} = [ \phi_{i}, \ldots, \phi_{m} ]^{\top} \bf{s} + \bf{z} = \bf{\Phi} \bf{s} + \bf{z},$$ where ${\bf{\Phi}} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ is the measurement matrix, and ${\bf{z}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ constitutes possible sampling errors. Due to the reduced dimensionality, reconstructing $\bf{s}$ from the measurements is ill-posed in general, and cannot be done by simply inverting ${\bf{\Phi}}$. However, additional model assumptions on $\bf{s}$ may help to find a solution. In this context, the *sparse synthesis-approach* and the *co-sparse analysis-approach* [@elad-invprob-07] have proven extremely useful. In the sparse synthesis approach it is assumed that a signal can be decomposed into a linear combination of only a few columns, called atoms, of a known dictionary ${\bf{\mathcal{D}}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ with $d \geq n$, i.e. $\bf{s} = {\bf{\mathcal{D}}} \bf{x}$ with ${\bf{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ being the sparse coefficient vector. Many algorithms for solving the synthesis problem exist, cf. [@tropp-poti-2010] for an extensive overview. The co-sparse analysis approach is a similar looking but yet very different alternative to tackle the CS problem. Its underlying assumption is that a signal multiplied by an *analysis operator* ${\bf\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times n}$ with $k \geq n$ results in a sparse vector ${\bf\Omega s} \in \mathbb{R}^k$. If $g\colon \mathbb{R}^{k} \to \mathbb{R}$ denotes a function that measures sparsity, the analysis model assumption is exploited via $$\label{analysis}
{\bf{s^*}} = \underset{{\bf{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}}{\arg \min} \quad g({\bf{\Omega s}}) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \| {\bf{\Phi s - y}} \|_{2}^{2} \leq \epsilon.$$ The analysis model has proven useful in the field of image reconstruction and we thus restrict ourselves to compressively sensed images here. Our approach is motivated by the observation that learning the operator leads to an improved image reconstruction quality [@hawe-tip-12], [@rubinstein-tsp-12] compared to applying a finite difference operator that approximates the image gradient, known as Total Variation (TV-norm) regularization [@candes-tit-06], [@romberg-spm-08]. In contrast to the task of dictionary learning only a few analysis operator learning algorithms have been proposed in the literature so far, cf. [@roth-ijcv-2009], [@yaghoobi-icassp-12], [@rubinstein-tsp-12], [@hawe-tip-12]. Furthermore, from image denoising it is known that the reconstruction accuracy can be further improved when the dictionary or operator is not only learned on some general and representative training set, but rather directly on the specific signal that has to be reconstructed [@elad-tip-06], [@rubinstein-tsp-12]. These observations prompted us to combine the image reconstruction performance of the analysis approach together with the accuracy improvement capabilities of a learned operator.
Blind Compressive Sensing
-------------------------
The principle of CS relies on the fact that the signal ${\bf{s}}$ has a sparse representation in a *given* basis or dictionary ${\bf{\mathcal{D}}}$ that is universal for the considered signal class of interest. However, such universal dictionaries do not necessarily result in the sparsest possible representation, which is crucial for the recovery success. Due to this, in [@gleichman-tit-11] the concept of Blind Compressive Sensing (BCS) has been introduced, which aims at simultaneously learning the dictionary and reconstructing the signal, see also [@silva-arxiv-11] and [@studer-icassp-12] for an extension of this idea. Note that all these methods are based on the synthesis model and consider the problem of finding a suitable dictionary, while in this paper we focus on the analysis model.
Our Contribution {#subsec:13}
----------------
In this work we address the problem of signal reconstruction from compressively sensed data regularized by an adaptively learned analysis operator. The work of Hawe *et al.* [@hawe-tip-12], which focuses on learning a global patch based analysis operator from noise free training samples, has already shown the superior performance of a learned operator compared to state-of-the-art analysis and synthesis based regularization, like e.g. K-SVD denoising, in the context of classical image reconstruction problems. That is why we extend this idea and build on their work to utilize the learning process to obtain a signal dependent regularization of the inverse problem. Since we are dealing with compressive measurements, our approach can be interpreted as an analysis-based BCS problem with no prior knowledge about the operator. We extend the algorithm proposed in [@hawe-tip-12], where the operator is learned by a geometric Conjugate Gradient (CG) method on the so-called oblique manifold, to our setting of simultaneous image reconstruction and operator learning. This approach allows us to compensate for various sampling noise models, i.e. Gaussian or impulsive noise, by simply exchanging the data fidelity term. To summarize, the advantages of our approach are as follows: (i) The learning process allows to adaptively find an adequate operator that fits the underlying image structure. (ii) There is no necessity to train the operator prior to the reconstruction. (iii) Different noise types are handled by simply exchanging the data fidelity term.
Problem Statement {#sec:2}
=================
Our goal is to find a local analysis operator ${\bf{\Omega}} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times n}$ with $k \geq n$ simultaneously to the signal ${\bf{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ that has to be reconstructed from the compressive measurements. Here, the vector ${\bf{s}}$ denotes a vectorized image of dimension $N = wh$, with $w$ being the width and $h$ being the height of the image, respectively, obtained by stacking the columns of the image above each other. Note that the analysis operator has to be applied to local image patches rather than to the whole image. We denote the binary $(n \times N)$ matrix that extracts the patch centered at the $(r,c)$ pixel by ${\bf{\mathcal{P}}}_{rc}$. Furthermore, practice has shown that the learning process is significantly faster if *centered*, i.e. zero mean patches are considered. This can be easily incorporated by multiplying the vectorized patch with $\mathcal{M}:=(\mathcal{I}_{n \times n} -\frac{1}{n} \mathcal{J}_{n \times n})$, where $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{J}$ are the identity operator and the matrix with all elements equal to one, respectively. We employ constant padding at the image borders, i.e. replicating the boundary pixel values. In the end, we globally promote sparsity with an appropriate function $g( \cdot ): \mathbb{R}^{k} \to \mathbb{R}$ and write for the problem of finding a suitable analysis operator $$\label{min_global_operator}
{\bf{\Omega}}^{*} = \underset{{\bf{\Omega}} \in \mathcal{C}}{\arg \min} \sum_{r,c} g( {\bf{\Omega}} \, \mathcal{M}\,{\bf{\mathcal{P}}}_{rc} {\bf{s}} )^2 ,$$ where $\mathcal{C}$ denotes an admissible set, which implies some constraints on ${\bf{\Omega}}$ to avoid trivial solutions. We follow the considerations of the authors in [@hawe-tip-12], demanding that:
The rows of ${\bf{\Omega}}$ have unit Euclidean norm, i.e. $\| {\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{i} \|_2 = 1$, for $i = 1,...,k$, where ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{i}$ denotes the transposed of the $i^{th}$-row of ${\bf{\Omega}}$.
The analysis operator ${\bf{\Omega}}$ has full rank, i.e. $\text{rk}({\bf{\Omega}}) = n$.
The mutual coherence of the analysis operator should be moderate.
These constraints motivate to consider the set of full rank matrices with normalized columns, which admits a manifold structure known as the oblique manifold $$\label{oblique_manifold}
\text{OB}(n,k) := \{\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k} \, | \, \text{rk}(\mathcal{X}) = n, \mathrm{ddiag}(\mathcal{X}^\top\mathcal{X}) = \mathcal{I}_{k}\}.$$ Here, $\mathrm{ddiag}({\bf{\mathcal{V}}})$ is the diagonal matrix whose entries on the diagonal are those of ${\bf{\mathcal{V}}}$. Since we require the rows of ${\bf{\Omega}}$ to have unit Euclidean norm, we restrict ${\bf{\Omega}}^\top$ to be an element of $\text{OB}(n,k)$. To enforce the rank constraint (ii) we employ the penalty function $$\label{logdetterm}
h({\bf{\Omega}}) := - \tfrac{1}{n \log{(n)}} \log \det ( \tfrac{1}{k} {\bf{\Omega}}^\top {\bf{\Omega}} ).$$ Furthermore, the mutual coherence of the analysis operator, formulated in constraint (iii), can be controlled via the logarithmic barrier function of the atoms’ scalar products, namely $$\label{logbarrier}
r({\bf{\Omega}}) := - \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq k} \log ( 1 - ( {\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{i}^\top {\boldsymbol{\omega}}_{j} )^2 ).$$ Considerations concerning the usefulness of these penalty functions can be found in [@hawe-tip-12]. To measure the sparsity of the analyzed patches, we use the differentiable sparsity promoting function $$\label{sparsity_fct}
g({\bf{w}}) = \sum_{j} \, \log \left( 1 + c \cdot ({\bf{e}}_{j}^{\top} {\bf{w}} )^2 \right) ,$$ where $c$ is a positive constant and ${\bf{e}}_{j}$ represents the $j^{th}$ standard basis vector with the same length as ${\bf{w}}$.
Since we are interested in simultaneous operator learning and image reconstruction, we further introduce a data term $p( \cdot )$, which measures the fidelity of the reconstructed signal to the measurements ${\bf{y}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M}$. The choice of $p(\cdot)$ depends on the error model, i.e. by using $p( \cdot ) = \| \cdot \|_2^2$ the error is assumed to be Gaussian distributed. If the noise is sparsely distributed over the measurements, we set $p( \cdot ) = g( \cdot )$. This error model has also been utilized in [@carillo-tisp-10] to compensate for sparse outliers in the measurements.
Finally, combining the data term with the constraints and the sparsity promoting function $g$, the augmented Lagrangian optimization problem for adaptively learning the analysis operator with simultaneous image reconstruction consists of minimizing the cost $$\label{opt_problem}
f({\bf{\Omega}}^{\top}\!,{\bf{s}}) = \quad \tfrac{1}{2 B} \sum_{(r,c)} \, g( {\bf{\Omega}} \, \mathcal{M}\, {\bf{\mathcal{P}}}_{rc} {\bf{s}} )^2
+ \eta \, p( {\bf{\Phi}} {\bf{s}} - {\bf{y}} )
+ \gamma \, h({\bf{\Omega}})
+ \kappa \, r({\bf{\Omega}}),
$$ subject to ${\bf{\Omega}}^{\top} \in \text{OB}(n,k)$ with the measurement matrix ${\bf{\Phi}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N}$. The scalar $B$ denotes the number of extracted image patches. The parameter $\eta \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ weights the fidelity of the solution to the measurements and the parameters $\gamma, \kappa \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ control the influence of the two constraints.
Optimization Algorithm {#sec:3}
======================
Since the cost function is restricted to a smooth manifold, we follow [@hawe-tip-12] and employ a conjugate gradient on manifolds approach to solve the optimization problem. The CG approach is scalable and converges fast in practice. It is thus well-suited to handle the high dimensional problem of simultaneous image reconstruction and operator learning. The challenges for developing the CG method are the efficient computation of the Riemannian gradient, the step-size and the update directions. To that end, we employ the product manifold structure of $\text{OB}(n,k) \times \mathbb{R}^N$ considered as a Riemannian submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{n \times k} \times \mathbb{R}^N$. To enhance legibility in the remainder of this section we denote the oblique manifold by OB. We further denote the tangent space at a point $\mathbf{\Omega}^\top=\mathcal{X} \in \text{OB}$ as $T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}$, with $\Xi \in T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}$ being a tangent vector at $\mathcal{X}$.
The Riemannian gradient at $\mathcal{X}$ is given by the orthogonal projection of the standard (Euclidean) gradient onto the tangent space $T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}$. The orthogonal projection of a matrix $\mathcal{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k}$ onto the tangent space $T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}$ is obtained by $\Pi_{T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}}(\mathcal{Q}) = \mathcal{Q} - \mathcal{X} \mathrm{ddiag}(\mathcal{X}^\top \mathcal{Q})$. Using the product structure and denoting the partial derivatives of $f$ by $\nabla_{{\bf{s}}} f(\mathcal{X},{\bf{s}})$ and $\nabla_{\mathcal{X}} f({\mathcal{X}},{\bf{s}})$, respectively, the Riemannian gradient of the cost function is $$\label{riem_grad}
\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{X}, {\bf{s}} ) =\Big( \Pi_{T_{\mathcal{X}} \text{OB}}(\nabla_{\mathcal{X}} f), \nabla_{{\bf{s}}} f\Big).$$
In CG methods the updated search directions $(\mathcal{H}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i+1)}) \in T_{\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)}} \text{OB} \times \mathbb{R}^{N}$ are linear combinations of the respective gradient and the previous search directions $(\mathcal{H}^{(i)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i)}) \in T_{\mathcal{X}^{(i)}} \text{OB} \times \mathbb{R}^{N}$. The identification of different tangent spaces is done by the so-called parallel transport $\mathcal{T}_{\Xi}^{(i+1)} := \mathcal{T}(\Xi, \mathcal{X}^{(i)}, \mathcal{H}^{(i)}, \alpha^{(i)})$, which transports a tangent vector $\Xi$ along a *geodesic* to the tangent space $T_{\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)}} \text{OB}$. In the manifold setting geodesics can be considered as the generalization of straight lines. We denote the geodesic from $\mathcal{X}^{(i)}$ along the direction $\mathcal{H}^{(i)}$ as $\Gamma(\mathcal{X}^{(i)}, \mathcal{H}^{(i)}, t)$. Regarding the product manifold the new iterates are computed by $$\label{newiterate}
(\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{s}}^{(i+1)}) = \left( \Gamma(\mathcal{X}^{(i)}, \mathcal{H}^{(i)}, \alpha^{(i)}), {\bf{s}}^{(i)} + \alpha^{(i)}{\bf{h}}^{(i)} \right),$$ where $\alpha^{(i)}$ denotes the step size that leads to a sufficient decrease of the cost function. The parallel transport along the geodesics in the product manifold is then given by $$\label{paralleltransp}
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}^{(i)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)} = \left( \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i)} \right).$$ We use a hybridization of the Hestenes-Stiefel (HS) and the Dai Yuan (DY) formula as motivated in [@dai-aor-01] to determine the update of the search direction. With the shorthand notations $\mathcal{G}^{(i)} := \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{X}^{(i)})$ and ${\bf{g}}^{(i)} := \mathcal{G}({\bf{s}}^{(i)})$, as well as $\mathcal{U}^{(i+1)} = \mathcal{G}^{(i+1)} - \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{G}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)}$ and ${\bf{u}}^{(i+1)} = {\bf{g}}^{(i+1)} - {\bf{g}}^{(i)}$ the manifold adaptions of these formulas are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cgupdate1}
\beta_{\text{HS}}^{(i)} &= \frac{\langle \mathcal{G}^{(i+1)}, \mathcal{U}^{(i+1)} \rangle + \langle {\bf{g}}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{u}}^{(i+1)} \rangle}{\langle \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)}, \mathcal{U}^{(i+1)} \rangle + \langle {\bf{h}}^{(i)}, {\bf{u}}^{(i+1)} \rangle}, \\
\label{cgupdate2}
\beta_{\text{DY}}^{(i)} &= \frac{\langle \mathcal{G}^{(i+1)}, \mathcal{G}^{(i+1)} \rangle + \langle {\bf{g}}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{g}}^{(i+1)} \rangle}{\langle \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)}, \mathcal{U}^{(i+1)} \rangle + \langle {\bf{h}}^{(i)}, {\bf{u}}^{(i+1)} \rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle$ denotes the standard inner product in the respective Euclidean spaces. With the hybrid update formula $$\label{hybupdate}
\beta_{\text{hyb}}^{(i)}=\max \left( 0, \min(\beta_{\text{DY}}^{(i)},\beta_{\text{HS}}^{(i)}) \right),$$ the new search directions are given by $$\label{searchdirections}
(\mathcal{H}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i+1)}) = \left( -\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)},{\bf{s}}^{(i+1)}) + \beta_{\text{hyb}}^{(i)} \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}^{(i)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i)}}^{(i+1)} \right).$$ In our implementation we use the well-known backtracking line search which is adapted to the manifold setting until the Armijo condition is met. We name our method Analysis Blind Compressive Sensing (ABCS) and briefly summarize the whole procedure in Algorithm 1. For further details concerning CG-methods on the oblique manifold the reader is referred to [@hawe-tip-12], [@absil-puc-08], and [@kleinsteuber-spl-12].
**Algorithm 1** ABCS
**Input:** Initial operator ${\bf{\Omega}}_{init}$, noisy measurements ${\bf{y}}$, measurement matrix ${\bf{\Phi}}$, parameters $\gamma,\kappa,\eta,c$\
**Set:** $i \leftarrow 0$, ${\bf{s}}^{(0)} \leftarrow {\bf{\Phi}}^{\top} {\bf{y}}$, $\mathcal{X}^{(0)} \leftarrow {\bf{\Omega}}_{init}^{\top}$, $\mathcal{H}^{(0)} \leftarrow -\mathcal{G}^{(0)}$, ${\bf{h}}^{(0)} \leftarrow -{\bf{g}}^{(0)}$
perform backtracking line search to get step size $\alpha^{(i)}$ update to $(\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{s}}^{(i+1)} )$, cf. compute $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{X}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{s}}^{(i+1)} )$ compute $\beta^{(i)}_{\text{hyb}}$, cf. compute new CG-search directions $(\mathcal{H}^{(i+1)}, {\bf{h}}^{(i+1)})$ $i = i + 1$ $\| \mathcal{X}^{(i)} - \mathcal{X}^{(i-1)} \|_{F} < 10^{-6} \vee i = $ maximum \# of iterations
**Output:** ${\bf{\Omega}}^{*} \leftarrow \mathcal{X}^{(i) \top}$, ${\bf{s}}^{*} \leftarrow {\bf{s}}^{(i)}$
Experimental Results {#sec:4}
====================
To measure the image reconstruction accuracy we use the peak signal-to-noise ratio ${(\textit{PSNR}) = 10 \log ( 255^2 N / \sum_{i = 1}^{N} (s_{i} -s_{i}^{*})^2)}$ and the Mean Structural SIMilarity Index (*MSSIM*), with the same set of parameters as originally suggested and implemented in [@wang-tip-04]. Throughout our experiments we use a patch size of $(7 \times 7)$, i.e. $n = 49$ and set $k = 2n$, as larger values of $k$ do not enhance the reconstruction quality. We initialized ${\bf{\Omega}}_{init}$ to be a random matrix and normalized the rows to unit norm. With this initialization, convergence to a local minimum was observed in all our experiments. The parameters for the constraints are set to $\gamma = 20$ and $\kappa = 1000$. The constant $c$ in the sparsity inducing function is chosen as $c = 10^4$. The parameter $\eta$ takes into account the size of the image as well as the operator size and reads $\eta = \hat \eta \cdot \left( \tfrac{k}{L n} \right)^2$, with $\hat \eta$ adjusted according to the noise level as explained below and a normalization factor $L = \tfrac{\sqrt{N}}{256}$.
We evaluate our method on the three images *Girl* ($256 \times 256$), *Barbara* ($512 \times 512$), and *Texture*[^5] ($256 \times 256$). The measurements are obtained by using the real valued noiselet transformation proposed in [@romberg-spm-08].
In the first experiment we show the robustness of the ABCS algorithm to sampling noise which follows a Gaussian distribution. For this purpose, the measurements have been artificially corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma_{\text{noise}}$. The data term in reads $p( \cdot ) = \| \cdot \|^{2}_{2}$. We assume the noise level $\sigma_{\text{noise}}$ to be known and set $\hat \eta = \tfrac{1000}{\sigma_{\text{noise}}}$. Two measurement rates $M = N/4$ and $M = N/10$ are considered. Table \[tab:denoising\] shows the reconstruction performance for different noise levels. For comparison we used the algorithm of [@becker-siam-11] (NESTA), with TV-norm regularization and optimized parameters. Figure \[fig:res\] shows the reconstructed images from $M = N/4$ measurements and a noise level of $\sigma_{\text{noise}} = 5.1$. We also tested the algorithm proposed in [@li-cam-12] (TVAL3) with different parameters, which achieves results comparable to NESTA. Due to space limitations, detailed results are not listed here. In all settings, the same measurements are used.
-------- ------------------------- -------- --------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
Method $\sigma_{\text{noise}}$ *PSNR* *MSSIM* *PSNR* *MSSIM* *PSNR* *MSSIM*
NESTA 0.1 31.97 0.794 25.03 0.686 26.92 0.732
+TV 5.1 30.97 0.754 24.71 0.676 26.53 0.717
10.2 29.72 0.701 24.01 0.641 25.66 0.668
ABCS 0.1 32.38 0.806 32.10 0.895 28.33 0.807
5.1 31.36 0.767 29.79 0.847 27.73 0.779
10.2 29.94 0.708 27.39 0.766 26.59 0.731
NESTA 0.1 29.51 0.690 22.59 0.560 23.87 0.544
+TV 5.1 28.95 0.667 22.56 0.576 23.72 0.539
10.2 28.06 0.632 22.31 0.559 23.32 0.522
ABCS 0.1 29.98 0.711 24.60 0.651 25.06 0.644
5.1 29.29 0.684 23.31 0.587 24.84 0.625
10.2 28.31 0.645 22.79 0.557 24.15 0.590
-------- ------------------------- -------- --------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
: Image reconstruction from measurements corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma_{\text{noise}}$. The measurement rates are $M = N/4$ (top) and $M = N/10$ (bottom). Achieved PSNR in decibels and MSSIM.[]{data-label="tab:denoising"}
To handle measurements that are corrupted by impulsive noise, we exchange the data fidelity function in to $p( \cdot ) = g( \cdot )$ in our second experiment. Corrupted coefficients are set to a value of $\pm \, 1.25 \cdot \vert y \vert_{max}$. Table \[tab:spdenoising\] summarizes the results for a sampling rate of $M = N/4$ and different amounts $d$ of corrupted measurements. In the ABCS algorithm, the parameter $\hat \eta$ is set to $0.08$ and to $0.05$ for $10\%$ and, respectively $20\%$, of corrupted measurements. To compare our results achieved with the adaptively learned operator, we used the same setting of the reconstruction scheme with a fixed finite difference operator denoted as TV in Table \[tab:spdenoising\].
------------ -------- --------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
Method *PSNR* *MSSIM* *PSNR* *MSSIM* *PSNR* *MSSIM*
ABCS (10%) 31.82 0.784 28.78 0.827 26.66 0.719
ABCS (20%) 30.89 0.749 22.47 0.577 25.18 0.617
TV (10%) 30.23 0.727 22.80 0.532 24.13 0.585
TV (20%) 29.80 0.708 22.43 0.510 23.35 0.537
------------ -------- --------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
: Image reconstruction from measurements corrupted by impulsive noise. Achieved PSNR in decibels and MSSIM. The values in brackets correspond to the amount of corrupted measurements.[]{data-label="tab:spdenoising"}
Both experiments confirm that the adaptively learned operator leads to an accuracy improvement compared to the reconstruction quality obtained with a fixed finite difference operator. In particular, the structures in the *Barbara* and *Texture* image are better preserved by ABCS.
Conclusion {#sec:5}
==========
In this article we proposed an analysis based blind compressive sensing algorithm that simultaneously reconstructs an image from compressively sensed data and learns an appropriate analysis operator. This process is formulated as an optimization problem, which is tackled via a geometric conjugate gradient approach that updates both the operator and the image as a whole at each iteration. Furthermore, the algorithm can be easily adapted to different noise models by simply exchanging the data fidelity term.
[^1]: Copyright © 2013 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to [email protected].
[^2]: All authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Technische Universität München, 80290 München Germany, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
[^3]: This work has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) through the project KF3057001TL2 and by the Cluster of Excellence CoTeSys - Cognition for Technical Systems, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
[^4]: Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LSP.2013.2252900
[^5]: Image 1.5.03.tiff obtained from the USC-SIPI Image Database: http://sipi.usc.edu/database/ and cropped to ($256 \times 256$)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Kohtaro Tadaki\
\
21st Century Center Of Excellence Program, Chuo University,\
1-13-27 Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8551, Japan\
E-mail: [email protected]
title: |
**An extension of Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega$\
to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system[^1]**
---
> **Abstract.** This paper proposes an extension of Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega$ to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system. Chaitin’s $\Omega$ is defined as the probability that the universal self-delimiting Turing machine $U$ halts, and plays a central role in the development of algorithmic information theory. In the theory, there are two equivalent ways to define the program-size complexity ${H}(s)$ of a given finite binary string $s$. In the standard way, ${H}(s)$ is defined as the length of the shortest input string for $U$ to output $s$. In the other way, the so-called universal probability $m$ is introduced first, and then ${H}(s)$ is defined as $-\log_2 m(s)$ without reference to the concept of program-size.
>
> Mathematically, the statistics of outcomes in a quantum measurement are described by a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) in the most general setting. Based on the theory of computability structures on a Banach space developed by Pour-El and Richards, we extend the universal probability to an analogue of POVM in an infinite dimensional quantum system, called a universal semi-POVM. We also give another characterization of Chaitin’s $\Omega$ numbers by universal probabilities. Then, based on this characterization, we propose to define an extension of $\Omega$ as a sum of the POVM elements of a universal semi-POVM. The validity of this definition is discussed.
>
> In what follows, we introduce an operator version ${\hat{H}}(s)$ of ${H}(s)$ in a Hilbert space of infinite dimension using a universal semi-POVM, and study its properties.
> **Key words:** algorithmic information theory, Chaitin’s $\Omega$, quantum measurement, computable analysis, POVM, universal probability
> **MSC (2000)** 03F60, 68Q30, 81P15, 03D80, 47S30
Introduction
============
Algorithmic information theory is a framework to apply information-theoretic and probabilistic ideas to recursive function theory. One of the primary concepts of algorithmic information theory is the *program-size complexity* (or *Kolmogorov complexity*) ${H}(s)$ of a finite binary string $s$, which is defined as the length of the shortest binary input for the universal self-delimiting Turing machine to output $s$. By the definition, ${H}(s)$ can be thought of as the information content of the individual finite binary string $s$. In fact, algorithmic information theory has precisely the formal properties of classical information theory (see [@C75]). The concept of program-size complexity plays a crucial role in characterizing the randomness of a finite or infinite binary string. In [@C75] Chaitin introduced the halting probability $\Omega$ as an example of random infinite string. His $\Omega$ is defined as the probability that the universal self-delimiting Turing machine halts, and plays a central role in the development of algorithmic information theory. The first $n$ bits of the base-two expansion of $\Omega$ solves the halting problem for a program of size not greater than $n$. By this property, the base-two expansion of $\Omega$ is shown to be an instance of a random infinite binary string. In [@C87a] Chaitin encoded this random property of $\Omega$ onto an exponential Diophantine equation in the manner that a certain property of the set of the solutions of the equation is indistinguishable from coin tosses. Moreover, based on this random property of the equation, Chaitin derived several quantitative versions of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.
In [@T02] we generalized Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega$ to $\Omega^D$ so that the degree of randomness of $\Omega^D$ can be controlled by a real number $D$ with $0<D\le 1$. As $D$ becomes larger, the degree of randomness of $\Omega^D$ increases. When $D=1$, $\Omega^D$ becomes a random real number, i.e., $\Omega^1=\Omega$. The properties of $\Omega^D$ and its relations to self-similar sets were studied in [@T02]. In the present paper, however, we generalize Chaitin’s $\Omega$ to a different direction from [@T02]. The aim of the present paper is to extend Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega$ to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system (i.e., a quantum system whose state space has infinite dimension).
The program-size complexity ${H}(s)$ is originally defined using the concept of program-size, as stated above. However, it is possible to define ${H}(s)$ without referring to such a concept, i.e., we first introduce a *universal probability* $m$, and then define ${H}(s)$ as $-\log_2 m(s)$. A universal probability is defined through the following two definitions [@ZL70]. We denote by ${\Sigma^*}$ the set of finite binary strings, by ${\mathbb{N}}^+$ the set of positive integers, and by ${\mathbb{Q}}$ the set of rational numbers.
\[lcsp\] For any $r\colon {\Sigma^*}\to[0,1]$, we say that $r$ is a lower-computable semi-measure if $r$ satisfies the following two conditions:
1. $\sum_{s\in {\Sigma^*}}r(s)\le 1$.
2. There exists a total recursive function $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that, for each $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} f(n,s)=r(s)$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;\>0\le f(n,s)\le f(n+1,s)$.
Let $m$ be a lower-computable semi-measure. We say that $m$ is a universal probability if for any lower-computable semi-measure $r$, there exists a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $c\,r(s)\le m(s)$.
In this paper we show that Chaitin’s $\Omega$ can be defined using a universal probability without reference to the universal self-delimiting Turing machine, as in the case of ${H}(s)$.
In quantum mechanics, a *positive operator-valued measure* (POVM) is the mathematical tool which describes the statistics of outcomes in a quantum measurement in the most general setting. In this paper we extend the universal probability to an analogue of a POVM in an infinite dimensional quantum system, called a *universal semi-POVM*. Then, based on a universal semi-POVM, we introduce the extension $\hat{\Omega}$ of Chaitin’s $\Omega$ to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system.
Quantum measurements
--------------------
Let $X$ be a separable complex Hilbert space. We assume that the inner product ${\left\langleu,v\right\rangle}$ of $X$ is linear in the first variable $u$ and conjugate linear in the second variable $v$, and it is related to the norm by $\|u\|={\left\langleu,u\right\rangle}^{1/2}$. ${\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is the set of *bounded* operators in $X$. We denote the *identity operator* in $X$ by $I$. For each $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, the *adjoint* operator of $T$ is denoted as $T^*\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$. We say $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is *Hermitian* if $T=T^*$. ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ is the set of Hermitian operators in $X$. We say $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is *positive* if ${\left\langleTx,x\right\rangle}\ge 0$ for all $x\in X$. ${\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is the set of positive operators in $X$. For each $S, T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$, we write $S\leqslant T$ if $T-S$ is positive. Let $\{A_n\}$ be a sequence of operators in ${\mathcal{B}(X)}$, and let $A\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$. We say $\{A_n\}$ *converges strongly* to $A$ as $n\to\infty$ if $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|A_nx-Ax\|=0$ for all $x\in X$.
With every quantum system there is associated a separable complex Hilbert space $X$. The states of the system are described by the nonzero elements in $X$. In the present paper, we consider the case where $X$ is a Hilbert space of infinite dimension. That is, we consider *infinite dimensional quantum systems*.
Let us consider a quantum measurement performed upon a quantum system. We first define a *POVM on a $\sigma$-field* as follows.
\[def-povm-infinie-general\] Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a $\sigma$-field in a set $\Phi$. We say $M\colon\mathcal{F}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is a POVM on the $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{F}$ if the following holds for $M$: If $\{B_j\}$ is a countable partition of $\Phi$ into pairwise disjoint subsets in $\mathcal{F}$, then $\sum_j M(B_j)=I$ where the series converges strongly. [^2]
In the most general setting, the statistics of outcomes in a quantum measurement are described by a POVM $M$ on a $\sigma$-field in a set $\Phi$. The set $\Phi$ consists of all outcomes possible under the quantum measurement. If the state of the quantum system is described by an $x\in X$ with $\|x\|=1$ immediately before the measurement, then the probability distribution of the measurement outcomes is given by ${\left\langleM(B)x,x\right\rangle}$. (See e.g. [@H01] for the treatment of the mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics.)
In this paper, we relate an argument $s$ of a universal probability $m(s)$ to an individual outcome which may occur in a quantum measurement. Thus, since $m(s)$ is defined for all finite binary strings $s$, we focus our thought on a POVM measurement with countably infinite measurement outcomes, such as the measurement of energy level of a harmonic oscillator. Since $\Phi$ is a countably infinite set for our purpose, we particularly define the notion of a *POVM on a countably infinite set* as follows.
\[def-povm-countable\] Let $S$ be a countably infinite set, and let $R\colon S\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$. We say $R$ is a POVM on the countably infinite set $S$ if $R$ satisfies $\sum_{v\in S}R(v)=I$ where the series converges strongly.
Let $S$ be a countably infinite set, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be the set of all subsets of $S$. Assume that $R\colon S\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is a POVM on the countably infinite set $S$ in Definition \[def-povm-countable\]. Then, by setting $M(B)=\sum_{v\in B}R(v)$ for every $B\in\mathcal{F}$, we can show that $M\colon\mathcal{F}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is a POVM on the $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{F}$ in Definition \[def-povm-infinie-general\]. Thus Definition \[def-povm-countable\] is sufficient for our purpose. Consider the quantum measurement described by the $R$ performed upon a quantum system. We then see that if the state of the quantum system is described by an $x\in X$ with $\|x\|=1$ immediately before the measurement then, for each $v\in S$, the probability that the result $v$ occurs is given by ${\left\langleR(v)x,x\right\rangle}$. Each operator $R(v)\in{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is called a *POVM element* associated with the measurement.
In a POVM measurement with countably infinite measurement outcomes, we represent each measurement outcome by just a finite binary string in perfect register with the argument of a universal probability. Thus we consider the notion of a *POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$* which is a special case of a POVM on a countably infinite set.
\[def-povm-infinie\] We say $R\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is a POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ if $R$ is a POVM on the countably infinite set ${\Sigma^*}$.
In a quantum measurement described by a POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, an experimenter gets a finite binary string as a measurement outcome.
Any universal probability $m$ satisfies $\sum_{s\in {\Sigma^*}}m(s)<1$. This relation is incompatible with the relation $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}R(s)=I$ satisfied by a POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$. Hence we further introduce the notion of a *semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$*, which is appropriate for an extension of universal probability.
\[def-semi-povm\] We say $R\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ if $R$ satisfies $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}R(s)\leqslant I$ where the series converges strongly.
Obviously, any POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ is a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. It is easy to convert $R$ into a POVM on a countably infinite set by appending an appropriate positive operator to $R$ as follows. We fix any one object $w$ which is not in ${\Sigma^*}$. Let $\widetilde{\Omega}_R=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}R(s)$. Then $0\leqslant\widetilde{\Omega}_R\leqslant I$ and $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}R(s)+(I-\widetilde{\Omega}_R)=I$. Thus, by setting $\overline{R}(s)=R(s)$ for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$ and $\overline{R}(w)=I-\widetilde{\Omega}_R$, we see that $\overline{R}\colon{\Sigma^*}\cup\{w\}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ is a POVM on the countably infinite set ${\Sigma^*}\cup\{w\}$ in Definition \[def-povm-countable\]. Therefore a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ has a physical meaning in the same way as a POVM on a countably infinite set. Hence, hereafter, we say that a POVM measurement $\mathcal{M}$ is *described* by a semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$ if $\mathcal{M}$ is described by the POVM $\overline{R}$ on the countably infinite set ${\Sigma^*}\cup\{w\}$. Let us consider the quantum measurement described by the $R$ performed upon a quantum system. We then see that if the state of the quantum system is described by an $x\in X$ with $\|x\|=1$ immediately before the measurement then, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, the probability that the result $s$ occurs is given by ${\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}$.
Related works
-------------
There are precedent works which make an attempt to extend the universal probability to operators in quantum system [@G01; @T03].
As we stated above, in quantum mechanics a POVM is the mathematical notion which describes the statistics of outcomes in a quantum measurement in the most general setting. Especially in quantum information processing such as quantum computation, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation and communication (see e.g. [@NC00] for these subjects), prior to a real experiment we design an appropriate POVM in order to accomplish a certain purpose. Hence, in such applications of quantum mechanics, an experimenter has to be able to realize the quantum measurement described by a pre-designed POVM with any desired accuracy. Therefore the pre-designed POVM has to be *computable*. In the previous work [@T03], we investigated what appears in the framework of quantum mechanics if we take into account the computability of a POVM for a finite dimensional quantum system. We obtained a new kind of inequalities of quantum mechanics about the probability of each measurement outcome in a computable POVM measurement performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system. In order to derive these inequalities, we introduced the notion of a universal semi-POVM on a finite dimensional quantum system, as a generalization of the universal probability to a matrix-valued function. The present work is, in essence, an extension of the work [@T03] to infinite dimensional setting with respect to the form of the theory.
The first attempt to extend the universal probability to an operator is done by [@G01] for finite dimensional quantum system. The purpose of [@G01] is mainly to define the information content of an individual pure quantum state, i.e., to define the *quantum Kolmogorov complexity* of the quantum state, while such an attempt is not the purpose of both [@T03] and the present paper. [@G01] generalized the universal probability to a matrix-valued function $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, called the *quantum universal semi-density matrix*. The function $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ maps any positive integer $N$ to an $N\times N$ positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix $\boldsymbol{\mu}(N)$ with its trace less than or equal to one. [@G01] proposed to regard $\boldsymbol{\mu}(N)$ as an analogue of a density matrix of a quantum system whose state space has finite dimension $N$. Since the dependency of $\boldsymbol{\mu}(N)$ on $N$ is crucial to the framework of [@G01], it would not seem clear how to extend the framework of [@G01] to an infinite dimensional quantum system. By comparison, the extension is clear to our framework.
In quantum mechanics, what is represented by an operator is either a quantum state or a measurement operator. In [@T03] and the present work we generalize the universal probability to an operator-valued function in different way from [@G01], and identify it with an analogue of a POVM. We do not stick to defining the information content of a quantum state. Instead, we focus our thoughts on properly extending algorithmic information theory to quantum region while keeping an appealing feature of the theory.
Organization of the paper
-------------------------
We begin in Section \[preliminaries\] with some basic notation and the results of algorithmic information theory. In Section \[infinite dimension\], we introduce our definition of universal semi-POVM after considering mathematical constraints on it. We then propose our extension of $\Omega$ to an operator in infinite dimensional quantum system in Section \[omega\]. The introduction of universal semi-POVM also enables us to extend ${H}(s)$ to an operator in a Hilbert space of infinite dimension. In Section \[ovait\], we introduce the extension of ${H}(s)$ and study its properties. We conclude this paper with a discussion about the future direction of our work in Section \[discussion\].
Preliminaries
=============
Notation
--------
We start with some notation about numbers and matrices which will be used in this paper.
$\#S$ is the cardinality of $S$ for any set $S$. ${\mathbb{N}}\equiv \left\{0,1,2,3,\dotsc\right\}$ is the set of natural numbers, and ${\mathbb{N}}^+$ is the set of positive integers. ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is the set of rational numbers. ${\mathbb{R}}$ is the set of real numbers, and ${\mathbb{C}}$ is the set of complex numbers. ${\mathbb{C}_Q}$ is the set of the complex numbers in the form of $a+ib$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{Q}}$. For any matrix $A$, $A^\dagger$ is the adjoint of $A$. Let $N\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$. ${\mathbb{C}}^N$ is the set of column vectors consisting of $N$ complex numbers. $\operatorname{Her}(N)$ is the set of $N\times N$ Hermitian matrices. For each $A\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$, the *norm* of $A$ is denoted by $\|A\|$, i.e., $\|A\|=\max\{{\left\lvert\nu\right\rvert}\mid\nu\text{ is an eigenvalue of }A\}$. For each $A, B\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$, we write $A\leqslant B$ if $B-A$ is positive semi-definite. $\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ is the set of $N\times N$ Hermitian matrices whose elements are in ${\mathbb{C}_Q}$. $\operatorname{diag}(x_1,\dots,x_N)$ is the diagonal matrix whose $(j,j)$-element is $x_j$.
Algorithmic information theory {#ait}
------------------------------
In the following we concisely review some definitions and results of algorithmic information theory [@C75; @C87a]. We assume that the reader is familiar with algorithmic information theory in addition to the theory of computable analysis. (See e.g. Chapter 0 of [@PR89] for the treatment of the computability of complex numbers and complex functions on a discrete set.)
${\Sigma^*}\equiv
\left\{
\lambda,0,1,00,01,10,11,000,001,010,\dotsc
\right\}$ is the set of finite binary strings where $\lambda$ denotes the *empty string*, and ${\Sigma^*}$ is ordered as indicated. We identify any string in ${\Sigma^*}$ with a positive integer in this order, i.e., we consider $\varphi\colon {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that $\varphi(s)=1s$ where the concatenation $1s$ of strings $1$ and $s$ is regarded as a dyadic integer, and then we identify $s$ with $\varphi(s)$. For any $s \in {\Sigma^*}$, ${\left\lverts\right\rvert}$ is the *length* of $s$. A subset $S$ of ${\Sigma^*}$ is called a *prefix-free set* if no string in $S$ is a prefix of another string in $S$.
A *computer* is a partial recursive function $C\colon {\Sigma^*}\to {\Sigma^*}$ whose domain of definition is a prefix-free set. For each computer $C$ and each $s \in {\Sigma^*}$, ${H}_C(s)$ is defined by ${H}_C(s) \equiv
\min
\left\{\,
{\left\lvertp\right\rvert}\,\big|\;p \in {\Sigma^*}\>\&\>C(p)=s
\,\right\}$. A computer $U$ is said to be *optimal* if for each computer $C$ there exists a constant $\operatorname{sim}(C)$ with the following property; if $C(p)$ is defined, then there is a $p'$ for which $U(p')=C(p)$ and ${\left\lvertp'\right\rvert}\le{\left\lvertp\right\rvert}+\operatorname{sim}(C)$. It is then shown that there exists an optimal computer. We choose any one optimal computer $U$ as the standard one for use, and define ${H}(s) \equiv {H}_U(s)$, which is referred to as the *program-size complexity* of $s$, the *information content* of $s$, or the *Kolmogorov complexity* of $s$ [@G74; @L74; @C75].
Let $V$ be any optimal computer. For any $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $P_V(s)$ is defined as $\sum_{V(p)=s}2^{-{\left\lvertp\right\rvert}}$. Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega_V$ of $V$ is defined by $$\label{Chaitin's omega}
\Omega_V\equiv\sum_{V(p)\text{ is defined}}2^{-{\left\lvertp\right\rvert}}.$$ For any $\alpha\in(0,1]$, we say that $\alpha$ is *random* if there exists $c\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that, for any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, $n-c\le {H}(\alpha_n)$ where $\alpha_n$ is the first $n$ bits of the base-two expansion of $\alpha$. Then [@C75] showed that, for any optimal computer $V$, $\Omega_V$ is random. It is shown that $0<\Omega_V<1$ for any optimal computer $V$.
The class of computers is equal to the class of functions which are computed by *self-delimiting Turing machines*. A self-delimiting Turing machine is a deterministic Turing machine which has two tapes, a program tape and a work tape. The program tape is infinite to the right, while the work tape is infinite in both directions. The program tape is read-only and the tape head of the program tape cannot move to the left. On the other hand, the work tape is read/write and the tape head of the work tape can move in both directions. A self-delimiting Turing machine computes a partial function $f\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\Sigma^*}$ as follows. The machine starts in the initial state with an input binary string $s$ on its program tape and the work tape blank. The left-most cell of the program tape is blank and the tape head of the program tape initially scans this cell. The input string lies immediately to the right of this cell. If the machine eventually halts with the tape head of the program tape scanning the last bit of the input string $s$, then $f(s)$ is defined as the string extending to the right from the cell of the work tape which is being scanned to the first blank cell. Otherwise, $f(s)$ is not defined. Since the computation must end with the tape head of the program tape scanning the last bit of the input string $s$ whenever $f(s)$ is defined, the domain of definition of $f$ is a prefix-free set. A self-delimiting Turing machine is called *universal* if it computes an optimal computer. Let $M_V$ be a universal self-delimiting Turing machine which computes an optimal computer $V$. Then $P_V(s)$ is the probability that $M_V$ halts and outputs $s$ when $M_V$ starts on the program tape filled with an infinite binary string generated by infinitely repeated tosses of a fair coin. Therefore $\Omega_V=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} P_V(s)$ is the probability that $M_V$ just halts under the same setting. [@C75] showed the following theorem.
\[eup\] For any optimal computer $V$, both $2^{-{H}_V(s)}$ and $P_V(s)$ are universal probabilities.
By Theorem \[eup\], we see that, for any universal probability $m$,
$$\label{eq: K_m}
{H}(s)=-\log_2 m(s)+O(1).$$
Thus it is possible to define ${H}(s)$ as $-\log_2 m(s)$ with any one universal probability $m$ instead of as ${H}_U(s)$. Note that the difference up to an additive constant is inessential to algorithmic information theory. Any universal probability is not computable, as corresponds to the uncomputability of ${H}(s)$. As a result, we see that $0<\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)<1$ for any universal probability $m$.
We can give another characterization of $\Omega_V$ using a universal probability, as seen in the following theorem. The proof of the theorem is based on Theorem \[eup\] above and the result of [@CHKW01].
\[omega-equiv-universal\] For any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\alpha=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)$ for some universal probability $m$ if and only if $\alpha=\Omega_V$ for some optimal computer $V$.
The “if” part follows from Theorem \[eup\] and $\Omega_V=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}P_V(s)$. The proof of the “only if” part is as follows. We say an increasing converging computable sequence $\{a_n\}$ of rational numbers is *universal* if for every increasing converging computable sequence $\{b_n\}$ of rational numbers, there exists a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, $c(\alpha-a_n)\ge \beta-b_n$ where $\alpha=\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n$ and $\beta=\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n$. Theorem 6.6 in [@CHKW01] shows that, for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\alpha=\Omega_V$ for some optimal computer $V$ if and only if there exists a universal increasing computable sequence of rational numbers which converges to $\alpha$. Thus it is sufficient to show that there exists a universal increasing computable sequence of rational numbers converging to $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)$. Since $m$ is a lower-computable semi-measure, there exists a total recursive function $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that, for each $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} f(n,s)=m(s)$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;\>0\le f(n,s)\le f(n+1,s)$. We define an increasing computable sequence $\{a_n\}$ of rational numbers by $a_n=\sum_{s=1}^n f(n,s)$. Then we have ${\left\lverta_n-\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)\right\rvert}\le
\sum_{s=1}^l{\left\lvertf(n,s)-m(s)\right\rvert}+\sum_{s=l+1}^\infty m(s)$ for any $l,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ with $l<n$. Thus, by considering sufficiently large $n$ for each sufficiently large $l$, we see that $\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)$. Let $\{b_n\}$ be an increasing computable sequence of rational numbers converging to $\beta$. We define $r\colon {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}\cap[0,\infty)$ by $r(s)=(b_{s}-b_{s-1})/d$ for any $s>1$ and $r(1)=0$, where $d$ is any one positive integer with $\beta-b_1\le d$. Then we see that $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}r(s)=(\beta-b_1)/d\le 1$ and $r$ is a total recursive function. Therefore $r$ is a lower-computable semi-measure. Thus there exists a $c>0$ such that $cr(s)\le m(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. Hence we have $c(\beta-b_n)/d\le\sum_{s=n+1}^\infty m(s)=
\sum_{s=1}^\infty m(s)-\sum_{s=1}^n m(s)$ and therefore $\beta-b_n\le d/c(\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}m(s)-a_n)$. Thus the proof is completed.
In the present paper, we extend a universal probability to a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Thus, Theorem \[omega-equiv-universal\] suggests that an extension of $\Omega_V$ to an operator can be defined as the sum of the POVM elements of such a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Therefore the most important thing is how to extend a universal probability to a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ on a Hilbert space of infinite dimension. We do this first in what follows.
Extension of universal probability {#infinite dimension}
==================================
In order to extend a universal probability to a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ which operates on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, we have to develop a theory of computability for points and operators of such a space. We can construct the theory on any concrete Hilbert spaces such as $l^2$ and $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{3n})$ with $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ (the latter represents the state space of $n$ quantum mechanical particles moving in three-dimensional space). For the purpose of generality, however, we here adopt an axiomatic approach which encompasses a variety of spaces. Thus we consider the notion of a *computability structure on a Banach space* which was introduced by [@PR89] in the late 1980s.
Computability structures on a Banach space
------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a complex Banach space with a norm $\|\cdot\|$, and let ${\varphi}$ be a nonempty set of sequences in $X$. We say ${\varphi}$ is a *computability structure* on $X$ if the following three axioms; Axiom \[axiom1\], \[axiom2\], and \[axiom3\] hold. A sequence in ${\varphi}$ is regarded as a *computable sequence* in $X$.
\[axiom1\] Let $\{x_{n}\}$ and $\{y_{n}\}$ be in ${\varphi}$, let $\{\alpha_{nk}\}$ and $\{\beta_{nk}\}$ be computable double sequences of complex numbers, and let $d\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ be a total recursive function. Then the sequence $$s_n=\sum_{k=1}^{d(n)}(\alpha_{nk}x_k+\beta_{nk}y_k)$$ is in ${\varphi}$.
For any double sequence $\{x_{nm}\}$ in $X$, we say $\{x_{nm}\}$ is *computable* with respect to ${\varphi}$ if it is mapped to a sequence in ${\varphi}$ by any one recursive bijection from ${\mathbb{N}}^+$ to ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+$. An element $x\in X$ is called *computable* with respect to ${\varphi}$ if the sequence $\{x,x,x,\dotsc\}$ is in ${\varphi}$.
\[axiom2\] Suppose that a double sequence $\{x_{nm}\}$ in $X$ is computable with respect to ${\varphi}$, $\{y_n\}$ is a sequence in $X$, and there exists a total recursive function $e\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that $\|x_{ne(n,k)}-y_n\|\le 2^{-k}$ for all $n,k\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$. Then $\{y_{n}\}$ is in ${\varphi}$.
\[axiom3\] If $\{x_{n}\}$ is in ${\varphi}$, then the norms $\{\|x_{n}\|\}$ form a computable sequence of real numbers.
We say a sequence $\{e_{n}\}$ in $X$ is a *generating set* for $X$ or a *basis* for $X$ if the set of all finite linear combinations of the $e_{n}$ is dense in $X$.
Let $X$ be a Banach space with a computability structure ${\varphi}$. We say the pair $(X,{\varphi})$ is effectively separable if there exists a sequence $\{e_{n}\}$ in ${\varphi}$ which is a generating set for $X$. Such a sequence $\{e_{n}\}$ is called an effective generating set for $(X,{\varphi})$ or a computable basis for $(X,{\varphi})$.
Throughout the rest of this paper, we assume that $X$ is an arbitrary complex Hilbert space of infinite dimension with a computability structure ${\varphi}$ such that $(X,{\varphi})$ is effectively separable. We choose any one such a computability structure ${\varphi}$ on $X$ as the standard one throughout the rest of this paper, and we do not refer to ${\varphi}$ hereafter. For example, we will simply say a sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ is computable instead of saying $\{x_{n}\}$ is in ${\varphi}$.
We next define a notion of computability for a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ as a natural extension of the notion of an *effectively determined* bounded operator which is defined in [@PR89].
\[computable-povm-infinite\] Let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. We say $R$ is computable if there exists an effective generating set $\{e_{n}\}$ for $X$ such that the mapping $(s,n)\longmapsto (R(s))e_{n}$ is a computable double sequence in $X$.
Recall that we identify ${\Sigma^*}$ with ${\mathbb{N}}^+$ in this paper. For any semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$, based on Axiom \[axiom1\], \[axiom2\], \[axiom3\], and $\|R(s)\|\le 1$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, we can show that if $R$ is computable then $\{(R(s))e_{n}\}$ is a computable double sequence in $X$ for every effective generating set $\{e_{n}\}$ for $X$.
The following two lemmas are frequently used throughout the rest of this paper.
\[bounded monotonic sequence\] Let $\{A_n\}$ be a sequence of operators in ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$. Suppose that there exists a $B\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that, for all $n$, $A_n\leqslant A_{n+1}\leqslant B$. Then there exists an $A\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that $\{A_n\}$ converges strongly to $A$ as $n\to\infty$ and $A\leqslant B$.
The proof of Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] is given at Section 104 of [@RS90].
\[monotone hasamiuti\] Let $\{A_n\}$ and $\{B_n\}$ be sequences of operators in ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$. Suppose that (i) $A_n\leqslant B_n \leqslant A_{n+1}$ for all $n$, and (ii) $\{A_n\}$ converges strongly to some $A\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ as $n\to\infty$. Then $\{B_n\}$ also converges strongly to $A$ as $n\to\infty$.
Since $A_n\leqslant A$ for all $n$, $B_n\leqslant B_{n+1}\leqslant A$ for all $n$. It follows from Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] that there exists a $B\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ to which $\{B_n\}$ converges strongly as $n\to\infty$. Note that, for any $x\in X$, ${\left\langleA_nx,x\right\rangle}\le {\left\langleB_nx,x\right\rangle}\le {\left\langleA_{n+1}x,x\right\rangle}$. Thus ${\left\langleBx,x\right\rangle}={\left\langleAx,x\right\rangle}$ for any $x\in X$, and therefore we have $B=A$. This completes the proof.
Universal semi-POVM
-------------------
We first introduce the notion of a *lower-computable* semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, which is an extension of the notion of a lower-computable semi-measure over a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Our definition of a lower-computable semi-POVM premises the following lemma proved in [@PR89]. We say a basis $\{e_{n}\}$ for $X$ is *orthonormal* if ${\left\langlee_{m},e_{n}\right\rangle}=\delta_{mn}$ for any $m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
\[econs\] Let $Y$ be a Hilbert space with a computability structure $\phi$ such that $(Y,\phi)$ is effectively separable. Then there exists a computable orthonormal basis for $(Y,\phi)$.
By the above lemma, we are given free access to the use of a computable orthonormal basis for $X$ in what follows. The following definition is also needed to introduce the notion of a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
\[def-approximation-from-below\] Let $\{e_i\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $X$. For any $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, we say $T$ is an $m$-square operator on $\{e_i\}$ if for all $k,l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ if $k>m$ or $l>m$ then ${\left\langleTe_k,e_l\right\rangle}=0$. Furthermore, we say $T$ is an $m$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$ if $T$ is an $m$-square operator on $\{e_i\}$ and for all $k,l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, ${\left\langleTe_k,e_l\right\rangle}\in{\mathbb{C}_Q}$
The following Lemma \[positivity-condition\] is suggestive to fix the definition of a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. By Lemma \[positivity-condition\], we can effectively check whether $S \leqslant T$ holds or not, given $S,T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that $S$ and $T$ are $m$-square operators on an orthonormal basis for $X$.
\[positivity-condition\] Let $T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$, and let $\{e_i\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $X$. Then, the following three conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) are equivalent to one another.
1. $T$ is a positive operator.
2. For every $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\left\langleTe_{1},e_{1}\right\rangle} & \dotsb & {\left\langleTe_{1},e_{m}\right\rangle} \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
{\left\langleTe_{m},e_{1}\right\rangle} & \dotsb & {\left\langleTe_{m},e_{m}\right\rangle}
\end{array}
\right) \geqslant 0.$$
3. For every finite sequence $\nu_1,\dots,\nu_m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ with $\nu_1<\dots<\nu_m$, $$\det
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\left\langleTe_{\nu_1},e_{\nu_1}\right\rangle} & \dotsb & {\left\langleTe_{\nu_1},e_{\nu_m}\right\rangle} \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
{\left\langleTe_{\nu_m},e_{\nu_1}\right\rangle} & \dotsb & {\left\langleTe_{\nu_m},e_{\nu_m}\right\rangle}
\end{array}
\right) \ge 0.$$
We note the elementary result of linear algebra that, for any $A\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$, $0\leqslant A$ if and only if all principal minors of $A$ are non-negative. Thus the conditions (ii) and (iii) are equivalent. We show the equivalence between the conditions (i) and (ii). For each $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, let $V_m={\mathbb{C}}e_1+\dots+{\mathbb{C}}e_m$. Then, for every $x\in V_m$, we see that ${\left\langleTx,x\right\rangle}\ge 0$ if and only if $\sum_{i,j=1}^m c_i{\left\langleTe_{i},e_{j}\right\rangle}\overline{c_j}\ge 0$ where $\{c_i\}$ satisfies that $x=\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i e_i$. Thus, the condition (ii) is equivalent to the condition that, for any $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ and any $x\in V_m$, ${\left\langleTx,x\right\rangle}\ge 0$. Since $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, the latter condition is further equivalent to the condition (i). Hence, the proof is completed.
We recall that, for any lower-computable semi-measure $r$, there exists a total recursive function $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that, for each $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} f(n,s)=r(s)$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;\>0\le f(n,s)\le f(n+1,s)\le r(s)$. We here consider how to extend this $f$ to an operator in order to define a lower-computable semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$. Let $\{e_i\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $X$. When we prove the existence of a universal semi-POVM (i.e., Theorem \[existence-of-universal-semi-POVM\]) below, especially in the proof of Lemma \[universal-generator\], we have to be able to decide whether $f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)$ in the sequence $\{f(n,s)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+}$ of operators which converges to $R(s)$. Thus, firstly, it is necessary for each $f(s,n)$ to be an $m$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$ for some $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$. If so we can use Lemma \[positivity-condition\] to check $f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)$. On that basis, in order to complete the definition of a lower-computable semi-POVM, it seems at first glance that we have only to require that $0\leqslant f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)\leqslant R(s)$ and $f(n,s)$ converges to $R(s)$ in an appropriate sense. Note that each operator $f(n,s)$ in the sequence has to be positive in order to guarantee that the limit $R(s)$ is positive. However, this passing idea does not work properly as shown by the following consideration.
For simplicity, we consider matrices in $\operatorname{Her}(N)$ with $N\ge 2$ instead of operators in $X$. We show that for some computable matrix $A\geqslant 0$ there does not exist a total recursive function $F\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\to\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ such that $$\label{fiction}
\lim_{n\to\infty} F(n)=A \quad\;\text{and}\quad\;
\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;\;0\leqslant F(n)\leqslant A.$$ This follows from Example \[2-square-matrix\] below, which is based on the following result of linear algebra.
\[only-one-positive-eigenvalue\] Let $A,B\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$. Suppose that $\operatorname{rank}A=1$ and $0\leqslant B\leqslant A$. Then $B=\tau A$ for some $\tau\in[0,1]$.
Since $A\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$ and $\operatorname{rank}A=1$, there exist an $N\times N$ unitary matrix $U$ and a $\lambda>0$ such that $A=U\operatorname{diag}(\lambda,0,\dots,0)\,U^{\dag}$. We write $U=(u_1\;u_2\;\dotsb\;u_N)$ with $u_k\in{\mathbb{C}}^N$. For each $k\ge 2$, since $u_k^{\dag}Au_k=0$ and $0\leqslant B\leqslant A$, we have $u_k^{\dag}Bu_k=0$. It follows from $0\leqslant B$ that $Bu_k=0$ for every $k\ge 2$. If $B$ has a nonzero eigenvalue $\nu$, then the eigenspace of $B$ corresponding to $\nu$ is ${\mathbb{C}}u_1$. Thus, we have $B=U\operatorname{diag}(\nu,0,\dots,0)\,U^{\dag}$ for some $\nu\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since $0\le\nu=u_1^{\dag}Bu_1\le u_1^{\dag}Au_1=\lambda$, by setting $\tau=\lambda/\nu$, we have $B=\tau A$ and $\tau\in[0,1]$.
\[2-square-matrix\] We consider the matrix $A\in\operatorname{Her}(2)$ given by $$A=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{2}{3} & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \\
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} & \frac{1}{3}
\end{array}
\right).$$ First, we see that all elements of $A$ are computable real numbers, and therefore $A$ itself is computable. We can check that $\operatorname{rank}A=1$. In fact, $A$ has two eigenvalues $0$ and $1$. It can be shown that there does not exist any nonzero $B\in\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(2)$ such that $0\leqslant B\leqslant A$. Contrarily, assume that such a $B$ exists. Then, by Proposition \[only-one-positive-eigenvalue\], we have $B=\tau A$ for some $\tau\in(0,1]$, i.e., $$B=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{2}{3}\tau & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\tau \\
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\tau & \frac{1}{3}\tau
\end{array}
\right).$$ However, for any $\tau>0$, it is impossible for all elements of $B$ to be simultaneously in ${\mathbb{C}_Q}$.
Thus, even in a non-effective manner, we cannot get a sequence $\{F(n)\}\subset\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ which satisfies the condition . On the other hand, for any positive semi-definite $A\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$ and any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, there exists a $B\in\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ such that $0\leqslant B\leqslant A+2^{-n}E$, where $E$ is the identity matrix. This is because, since $\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ is dense in $\operatorname{Her}(N)$ with respect to the norm $\|\cdot\|$, there exists a $B\in\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ such that $\|A+2^{-n+1}/3E-B\|\le 2^{-n}/3$. Thus we have $0\leqslant A+2^{-n}/3E\leqslant B\leqslant A+2^{-n}E$. Furthermore we can show that, for any positive semi-definite $A\in\operatorname{Her}(N)$, if $A$ is computable, then there exists a total recursive function $F\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\to\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ such that (i) $\lim_{n\to\infty}F(n)=A$, (ii) $0\leqslant F(n)$, and (iii) $F(n)-2^{-n}E\leqslant F(n+1)-2^{-(n+1)}E\leqslant A$. Note that a positive semi-definite matrix $A$ with rank $1$ as considered in Example \[2-square-matrix\] is not an atypical example as a POVM element in quantum measurements, since such a POVM element is common in a familiar projective measurement.
The foregoing consideration suggests the following definition of a lower-computable semi-POVM on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space.
\[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\] Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$, and let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. We say $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e_i\}$ if there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that
1. for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(n,s)$ converges strongly to $R(s)$ as $n\to\infty$,
2. for all $n$ and $s$, $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant f(n+1,s)-2^{-(n+1)}I$,
3. for all $n$ and $s$, $f(n,s)$ is a $g(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and
4. the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto {\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function.
In the above definition, we choose the sequence $\{2^{-n}\}$ as the coefficients of $I$ in the inequality of the condition (ii). However, by the following proposition, we can equivalently replace $\{2^{-n}\}$ by a general nonincreasing computable sequence of non-negative rational numbers which converges to $0$.
\[lower-computable-semi-povm-relaxed\] Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$, and let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Then, $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e_i\}$ if and only if there exist an $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$, a total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$, and a total recursive function $h\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that
1. for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f'(n,s)$ converges strongly to $R(s)$ as $n\to\infty$,
2. for all $n$ and $s$, $f'(n,s)-h(n,s)I\leqslant f'(n+1,s)-h(n+1,s)I$,
3. for each $s$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} h(n,s)=0$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;h(n,s)\ge h(n+1,s)\ge 0$,
4. for all $n$ and $s$, $f'(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and
5. the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto {\left\langlef'(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function.
The “only if” part is obvious, and we show the “if” part. To begin with, we define $\overline{h}(n,s)$ as $h(n,s)+2^{-n}$. It follows that $f'(n,s)-\overline{h}(n,s)I\leqslant f'(n+1,s)-\overline{h}(n+1,s)I$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} \overline{h}(n,s)=0$, and $\overline{h}(n,s)>\overline{h}(n+1,s)>0$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\overline{h}(1,s)>1/2$. In what follows, we use the fact that, for any $A,B\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ and any $\alpha,\beta\in[0,1]$, if $A\leqslant B$ and $\alpha\le\beta$, then $A\leqslant (1-\alpha)A+\alpha B\leqslant (1-\beta)A+\beta B\leqslant B$. In order to define $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\], we follow the procedure below for each $s$. Initially we set $m:=1$ and $n:=1$.
Assume that $f(k,s)$ and $g(k,s)$ have so far been defined for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$. We look for the least $l>m$ with $2^{-n}\ge \overline{h}(l,s)$. Since $\lim_{k\to\infty} \overline{h}(k,s)=0$, we can find such an $l$. Once we get the $l$, we calculate the finite set $S=
\{
k\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\mid k\ge n\;\&\;\overline{h}(m,s)>2^{-k}\ge \overline{h}(l,s)
\}$. For each $k\in S$, we then define $f(k,s)$ as $(1-\alpha_k)f'(m,s)+\alpha_k f'(l,s)$ where $\alpha_k=(\overline{h}(m,s)-2^{-k})/(\overline{h}(m,s)-\overline{h}(l,s))$, and we also define $g(k,s)$ as $\max\{g'(m,s),g'(l,s)\}$. It follows that, for every $k\in S-\{n\}$, $$f'(m,s)-\overline{h}(m,s)I\leqslant
f(k-1,s)-2^{-(k-1)}I\leqslant
f(k,s)-2^{-k}I\leqslant
f'(l,s)-\overline{h}(l,s)I$$ and $f(k,s)$ is a $g(k,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$. We then set $m:=l$ and $n:=n+\#S$, and repeat this procedure.
It can be checked that the $f$ and $g$ defined by this procedure satisfy the desired properties. Especially, in a similar manner to the proof of Lemma \[monotone hasamiuti\] we can show that, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(n,s)$ converges strongly to $R(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. Thus the proof is completed.
In Proposition \[lower-computable-semi-povm-independent\] below, we show that the lower-computability of a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ given in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\] does not depend on the choice of a computable orthonormal basis used in the definition. The proof of Proposition \[lower-computable-semi-povm-independent\] uses the following Lemma \[i-to-im\], which follows from the equivalence between the conditions (i) and (iii) in Lemma \[positivity-condition\].
\[i-to-im\] Let $T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ be an $m$-square operator on an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ for $X$. For any real number $a>0$, $0\leqslant T+aI$ if and only if $0\leqslant T+aI_m$ where $I_m$ is the operator in ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that $I_m e_i=e_i$ if $i\le m$ and $I_m e_i=0$ otherwise.
By Lemma \[i-to-im\], in order to check whether the condition (ii) of Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\] holds, we can equivalently check the condition that $0\leqslant f(n+1,s)-f(n,s)+2^{-n-1}I_m$ if $f(n,s)$ and $f(n+1,s)$ are $m$-square operators on an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ for $X$.
For each $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, the *norm* of $T$ is denoted by $\|T\|$. Throughout the rest of this paper, we will frequently use the property: For any $\varepsilon\ge 0$ and any $T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$, $\|T\|\le\varepsilon$ if and only if $-\varepsilon I \leqslant T \leqslant \varepsilon I$. For each $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, we define $\|T\|_2$ as $(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \|Te_i\|^2)^{1/2}\in[0,\infty]$, where $\{e_{n}\}$ is an arbitrary orthonormal basis for $X$. Note that $\|T\|_2$ is independent of the choice of an orthonormal basis $\{e_{n}\}$ for $X$, and $\|T\|\le\|T\|_2$. These properties of $\|\cdot\|_2$ are used in the proof of Proposition \[lower-computable-semi-povm-independent\].
\[lower-computable-semi-povm-independent\] Let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, and let $\{e_i\}$ and $\{e'_k\}$ be computable orthonormal bases for $X$. Then, $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e_i\}$ if and only if $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e'_k\}$.
We first define $u_{ki}={\left\langlee'_k,e_i\right\rangle}$. Then $\{u_{ki}\}$ is the computable double sequence of complex numbers which satisfies $e'_k=\sum_{i=1}^\infty u_{ki}e_i$. Assume that $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e_i\}$. Then there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\]. In what follows, we show that $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e'_i\}$. To begin with, we note that $\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2={\|f(n,s)\|_2}^2=
\sum_{k,l=1}^{\infty} {\left\lvert{\left\langlef(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2$. Here, since ${\left\langlef(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)}u_{ki}{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}
\overline{u_{lj}}$, $\{{\left\langlef(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\}$ is a computable fourfold sequence of complex numbers. Thus, there exists a total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that $${\left\lvert\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2-
\sum_{k,l=1}^{g'(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langlef(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2\right\rvert} \le 2^{-2n-7}.$$ On the other hand, it is easy to show that there exists $\overline{f}\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that (i) for every $k,l\in\{1,\dots,g'(n,s)\}$, ${\left\lvert{\left\langle(\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s))e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2
\le 1/g'(n,s)^2\,2^{-2n-7}$, (ii) $\overline{f}(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e'_k\}$, and (iii) the mapping $(n,s,k,l)\longmapsto{\left\langle\overline{f}(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\|\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s)\|_2}^2= \\
&&\sum_{k,l=1}^{g'(n,s)}
{\left\lvert{\left\langle(\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s))e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2+
{\|f(n,s)\|_2}^2-
\sum_{k,l=1}^{g'(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langlef(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2\\
&&\le 2^{-2n-7}+2^{-2n-7}\le 2^{-2n-6}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\|\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s)\|\le
\|\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s)\|_2\le 2^{-n-3}$, and therefore $0\leqslant f(n,s)\leqslant \overline{f}(n,s)+2^{-n-3}I$. We then define $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ by $f'(n,s)=\overline{f}(n,s)+2^{-n-3}I(n,s)$, where $I(n,s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ satisfies that $I(n,s)e'_k=e'_k$ if $k\le g'(n,s)$ and $I(n,s)e'_k=0$ otherwise. It follows that $f'(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e'_k\}$ and the mapping $(n,s,k,l)\longmapsto{\left\langlef'(n,s)e'_k,e'_l\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. In particular, by Lemma \[i-to-im\], we have $0\leqslant f'(n,s)$. Since $\|f'(n,s)-f(n,s)\|\le
\|\overline{f}(n,s)-f(n,s)\|+2^{-n-3}\|I(n,s)\|\le 2^{-n-2}$, $f'(n,s)-2^{-n-2}I\leqslant f(n,s)\leqslant f'(n,s)+2^{-n-2}I$. Using $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant f(n+1,s)-2^{-(n+1)}I$, we have $$f(n,s)-2^{-(n-1)}I\leqslant f'(n,s)-(2^{-n-2}+2^{-n-1}+2^{-n})I
\leqslant f(n+1,s)-2^{-n}I.$$ From this inequality, it is shown that $$f'(n,s)-(2^{-n-2}+2^{-n-1}+2^{-n})I
\leqslant f'(n+1,s)-(2^{-n-3}+2^{-n-2}+2^{-n-1})I$$ and, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f'(n,s)$ converges strongly to $R(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. The latter follows from Lemma \[monotone hasamiuti\]. Thus, by Proposition \[lower-computable-semi-povm-relaxed\], $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e'_k\}$. This completes the proof.
Based on the above proposition, we define the notion of a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ independently of a choice of a computable orthonormal basis for $X$.
\[def-lower-computable-semi-povm\] Let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. We say $R$ is lower-computable if there exists a computable orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ for $X$ such that $R$ is lower-computable with respect to $\{e_i\}$.
Thus, for any semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$, based on Proposition \[lower-computable-semi-povm-independent\], we see that if $R$ is lower-computable then $R$ is lower-computable with respect to every computable orthonormal basis for $X$.
Any computable function $r\colon{\Sigma^*}\to[0,1]$ with $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}r(s)\le 1$ is shown to be a lower-computable semi-measure. Corresponding to this fact we can show Theorem \[computable-lower-computable\] below. In the theorem, however, together with the computability of a semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$, we need an additional assumption that (i) each POVM element $R(s)$ is Hilbert-Schmidt and (ii) given $s$, $\|R(s)\|_2$ can be computed to any desired degree of precision. Here, for any $T\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, we say $T$ is *Hilbert-Schmidt* if $\|T\|_2<\infty$. As an example, consider a POVM $P$ on ${\Sigma^*}$ with $(P(s))e_i=\delta_{si}e_i$, where $\{e_i\}$ is a computable orthonormal basis for $X$. Then $P$ is shown to be a computable POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ which satisfies this additional assumption (see the proof of Proposition \[difference\]). Note that the quantum measurement described by the $P$ is a familiar projective measurement, such as the measurement of the number of photons in a specific mode of electromagnetic field.
\[computable-lower-computable\] Suppose that (i) $R\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is a computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, (ii) $R(s)$ is Hilbert-Schmidt for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, and (iii) $\{\|R(s)\|_2\}_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}$ is a computable sequence of real numbers. Then $R$ is lower-computable.
Let $\{e_i\}$ be any one computable orthonormal basis for $X$. Since $\{{\left\langleR(s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\}$ is a computable triple sequence of complex numbers and $\{\|R(s)\|_2\}$ is a computable sequence of real numbers, it is easy to show that there exists a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that $${\left\lvert{\|R(s)\|_2}^2-
\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langleR(s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2\right\rvert}
\le 2^{-2n-5}$$ and $g(n,s)\le g(n+1,s)$. Again, since $\{{\left\langleR(s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\}$ is a computable triple sequence of complex numbers, we can show that there exists $\overline{f}\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that (i) for every $i,j\in\{1,\dots,g(n,s)\}$, ${\left\lvert{\left\langle(R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s))e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2\le 1/g(n,s)^2\,2^{-2n-5}$, (ii) $\overline{f}(n,s)$ is a $g(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and (iii) the mapping $(n,s,i,j)\longmapsto{\left\langle\overline{f}(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\|R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s)\|_2}^2= \\
&&\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)}
{\left\lvert{\left\langle(R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s))e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2+
{\|R(s)\|_2}^2-\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)} {\left\lvert{\left\langleR(s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}\right\rvert}^2 \\
&&\le 2^{-2n-5}+2^{-2n-5}\le 2^{-2n-4}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\|R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s)\|\le\|R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s)\|_2\le 2^{-n-2}$, and therefore $$\label{ineq-computable}
\overline{f}(n,s)-2^{-n-2}I\leqslant R(s)
\leqslant\overline{f}(n,s)+2^{-n-2}I.$$ We then define $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ by $f(n,s)=\overline{f}(n,s)+2^{-n-2}I(n,s)$, where $I(n,s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ satisfies that $I(n,s)e_i=e_i$ if $i\le g(n,s)$ and $I(n,s)e_i=0$ otherwise. It follows that $f(n,s)$ is a $g(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$ and the mapping $(n,s,i,j)\longmapsto{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. In particular, by $0\leqslant R(s)$, the inequality , and Lemma \[i-to-im\], we have $0\leqslant f(n,s)$. It follows also from the inequality that $\|R(s)-f(n,s)\|\le\|R(s)-\overline{f}(n,s)\|+2^{-n-2}\|I(n,s)\|
\le 2^{-n-1}$. Thus, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(n,s)$ converges strongly to $R(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. Finally, we show that $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant f(n+1,s)-2^{-(n+1)}I$. For that purpose, we note that $\overline{f}(n+1,s)-\overline{f}(n,s)\geqslant -(2^{-n-3}+2^{-n-2})I$ and $I(n,s)\leqslant I(n+1,s)\leqslant I$. The former follows from the inequality . Based on these inequalities, we have $$(f(n+1,s)-2^{-(n+1)}I)-(f(n,s)-2^{-n}I)\geqslant 2^{-n-3}(I-I(n+1,s))
\geqslant 0.$$ This completes the proof.
It is open whether $R$ can be proved to be lower-computable only under the assumption that $R\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ is a computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
As a natural generalization of the notion of a universal probability, the notion of a universal semi-POVM is defined as follows.
\[def-universal-semi-POVM\] Let $M$ be a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. We say that $M$ is a universal semi-POVM if for each lower-computable semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$, there exists a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $c\,R(s)\leqslant M(s)$.
Most importantly we can show the existence of a universal semi-POVM.
\[existence-of-universal-semi-POVM\] There exists a universal semi-POVM.
In order to prove Theorem \[existence-of-universal-semi-POVM\], we need the following two lemmas.
\[to-positive-semi-definite\] Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$, and let $R$ be a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. If $R$ is lower-computable, then there exist an $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that
1. the mapping $\displaystyle{\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto \frac{1}{2}R(s)+\frac{1}{2^{s+1}}I$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$,
2. for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f'(n,s)$ converges strongly to $\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}R(s)+\frac{1}{2^{s+1}}I$ as $n\to\infty$,
3. for all $n$ and $s$, $f'(n,s)\leqslant f'(n+1,s)$,
4. for all $n$ and $s$, $f'(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and
5. the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto{\left\langlef'(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function.
Since $R$ is lower-computable, there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\]. Without loss of generality, we assume that $g(n,s)<g(n+1,s)$. For each $(n,s)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times{\Sigma^*}$, let $I(n,s)$ be the operator in ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that $I(n,s)e_i=e_i$ if $i\le g(n,s)$ and $I(n,s)e_i=0$ otherwise. Then we have $I(n,s)\leqslant I(n+1,s)$. It follows from $f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)+2^{-n-1}I$ and Lemma \[i-to-im\] that $f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)+2^{-n-1}I(n+1,s)$. We define an $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ by $f'(n,s)=1/2f(n+s,s)+2^{-s-1}(1-2^{-n})I(n+s,s)$, and define a total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ by $g'(n,s)=g(n+s,s)$. Then we see that $0\leqslant f'(n,s)\leqslant f'(n+1,s)$. It is easy to check that $f'(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$ and the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni(n,s,i,j)\longmapsto{\left\langlef'(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. Since $I(n,s)$ converges strongly to $I$ as $n\to\infty$, $f'(n,s)$ converges strongly to $1/2R(s)+1/2^{s+1}I$. We have $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} \{1/2R(s)+1/2^{s+1}I\}\leqslant
1/2\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}R(s)+1/2I\leqslant I$. Thus, the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto 1/2R(s)+1/2^{s+1}I$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. This completes the proof.
\[universal-generator\] Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$. Then there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that
1. for all $l$, $n$, and $s$, $f(l,n,s)\leqslant f(l,n+1,s)$,
2. for all $l$, $n$, and $s$, $f(l,n,s)$ is a $g(l,n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$,
3. the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (l,n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto{\left\langlef(l,n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function,
4. for each $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, there exists a lower-computable semi-POVM $R_l$ on ${\Sigma^*}$ such that, for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(l,n,s)$ converges strongly to $R_l(s)$ as $n\to\infty$, and
5. for each lower-computable semi-POVM $R$ on ${\Sigma^*}$, there exists an $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ such that, for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(l,n,s)$ converges strongly to $\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}R(s)+\frac{1}{2^{s+1}}I$ as $n\to\infty$.
We first note that, for any $A\in\operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$, there exists a unique $T_A\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that ${\left\langleT_Ae_i,e_j\right\rangle}=A_{ij}$ for every $i,j\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ and $T_A$ is an $N$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$.
Given $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, for all $(n,s)\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}$, $f(l,n,s)$ and $g(l,n,s)$ are defined through the following procedure.
We first build the $l$-th Turing machine $M_l$. We make use of $M_l$ as a machine which outputs a Hermitian matrix in $\bigcup_{N=1}^\infty \operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ on an input $(n,s)\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}$. Let $f_l\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to\bigcup_{N=1}^\infty \operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ be a partial recursive function computed by $M_l$ in this sense. For each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, let $S_n=\{(n-s+1,s)\mid s\in{\Sigma^*}\;\&\;1\le s\le n\}$. In increasing order on $n$, we simulate the computations of $M_l$ on all inputs in $S_n$. During the procedure, we keep the function $h\colon{\Sigma^*}\to\bigcup_{N=1}^\infty \operatorname{Her_{\mathbb{Q}}}(N)$ and update it accordingly. For each $(n,s)\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}$, $f(l,n,s)$ and $g(l,n,s)$ are defined as $T_{h(s)}$ and the order of the square matrix $h(s)$, respectively. Here $h(s)$ is one at the time step $n$ in the simulations. Initially we set $h(s):=0$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$ and $n:=1$.
Assume that the simulations of $M_l$ on all inputs in $\bigcup_{k=1}^{n-1}S_{k}$ have so far been completed. We simulate the computations of $M_l$ on all inputs in $S_{n}$. If all such computations halt then we check whether the following three conditions hold:
1. $f_l(k,s)$ is defined for all $(k,s)\in S_n$,
2. $T_{h(s)}\leqslant T_{f_l(k,s)}$ for all $(k,s)\in S_n$, and
3. $\sum_{s=1}^nT_{f_l(n-s+1,s)}\leqslant I$.
Note that we can effectively check whether the above conditions (ii) and (iii) hold, based on the equivalence between the conditions (i) and (iii) in Lemma \[positivity-condition\]. If these three conditions hold then we set $h(s):=f_l(n-s+1,s)$ for each $s\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $n:=n+1$. We then repeat this procedure.
We can show that the $f$ and $g$ defined by this procedure satisfy that (i) $0\leqslant f(l,n,s)\leqslant f(l,n+1,s)$, (ii) $f(l,n,s)$ is a $g(l,n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and (iii) the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (l,n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto{\left\langlef(l,n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ and $g$ are total recursive functions. We also see that $\sum_{s=1}^mf(l,n,s)\leqslant I$ for any $l,m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$. Thus we have $f(l,n,s)\leqslant I$ and therefore, by Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\], there exists an $R_l\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ such that $f(l,n,s)$ converges strongly to $R_l(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. Hence we have $\sum_{s=1}^mR_l(s)\leqslant I$. It follows from $0\leqslant R_l(s)$ and Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] that $ \sum_{s=1}^mR_l(s)$ converges strongly to $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} R_l(s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ as $m\to\infty$ and $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} R_l(s)\leqslant I$. Thus $R_l$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ for all $l$.
Now, let $R$ be any lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Then, by Lemma \[to-positive-semi-definite\], there exist an $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) in the lemma. Based on the above construction of $f$, we see that there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ with the property that, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, the sequence $\{f'(n,s)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+}$ of operators is a subsequence of the sequence $\{f(k,n,s)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+}$. Thus $f(k,n,s)$ converges strongly to $1/2R(s)+1/2^{s+1}I$ as $n\to\infty$. This completes the proof.
Based on the above lemmas, we can give the proof of Theorem \[existence-of-universal-semi-POVM\] as follows.
Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $\langle X,{\varphi}\rangle$. Let $f$ and $g$ be the functions given by Lemma \[universal-generator\] and, for each $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, let $R_l$ be a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$ such that, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(l,n,s)$ converges strongly to $R_l(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. We first define an $f_M\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g_M\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ by $$\begin{aligned}
f_M(n,s)&=&\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{2^l}f(l,n,s), \\
g_M(n,s)&=&\max\{g(l,n,s)\mid 1\le l\le n\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni (n,s,i,j)
\longmapsto{\left\langlef_M(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function and, for all $n$ and $s$, $f_M(n,s)$ is a $g_M(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$. We also see that $f_M(n,s)\leqslant f_M(n,s)+f(n+1,n+1,s)\leqslant f_M(n+1,s)$. Since $f(l,n,s)\leqslant R_l(s)\leqslant I$, we have $f_M(n,s)\leqslant (1-2^{-n})I\leqslant I$. Thus, by Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\], there exists an $M\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ such that, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f_M(n,s)$ converges strongly to $M(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. We show that this $M$ is a universal semi-POVM.
To begin with, we note that, for any $n,m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, any $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, and any $x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Bigl\|\Bigl(\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{2^l}R_l(s)\Bigr)x-M(s)x\Bigr\| \\
&&\le \Bigl\|\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{2^l}R_l(s)x-
\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{2^l}f(l,n+m,s)x\Bigr\|+
\Bigl\|\sum_{l=n+1}^{n+m}\frac{1}{2^l}f(l,n+m,s)x\Bigr\| \\
&&\hspace*{82mm}+\left\|f_M(n+m,s)x-M(s)x\right\| \\
&&\le \sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{2^l}\left\|R_l(s)x-f(l,n+m,s)x\right\|+
2^{-n}\|x\|+\left\|f_M(n+m,s)x-M(s)x\right\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we use $\|f(l,n+m,s)x\|\le\|f(l,n+m,s)\|\|x\|\le \|x\|$. Thus, by choosing any one sufficiently large $m$ for each sufficiently large $n$, we see that, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $\sum_{l=1}^n 1/2^lR_l(s)$ converges strongly to $M(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. For each $m\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, since $\sum_{l=1}^n (1/2^l\sum_{s=1}^m R_l(s))\leqslant
\sum_{l=1}^n 1/2^lI\leqslant I$ and $\sum_{l=1}^n (1/2^l\sum_{s=1}^m R_l(s))$ converges strongly to $\sum_{s=1}^mM(s)$, we have $\sum_{s=1}^mM(s)$ $\leqslant I$. It follows from $0\leqslant M(s)$ and Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] that $\sum_{s=1}^mM(s)$ converges strongly to $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} M(s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ as $m\to\infty$ and $0\leqslant \sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} M(s)\leqslant I$. Thus, since $f_M(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant f_M(n+1,s)-2^{-n-1}I$, $M$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
Now, let $R$ be any lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Then, by Lemma \[universal-generator\], there is a $k$ with $1/2R(s)+(1/2)^{s+1}I=R_k(s)$. Since $1/2^kR_k(s)\leqslant\sum_{l=1}^\infty 1/2^lR_l(s)=M(s)$, we have $1/2^{k+1}R(s) \leqslant 1/2^{k+1}(R(s)+2^{-s}I)\leqslant M(s)$. Hence, $M$ is a universal semi-POVM.
In the previous work [@T03], we developed the theory of a universal semi-POVM for a finite dimensional quantum system, and we showed that, for every universal probability $m$, the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto m(s)E$ is a universal semi-POVM on a finite dimensional quantum system, where $E$ is the identity matrix. On the other hand, as shown in the following proposition, the corresponding statement does not hold for the infinite dimensional setting on which we work at present.
\[difference\] Let $m$ be a universal probability. Then the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto m(s)I$ is not a universal semi-POVM.
Let $\{e_i\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $X$, and let $P\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ with $(P(s))(e_i)=\delta_{si}e_i$. Then $P$ is shown to be a POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. By Axiom \[axiom1\] we see that $P$ is computable. Since $\|P(s)\|_2=1$ for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $P(s)$ is Hilbert-Schmidt for every $s\in{\Sigma^*}$ and $\{\|P(s)\|_2\}_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}$ is a computable sequence of real numbers. It follows from Theorem \[computable-lower-computable\] that $P$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
Now, let us assume contrarily that the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto m(s)I$ is a universal semi-POVM. Then there exists a $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $cP(s)\leqslant m(s)I$. Since ${\left\langle(P(s))e_s,e_s\right\rangle}=1$, we have $c\le m(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. However, this contradicts the condition that $\sum_{s\in {\Sigma^*}}m(s)\le 1$, and the proof is completed.
Thus, there is an essential difference between finite dimensional quantum systems and infinite dimensional quantum systems with respect to the properties of a universal semi-POVM.
Extension of Chaitin’s $\Omega$ {#omega}
===============================
In this section, we introduce an extension of Chaitin’s $\Omega$ as a partial sum of the POVM elements of a POVM measurement performed upon an infinite dimensional quantum system. Before that, we give a relation between a universal semi-POVM and a universal probability. We first show a relation between a universal semi-POVM and a lower-computable semi-measure in Proposition \[universal-probability-semi-POVM\].
\[universal-probability-semi-POVM\] Let $r$ be a lower-computable semi-measure, and let $M$ be a universal semi-POVM. Then there exists a $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$,
1. $cr(s)I\leqslant M(s)$, and
2. for all $x\in X$ with $\|x\|=1$, $cr(s)\le{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$.
The condition (ii) follows immediately from (i). Thus we show the condition (i). Since $r$ is a lower-computable semi-measure, $\sum_{s\in {\Sigma^*}}r(s)\le 1$ and there exists a total recursive function $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that, for each $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} f'(n,s)=r(s)$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;\>0\le f'(n,s)\le f'(n+1,s)$. Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$ and, for each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$, let $I(n)$ be the operator in ${\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that $I(n)e_i=e_i$ if $i\le n$ and $I(n)e_i=0$ otherwise. We define $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ by $f(n,s)=f'(n,s)I(n)$. Since $0\leqslant I(n)\leqslant I(n+1)$, we have $0\leqslant f(n,s)\leqslant f(n+1,s)$. Since $I(n)$ converges strongly to $I$, $f(n,s)$ converges strongly to $r(s)I$ as $n\to\infty$. Obviously, $f(n,s)$ is an $n$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$, and the mapping ${\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\mathbb{N}}^+\ni(n,s,i,j)\longmapsto{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ is a total recursive function. It follows from $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}\{r(s)I\}\leqslant I$ that the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto r(s)I$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$. Thus, from the definition of a universal semi-POVM, the condition (i) follows.
Based on the above proposition, we can show the following.
\[usP-implies-up\] Let $M$ be a universal semi-POVM, and let $x\in X$ be computable with $\|x\|=1$. Then the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto {\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ is a universal probability.
Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$. We first define $c_i={\left\langlex,e_i\right\rangle}$. Then $\{c_i\}$ is a computable sequence of complex numbers which satisfies $x=\sum_{i=1}^\infty c_i e_j$. Since $M$ is a lower computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\]. Since $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant M(s)$, we have ${\left\langlef(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}-2^{-n}\le{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$. It follows from ${\left\langlef(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{g(n,s)} c_i\overline{c_j}{\left\langlef(n,s)e_i,e_j\right\rangle}$ that $\{{\left\langlef(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}\}$ is a computable sequence of real numbers. Therefore, since $\lim_{n\to\infty} {\left\langlef(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}-2^{-n}={\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$, there exists a total recursive function $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that, for each $s\in {\Sigma^*}$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} f'(n,s)={\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;f'(n,s)\le f'(n+1,s)$. We then define a total recursive function $h\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times {\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ by $h(n,s)=\max\{f'(n,s),0\}$. Since ${\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}\ge 0$, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty} h(n,s)={\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ and $\forall\,n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+\;0\le h(n,s)\le h(n+1,s)$. We also have $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}\le {\left\langleIx,x\right\rangle}\le 1$. Thus the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ is a lower-computable semi-measure. Finally, by Proposition \[universal-probability-semi-POVM\], the theorem is obtained.
Since any universal probability is not computable, by Theorem \[usP-implies-up\] we can show that any universal semi-POVM is not a computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
Now, based on the intuition obtained from Theorem \[omega-equiv-universal\], we propose to define an extension $\hat{\Omega}$ of Chaitin’s $\Omega$ as follows.
For each universal semi-POVM $M$, $\hat{\Omega}_M$ is defined by $$\hat{\Omega}_M\equiv\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}} M(s).$$
Let $M$ be a universal semi-POVM. Then, obviously, $\hat{\Omega}_M\in{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and $\hat{\Omega}_M\leqslant I$. We can further show that $cI\leqslant \hat{\Omega}_M$ for some real number $c>0$. This is because, by Proposition \[universal-probability-semi-POVM\], there is a real number $c>0$ with the property that $c2^{-s}I\leqslant M(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$.
The following theorem supports the above proposal.
\[prooerty-of-operator-omega\] Let $M$ be a universal semi-POVM. If $x$ is a computable point in $X$ with $\|x\|=1$, then
1. there exists an optimal computer $V$ such that ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}=\Omega_V$, and
2. ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}$ is a random real number.
Since ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}=\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}{{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}}$, by Theorem \[usP-implies-up\] and Theorem \[omega-equiv-universal\], Theorem \[prooerty-of-operator-omega\] (i) follows. Since $\Omega_W$ is random for any optimal computer $W$, Theorem \[prooerty-of-operator-omega\] (ii) follows.
Let $M$ be any universal semi-POVM, and let $x$ be any point in $X$ with $\|x\|=1$. Consider the POVM measurement $\mathcal{M}$ described by the $M$. This measurement produces one of countably many outcomes; elements in ${\Sigma^*}$ and one more something which corresponds to the POVM element $I-\Omega_M$. If the measurement $\mathcal{M}$ is performed upon the state described by the $x$ immediately before the measurement, then the probability that a result $s\in{\Sigma^*}$ occurs is given by ${\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$. Therefore ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}$ is the probability of getting some finite binary string as a measurement outcome in $\mathcal{M}$.
Now, assume that $x$ is computable. Recall that, for any optimal computer $V$, $\Omega_V$ is the probability that $V$ halts and outputs some finite string, which results from infinitely repeated tosses of a fair coin. Thus, by Theorem \[prooerty-of-operator-omega\], ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}$ has the meaning of classical probability that a universal self-delimiting Turing machine generates some finite string. Hence ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}$ has the meaning of probability of producing some finite string in the contexts of both quantum mechanics and algorithmic information theory. Thus, in the case where $x$ is computable, algorithmic information theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in a certain sense. Note further that, even if $x$ is not computable, quantum mechanics still insists that ${\left\langle\hat{\Omega}_Mx,x\right\rangle}$ has a meaning as probability, i.e., the probability of getting some finite binary string in the measurement $\mathcal{M}$.
Operator-valued algorithmic information theory {#ovait}
==============================================
We choose any one universal semi-POVM $M$ as the standard one for use throughout the rest of this paper. The equation suggests defining an *operator-valued information content* ${\hat{H}}(s)$ of $s\in{\Sigma^*}$ by $$\label{ovK}
{\hat{H}}(s)\equiv -\log_2 M(s).$$ Here $\log_2 M(s)$ is defined based on the notion of *continuous functional calculus* (for the detail, see e.g. the section VII.1 of [@RS80]). We here note the following properties for this notion.
\[operator-monotone\] Let $S,T\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$. Suppose that $aI\leqslant S$ for some real number $a>0$. Then $\log_2 S\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ and the following hold.
1. $\log_2(cS)=\log_2 S+(\log_2 c)I$ for any real number $c>0$.
2. If $S\leqslant T$ then $\log_2 S\leqslant \log_2 T$.
Proposition \[operator-monotone\] follows the definition of the continuous functional calculus (especially, the proof of Proposition \[operator-monotone\] (ii) is given at e.g. Chapter 5 of [@HY95]). Since there is a real number $c>0$ with the property that $c2^{-s}I\leqslant M(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, by Proposition \[operator-monotone\] we see that ${\hat{H}}(s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. The above definition of ${\hat{H}}(s)$ is also supported by the following Proposition \[invariant-theorem\]. Let $S$ be any set, and let $f\colon S\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ and $g\colon S\to{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$. Then we write $f(x)=g(x)+O(1)$ if there is a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $x\in S$, $\|f(x)-g(x)\|\le c$, which is equivalent to $-cI\leqslant f(x)-g(x) \leqslant cI$.
\[invariant-theorem\] Let $M$ and $M'$ be universal semi-POVMs. Then $\log_2 M(s)=\log_2 M'(s)+O(1)$.
This follows immediately from Proposition \[operator-monotone\].
By this proposition, the equation is independent of the choice of a universal semi-POVM $M$ up to an additive constant. We show relations between ${\hat{H}}(s)$ and ${H}(s)$ in the following theorem.
\[operatorH-numberH\] Let $x\in X$ with $\|x\|=1$.
1. There exists a real number $c>0$ such that ${\left\langle{\hat{H}}(s)x,x\right\rangle}\le {H}(s)+c$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$.
2. If $x$ is computable then ${\left\langle{\hat{H}}(s)x,x\right\rangle}={H}(s)+O(1)$.
Since $2^{-{H}(s)}$ is a lower-computable semi-measure, it follows from Proposition \[universal-probability-semi-POVM\] that there is a $d>0$ with the property that $d2^{-{H}(s)}I\leqslant M(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. By Proposition \[operator-monotone\] (i) and the equality $\log_2 I=0$, we see that $\log_2(d2^{-{H}(s)}I)=(-{H}(s)+\log_2d)I$. Hence, by Proposition \[operator-monotone\] (ii), we have ${\hat{H}}(s)\leqslant({H}(s)-\log_2d)I$ and therefore Theorem \[operatorH-numberH\] (i) follows.
Using the concavity of the real function $\log_2t$ and the spectral decomposition of the Hermitian operator $\log_2 M(s)$, we can show that $\log_2{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}\ge{\left\langle(\log_2M(s))x,x\right\rangle}$. In the case where $x$ is computable, by Theorem \[usP-implies-up\], the mapping ${\Sigma^*}\ni s\longmapsto{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ is a lower-computable semi-measure. By Theorem \[eup\], there is a $c'>0$ such that $c'{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}\le 2^{-{H}(s)}$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. Hence Theorem \[operatorH-numberH\] (ii) follows.
In [@C87a] Chaitin developed a version of algorithmic information theory where the notion of program-size is not used. That is, in the work he, in essence, defined ${H}(s)$ as $-\log_2 m(s)$ for a universal probability $m$, and showed several information-theoretic relations on ${H}(s)$. Thus we can develop the information-theoretic feature of algorithmic information theory to a certain extent even if we do not refer to the concept of program-size. On the lines of this Chaitin’s approach, we show in the following that an information-theoretic feature can be developed based on ${\hat{H}}(s)$. We first need the following theorem.
\[usP-partial-recursive-func\] Let $\psi\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\Sigma^*}$ be a partial recursive function. Then the following hold.
1. There exists a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, if $\psi(s)$ is defined then $cM(s)\leqslant M(\psi(s))$.
2. There exists a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, if $\psi(s)$ is defined then ${\hat{H}}(\psi(s))\leqslant {\hat{H}}(s)+cI$.
Let $\{e_i\}$ be a computable orthonormal basis for $X$. Since $M$ is a universal semi-POVM, there exist an $f\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ and a total recursive function $g\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ which satisfy the conditions (ii), (iii), and (iv) in Definition \[def-pre-lower-computable-semi-povm\], and the condition that for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $f(n,s)$ converges strongly to $M(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. We can define $R\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)}$ by $R(s)=\sum_{\psi(t)=s}M(t)$, where the series converges strongly if $\psi^{-1}(s)$ is an infinite set. This limit exists by Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\], since $\sum_{s=1}^l M(s)\leqslant I$ for any $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ and $0\leqslant M(s)$. In the case of $\psi^{-1}(s)=\emptyset$, we interpret $\sum_{\psi(t)=s}M(t)$ as $0$. Obviously $0\leqslant R(s)$ for any $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. Since ${\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}=\sum_{\psi(t)=s}{\left\langleM(t)x,x\right\rangle}$ and $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}\le 1$, we see that $\sum_{s=1}^l R(s)\leqslant I$ for any $l\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$ and therefore, by Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\], $R$ is a semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$.
Now, we enumerate the domain of definition of $\psi$. Let $t(k,s)$ be the $k$-th element in $\psi^{-1}(s)$ generated in the enumeration, and let $h(n,s)$ be the number of elements in $\psi^{-1}(s)$ which are generated until the time step $n$ in the enumeration (possibly $h(n,s)=0$). We define $f'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathcal{B}(X)_+}$ by $f'(n,s)=\sum_{k=1}^{h(n,s)} f(n+k,t(k,s))$. It is then shown that $f'(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant f'(n+1,s)-2^{-n-1}I$. We also define the total recursive function $g'\colon{\mathbb{N}}^+\times{\Sigma^*}\to{\mathbb{N}}^+$ by $g'(n,s)=\max\{g(n+k,t(k,s))\mid 1\le k\le h(n,s)\}$. Then $f'(n,s)$ is a $g'(n,s)$-square rational operator on $\{e_i\}$. Since $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant M(s)$, we have $f'(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant R(s)-2^{-n-h(n,s)}\leqslant I$. Thus, by Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] again, for each $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, there exists an $R'(s)\in{\mathcal{B}_h(X)}$ such that $f'(n,s)-2^{-n}I$ converges strongly to $R'(s)$ as $n\to\infty$. We show that $R(s)=R'(s)$ for all $s$. Since $f(n,s)-2^{-n}I\leqslant M(s)$, we have $|{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}-{\left\langlef(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}|\le{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}+2^{-n}\|x\|^2$. Hence we see that if $1\le l<h(n,s)$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&&|{\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}-{\left\langlef'(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}| \\
&&\le |{\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}-
\sum_{k=1}^{h(n,s)}{\left\langleM(t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}| \\
&&\hspace*{40mm}
+\sum_{k=1}^{h(n,s)}|{\left\langleM(t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}-{\left\langlef(n+k,t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}| \\
&&\le |{\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}-{\left\langle(\sum_{k=1}^{h(n,s)}M(t(k,s)))x,x\right\rangle}| \\
&&\hspace*{20mm}
+\sum_{k=1}^l|{\left\langleM(t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}-{\left\langlef(n+k,t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}| \\
&&\hspace*{40mm}
+\sum_{k=l+1}^{h(n,s)}{\left\langleM(t(k,s))x,x\right\rangle}+2^{-n}\|x\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ In the case where $\psi^{-1}(s)$ is an infinite set, since $\sum_{s\in{\Sigma^*}}{\left\langleM(s)x,x\right\rangle}<\infty$, by considering sufficiently large $n$ for each sufficiently large $l$, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\left\langlef'(n,s)x,x\right\rangle}={\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}$. In the case where $\psi^{-1}(s)$ is a finite set, obviously the same holds. It follows that ${\left\langleR(s)x,x\right\rangle}={\left\langleR'(s)x,x\right\rangle}$ for all $x\in X$ and $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, and therefore $R(s)=R'(s)$ for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$. Hence $R$ is a lower computable semi-POVM on ${\Sigma^*}$, and there is a real number $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, $cR(s)\leqslant M(s)$. From the definition of $R$, if $\psi(s)$ is defined then $M(s)\leqslant R(\psi(s))$. Thus Theorem \[usP-partial-recursive-func\] (i) follows. By Proposition \[operator-monotone\], we see that Theorem \[usP-partial-recursive-func\] (ii) holds.
We choose any one computable bijection $<s,t>$ from $(s,t)\in {\Sigma^*}\times {\Sigma^*}$ to ${\Sigma^*}$. Let $s, t\in {\Sigma^*}$. The *joint information content* ${\hat{H}}(s,t)$ of $s$ and $t$ is defined as ${\hat{H}}(s,t)\equiv {\hat{H}}(<s,t>)$. We then define the *conditional information content* ${\hat{H}}(s|t)$ of $s$ given $t$ by the equation ${\hat{H}}(s|t)\equiv {\hat{H}}(t,s)-{\hat{H}}(t)$. Finally we define the *mutual information content* ${\hat{H}}(s;t)$ of $s$ and $t$ by the equation ${\hat{H}}(s;t)\equiv {\hat{H}}(s)+{\hat{H}}(t)-{\hat{H}}(s,t)$. Thus ${\hat{H}}(s;t)={\hat{H}}(t)-{\hat{H}}(t|s)$. We can then show the following theorem using Theorem \[usP-partial-recursive-func\] (ii). In particular, by Theorem \[opait\] (i), we have ${\hat{H}}(s;t)={\hat{H}}(s)-{\hat{H}}(s|t)+O(1)$.
\[opait\]
1. ${\hat{H}}(s,t)={\hat{H}}(t,s)+O(1)$ and ${\hat{H}}(s;t)={\hat{H}}(t;s)+O(1)$.
2. ${\hat{H}}(s,s)={\hat{H}}(s)+O(1)$ and ${\hat{H}}(s;s)={\hat{H}}(s)+O(1)$.
3. ${\hat{H}}(s,\lambda)={\hat{H}}(s)+O(1)$ and ${\hat{H}}(s;\lambda)=O(1)$.
4. $\exists\,c\in{\mathbb{R}}\;\>\forall\,s,t\in {\Sigma^*}\;\>cI\leqslant {\hat{H}}(s|t)$.
Consider the total recursive function $\psi\colon{\Sigma^*}\to{\Sigma^*}$ with $\psi(<s,t>)=<t,s>$. By Theorem \[usP-partial-recursive-func\] (ii), there is a $c>0$ such that, for all $s,t\in{\Sigma^*}$, ${\hat{H}}(<t,s>)\leqslant {\hat{H}}(<s,t>)+cI$. Thus Theorem \[opait\] (i) follows. Next consider the function $\psi$ with $\psi(<s,s>)=s$. By Theorem \[usP-partial-recursive-func\] (ii), there is a $c>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, ${\hat{H}}(s)\leqslant {\hat{H}}(<s,s>)+cI$. On the other hand, by considering the function $\phi$ with $\phi(s)=<s,s>$, we see that there is a $c'>0$ such that, for all $s\in{\Sigma^*}$, ${\hat{H}}(<s,s>)\leqslant {\hat{H}}(s)+c'I$. Thus Theorem \[opait\] (ii) follows. Similarly, by considering the functions $\psi$ with $\psi(<s,\lambda>)=s$ and $\phi$ with $\phi(s)=<s,\lambda>$, we have Theorem \[opait\] (iii). Finally, by considering the function $\psi$ with $\psi(<s,t>)=s$, we have Theorem \[opait\] (iv).
The above relations can be compared with the following relations in information theory except for the relation (v) (see the discussion in Section \[discussion\] for this exception).
\[it\]
1. $H(X,Y)=H(Y,X)$ and $I(X;Y)=I(Y;X)$.
2. $H(X,X)=H(X)$ and $I(X;X)=H(X)$.
3. $H(X,Y)=H(X)$ and $I(X;Y)=0$ if $Y$ takes any one fixed value with probability $1$, i.e., $H(Y)=0$.
4. $0\le H(X|Y)$.
5. $H(X,Y)\le H(X)+H(Y)$ and $0\le I(X;Y)$.
Here $X$ and $Y$ are discrete random variables, and $H(X)$, $H(X,Y)$, $H(X|Y)$, and $I(X;Y)$ denote the *entropy*, *joint entropy*, *conditional entropy*, and *mutual information*, respectively (see e.g. [@CT91] for the detail of these quantities). Thus, our theory built on ${\hat{H}}(s)$ has the formal properties of information theory to a certain extent.
Discussion
==========
Based on a universal semi-POVM, we have introduced $\hat{\Omega}_M$ which is an extension of Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega_U$ to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system, and also we have introduced the operator ${\hat{H}}(s)$ which is an extension of the program-size complexity ${H}(s)$. In algorithmic information theory, however, $\Omega_U$ is originally defined through based on the behavior of an optimal computer $U$, i.e., $\Omega_U$ is defined as the probability that the universal self-delimiting Turing machine which computes $U$ halts. Likewise ${H}(s)$ is originally defined as the length of the shortest input for a universal self-delimiting Turing machine to output $s$. Thus $\Omega_U$ and $H(s)$ are directly related to a behavior of a computing machine. Therefore, in order to develop our operator version of algorithmic information theory further, it is necessary to find more concrete definitions of $\hat{\Omega}_M$ and ${\hat{H}}(s)$ which are immediately based on a behavior of some sort of computing machine.
In general, a POVM measurement can be realized by first interacting the quantum system on which we make the POVM measurement with an ancilla system, and then making a projective measurement upon the composite system, which consists of the original quantum system and the ancilla system. This interaction is described by a unitary operator. Let $U_M$ be such a unitary operator in the POVM measurement described by an arbitrary universal semi-POVM $M$. If we can identify a computing machine $\mathfrak{M}$ of some sort which performs the unitary transformation $U_M$ in a natural way in the POVM measurement, then we might be able to give a machine interpretation to $\hat{\Omega}_M$ and ${\hat{H}}(s)$. Note that the machine $\mathfrak{M}$ might be different kind of computing machine from the so-called quantum Turing machine. This is because the unitary time evolution operator defined by a quantum Turing machine makes local changes on a quantum system, whereas $U_M$ makes global changes in general. We leave the development of this line to a future study.
Now, by defining ${H}(s)$ as $-\log_2 m(s)$ for any one universal probability $m$, [@C87a] proved the following theorem, which corresponds to the inequality in information theory called *subadditivity*, i.e., Theorem \[it\] (v).
\[subadditivity\] $\exists\,c\in{\mathbb{R}}\;\>\forall\,s,t\in {\Sigma^*}\;\>c\le{H}(s;t)$.
Here ${H}(s;t)$ was defined as ${H}(s)+{H}(t)-{H}(<s,t>)$ in [@C87a]. Because of the non-commutativity of operators in $X$, however, it is open to prove the corresponding formula for our ${\hat{H}}(s;t)$. In the proof of Theorem \[subadditivity\] given in [@C87a], the product $m(s)m(t)$ is considered. In general, a product of two POVM elements has no physical meaning unless they commute. For a universal semi-POVM $M$, it would seem difficult to prove the commutativity of $M(s)$ and $M(t)$ for distinct $s$ and $t$. Thus $M(s)M(t)$ seems to have no physical meaning as a product of two POVM elements. Hence the difficulty in proving the subadditivity for our ${\hat{H}}(s;t)$ seems to justify our interpretation of a universal semi-POVM as measurement operators which describe a quantum measurement performed upon a quantum system. Note that, as is shown in [@T03], we have the subadditivity in *finite* dimensional setting. This is because $m(s)E$ is a universal semi-POVM in a finite dimensional linear space for any universal probability $m$, where $E$ is the identity matrix. Obviously, $m(s)E$ and $m(t)E$ commute in this case.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author is grateful to the 21st Century COE Program of Chuo University for the financial support.
[99]{} C. S. Calude, P. H. Hertling, B. Khoussainov, and Y. Wang, Recursively enumerable reals and Chaitin $\Omega$ numbers. Theoret. Comput. Sci. **255**, 125–149 (2001). G. J. Chaitin, A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. **22**, 329–340 (1975). G. J. Chaitin, Incompleteness theorems for random reals. Adv. in Appl. Math. **8**, 119–146 (1987). T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1991). P. Gács, On the symmetry of algorithmic information. Soviet Math. Dokl. **15**, 1477–1480 (1974); correction, ibid. **15**, 1480 (1974). P. Gács, Quantum algorithmic entropy. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **34**, 6859–6880 (2001). F. Hiai and K. Yanagi, Hilbert Spaces and Linear Operators (Makino-Shoten, Tokyo 1995). In Japanese. A. S. Holevo, Statistical Structure of Quantum Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2001). L. A. Levin, Laws of information conservation (non-growth) and aspects of the foundations of probability theory. Problems of Inform. Transmission **10**, 206–210 (1974). M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000). M. B. Pour-El and J. I. Richards, Computability in Analysis and Physics. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1989). M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis. Revised and Enlarged Edition (Academic Press, New York 1980). F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis (Dover Publications, Inc., New York 1990). K. Tadaki, A generalization of Chaitin’s halting probability $\Omega$ and halting self-similar sets. Hokkaido Math. J. **31**, 219–253 (2002). Electronic version available at URL: <http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin/0212001>. K. Tadaki, Upper bound by Kolmogorov complexity for the probability in computable quantum measurement. In: Proceedings 5th Conference on Real Numbers and Computers, Lyon, France, September 3–5, 2003, pp. 193–214. A. K. Zvonkin and L. A. Levin, The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Math. Surveys **25**, no. 6, 83–124 (1970).
[^1]: An extended abstract appeared in the Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Real Numbers and Computers (RNC’6), Schloß Dagstuhl, Germany, November 15–17, 2004, pp. 172–191.
[^2]: In Definition \[def-povm-infinie-general\] and the subsequent Definition \[def-povm-countable\] and \[def-semi-povm\], we can equivalently replace the condition “the series converges strongly” by “the series converges weakly”, using Lemma \[bounded monotonic sequence\] given below. Here, for any sequence $\{A_n\}$ of operators in ${\mathcal{B}(X)}$ and any $A\in{\mathcal{B}(X)}$, we say $\{A_n\}$ *converges weakly* to $A$ as $n\to\infty$ if $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\left\langleA_nx,y\right\rangle}={\left\langleAx,y\right\rangle}$ for all $x,y\in X$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present two algorithms that compute the Newton polytope of a polynomial defining a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ using numerical computation. The first algorithm assumes that we may only compute values of $f$—this may occur if $f$ is given as a straight-line program, as a determinant, or as an oracle. The second algorithm assumes that ${{\mathcal H}}$ is represented numerically via a witness set. That is, it computes the Newton polytope of ${{\mathcal H}}$ using only the ability to compute numerical representatives of its intersections with lines. Such witness set representations are readily obtained when ${{\mathcal H}}$ is the image of a map or is a discriminant. We use the second algorithm to compute a face of the Newton polytope of the Lüroth invariant, as well as its restriction to that face.'
address:
- |
Jonathan D. Hauenstein\
Department of Mathematics\
North Carolina State University\
Raleigh\
North Carolina 27695\
USA
- |
Frank Sottile\
Department of Mathematics\
Texas A&M University\
College Station\
Texas 77843\
USA
author:
- 'Jonathan D. Hauenstein'
- Frank Sottile
bibliography:
- 'bibl.bib'
title: Newton polytopes and witness sets
---
Introduction {#Sec:intro .unnumbered}
============
While a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ is always defined by the vanishing of a single polynomial $f$, we may not always have access to the monomial representation of $f$. This occurs, for example, when ${{\mathcal H}}$ is the image of a map or if $f$ is represented as a straight-line program, and it is a well-understood and challenging problem to determine the polynomial $f$ when ${{\mathcal H}}$ is represented in this way. Elimination theory gives a symbolic method based on Gröbner bases that can determine $f$ from a representation of ${{\mathcal H}}$ as the image of a map or as a discriminant [@CLO]. Such computations require that the map be represented symbolically, and they may be infeasible for moderately-sized input.
The set of monomials in $f$, or more simply the convex hull of their exponent vectors (the Newton polytope of $f$), is an important combinatorial invariant of the hypersurface. The Newton polytope encodes asymptotic information about ${{\mathcal H}}$ and determining it from ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a step towards determining the polynomial $f$. For example, numerical linear algebra [@CGKW; @EK05] may be used to find $f$ given its Newton polytope. Similarly, the Newton polytope of an image of a map may be computed from Newton polytopes of the polynomials defining the map [@IKL10; @ES10; @EK08; @ST08; @STY], and computed using tropical geometric algorithms [@SY].
We propose numerical methods to compute the Newton polytope of $f$ in two cases when $f$ is not known explicitly. We first show how to compute the Newton polytope when we are able to evaluate $f$. This occurs, for example, if $f$ is represented as a straight-line program or as a determinant (neither of which we want to expand as a sum of monomials), or perhaps as a compiled program. For the other case, we suppose that $f$ defines a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ that is represented numerically as a witness set. Our basic idea is similar to ideas from tropical geometry. The tropical variety of a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ in $({{\mathbb C}}^\times)^n$ is the normal fan to the Newton polytope of a defining polynomial $f$, augmented with the edge lengths. The underlying fan coincides with the logarithmic limit set [@Berg; @BiGr] of ${{\mathcal H}}$, which records the asymptotic behavior of ${{\mathcal H}}$ in $({{\mathbb C}}^\times)^n$. We use numerical nonlinear algebra to study the asymptotic behavior of ${{\mathcal H}}$ in $({{\mathbb C}}^\times)^n$ and use this to recover the Newton polytope of a defining equation of ${{\mathcal H}}$. As both our algorithms are easily parallelizable, this numerical approach to Newton polytopes should allow the computation of significantly larger examples than are possible with purely symbolic methods.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec:Supporting\], we explain symbolic and geometric-combinatorial preliminaries, including representations of polytopes, Newton polytopes, and straight-line programs. In Section \[Sec:WitnessSets\], we discuss the essentials of numerical nonlinear algebra (also called numerical algebraic geometry [@SW05]), in particular explaining the fundamental data structure of witness sets. Our main results are in the next two sections. In Section \[Sec:NPeval\] we explain (in Theorem \[Thm:EvalMax\] and Remark \[Rem:evaluate\]) how to compute the Newton polytope of $f$, given only that we may numerically evaluate $f$, and in Section \[Sec:NPwitness\], we explain (in Theorems \[thm:bounded\] and \[thm:unbounded\], and Remark \[Rem:witness\]) how to use witness sets to compute the Newton polytope of $f$. Illustrative examples are presented in these sections. In Section \[Sec:Examples\], we combine our approach with other techniques in numerical nonlinear algebra to explicitly compute the hypersurface of even Lüroth quartics.
Polynomials and Polytopes {#Sec:Supporting}
=========================
We explain necessary background from geometric combinatorics and algebra.
Polytopes
---------
A polytope $P$ is the convex hull of finitely many points ${{\mathcal A}}\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$, $$\label{Eq:convex}
P\ =\ {{\rm conv}}({{\mathcal A}})\ := \Bigl\{ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} \lambda_\alpha \alpha \::\:
\lambda_\alpha\geq 0\,,\ \sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha=1\Bigr\}\,.$$ Dually, a polytope is the intersection of finitely many halfspaces in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, $$\label{Eq:Halfspace}
P\ =\ \{ x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n\::\: w_i\cdot x\leq b_i\quad\mbox{for }i=1,\dotsc,N\}\,,$$ where $w_1,\dotsc,w_N\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $b_1,\dotsc,b_N\in {{\mathbb R}}$. These are two of the most common representations of a polytope. The first is the representation and the second is the representation. The classical algorithm of Fourier-Motzkin elimination converts between these two representations.
The of a polytope $P$ is the smallest affine-linear space containing $P$. The boundary of $P$ (in its affine hull) is a union of polytopes of smaller dimension than $P$, called of $P$. A of $P$ is a maximal proper face, while a is a minimal face of $P$ (which is necessarily a point). An is a 1-dimensional face.
In addition to the two representations given above, polytopes also have a , which consists of the edge lengths, together with the normal fan to the edges. (This normal fan encodes the edge-face incidences.) Jensen and Yu [@JY] gave an algorithm for converting a tropical representation into a convex hull representation.
Every linear function $x\mapsto w\cdot x$ on ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ (here, $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$) achieves a maximum value on a polytope $P$. The subset of $P$ where this maximum value is achieved is a face of $P$, called the . Let $h_P(w)$ be this maximum value of $w\cdot x$ on $P$. The function $w\mapsto h_P(w)$ is called the of $P$. The support function encodes the halfspace representation as $$P\ =\ \{ x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n\::\: w\cdot x\leq h_P(w)\quad\mbox{for }w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n\}\,.$$
The representation is a fourth natural representation of a polytope $P$. There are two versions. For the first, given $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$, if the face $P_w$ exposed by $w$ is a vertex, then it returns that vertex, and if $P_w$ is not a vertex, it either returns a vertex on $P_w$ or detects that $P_w$ is not a vertex. Alternatively, it returns the value $h_P(w)$ of the support function at $w$. The classical beneath-beyond algorithm [@Gru03 §5.2] uses an oracle representation of a polytope to simultaneously construct its convex-hull and halfspace representations. It iteratively builds a description of the polytope, including the faces and facet-supporting hyperplanes, adding one vertex at a time. The software package iB4e [@iB4e] implements this algorithm. Another algorithm converting the oracle representation to the convex hull and halfspace representation is “gift-wrapping” [@CK70].
Our numerical algorithms return oracle representations.
Polynomials and their Newton polytopes
--------------------------------------
Let ${\Blue{{{\mathbb N}}}}=\{0,1,\dotsc\}$ be the nonnegative integers and write ${\Blue{{{\mathbb C}}^\times}}$ for the nonzero complex numbers. Of the many ways to represent a polynomial $f\in{{\mathbb C}}[x_1,\dotsc,x_n]$, perhaps the most familiar is in terms of monomials. For $\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}^n$, we have the monomial $${\Blue{x^\alpha}}\ :=\ x_1^{\alpha_1} x_2^{\alpha_2}\dotsb x_n^{\alpha_n}\,,$$ which has ${\Blue{|\alpha|}}:=\alpha_1+\dotsb+\alpha_n$. A polynomial $f$ is a linear combination of monomials $$\label{Eq:linearCombin}
f\ =\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}^n} c_\alpha x^{\alpha}\qquad c_\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}\,,$$ where only finitely many coefficients $c_\alpha$ are nonzero. The set $\{\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}^n \::\: c_\alpha\neq 0\}$ is the of $f$, which we will write as , or simply when $f$ is understood.
A coarser invariant of the polynomial $f$ is its , ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$. This is the convex hull of its support $${\Blue{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}}\ :=\ {{\rm conv}}( {{\mathcal A}}(f))\,.$$ For $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$, the of $f$ to the face ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$ of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ exposed by $w$ is $$\label{Eq:f_w}
f_w\ :=\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal N}}(f)_w} c_\alpha x^{\alpha}\,,$$ the sum over all terms $c_\alpha x^\alpha$ of $f$ where $w\cdot \alpha$ is maximal (and thus equal to $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$.)
A ${{\mathcal H}}\subset{{\mathbb C}}^n$ is defined by the vanishing of a single polynomial, ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal V}}(f)$. This polynomial $f$ is well-defined up to multiplication by non-zero scalars if we require it to be of minimal degree among all polynomials vanishing on ${{\mathcal H}}$. We define the , of ${{\mathcal H}}$ to be the Newton polytope of any minimal degree polynomial $f\in{{\mathbb C}}[x_1,\dotsc,x_n]$ defining ${{\mathcal H}}$.
Polynomials are not always given as a linear combination of monomials . For example, a polynomial may be given as a determinant whose entries are themselves polynomials. It may be prohibitive to expand this into a sum of monomials, but it is computationally efficient to evaluate the determinant. For another example, a polynomial may be given as an oracle or as a compiled program.
An efficient encoding of a polynomial is as a . For a polynomial $f\colon{{\mathbb C}}^n\to{{\mathbb C}}$, this is a list $$(f_{-n},\dotsc,f_{-1},f_0,f_1,\dotsc,f_{l})$$ of polynomials where $f=f_l$ and we have the initial values $f_{-i}=x_i$ for $i=1,\dotsc,n$, and for every $k\geq 0$, $f_k$ is one of $$f_i+f_j\,,\ f_i\cdot f_j\,,\ \mbox{or}\ c\,,$$ where $i,j<k$ and $c\in{{\mathbb Q}}[\sqrt{-1}]$ is a Gaussian rational number. (Gaussian rational numbers are used for they are representable on a computer.)
Our goal is twofold, we present an algorithm to compute the Newton polytope of a polynomial $f$ that we can only evaluate numerically, and we present an algorithm to recover the Newton polytope of a polynomial $f$ defining a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ that is represented numerically as a witness set (defined in § \[Sec:WitnessSets\] below).
In the first case, we explain how to compute the support function $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}$ of the Newton polytope of $f$, and to compute ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$, when this is a vertex. This becomes an algorithm, at least for general $w$, when we have additional information about $f$, such as a finite superset ${{\mathcal B}}\subset{{\mathbb Z}}^n$ of its support and bounds on the magnitudes of its coefficients. This is discussed in Remark \[Rem:evaluate\].
In the second case, we show how to compute ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$, when this is a vertex. This is discussed in Remark \[Rem:witness\].
Numerical nonlinear algebra and witness sets {#Sec:WitnessSets}
============================================
Numerical nonlinear algebra (also called numerical algebraic geometry [@SW05]) provides methods based on numerical continuation for studying algebraic varieties on a computer. The fundamental data structure in this field is a witness set, which is a geometric representation based on linear sections and generic points.
Given a polynomial system $F\colon {{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^n$, consider an irreducible component $V\subset{{\Blue{{{\mathcal V}}(F)}}}:=F^{-1}(0)$ of its zero set of dimension $k$ and degree $d$. Let ${{\mathcal L}}\colon{{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^k$ be a system of general affine-linear polynomials so that ${{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}})$ is a general codimension $k$ affine subspace of ${{\mathbb C}}^m$. Then ${\Blue{W}} := V\cap{{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}})$ will consist of $d$ distinct points, and we call the triple $(F,{{\mathcal L}},W)$ (or simply $W$ for short) a for $V$. The set $W$ represents a general linear section of $V$. Numerical continuation may be used to follow the points of $W$ as ${{\mathcal L}}$ (and hence ${{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}})$) varies continuously. This allows us to sample points from $V$.
Ideally, $V$ is a component of the scheme ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ in that the Jacobian of $F$ at a general point $w\in W\subset V$ of $V$ has a $k$-dimensional null space. Otherwise the scheme ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ is not reduced along $V$. When $V$ is a generically reduced component of ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$, the points of $W$ are nonsingular zeroes of the polynomial system $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} F\\ {{\mathcal L}}\end{smallmatrix}\right]$. When ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ is not reduced along $V$, the points of $W$ are singular zeroes of this system, and it is numerically challenging to compute such singular points.
The method of deflation, building from [@OWM83], can compute $W$ when ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ is not reduced along $V$. In particular, the strong deflation method of [@Isosingular] yields a system $F'\colon{{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^{n'}$ where $n'\geq n$ such that $V$ is a generically reduced component of the scheme ${{\mathcal V}}(F')$. Replacing $F$ with $F'$, we will assume that $V$ is a generically reduced component of ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$.
The notion of a witness set for the image of an irreducible variety under a linear map was developed in [@WitnessProj]. Suppose that we have a polynomial system $F\colon{{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^n$, a generically reduced component $V$ of ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ of dimension $k$ and degree $d$, and a linear map $\omega\colon{{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^p$ defined by $\omega(x) = Ax$ for $A\in{{\mathbb C}}^{p\times m}$. Suppose that the algebraic set $U = \overline{\omega(V)}\subset{{\mathbb C}}^p$ has dimension $k'$ and degree $d'$. A witness set for the projection $U$ requires an affine-linear map ${{\mathcal L}}$ adapted to the projection $\omega$. Let ${\Blue{B}}$ be a matrix $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}B_1\\B_2\end{smallmatrix}\right]$ where the rows of the matrix $B_1\in{{\mathbb C}}^{k'\times m}$ are general vectors in the row space of $A$ and the rows of $B_2\in{{\mathbb C}}^{(k-k')\times m}$ are general vectors in ${{\mathbb C}}^m$. Define ${{\mathcal L}}\colon{{\mathbb C}}^m\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}^k$ by ${{\mathcal L}}(x) = Bx - 1$ and set $W:= V\cap{{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}})$. Then the quadruple $(F,\omega,{{\mathcal L}},W)$ is a . By our choice of $B$, the number of points in $\omega(W)$ is the degree $d'$ of $U$ and for any fixed $u\in\omega(W)$, the number of points in $W\cap\omega^{-1}(u)$ is the degree of the general fiber of $\omega$ restricted to $V$. Note that $k - k'$ is the dimension of the general fiber.
\[E:quadratic\] Consider the discriminant hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}\subset{{\mathbb C}}^3$ for univariate quadratic polynomials, that is, ${{\mathcal H}}:= {{\mathcal V}}(f)$ where $f(a,b,c) = b^2 - 4ac$. The triple $(f,{{\mathcal L}},W)$ where $${{\mathcal L}}(a,b,c)\ :=\ \left[\begin{array}{c} 2a - 2b + 3c - 1 \\ 3a + b - 5c -
1 \end{array}\right]$$ and $W = {{\mathcal H}}\cap{{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}})$, which consists of the two points, $(a,b,c)$, $$\{(0.3816, -0.1071, 0.00752)\,,\
(1.2243, 2.1801, 0.97058)\}\,,$$ is a witness set for ${{\mathcal H}}$.
This discriminant also has the form ${{\mathcal H}}= \overline{\omega(V)}$ where $\omega$ is the linear projection mapping $(a,b,c,x)$ to $(a,b,c)$ and $V = {{\mathcal V}}(F)$ where $$F(a,b,c,x)\ =\ \left[\begin{array}{c} ax^2 + bx + c \\ 2ax + b \end{array}\right]\,.$$ This variety $V$ has dimension $2$ and degree $3$, and $\omega$ is defined by the matrix $$A = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right].$$ The quadruple $(F,\omega,{{\mathcal L}}',W')$ where ${{\mathcal L}}'(a,b,c,x) = {{\mathcal L}}(a,b,c)$ and $W' = V\cap{{\mathcal V}}({{\mathcal L}}')$, which also consists of two points, $(a,b,c,x)$, $$\{(0.3816, -0.1071, 0.00752, 0.1403882)\,,\
(1.2243, 2.1801, 0.97058, -0.8903882)\}\,,$$ is also a witness set for ${{\mathcal H}}$. In particular, $\omega(W') = W$ and we see that $\omega$ restricted to $V$ is generically one-to-one.
Newton polytopes via evaluation {#Sec:NPeval}
===============================
We address the problem of computing the Newton polytope of a polynomial $f:{{\mathbb C}}^n\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}$ when we have a method to evaluate $f$. This is improved when we have some additional information about the polynomial $f$.
For $t$ a positive real number and $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$, set ${\Blue{t^w}}:=(t^{w_1},t^{w_2},\dotsc,t^{w_n})$. Consider the monomial expansion of the polynomial $f$, $$f\ =\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} c_\alpha x^\alpha\qquad \mbox{where}\quad c_\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}^\times\,.$$ For $x\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$, we define $$t^w{\Blue{.}} x\ :=\ (t^{w_1}x_1\,,\, t^{w_2}x_2\,,\,\dotsc\,,\,t^{w_n}x_n)\,,$$ the coordinatewise product, and consider the evaluation, $$\label{Eq:evaluate_translate}
f(t^w. x)\ =\
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha} x^\alpha\,.$$ Let ${\Blue{{{\mathcal F}}}}:={{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$ be the face of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ that is exposed by $w$. Then if $\alpha\in{{\mathcal F}}$, we have $w\cdot\alpha=h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$. There is a positive real number ${\Blue{d_w}}$ such that if $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus{{\mathcal F}}$, then $w\cdot\alpha\leq h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)-d_w$. Thus becomes $$\begin{aligned}
f(t^w. x) &=& \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\cap{{\mathcal F}}} c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha} x^\alpha
\ +\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus{{\mathcal F}}} c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha} x^\alpha\\
&=& t^{h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)} \Bigl( f_w(x)\ +\
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus{{\mathcal F}}}
c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha-h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)} x^\alpha\Bigr)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $f_w$ is the restriction of $f$ to the face ${{\mathcal F}}$. Observe that no exponent of $t$ which occurs in the sum exceeds $-d_w$. This gives an asymptotic expression for $t\gg 0$, $$\label{Eq:asymptotic_expansion}
\log| f(t^w.x)|\ =\
h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)\log(t)\ +\ \log|f_w(x)|\ +\ O(t^{-d_w})\,,$$ from which we deduce the following limit.
\[L:Evaluation\_Limit\] If $f_w(x)\neq 0$, then $$h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)\ =\
\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{\log|f(t^w. x)|}{\log(t)}\,.$$
Thus we may approximate the support function of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ by evaluating $f$ numerically.
\[Re:evaluation\] To turn Lemma \[L:Evaluation\_Limit\] into an algorithm for computing $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}$, we need more information about $f$, so that we may estimate the rate of convergence. For example, if we have a bound, in the form of a finite superset ${{\mathcal B}}\subset{{\mathbb N}}^n$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$, then $\{w\cdot\alpha\mid\alpha\in{{\mathcal B}}\}$ is a discrete set which contains the value of $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$, and therefore the limit in Lemma \[L:Evaluation\_Limit\].
When $w$ is generic in that $\alpha\mapsto w\cdot\alpha$ is injective on ${{\mathcal A}}$, then the face ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$ of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ exposed by $w$ is a vertex so that $f_w(x)\neq 0$ for any $x\in({{\mathbb C}}^\times)^n$. We may dispense with the limit given an [*a priori*]{} estimate on the magnitude of the coefficients of $f$.
\[Thm:EvalMax\] Let $f\colon {{\mathbb C}}^n\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}$ be a polynomial with monomial expansion, $$f(x)\ =\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} c_\alpha x^\alpha\,,
\qquad c_\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}^\times\,.$$ Suppose that $\delta,\lambda\geq 1$ and ${{\mathcal B}}\subset{{\mathbb N}}^n$ are such that
1. \[item:delta\] $\log|c_\alpha| \leq \delta$ for all $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$,
2. \[item:lambda\] $\log|c_\alpha| \leq \lambda +\log|c_\beta|$ for all $\alpha,\beta\in{{\mathcal A}}$, and
3. \[item:convexA\] ${{\mathcal A}}\subset{{\mathcal B}}$ with $|{{\mathcal B}}| < \infty$.
Let $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$ be general in that $${\Blue{d_w}}\ :=\ \min_{\alpha\neq\beta\in{{\mathcal B}}} |w\cdot \alpha - w\cdot \beta|\ >\ 0\,.$$ Then the face of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ exposed by $w$ is a vertex which equals the unique $\beta\in{{\mathcal B}}$ such that $$\left|w\cdot\beta - \frac{\log |f(t^w)|}{\log(t)}\right|\ <\ \frac{d_w}{2}$$ where $t>0$ is any number with $\log(t)$ exceeding $\max\{2\lambda, 2(\delta+e^{-1}), \lambda + \log|{{\mathcal B}}|+1\}/d_w$. Similarly, the face exposed by $-w$ is a vertex which equals the unique $\beta\in{{\mathcal B}}$ such that $$\left|-w\cdot\beta - \frac{\log |f(t^{-w})|}{\log(t)}\right|\ <\ \frac{d_w}{2}$$ where $t>0$ is any number with $\log(t)$ exceeding $\max\{2\lambda,2(\delta+e^{-1}), \lambda + \log|{{\mathcal B}}|+1\}/d_w$.
\[Rem:evaluate\] Suppose that we know or may estimate the quantities ${{\mathcal B}}$, $\delta$, and $\lambda$ of Theorem \[Thm:EvalMax\]. Then, for general $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ we may compute $d_w$, and therefore evaluating $\log|f(t^w)|/\log(t)$ for $t^{d_w}>\max\{e^{2\lambda},e^{2+2\delta},|{{\mathcal B}}|e^{\lambda+1}\}$ will yield $w\cdot\beta$ and hence $\beta$.
Even without this knowledge, we may still compute the support function $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$ for $w\in{{\mathbb Q}}^n$ as follows. For $0\neq w\in{{\mathbb Q}}^n$ the map ${{\mathbb Z}}^n\to{{\mathbb Q}}$ given by $\beta\mapsto w\cdot\beta$ has image a free group ${{\mathbb Z}}d_w$ for some $d_w>0$. For $x\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$ with $f_w(x)\neq 0$ and $t:=e^\tau$ with $\tau>0$, we have $$\left| \frac{\log|f( e^{\tau w}.x)|}{\tau}\ -\ h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)\right|
\ \ \approx\ \
\frac{\log|f_w(x)|}{\tau}\ +\ O(e^{-d_w\tau})\,.$$
Since $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)\in {{\mathbb Z}}d_w$, we may do the following. Pick a general $x\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$ (so that $f_w(x)\neq 0$), and compute the quantity $$\label{Eq:quantity}
\frac{\log|f( e^{\tau w}.x)|}{\tau}$$ for $\tau$ in some increasing sequence of positive numbers. We monitor for $\frac{1}{\tau}$-convergence to some $\kappa d_w\in{{\mathbb Z}}d_w$. Then $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)=\kappa d_w$.
Every such computation gives a halfspace $$\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n \,\mid\, w\cdot x\leq h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)\}$$ containing ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$. Since ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ lies in the positive orthant, we may repeat this one or more times to obtain a bounded polytope $P$ containing ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$. Having done so, set ${{\mathcal B}}:=P\cap{{\mathbb N}}^n$.
Suppose that $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ is general in that the values of $w\cdot \alpha$ for $\alpha\in{{\mathcal B}}$ are distinct. This implies that $w$ exposes a vertex $\beta$ of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$. Then a similar (but simpler as $f_w(t^w)=c_\beta t^{h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)}$) scheme as described above will result in the computation of the support function $h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$ and the vertex $\beta$.
By the choice of $w$, the face of ${{\mathcal N}}(f)$ it exposes is a vertex, say $\beta\in{{\mathcal A}}$, and we have $w\cdot\beta=h_{{{\mathcal N}}(f)}(w)$. We may write $$f(t^w)\ =\ c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta}\ +\ \bigl(f(t^w)-c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta}\bigr)\ =\
c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta}\left(1\ +\ \frac{f(t^w)-c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right)\,.$$ Taking absolute value and logarithms, and using that $\log|c_\beta|<\delta$ and $w\cdot\beta=h(w)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\log |f(t^w)| & = & \log \left|c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}\right| +
\log\left|1 + \frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta}
t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right| \label{Eq:absoluteValues}
\\
&\leq& \delta + w\cdot\beta\,\log(t)
+ \log \left|1+ \frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta}
t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right|\,. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Let us estimate the last term. As ${{\mathcal A}}\subset{{\mathcal B}}$, we have $$\left|\frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right|
\ =\
\left|\sum_{\substack{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\\ \alpha \neq \beta}}
\frac{c_\alpha}{c_{\beta}} t^{w\cdot\alpha-w\cdot\beta}\right|
\ \leq\
\sum_{\substack{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\\ \alpha\neq\beta}} e^{\lambda}t^{-d_w}
\ \leq\
|{{\mathcal B}}|\,e^{\lambda - \log(t) d_w} \,.$$ Since $\log(t) > (\lambda + \log |{{\mathcal B}}|+1)/d_w$, we have $ |{{\mathcal B}}|e^{\lambda - \log(t)d_w} < e^{-1}$. Since $\log|1+x| \leq |x|$, we have $$\log\left|1+ \frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right|
\ \leq\
\left|\frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right|
\ \leq\ |{{\mathcal B}}| \,e^{\lambda - d_w \log(t)} \ <\ e^{-1}\,.$$ Finally, as we have $\log(t) > 2(\delta + e^{-1})/d_w$, we obtain $$\label{Eq:half}
\frac{\log|f(t^w)|}{\log(t)} \leq w\cdot\beta + (\delta + e^{-1})\frac{1}{\log(t)}
\ < \ w\cdot\beta + \frac{d_w}{2}.$$ For the other inequality, using and Condition (2) of the theorem, $$\label{Eq:lower_est}
\log|f(t^w)| \ \geq\ \delta-\lambda+\log(t)\, w\cdot\beta
+ \log \left|1+ \frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta}
t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right|\,.$$ Since $$\left|\frac{f(t^w) - c_{\beta} t^{w\cdot\beta}}{c_{\beta}
t^{w\cdot\beta}}\right| \ <\ e^{-1}\,,$$ the logarithm on the right of exceeds $-1$. As $\delta-\lambda\geq 1-\lambda$, we have $$\frac{\log|f(t^w)|}{\log(t)}\ >\
-\frac{\lambda}{\log(t)} + w\cdot\beta\ \geq\
w\cdot\beta-\frac{d_w}{2}\,,$$ since $d_w\log(t)\geq 2\lambda$. Combining this with proves the first statement about $f(t^w)$. The statement about $f(t^{-w})$ has the same proof, replacing $w$ with $-w$.
\[Ex:DiscEval\] Reconsider the polynomial $f(a,b,c) = b^2 - 4ac$ from Ex. \[E:quadratic\] with the vector $w = (-1.2,0.4,3.7)$. Suppose that we take $\lambda = \delta = 2$ and ${{\mathcal B}}= \{a^2,ab,ac,b^2,bc,c^2\}$ which are the columns of the matrix $${{\mathcal B}}\ =\
\left(\begin{matrix}2&1&1&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&2&1&0\\
0&0&1&0&1&2\end{matrix}\right)\,.$$ Then the dot products are $w\cdot {{\mathcal B}}=(-2.4,-0.8,2.5,0.8,4.1,7.4)$, so that $d_w = 1.6$. Since we need $\log(t) > 3.75$, we can take $t=45$, and so $t^w=\left(45^{-1.2}, 45^{0.4}, 45^{3.7}\right)$. We compute $$\frac{\log |f(t^w)|}{\log(t)}\ =\ 2.864
\qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
-\frac{\log |f(t^{-w})|}{\log(t)}\ =\ 0.8016 \,.$$ Thus, the monomials $ac$ and $b^2$ are the vertices ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_w$ and ${{\mathcal N}}(f)_{-w}$, respectively.
Newton polytopes via witness sets {#Sec:NPwitness}
=================================
Let ${{\mathcal H}}\subset {{\mathbb C}}^n$ be an irreducible hypersurface and suppose that we have a witness set representation for ${{\mathcal H}}$. As discussed in Section \[Sec:WitnessSets\], this means that we may compute the intersections of ${{\mathcal H}}\cap \ell$ where $\ell$ is a general line in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$. We explain how to use this information to compute an oracle representation of the Newton polytope of ${{\mathcal H}}$.
The hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}\subset{{\mathbb C}}^n$ is defined by a single irreducible polynomial $$\label{Eq:poly_f}
f\ =\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} c_\alpha x^\alpha \qquad
c_\alpha\in {{\mathbb C}}^\times\,,$$ which is determined by ${{\mathcal H}}$ up to multiplication by a scalar.
Let $a,b\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$ be general points, and consider the parametrized line $${\Blue{\ell_{a,b}}}\ =\ {\Blue{\ell(s)}}\ :=\ \{sa-b\mid s\in{{\mathbb C}}\}\,.$$ Then the solutions to $f(\ell(s))=0$ parameterize the intersection of ${{\mathcal H}}$ with the line $\ell_{a,b}$, which is a witness set for ${{\mathcal H}}$.
Let $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$. For $t$ a positive real number, consider $f(t^w.\ell(s))$, which is $$\label{Eq:swellt}
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}} c_\alpha
(sa_1-b_1)^{\alpha_1} (sa_2-b_2)^{\alpha_2} \dotsb (sa_n-b_n)^{\alpha_n}\,.
t^{w\cdot\alpha}$$ Write ${\Blue{(sa-b)^\alpha}}$ for the product of terms $(sa_i-b_i)^{\alpha_i}$ appearing in the sum.
Let ${\Blue{{{\mathcal F}}}}:={{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w$ be the face of the Newton polytope of ${{\mathcal H}}$ exposed by $w$. If $\alpha\in {{\mathcal F}}$, then $w\cdot \alpha=h(w)$, where $h$ is the support function of ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})$. There is a positive number $d_w$ such that if $\alpha\in {{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus {{\mathcal F}}$, then $w\cdot \alpha\leq h(w)-d_w$. We may rewrite , $$f(t^w. \ell(s))\ =\
t^{h(w)}\sum_{\alpha\in {{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\mathcal F}}} c_\alpha (as-b)^\alpha
\ +\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus {{\mathcal F}}}c_\alpha (as-b)^\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha}\ .$$ Multiplying by $t^{-h(w)}$ and rewriting using the definition of $f_w$ gives $$\label{Eq:separated}
t^{-h(w)}f(t^w. \ell(s))\ =\ f_w(\ell(s))
\ +\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus{{\mathcal F}}}c_\alpha (as-b)^\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha-h(w)}\ .$$ Observe that the exponent of $t$ in each term of the sum over ${{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus{{\mathcal F}}$ is at most $-d_w$.
As $s\mapsto\ell(s)$ and $s\mapsto t^w.\ell(s)$ are general parametrized lines in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$, the zeroes (in $s$) of $f(t^w.\ell(s))$ and $f_w(\ell(s))$ parameterize witness sets for $f$ and $f_w$, respectively. The following summarizes this discussion.
\[L:facial\_limit\] In the limit as $t\to\infty$, there are $\deg(f)-\deg(f_w)$ points of the witness set $f(t^w.\ell(s))=0$ which diverge to $\infty$ (in $s$) and the remaining points converge to the witness set $f_w(\ell(s))=0$.
When ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w$ is a vertex $\beta$, then $f_w=c_\beta x^\beta$ (and $\deg(f_w)=|\beta|$), and $$f_w(\ell(s))\ =\ c_\beta (sa_1-b_1)^{\beta_1}(sa_2-b_2)^{\beta_2}
\dotsb (sa_n-b_n)^{\beta_n}\ =\
c_\beta(sa-b)^\beta\,.$$ In particular, there will be $\beta_i$ points of $f(t^w.\ell(s))=0$ converging to $b_i/a_i$ as $t\to \infty$, and so Lemma \[L:facial\_limit\] gives a method to compute the vertices $\beta$ of ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})$. We give some definitions to make these notions more precise.
Let $a\in({{\mathbb C}}^\times)^n$ and $b\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$ be general in that the univariate polynomial $f(\ell_{a,b}(s))$ has $d=\deg({{\mathcal H}})$ nondegenerate roots, and if $i\neq j$, then $b_i/a_i\neq b_j/a_j$. For any $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ with ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w=\{\beta\}$, consider the bivariate function ${\Blue{g_{a,b,w}(s,t)}}=g(s,t):=f(t^w.\ell_{a,b}(s))$. Since $g(s,1)$ has $d$ simple zeroes, there are at most finitely many positive numbers $t$ for which $g(s,t)$ does not have $d$ simple zeroes. Therefore, there is a $t_0>0$ and $d$ disjoint analytic curves $s(t)\in{{\mathbb C}}$ for $t>t_0$ which parameterize the zeroes of $g(s,t)$ for $t>t_0$ (that is, $g(s(t),t)\equiv 0$ for $t>t_0$).
By Lemma \[L:facial\_limit\] and our choice of $a,b$, for each $i=1,\dotsc,n$, exactly $\beta_i$ of these curves will converge to $b_i/a_i$ as $t\to\infty$, for each $i=1,\dotsc,n$, while the remaining $d-|\beta|$ curves will diverge to infinity. We give an estimate of the rates of these convergences/divergences.
Let $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ be general in that ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w$ is a vertex, $\beta$. Let $d_w$ be as above, and set $${\Blue{C}}\ :=\ \frac{\max\{|c_\alpha|\::\: \alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\}}{|c_\beta|}\,.$$ Furthermore, set ${\Blue{a_{\min}}}:=\min\{1,|a_i|\::\: i=1,\dotsc,n\}$, ${\Blue{a_{\max}}}:=\max\{1,|a_i|\::\: i=1,\dotsc,n\}$, and the same, ${\Blue{b_{\min}}}$ and ${\Blue{b_{\max}}}$, for $b$. Finally, for each $i=1,\dotsc,n$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_i&:=& \min\left\{ a_{\min}\,,\,
\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{b_i}{a_i}-\frac{b_j}{a_j}\right| \::\: i\neq j\right\}
\ ,\qquad\mbox{\rm and}\\
\Gamma_i&:=& \max\left\{ \frac{2}{a_{\max}}\,,\,
\left|\frac{b_i}{a_i}-\frac{b_j}{a_j}\right| \::\: i\neq j\right\}\ .
\rule{0pt}{20pt}
\end{aligned}$$ We give two results about the rate of convergence/divergence of the analytic curves $s(t)$ of zeroes of $g(s,t)$, and then discuss how these may be used to compute ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})$.
\[thm:bounded\] With the above definitions, suppose that $s\colon (t_0,\infty)\to {{\mathbb C}}$ is a continuous function such that $g_{a,b,w}(s(t),t)\equiv 0$ for $t>t_0$ and that $s(t)$ converges to $b_i/a_i$ as $t\to\infty$. Let $t_1\geq t_0$ be a number such that if $t>t_1$ then $$\label{Eq:first_estimate}
\left| s(t)\ -\ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\right|\ \leq\ \gamma_i\,.$$ Then, for all $t>t_1$, $$\label{Eq:first_subexponential}
\left| s(t)\ -\ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\right|^{\beta_i}\ \leq\
t^{-d_w}\cdot C\cdot |{{\mathcal A}}|\cdot
\left(\frac{a_{\max}}{a_{\min}}\left(1 + \frac{\Gamma_i}{\gamma_i}\right)\right)^d\ .$$
\[thm:unbounded\] With the above definitions, suppose that $s\colon (t_0,\infty)\to {{\mathbb C}}$ is a continuous function such that $g_{a,b,w}(s(t),t)=0$ for $t>t_0$ and that $s(t)$ diverges to $\infty$ as $t\to\infty$. Let $t_1\geq t_0$ be a number such that if $t>t_1$ then $$\label{Eq:second_estimate}
| s(t)|\ >\ \frac{2 b_{\max}}{a_{\min}}\ \geq\ 2 \,.$$ Then, for all $t>t_1$, $$\label{Eq:second_subexponential}
|s(t)|^{d-|\beta|}\ \geq\
\frac{t^{d_w}}{C\cdot |{{\mathcal A}}|}\cdot
\left(\frac{a_{\min}}{2(a_{\max}+a_{\min})}\right)^d\ .$$
\[Rem:witness\] Theorems \[thm:bounded\] and \[thm:unbounded\] lead to an algorithm to determine vertices of ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})$. First, choose $a,b\in{{\mathbb C}}^n$ as above and compute $\gamma_i$, $b_{\max}$, and $a_{\min}$. For a general $w\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$, follow points in the witness set ${{\mathcal H}}\cap(t^w.\ell_{a,b}(s))$ as $t$ increases until the inequalities and are satisfied by the different points of the witness sets, at some $t_1$. This will give likely values for the integer components of the vertex $\beta$ exposed by $w$. Next, continue following these points until the subexponential convergence in and is observed, which will confirm the value of $\beta$.
If we do not observe clustering of points of the witness set at $s=b_i/a_i$ and $s=\infty$, then we discard $w$, as it is not sufficiently general. That is, either it exposes a positive dimensional face of ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})$ or else it is very close to doing so in that $d_w$ is too small.
Fix $t>t_1$. Since $0=g_{a,b,w}(s(t),t)=f(t^w.\ell_{a,b}(s(t)))$ and $f_w(x)=c_\beta x^\beta$, gives $$\begin{aligned}
| (s(t) a - b)^{\beta}| &\leq & \nonumber
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}} t^{w\cdot\alpha-w\cdot\beta}\cdot
\frac{|c_\alpha|}{|c_\beta|}\cdot |(s(t) a - b)^\alpha|\\ \label{Eq:est_1}
&\leq& t^{-d_w}\cdot C\cdot \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}} |(s(t) a -b)^\alpha|\,.
\end{aligned}$$ For any $i$ and $j$ we have $$|s(t) a_j - b_j|\ =\ |a_j|\cdot |s(t) - \tfrac{b_j}{a_j}|\ \leq\ a_{\max}
\bigl| s(t)-\tfrac{b_i}{a_i}\ +\ \tfrac{b_i}{a_i}-\tfrac{b_j}{a_j}\bigr|
\ \leq\ a_{\max}(\gamma_i+\Gamma_i)\,.$$ Since $2\leq a_{\max}\Gamma_i$ and if $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$, then $|\alpha|\leq d$, we have $$\label{Eq:est_3}
|(s(t) a -b)^\alpha|\ \leq\ \bigl(a_{\max}(\gamma_i+\Gamma_i)\bigr)^d\,.$$ With , this becomes $$\label{Eq:new_est}
| (s(t) a - b)^{\beta}| \ \leq\
t^{-d_w} \cdot C\cdot |{{\mathcal A}}| \cdot \bigr(a_{\max}(\gamma_i+\Gamma_i)\bigr)^d\,.$$ If $j\neq i$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|s(t) a_j - b_j| \ =\ |a_j|\cdot \bigl|s(t)- \tfrac{b_j}{a_j}\bigr|
&=& |a_{j}|\cdot \bigl|s(t) - \tfrac{b_i}{a_i} + \tfrac{b_i}{a_i} - \tfrac{b_j}{a_j}\bigr|\\
&\geq& a_{\min}\cdot \Bigl| \bigl|\tfrac{b_i}{a_i} - \tfrac{b_j}{a_j}\bigr|\ -\
\bigl| s(t) - \tfrac{b_i}{a_i} \bigr| \Bigr|\\
&\geq& a_{\min}\cdot (2\gamma_i\ -\ \gamma_i)\ =\ a_{\min} \gamma_i\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $a_{\min}\gamma_i\leq 1$ and $|\beta|\leq d$, we have $$\label{Eq:est_2}
\prod_{j\neq i} \bigl|(s(t) a_j - b_j)^{\beta_j}\bigr|
\ \geq\ (a_{\min} \gamma_i)^{d-\beta_i}\,.$$ Observe that we have $$\left| s(t)\ -\ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\right|^{\beta_i}\ =\
\frac{1}{|a_i|^{\beta_i}}\cdot|s(t) a_i - b_i|^{\beta_i}\ =\
\frac{1}{|a_i|^{\beta_i}} \cdot
\frac{|(s(t)a-b)^\beta|}{\prod_{j\neq i} \bigl|(s(t)a_j-b_j)^{\beta_j}\bigr|}\,.$$ Combining this with and gives $$\left| s(t)\ -\ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\right|^{\beta_i}\ \leq\
t^{-d_w}\cdot C\cdot|{{\mathcal A}}|\cdot \bigl(a_{\max}(\gamma_i+\Gamma_i)\bigr)^d
\cdot\frac{1}{a_{\min}^{\beta_i}}\cdot
\frac{1}{(a_{\min} \gamma_i)^{d-\beta_i}}\ .$$
Since $1\geq a_{\min}\geq\gamma_i$ and $d\geq\beta_i\geq 0$, we have $$\left| s(t)\ -\ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\right|^{\beta_i}\ \leq\
t^{-d_w}\cdot C\cdot |{{\mathcal A}}|\cdot
\left(\frac{a_{\max}}{a_{\min}}\left(1 + \frac{\Gamma_i}{\gamma_i}\right)\right)^d\ ,$$ which completes the proof.
Fix $t>t_1$. Then $|s(t)|>2$. Since $g_{a,b,w}(s(t),t)=0$, we have $$| c_\beta t^{w\cdot\beta} (s(t)a-b)^\beta|\ =\
\Bigl| \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}}
c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha}(s(t)a-b)^\alpha\Bigr|
\ \leq\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}}
|c_\alpha t^{w\cdot\alpha}(s(t)a-b)^\alpha|\,.$$ Factoring out powers of $|s(t)|$, we obtain $$t^{w\cdot\beta} |s(t)|^{|\beta|}|c_\beta|\, |(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\beta| \ \leq\
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}} t^{w\cdot\alpha} |s(t)|^{|\alpha|}
|c_\alpha|\,|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\alpha|\,.$$ Since $s(t)\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$, we must have $d-|\beta|>0$. Dividing by most of the left hand side and by $|s(t)|^d$ and using the definition of $d_w$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|s(t)|^{|\beta|-d}& \leq& \nonumber
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}} t^{w\cdot\alpha-w\cdot\beta}
|s(t)|^{|\alpha|-d}
\frac{|c_\alpha|}{|c_\beta|}\,
\frac{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\alpha|}{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\beta|}\\ \label{Eq:Need_this}
&\leq& t^{-d_w}\cdot C\cdot
\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\smallsetminus\{\beta\}} |s(t)|^{|\alpha|-d}
\frac{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\alpha|}{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\beta|}\ .
\end{aligned}$$ We estimate the terms in this last sum. As $|s(t)|\geq 2$, for any $i$ we have $$|a_i-b_i\,s(t)^{-1}|\ \leq\ |a_i| + |b_i\, s(t)^{-1}|
\ \leq\ a_{\max} + b_{\max}\,,$$ and so $|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\alpha|\leq (a_{\max}+b_{\max})^{|\alpha|}$. Similarly, for any $i$ we have $$|a_i-b_i\,s(t)^{-1}|\ \geq\ |a_i|-|b_i\,s(t)^{-1}| \ \geq\
a_{\min}\ -\ b_{\max}\cdot\frac{a_{\min}}{2 b_{\max}}\ =\ \frac{a_{\min}}{2}\ .$$ Thus $$\frac{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\alpha|}{|(a-b\,s(t)^{-1})^\beta|}\ \leq\
(a_{\max}+b_{\max})^{|\alpha|} \bigl(\frac{2}{a_{\min}}\bigr)^{|\beta|}
\ <\ \Bigr(\frac{2(a_{\max}+b_{\max})}{a_{\min}}\Bigr)^d\,.$$ Substituting this into completes the proof of the theorem.
We demonstrate the convergence and divergence bounds by considering the polynomial $f(x,y) = x^2+3x+2y-5$ with the hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}:={{\mathcal V}}(f)$ it defines. We have ${{\mathcal A}}= \{1,x,y,x^2\}$ with $|{{\mathcal A}}| = 4$ and will take $C = 5$, $a = (2+\sqrt{-1},3-2\sqrt{-1})$, $b = (-1-\sqrt{-1},2-3\sqrt{-1})$, $a_{\min} = 1$, $a_{\max} = \sqrt{13}$, $b_{\min} = 1$, and $b_{\max} = \sqrt{13}$. Additionally, $\gamma_i = \Gamma_i \approx 1.5342$ for $i = 1,2$.
First, consider the vector $w = (1,1)$ for which ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w = (2,0)$ and $d_w = 1$. We have $g_{a,b}(s,t)=f(t\cdot(sa_1-b_1),t\cdot(sa_2-b_2))$, and $g_{a,b}(s,t)=0$ has two nonsingular solutions for all $t > 0$. Since ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w = (2,0)$ both solutions paths converge to $b_1/a_1$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. The following table compares the actual values for the two solution paths, $s_1(t)$ and $s_2(t)$, with the upper bound (\[Eq:first\_subexponential\]) in Theorem \[thm:bounded\]. In particular, this table shows $|s_i(t) - b_1/a_1|^2 \approx 2.2 t^{-1}$ whereas the upper bound is $1040 t^{-1}$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$t$ & $|s_1(t) - b_1/a_1|^2$ & $|s_2(t) - b_1/a_1|^2$ & Upper bound (\ref{Eq:first_subexponential}) \\
\hline
$1e2$ & 0.26 & 0.19 & 10.4 \\
\hline
$1e4$ & 2.2e-4 & 2.2e-4 & 0.104 \\
\hline
$1e6$ & 2.2e-6 & 2.2e-6 & 1.04e-3 \\
\hline
$1e8$ & 2.2e-8 & 2.2e-8 & 1.04e-5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
We now consider the vector $w = (-1,-1)$ for which ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w = (0,0)$ and $d_w = 2$. With the same $a,b$ as above, $g_{a,b}(s,t)=f(t^{-1}\cdot(sa_1-b_1), t^{-1}\cdot(sa_2-b_2))$ and $g_{a,b}(s,t)=0$ has two nonsingular solutions for all $t > 0$. Since ${{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal H}})_w = (0,0)$, both solution paths diverge to $\infty$ as $t\to\infty$. The following table compares the actual values for the two solution paths, $s_1(t)$ and $s_2(t)$, and the lower bound (\[Eq:second\_subexponential\]) in Theorem \[thm:unbounded\]. This table shows $|s_i(t)|^2 \approx t^2/8.71$ whereas the lower bound is $t^2/4160$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$t$ & $|s_1(t)|^2$ & $|s_2(t)|^2$ & Lower bound (\ref{Eq:second_subexponential}) \\
\hline
$1e2$ & 1.17e3 & 1.13e3 & 2.40 \\
\hline
$1e4$ & 1.15e7 & 1.15e7 & 2.40e4 \\
\hline
$1e6$ & 1.15e11 & 1.15e11 & 2.40e8 \\
\hline
$1e8$ & 1.15e15 & 1.15e15 & 2.40e12 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
Even Lüroth quartics {#Sec:Examples}
====================
Associating a plane quartic curve to a defining equation identifies the set of plane quartics with ${{\mathbb P}}^{14}$. This projective space has an interesting Lüroth hypersurface whose general point is a , which is a quartic that contains the ten vertices of some pentalateral (arrangement of five lines). The equation for this hypersurface is the , which has degree 54 [@Mor19] and is invariant under the induced action of $PGL(3)$ on ${{\mathbb P}}(S^4 {{\mathbb C}}^3)\simeq{{\mathbb P}}^{14}$. A discussion of this remarkable hypersurface, with references, is given in [@Dolgachev Remark 6.3.31].
We use the algorithm of Section \[Sec:NPwitness\] to investigate the , the Newton polytope of the Lüroth invariant. While we are not yet able to compute the full Lüroth polytope, we can compute some of its vertices, including all those on a particular three-dimensional face. This face is the Newton polytope of the Lüroth hypersurface in the five-dimensional family of whose monomials are squares, $$\label{Eq:even}
{{\mathcal E}}\ :=\
\{ q_{400}x^4+q_{040}y^4+q_{004}z^4+2q_{220}x^2y^2 + 2q_{202}x^2z^2+2q_{022}y^2z^2\::\:
[q_{400},\dotsc,q_{022}]\in{{\mathbb P}}^5\}\,.$$ (Note the coefficients of 2 on the last three terms. This scaling tempers the coefficients in the equation $f_5$ in Figure \[F:polys\] for the even Lüroth quartics.) We show that this Newton polytope is a bipyramid that is affinely isomorphic to $$\label{Eq:bipyramid}
{{\rm conv}}\left\{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\#2\\#3\end{smallmatrix}\right)},{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\#2\\#3\end{smallmatrix}\right)},{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\#2\\#3\end{smallmatrix}\right)},{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\#2\\#3\end{smallmatrix}\right)},
{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\#2\\#3\end{smallmatrix}\right)}\right\}
\quad = \quad
\raisebox{-27pt}{\includegraphics[height=60pt]{bipyramid.eps}}$$ We will furthermore use the numerical interpolation method of [@BHMPS] to compute the equation for the hypersurface in ${{\mathcal E}}$ of even Lüroth quartics.
If $\ell_1,\dotsc,\ell_5$ are general linear forms on ${{\mathbb P}}^2$, then the quartic with equation $$\label{Eq:Lueroth}
\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3\ell_4\ell_5\cdot
(\tfrac{1}{\ell_1}+\tfrac{1}{\ell_2}+\tfrac{1}{\ell_3}
+\tfrac{1}{\ell_4}+\tfrac{1}{\ell_5})\ =\ 0\,$$ contains the ten points of pairwise intersection of the five lines defined by $\ell_1,\dotsc,\ell_5$. Counting constants suggests that there is a 14-dimensional family of such quartics, but Lüroth showed [@Lu69] that the set of such quartics forms a hypersurface in ${{\mathbb P}}^{14}$.
The formula exhibits the as the closure of the intersection of a general affine hyperplane ${{\mathfrak M}}\subset{{\mathbb C}}^{15}$ with the image of the map $$\label{Eq:g}
\begin{array}{rcl}
g\ \colon\ ({{\mathbb C}}^3)^5 &\longrightarrow&{{\mathbb C}}^{15}\\ \rule{0pt}{15pt}
(\ell_1,\dotsc,\ell_5)&\longmapsto&{\displaystyle \prod_{i=1}^5\ell_i \cdot \sum_{i=1}^5 \tfrac{1}{\ell_i}}
\end{array}$$
The codimension of ${\mathcal{LH}}$ and the dimension of the general fiber (both $1$) are easily verified using this parameterization [@WitnessProj Lemma 3]. In particular, we used the method of [@WitnessProj] described in § \[Sec:WitnessSets\] with Bertini [@BHSW06] to compute a witness set for ${\mathcal{LH}}=\overline{g({{\mathbb C}}^{15})\cap{{\mathfrak M}}}$. This witness set verifies that the degree of ${\mathcal{LH}}$ is $54$. As shown in [@WitnessMemb], this witness set also provides the ability to test membership in ${\mathcal{LH}}$ by tracking at most $54$ paths.
The space ${{\mathbb C}}^{15}$ of quartic polynomials has coordinates given by the coefficients of the monomials in a quartic, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{picture}(80,10)\put(0,0){${\displaystyle\sum_{i+j+k=4} q_{ijk}x^iy^jz^k}$}\end{picture}
\ &=& q_{400}x^4+q_{310}x^3y+q_{301}x^3z+q_{220}x^2y^2+q_{211}x^2yz\\
&&+q_{202}x^2z^2+q_{130}xy^3+q_{121}xy^2z+q_{112}xyz^2+q_{103}xz^3\\
&&+q_{040}y^2+q_{031}y^3z+q_{022}y^2z^2+q_{013}yz^3+q_{004}z^4\,.
\end{aligned}$$ In theory, we may use the algorithm of Remark \[Rem:witness\] to determine the Newton polytope of ${\mathcal{LH}}$. While difficult in practice, we may compute some vertices. For example, $$q_{400}^6q_{301}^6q_{121}^{30}q_{013}^{12}\ \leftrightarrow\
(6,0,6,0,0,0,0,30,0,0,0,0,0,12,0)\,,$$ is the extreme monomial in the direction $$(3,-5,3,2,3,-2,-1,4,-3,-2,3,1,-5,3,-5)\,.$$ By symmetry, this gives five other vertices, $$q_{400}^6q_{310}^6q_{112}^{30}q_{031}^{12}\,,\,
q_{040}^6q_{031}^6q_{211}^{30}q_{103}^{12}\,,\,
q_{040}^6q_{130}^6q_{112}^{30}q_{301}^{12}\,,\,
q_{004}^6q_{013}^6q_{211}^{30}q_{130}^{12}\,,\,
q_{004}^6q_{103}^6q_{121}^{30}q_{310}^{12}\,.$$
It is dramatically more feasible to compute the Newton polytope of the hypersurface of Lüroth quartics in the space ${{\mathcal E}}$ of even quartics. This is the face of the Lüroth polytope that is extreme in the direction of $v$, where $$v\cdot(q_{400},q_{310},\dotsc,q_{004})\ =\
-\sum\{ q_{ijk}\mid \mbox{one of $i$, $j$, $k$ is odd}\}\,.$$ Obtaining a witness set for the even Lüroth quartics, ${\Blue{{\mathcal{EH}}}}:={{\mathcal E}}\cap{\mathcal{LH}}$, is straightforward; we reparameterize using the $2$’s in the definition of ${{\mathcal E}}$ and include the linear equations $$q_{ijk}\ =\ 0\qquad\mbox{where one of $i$, $j$, $k$ is odd}$$ among the affine linear equations ${{\mathcal L}}\colon{{\mathbb C}}^{15}\to{{\mathbb C}}^{13}$ used for the witness set computation. When performing this specialization, some of the 54 points from ${\mathcal{LH}}$ coalesce. More precisely, six points of ${\mathcal{EH}}$ arise as the coalescence of four points each, nine points of ${\mathcal{EH}}$ arise the coalescence of two points each, and the remaining twelve points remain distinct. This implies that ${\mathcal{EH}}$ is reducible with non-reduced components.
Numerical irreducible decomposition shows that ${\mathcal{EH}}$ consists of eight components, only one of which is reduced. However, as we are using witness sets for images of maps [@WitnessProj] (as described in § \[Sec:WitnessSets\]) the numerical computations are not performed in ${{\mathcal E}}$, but rather on the smooth incidence variety of the map $g$ .
We first determine the Newton polytope of each component and then use interpolation [@BHMPS] to recover the defining equation for each component. For $f_1,\dotsc,f_5$ as given in Figure \[F:polys\], ${\mathcal{EH}}$ is defined by $$\label{E:EH}
q_{400}^4\cdot q_{040}^4\cdot q_{004}^4\cdot f_1^4\cdot f_2^2\cdot f_3^2\cdot f_4^2\cdot f_5 \ = 0\,.$$
$$\begin{aligned}
f_1 &=& q_{400} q_{040} q_{004} - q_{400} q_{022}^2 - q_{040} q_{202}^2 - q_{004} q_{220}^2 - 2 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022} \\
f_2 &=& q_{400} q_{040} q_{004} - q_{400} q_{022}^2 + 3 q_{040} q_{202}^2 - q_{004} q_{220}^2 + 2 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022} \\
f_3 &=& q_{400} q_{040} q_{004} + 3 q_{400} q_{022}^2 - q_{040} q_{202}^2 - q_{004} q_{220}^2 + 2 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022} \\
f_4 &=& q_{400} q_{040} q_{004} - q_{400} q_{022}^2 - q_{040} q_{202}^2 + 3 q_{004} q_{220}^2 + 2 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022} \\
f_5 &=&
2401 q_{400}^4 q_{040}^4 q_{004}^4
-196 q_{400}^4 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^3 q_{022}^2
+102 q_{400}^4 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{022}^4
-4 q_{400}^4 q_{040} q_{004} q_{022}^6\\
&&
+~q_{400}^4 q_{022}^8
-196 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^4 q_{004}^3 q_{202}^2
-196 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^4 q_{220}^2
+840 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^3 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022}\\
&&
-~820 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^2 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^2
-820 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^3 q_{220}^2 q_{022}^2
+232 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022}^3\\
&&
-~12 q_{400}^3 q_{040}^2 q_{004} q_{202}^2 q_{022}^4
-12 q_{400}^3 q_{040} q_{004}^2 q_{220}^2 q_{022}^4
-40 q_{400}^3 q_{040} q_{004} q_{220} q_{202} q_{022}^5\\
&&
+~4 q_{400}^3 q_{040} q_{202}^2 q_{022}^6
+4 q_{400}^3 q_{004} q_{220}^2 q_{022}^6
-8 q_{400}^3 q_{220} q_{202} q_{022}^7
+102 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^4 q_{004}^2 q_{202}^4\\
&&
-~820 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^3 q_{220}^2 q_{202}^2
+232 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^3 q_{004}^2 q_{220} q_{202}^3 q_{022}
-12 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^3 q_{004} q_{202}^4 q_{022}^2\\
&&
+~102 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^4 q_{220}^4
+232 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^3 q_{220}^3 q_{202} q_{022}
+128 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^2 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^2\\
&&
-~80 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^2 q_{004} q_{220} q_{202}^3 q_{022}^3
+6 q_{400}^2 q_{040}^2 q_{202}^4 q_{022}^4
-12 q_{400}^2 q_{040} q_{004}^3 q_{220}^4 q_{022}^2\\
&&
-~80 q_{400}^2 q_{040} q_{004}^2 q_{220}^3 q_{202} q_{022}^3
+220 q_{400}^2 q_{040} q_{004} q_{220}^2 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^4
-24 q_{400}^2 q_{040} q_{220} q_{202}^3 q_{022}^5\\
&&
+~6 q_{400}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^4 q_{022}^4
-24 q_{400}^2 q_{004} q_{220}^3 q_{202} q_{022}^5
+24 q_{400}^2 q_{220}^2 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^6\\
&&
-~4 q_{400} q_{040}^4 q_{004} q_{202}^6
-12 q_{400} q_{040}^3 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^2 q_{202}^4
-40 q_{400} q_{040}^3 q_{004} q_{220} q_{202}^5 q_{022}\\
&&
+~4 q_{400} q_{040}^3 q_{202}^6 q_{022}^2
-12 q_{400} q_{040}^2 q_{004}^3 q_{220}^4 q_{202}^2
-80 q_{400} q_{040}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^3 q_{202}^3 q_{022}\\
&&
+~220 q_{400} q_{040}^2 q_{004} q_{220}^2 q_{202}^4 q_{022}^2
-24 q_{400} q_{040}^2 q_{220} q_{202}^5 q_{022}^3
-4 q_{400} q_{040} q_{004}^4 q_{220}^6\\
&&
-~40 q_{400} q_{040} q_{004}^3 q_{220}^5 q_{202} q_{022}
+220 q_{400} q_{040} q_{004}^2 q_{220}^4 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^2
-272 q_{400} q_{040} q_{004} q_{220}^3 q_{202}^3 q_{022}^3\\
&&
+~48 q_{400} q_{040} q_{220}^2 q_{202}^4 q_{022}^4
+4 q_{400} q_{004}^3 q_{220}^6 q_{022}^2
-24 q_{400} q_{004}^2 q_{220}^5 q_{202} q_{022}^3\\
&&
+~48 q_{400} q_{004} q_{220}^4 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^4
-32 q_{400} q_{220}^3 q_{202}^3 q_{022}^5
+q_{040}^4 q_{202}^8
+4 q_{040}^3 q_{004} q_{220}^2 q_{202}^6\\
&&
-~8 q_{040}^3 q_{220} q_{202}^7 q_{022}
+6 q_{040}^2 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^4 q_{202}^4
-24 q_{040}^2 q_{004} q_{220}^3 q_{202}^5 q_{022}
+24 q_{040}^2 q_{220}^2 q_{202}^6 q_{022}^2\\
&&
+~4 q_{040} q_{004}^3 q_{220}^6 q_{202}^2
-24 q_{040} q_{004}^2 q_{220}^5 q_{202}^3 q_{022}
+48 q_{040} q_{004} q_{220}^4 q_{202}^4 q_{022}^2\\
&&
-32~q_{040} q_{220}^3 q_{202}^5 q_{022}^3
+q_{004}^4 q_{220}^8
-8 q_{004}^3 q_{220}^7 q_{202} q_{022}
+24 q_{004}^2 q_{220}^6 q_{202}^2 q_{022}^2\\
&&
-~32 q_{004} q_{220}^5 q_{202}^3 q_{022}^3
+16 q_{220}^4 q_{202}^4 q_{022}^4\,.\vspace{-5pt}\end{aligned}$$
For completeness, we used the algorithm of [@WitnessMemb] to verify that a random element of each hypersurface ${{\mathcal V}}(f_i)$ lies on ${\mathcal{LH}}$.
Observe that $f_1,f_2,f_3$, and $f_4$ all have the same support and therefore the same Newton polytope, $\Delta$. Every integer point of $\Delta$ corresponds to a monomial in these polynomials and all are extreme. The Newton polytope of $f_5$ is $4\Delta$ and it has 65 nonzero terms, which correspond to all the integer points in $4\Delta$. Thus the Newton polytope of ${\mathcal{EH}}$ is $14\Delta+\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the exponent vector of $q_{400}^4q_{040}^4q_{004}^4$. To complete the identification of ${{\mathcal N}}({\mathcal{EH}})$, consider the integer points $\{O,A,B,C,D\}$ of $\Delta$, which are on the left in Table \[T:one\]
$ \begin{array}{ccccccc}
&q_{400}&q_{040}&q_{004}&q_{022}&q_{202}&q_{220}\\
O&0&0&0&1&1&1\\
A&1&0&0&2&0&0\\
B&0&1&0&0&2&0\\
C&0&0&1&0&0&2\\
D&1&1&1&0&0&0\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
&q_{400}&q_{040}&q_{004}&q_{022}&q_{202}&q_{220}\\
o&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
a&1&0&0&1&-1&-1\\
b&0&1&0&-1&1&-1\\
c&0&0&1&-1&-1&1\\
d&1&1&1&-1&-1&-1\end{array}
$
Replacing $\{O,\dotsc,D\}$ by their differences with $O$ gives the points $o,a,b,c,d$ on the right in Table \[T:one\]. Note that $a+b+c=d$. Projecting to the first three coordinates is an isomorphism of the integer span of $a,b,c$ with ${{\mathbb Z}}^3$, and shows that $\Delta$ is affinely isomorphic to the bipyramid Using , we can determine which Edge quartics [@Edge38; @PSV11] are Lüroth quartics since the family of Edge quartics ${\mathcal{ED}}$ is contained in ${{\mathcal E}}$ with $${\mathcal{ED}}\ :=\ \{{{\mathcal V}}(s(x^4+y^4+z^4)-t(y^2z^2+x^2z^2+x^2y^2)) \::\: [s,t]\in{{\mathbb P}}^1\}\,.$$ Identifying ${\mathcal{ED}}$ with ${{\mathbb P}}^1$, and evaluating at gives the equation for ${\mathcal{ED}}\cap{\mathcal{LH}}$, $$s^{12}(s+t)^4(2s-t)^{16}(7s+t)(2s^2+st+t^2)^6(28s^3+8s^2t+3st^2+t^3)^3\ =\ 0\,.
$$ Set $\omega := \sqrt[3]{297 + 24 \sqrt{159}}$. Besides the point $[0,1]$, the eight points $[1,t]$ corresponding to Edge quartics that are Lüroth quartics are $$\begin{aligned}
t_1 &=& -1\,,\\
t_2 &=& 2\,,\\
t_3 &=& -7\,,\\
t_4 &=& \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{-7} - 1)\,,\\
t_5 &=& \frac{-1}{2}(1 + \sqrt{-7})\,,\\
t_6 &=& \frac{1}{3\omega}(15 - 3 \omega - \omega^2)\,, \\
t_7 &=& \frac{1}{6\omega}(\omega^2 - 6\omega - 15 + \sqrt{-3}~(\omega^2 + 15))\,,\\
t_8 &=& \frac{1}{6\omega}(\omega^2 - 6\omega - 15 - \sqrt{-3}~(\omega^2 + 15))\,.\end{aligned}$$
In particular, there are four real values $t_1,t_2,t_3,t_6$ and four nonreal values $t_4,t_5,t_7,t_8$. The Edge Lüroth quartic corresponding to $[0,1]$ has three real points, each of which is singular. Also, except for $t=t_2=2$, which is the union of four lines $$x - y + z\ =\ x - y - z \ =\ x + y - z\ =\ x + y + z\ =\ 0\,,$$ the Edge Lüroth quartic corresponding to $[1,t_i]$ is smooth with no real points.
Conclusion {#Sec:Conclusion}
==========
We presented two algorithms for computing the Newton polytope of a hypersurface ${{\mathcal H}}$ given numerically. The first assumes that we may evaluate a polynomial defining ${{\mathcal H}}$ while the second uses a witness set representation of ${{\mathcal H}}$. The second is illustrated through the determination of the polynomial defining the hypersurface of even Lüroth quartics (which gives a face of the Lüroth poytope), along with some other vertices of the Lüroth polytope. Implementing these algorithms remains a future project.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Institut Mittag-Leffler (Djursholm, Sweden) for support and hospitality, and Bernd Sturmfels for his questions during this program regarding the numerical computation of Newton polytopes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'High-pressure and variable temperature single crystal synchrotron X-ray measurements combined with first-principles based molecular dynamics simulations study diffuse scattering in the relaxor ferroelectric system PSN (PbSc$_{1/2}$Nb$_{1/2}$O$_3$). Constant temperature experiments show pressure induced transition to the relaxor phase at different temperatures characterized by butterfly and rod shaped diffuse scattering around the $\{$h00$\}$ and $\{$hh0$\}$ Bragg spots, respectively. The simulations reproduce the observed diffuse scattering features as well as their pressure-temperature behavior, and show that they arise from polarization correlations between chemically-ordered regions, which in previous simulations were shown to behave as polar nanoregions. Simulations also exhibit radial diffuse scattering (elongated towards and away from [**Q**]{}=(000)), that persists even in the paraelectric phase, consistent with previous neutron experiments on (PbMg$_{1/3}$Nb$_{2/3}$O$_3$) (PMN).'
author:
- 'P. Ganesh $^{1}$, E. Cockayne $^{2}$, M. Ahart $^{1}$, R. E. Cohen $^{1}$, B. Burton $^{2}$, R. J. Hemley $^{1}$, Yang Ren $^{3}$, Wenge Yang $^{3}$, Z-G Ye $^{4}$'
bibliography:
- 'PSN9.bib'
title: Origin of Diffuse Scattering in Relaxor Ferroelectrics
---
Single crystal relaxors have huge electromechanical coupling, and show much promise for ultrasonic transducer applications [@ParkShrout]. They have broad frequency and temperature dependent dielectric maxima, which in the special case of relaxor-ferroelectrics [@Samara1; @Samara2] drops to a much lower value below the ferroelectric transition temperature ($T_{FE}$). The origin of the relaxor phase has been a topic of intense research for over a decade. From refractive index measurements, Burns et al. [@Burns] suggested that formation of polar clusters below a characteristic temperature, now called the Burns temperature ($T_d$) [@Burns], gives rise to dielectric dispersion, which was confirmed experimentally [@Jeong]. These clusters thought to be a few nanometers in size are called polar nanoregions (PNRs).
Recent X-ray and neutron experiments show characteristic shapes of diffuse scattering in the relaxor phase of several lead based relaxors [@GXuPcake; @MuhtarPZNPT; @PierrePZN; @PGehring2009] absent in their paraelectric or ferroelectric phases. The main observed feature is anisotropic diffuse scattering around the Bragg peaks along $<$110$>$ directions. The ferroelectric phase shows weak streaks similar to BaTiO$_3$ and KNbO$_3$, but rotated by 45-degrees. The paraelectric phase only shows radial diffuse scattering. Several hypotheses previously advanced to explain the characteristic shapes [@GXuPcake; @Pasciak; @Vakhrushev; @Welberry], invoke some type of artificial anisotropic features such as anisotropic strain, correlated atomic shifts, or domain boundaries to generate the experimentally observed anisotropic diffuse scattering features. Fitting the shapes of diffuse scattering features is not sufficient to uniquely determine the nature of the microstructural feature that give rise to them. Incorporating realistic polarization fluctuations via first-principles derived models provide a basis for clarifying the nature of the PNR in relaxors and experimental diffuse scattering observations provide a critical test for any theoretical model. In this Letter, we clarify the microstructural origin of diffuse scattering features in the relaxor- and the paraelectric- phases of PSN, and related materials, by combining single crystal X-ray diffraction experiments and first-principles-based molecular-dynamics simulations [@Tinte]. Our result suggests new pathways to engineer novel materials with superior electro-mechanical properties.
X-ray diffraction was measured on single crystal PSN at beamlines 11-ID-C (0.1077 Å) and 16-BMD (0.436926 Å) of the Advanced Photon Sources (Argonne National Laboratory). Single crystals of disordered PSN were grown from high-temperature solutions using a mixture of PbO and B$_2$O$_3$ as solvent [@Bing]. A crystal with dimension of 70x70x20 $\mu$m$^3$ and oriented along (001) was loaded into a diamond anvil cell (DAC) with Ne as the pressure medium. A ruby chip and a small grain of Au were also loaded for pressure determination (accuracy of 0.2 GPa). A MAR3450 image plate was used to record oscillation photographs. For low temperature measurements, the DAC was loaded in a He flown cryostat, in which temperature was measured with a thermocouple with an accuracy of $\pm$ 2 K. Additional experimental details about beamline 11-ID-C and 16-BMD can be found in Refs. [@Rutt; @YFeng]. To facilitate measurement of the diffuse scattering signal, the sample was rocked $\pm$ 6$^\circ$ in omega. Because of its (001) orientation in a cryostat, only the (hk0) indexed Bragg peaks could be observed.
At ambient pressure, PSN enters the relaxor phase below the Burns temperature ( T$_d$ $\sim$ 650 K) and undergoes a ferroelectric transition at T$_{FE}$ $\sim$ 365 K. In our experiments at 400 K (Fig. 1[**a**]{}), we observe the characteristic butterfly and rod shaped diffuse scattering. At 250 K (Fig. 1[**b**]{}), below T$_{FE}$, the characteristic diffuse scattering diminishes considerably. Diffuse streaks connecting the Bragg peaks grow weaker, yet persist in the ferroelectric phase, similar to those observed in BaTiO$_3$ and KNbO$_3$ (Ref. [@BTKNbDS] and references therein).
We observe pressure induced phase transitions at 300 K, where around 1.4GPa a reappearance of the relaxor phase characterized by diffuse scattering is seen; persisting up to 1.5GPa, but disappearing at 1.8GPa (Fig. 2[**b**]{}). Disappearance of diffuse scattering at higher-pressures indicate a ferroelectric to paraelectric phase transition consistent with dielectric-measurements [@Samara1].
At 50 K (Fig. 2[**b**]{}) we also observe superlattice peaks at low pressures of P=0.6 GPa at (h+$1/2$ k+$1/2$ 0) suggesting a lowering of symmetry, which reduce in intensity as pressure drives the system to the relaxor phase. Our experiments are on disordered PSN, hence the peaks are not due to ordering [@RandallBhalla] but due to possible octahedral rotations. In the relaxor phase, at 2.7 GPa, additional satellite peaks with diffuse wings emerge, which persist up to 10 GPa. Ordering PNRs with a range of closely spaced incommensurate modulation vectors will give similar satellite spots with diffuse wings.
We performed molecular-dynamics simulations using a model Hamiltonian obtained by expanding the potential energy of PSN about a high symmetry perovskite reference structure and projecting onto the subspace of soft normal modes, dominated by Pb displacements, including the ferroelectric instabilities [@Rabe2; @Rabe3]. Model parameters are fitted to first-principles density functional calculations [@BurtonPSN; @Notes].
The model has chemically ordered regions (COR) with rock-salt ordering of “Sc$^{+3}$” and “Nb$^{+5}$” ’B’ site ions, embedded in a chemically disordered region (CDR) that has a random ’B’ site configuration. This gives rise to a quenched “random" component to the local electric fields at the Pb-sites. Relative to equal volumes of CDR, polarization is enhanced in CORs, thereby acting as PNRs. The CORs are spatially fixed, because chemical order (disorder) is quenched, but their average polar orientations vary dynamically [@BurtonPSN]. The model allows homogeneous strain to fluctuate; inhomogeneous strain, higher-frequency contributions to lattice polarization, and oxygen octahedral tilting are ignored.
In X-ray and neutron scattering experiments, the measured intensity is a Fourier transform of the ensemble averaged two point density-density correlation. Assuming point particles, the intensity is: $I(\bf Q)=<\sum_{i,j}\it {e}^{\bf iQ \cdot (\bf
{r}_\iti-\bf{r}_\itj)}>=<|\sum_i \it {e}^{\bf {iQ} \cdot \bf {r}_\iti}
|^{2}>$ where $i$ runs over the total number of Pb-atoms in the supercell (Pb scattering is expected to dominate our experiments as it has a disproportionately large X-ray scattering factor) and $\bf{Q}$ values commensurate with the supercell were chosen. Because our distribution of COR in our supercell is not entirely isotropic, we apply full cubic symmetry to the scattering intensity before comparing with experiments.
.
Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of our computed diffuse pattern in the (hk0) plane for the ferroelectric, relaxor and the paraelectric phases at P=18 GPa. In the relaxor phase (Fig. 1[**a**]{}) we observe the characteristic butterfly and rod shaped diffuse scattering around (h00) and (hh0) Bragg spots, which diminish in their intensity in the ferroelectric phase (Fig. 1[**b**]{}) in excellent comparison to experiments.
Pressure dependent changes in diffuse scattering (Fig. 2[**a**]{}) are similar to those induced by varying temperature. Again, our model captures the experimental pressure induced phase-transition at 300K (Fig. 2[**b**]{}). Experimentally observed streaks, like in KNbO$_3$ have been shown to be due to hopping between equivalent sites [@Krakauer], and superstructure peaks at 50 K are possibly due to octahedral rotations, both of which are excluded from our model. But these atomic features do not cause the relaxor phase, which is characterized by the butterfly and rod shaped scattering, which our simple model is able to capture.
As the system is driven towards the paraelectric phase, by increasing temperature or pressure, the characteristic butterfly and rod shapes vanish; however, a weak diffuse pattern that extend radially towards and away from the origin ([**Q**]{}=(000)) persists around all the Bragg peaks. Its intensity is larger in the direction away from the center than towards it, consistent with recent neutron experiments [@PGehring2009] but absent in X-ray due to their low intensity. We find no significant evolution of the diffraction patterns during our simulations, which access frequencies greater than 10GHz. This suggests only static correlations cause diffuse scattering, consistent with recent experiments on PMN [@PGehring2009].
We find the contributions to the scattering intensity from correlations due to atoms in the different regions (COR and CDR). These are shown in Fig 1[**d**]{}, where $I_{cc}$ and $I_{dd}$ are the intensities obtained by setting CDR and COR Pb displacements to zero respectively. While $I_{cc}$ shows characteristic rod and butterfly features, the radial diffuse pattern is absent. $I_{dd}$ only shows weak radial diffuse pattern. Thus, it is the correlation between COR atoms that give rise to the characteristic diffuse pattern. The CDR Pb-displacements are dominated by strong electric fields fixed in a “quenched” distribution of “Sc” and “Nb” atoms in the chemically disordered matrix, and therefore radial scattering persists even in the paraelectric phase. This is consistent with experimental observations on PMN [@PGehring2009]. Note that our interpretation that radial diffuse scattering is associated with chemical disorder differs from the interpretation of Gehring [*et al.*]{} that it indicates chemical short range order[@PGehring2009].
To understand the origin of the [*shapes*]{} of the diffuse scattering we write the total intensity as a sum of Bragg and diffuse scattering, and expand the latter in powers of ${\bf \xi}_\iti={\bf
r}_\iti-{\bf R}_{0 \iti}$, which being proportional to the local polarization is a small quantity. The Bragg term is $\sum_{i,j}{\it
e}^{{\bf iQ} \cdot ({\bf R}_{0i}-{\bf R}_{0j})}$, and the lowest order diffuse scattering term is: $$\label{eq:Idiff}
I_{diff}(\bf G,q) = <\sum_{\it i,j} |{\bf G+q}|^2 ({\bf \xi}_\iti
\cdot \hat\alpha)({\bf \xi}_\itj \cdot \hat\alpha)\cos({\bf Q} \cdot
({\bf R}_{0\iti}-{\bf R}_{0\itj}))>$$ where [**q**]{}=[**Q-G**]{} and [**G**]{} is the Bragg spot. $\hat\alpha$ is the unit vector along ${\bf G+q}$. The summation of pairs of atoms is equivalently re-written as one over inter-atomic distances $\bf
{R}=\bf{R}_{0\iti}-\bf{R}_{0\itj}$, so that Eq. \[eq:Idiff\] becomes the Fourier transform of projections of real space displacement-displacement auto-correlation tensor ${\tensor C} ({\bf
R})$ along $\alpha$: $$\label{eq:ftcorr}
I_{diff}(\bf G,q) = < \sum_{\bf R} (\alpha \cdot {\tensor C}
({\bf R}) \cdot \alpha) |{\bf Q}|^2 \cos({\bf Q} \cdot
{\bf R})>,$$ where ${\tensor C} ({\bf R})$, given, in symmetric form is $$\label{eq:realcorr}
C_{\alpha\beta} ({\bf R}) =
\frac{1}{4} \sum_i (\xi_{i\alpha} \xi_{i\pm{\bf R}\beta} + \xi_{i\beta} \xi_{i\pm{\bf R}\alpha}),$$ and the “$\pm$" notation implies summation over both signs.
For small $|{\bf q}|$, we approximate ${\bf G+q}$ by ${\bf G}$ and $\hat\alpha$ by the unit vector ${\hat\alpha}_{\bf G}$. Fig 3. shows the real space correlations in the relaxor phase (180K, 18GPa) with projections along $\hat\alpha_{\bf G}$=\[100\] and \[110\] summed over the ’z’ direction as well as their Fourier-transforms. The diffuse scattering butterfly and rod shapes come from $\alpha_{\bf G}$=\[100\] and $\alpha_{\bf G}$=\[110\] projections, respectively, of the COR-COR real-space correlations. The CDR-CDR regions have strong correlation along the direction perpendicular to the radial direction, leading to the radial diffuse scattering in the Fourier space. In 3D (not shown) the \[110\] (as well as \[111\]) real space projections appear as ellipsoids, while the \[100\] correlations appear as discs. We conclude that PSN shows ferroelectric $\rightarrow$ relaxor $\rightarrow$ paraelectric phase transition with increase in temperature and/or pressure in our experiments. The relaxor phase in the experiments is characterized by butterfly and rod shaped diffuse scattering.
Simulations further reveal that the anisotropic correlations from COR-COR ’Pb’ atoms which only have orientational degrees of freedom, give rise to the characteristic relaxor-phase diffuse scattering, rather than the effect of strain or artificial atomic shifts or domain boundaries. Polarization would be accompanied by local strain inhomogeneities, that would cause additional contribution to the diffuse scattering [@Vakhrushev], but are a [*secondary*]{} effect. The radial diffuse scattering is identified as coming from local concentration fluctuations at the B-site, which reflect in the Pb displacements from corresponding fluctuations in local electric-fields on Pb. Coulomb energy is minimized when the local polarization aligns parallel to the local field. Our result suggests that by engineering the shapes and relative positions of the COR regions, one could possibly control the anisotropy in the COR-COR correlations, leading to the design of new relaxor materials with superior electromechanical properties.
An increase in pressure reduces the ferroelectric (free energy) well depth and therefore the ferroelectric Pb-displacements in COR. This reduces PNR-PNR correlations (and not their sizes) and hence the butterfly and rod shaped diffuse scattering. In the ferroelectric phase, the whole system, including the disordered matrix, has a uniform polarization along $<$111$>$ directions. This enhancement of the local polarization reduces the effect of correlated Pb-displacements in COR-COR pairs, greatly diminishing the characteristic butterfly- and rod- shaped diffuse scattering features. With increase in temperature, thermal fluctuations of the polarization decrease the magnitude of the COR polarization, thereby decreasing the COR-COR correlations. Above $T_d$, only the CDR-CDR radial contributions remain.
The authors thank Stephen Gramsch and Eugene Venturini for their useful discussions. This work was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research under Grants No. N00014-07-1-0451 and N00014-02-1-0506; the Carnegie/Department of Energy Alliance Center (CDAC, DE-FC03-03NA00144). Use of the Advanced Photon Source was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A Wilson prime is a prime $p$ such that $(p-1)! = -1 \pmod{p^2}$. We report on a search for Wilson primes up to $2 \times 10^{13}$, and describe several new algorithms that were used in the search. In particular we give the first known algorithm that computes $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ in average polynomial time per prime.'
address:
- |
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences\
New York University\
251 Mercer Street\
New York, N.Y. 10012-1185\
U.S.A
- |
Eötvös Loránd University\
H-1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, Hungary
- |
School of Mathematics and Statistics\
University of New South Wales\
Sydney NSW 2052\
Australia
author:
- Edgar Costa
- Robert Gerbicz
- David Harvey
bibliography:
- 'wilson.bib'
title: A search for Wilson primes
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Wilson’s theorem in elementary number theory states that $$(p-1)! = -1 \pmod p$$ for any prime $p$. The corresponding *Wilson quotient* is $$\frac{(p-1)! + 1}p \in {\mathbf{Z}},$$ and we define $w_p$ to be its residue modulo $p$ in the interval $-p/2 \leq w_p < p/2$. A *Wilson prime* is a prime such that $w_p = 0$, or equivalently $$(p-1)! = -1 \pmod{p^2}.$$ Only three Wilson primes are known: $5$, $13$ and $563$.
All previously published searches for Wilson primes have used algorithms for computing $w_p$ whose time complexity is essentially linear in $p$. (In this paper, unless otherwise specified, time complexity means number of steps on a multitape Turing machine, see [@Pap-complexity].) Since the input size is $\Theta(\log p)$, these algorithms should be regarded as having exponential time complexity. For example, the simplest possible algorithm is to multiply successively by the integers $2, 3, \ldots, p - 1$, reducing modulo $p^2$ after each multiplication. The best known algorithm for computing $w_p$ has complexity $p^{1/2 + {\varepsilon}}$ (see below), but this is still exponential in $\log p$. Here and below, $X^{\varepsilon}$ means $X^{o(1)}$, where $o(1)$ is a quantity approaching zero as $X \to \infty$.
The main theoretical contribution of this paper is an algorithm that computes $w_p$ in *polynomial time on average*:
\[thm:main\] The Wilson quotients $w_p$ for $2 \leq p \leq N$ may be computed in time $N \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Let $\pi(x)$ denote the number of primes $p \leq x$. By the prime number theorem, $\pi(x) \sim x/\log x$, so Theorem \[thm:main\] implies that we can compute each $w_p$ in time essentially $\log^4 p$ on average. While this result does not improve the complexity for computing a single $w_p$, it is of course directly relevant to the problem of searching for Wilson primes.
The key idea of the new algorithm is to exploit redundancies among the products $(p-1)!$ for varying $p$. For example, the Wilson quotients for $N < p < 2N$ in some sense all incorporate the product $N!$. Instead of computing $N! \pmod{p^2}$ separately for each $p$, we will compute it modulo the product $\prod_{N < p < 2N} p^2$. A remainder tree then yields $N! \pmod{p^2}$ for each $p$. Using FFT methods for integer arithmetic, this can all be achieved in average polynomial time per prime. Applying this idea recursively leads to an algorithm for computing the desired residues $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$. A detailed description is given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] in Section \[sec:average\].
However, the space requirements of this algorithm render it impractical for large $N$, and we must implement a time-space tradeoff to obtain a practical algorithm:
\[thm:main-space\] Let $M < N$, and assume that $N - M > \sqrt N \log N \log \log N$. The Wilson quotients $w_p$ for $M < p \leq N$ may be computed in time $$M \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} M + (N - M + \sqrt N) \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$$ and space $O(N - M)$.
The algorithm implementing Theorem \[thm:main-space\] consists of two main phases that we call Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 1 involves computing $M!$ modulo $\prod_{M < p \leq N} p^2$, and contributes the $M \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} M$ term to the time bound. Stage 2, which contributes the second term, is a modification of the algorithm implementing Theorem \[thm:main\].
The average time per prime in Stage 2 is essentially $\log^4 p$, the same as for Theorem \[thm:main\]. However in Stage 1 the average time per prime behaves like $$\frac{p}{N - M} \log^3 p.$$ This is no longer polynomial in $\log p$, and represents the price we pay for restricting the space consumption. If we now assume that the amount of RAM is fixed, then a reasonable strategy to compute $w_p$ for all $p$ up to some bound $N_0$ is to apply Theorem \[thm:main-space\] to successive intervals $M < p \leq N$, where $N \leq N_0$, and where $N - M$ is chosen as large as possible given the available RAM.
This is in fact what we did, for all $p < 2 \times 10^{13}$. We found no new Wilson primes up to this bound. Altogether this consumed over 1.1 million hours of CPU time. It is traditional, though meaningless, to give tables of ‘near misses’. Table \[tab:small1\] shows the smallest $|w_p|$ that we found, and Table \[tab:small2\] shows the smallest residues when ordered by $|w_p/p|$.
$p$ $w_p$ $p$ $w_p$
---------------- ------- -- --------------- -------
56151923 $-1$ 4036677373 $-5$
11774118061 $-1$ 5609877309359 $-6$
14296621 $+2$ 10746881 $-7$
87467099 $-2$ 11892977 $-7$
16556218163369 $+2$ 39198017 $-7$
8315831 $+3$ 1767839071 $+8$
93559087 $-3$ 29085907 $+9$
51802061 $+4$ 67133912011 $+9$
258818504023 $+4$ 42647052491 $+10$
1239053554603 $-4$ 935606702249 $-10$
1987272877 $+5$
: Primes $10^6 < p < 2 \times 10^{13}$ for which $|w_p| \leq 10$[]{data-label="tab:small1"}
$p$ $w_p$ $p$ $w_p$
---------------- ------- -- ---------------- --------
5 $0$ 17475368544847 $+154$
13 $0$ 13561740531809 $+120$
563 $0$ 9461354987597 $+94$
16556218163369 $+2$ 13707091918909 $+143$
5609877309359 $-6$ 935606702249 $-10$
14875476519749 $-38$ 1108967825921 $+12$
15395725531427 $+46$ 2170161095393 $+25$
1239053554603 $-4$ 16690620863071 $+203$
4663421363459 $+28$ 2462223083147 $-35$
7746014299613 $+47$ 17524177394617 $+256$
11273815078217 $+88$ 10865903332033 $+159$
7338481259891 $-62$ 16880979600449 $+253$
: Primes $p < 2 \times 10^{13}$ for which $|w_p/p| \leq 1.5 \times 10^{-11}$[]{data-label="tab:small2"}
Retaining all of the residues would have required archival storage in the terabyte range. Instead, we only recorded those residues for which $|w_p| \leq p/50000$, i.e. approximately 0.004% of the primes examined. There are $27\,039\,026$ such primes; the residues may be downloaded from the third author’s web page (247 MB).
The search for Wilson primes has an interesting history. The case $p = 5$ is trivial, and $p = 13$ was noticed at least as early as 1892 [@Mat-theory p. 318]. In 1913, Beeger used the congruence $$w_p = B_{p-1} - \frac{p-1}p \pmod p,$$ where $B_k$ is the $k$-th Bernoulli number, together with a published table of Bernoulli numbers, to check that there are no other Wilson primes less than $114$ [@Bee-congruence]. Several years later he proved the congruence $$\label{eq:reduce-2}
(p-1)! = (-1)^{(p-1)/2} \left(\left(\frac{p-1}2\right)!\right)^2 (2^p - 1) \pmod{p^2},$$ which reduces computation of $w_p$ to that of $((p-1)/2)! \pmod{p^2}$. He used this identity, together with a direct computation of the relevant factorials, to produce a table of $w_p$ for $p < 300$ [@Bee-congruence2]. We do not know when was first discovered, but it appears (without proof) in [@Mat-theory].
Lehmer later used Beeger’s original method together with a newly extended table of Bernoulli numbers to compute $w_p$ for $p \leq 211$ [@Leh-wilson]. In a companion article, she mentions that Beeger communicated that his earlier table contains four errors, namely for $p = 127$, $167$, $173$ and $241$ [@Leh-congruence]. Lehmer’s table is correct, but there is an additional unnoticed error in Beeger’s table, for $p = 239$. The errors are rather clustered together, and one speculates on the human factors (computational exhaustion?) that may have been responsible. For the modern reader, it is very easy to forget just how much effort is required to generate such a table by hand. We invite the reader to spend a few minutes verifying that $p = 13$ is indeed a Wilson prime!
After these early attempts, the search entered the computer age with the work of Goldberg, who used the Bureau of Standards Eastern Automatic Computer (SEAC), one of the first stored-program electronic computers, to test all $p < 10\,000$ [@Gol-wilson]. In this interval, not far beyond the previous search bound, was found the third Wilson prime $p = 563$. Fröberg pushed this further to $30\,000$ and then $50\,000$ [@Fro-wilson-fermat; @Fro-wilson]. In [@Fro-wilson] he also discusses a heuristic concerning the distribution of Wilson primes. Namely, if one assumes that $w_p$ is uniformly distributed modulo $p$, then the probability that $p$ is a Wilson prime is $1/p$, and the expected number of Wilson primes less than $X$ is $$\sum_{p < X} \frac1p = \log \log X + c + o(1),$$ where $c = 0.2615...$ is Mertens’ constant. This suggests that there should be infinitely many Wilson primes, but that they should be very rare.
The search bound was successively increased to $200\,183$ by Pearson [@Pea-wilson-fermat], $1\,017\,000$ by Kloss [@Klo-number-theoretic], $3\,000\,000$ by Keller (see [@Rib-new-records p. 350]), $4\,000\,000$ by Dubner [@Dub-wilson], $10\,000\,000$ and then $18\,876\,041$ by Gonter and Kundert [@Kun-von-staudt]. (The computation was halted at $18\,876\,041$ due to a power failure — see [@Rib-new-records p. 350]. Many authors have cited an unpublished manuscript “All prime numbers up to 18,876,041 have been tested without finding a new Wilson prime” by Gonter and Kundert, but we have been unable to locate a copy.)
None of these authors give many details on how they performed the computation. It seems likely that they were all aware of , and that they computed $((p-1)/2)! \pmod{p^2}$ by simply multiplying successively by $2$, $3$, …, $(p-1)/2$, reducing modulo $p^2$ at frequent intervals.
Significant algorithmic progress on the problem was made by Crandall, Dilcher and Pomerance, who searched up to $5 \times 10^8$ [@CDP-search]. They introduced two new main ideas. The first is that for many $p$, there exist identities better than . For example, if $p = 1 \pmod 4$, write $p = a^2 + b^2$ with $a = 1 \pmod 4$. Then we have the remarkable identity (proved in [@CDE-binom]) $$\binom{\frac12(p-1)}{\frac14(p-1)} = \left(1 + \frac{2^{p-1} - 1}2\right)\left(2a - \frac{p}{2a}\right) \pmod{p^2}.$$ Together with this reduces the computation of $w_p$ to that of $((p-1)/4)! \pmod{p^2}$. Similar identities are used in [@CDP-search] to reduce to computation of $((p-1)/6)! \pmod{p^2}$ in the case that $p = 1 \pmod 6$.
We extend this technique considerably in Section \[sec:identities\], showing how to reduce to computation of $((p-1)/e)! \pmod{p^2}$ for essentially any ‘small’ divisor $e$ of $p-1$.
Second, [@CDP-search] introduced a scheme that replaces most of the modular multiplications by modular additions. Indeed they show how to compute $N! \pmod{p^2}$ using $N + O(N^{2/3})$ additions and only $O(N^{2/3})$ multiplications. This optimisation does not play a role in the present work.
Crandall–Dilcher–Pomerance also mention an algorithm, essentially due to Strassen, that computes $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ in time $p^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}$; however they found it was not competitive with their quasi-linear time algorithm over the range of their search. This can be improved by a factor of $\log p$ [@BGS-recurrences], yielding the best known algorithm for computing a single $w_p$.
Following this work, Carlisle–Crandall–Rodenkirch extended the search to $10^9$ in 2006 (see [@RK-primzahlen p. 241]) and then $6 \times 10^9$ in 2008 (personal communication). This work has not been published; we sketch their algorithm here. The basic idea is to explicitly compute the exponents appearing in the prime factorisation $N! = p_1^{e_1} \cdots p_r^{e_r}$, and then compute this product, term by term, modulo $p^2$. The complexity is $O(N / \log N)$ multiplications, which improves on the algorithms used in [@CDP-search] by a factor of $\log N$.
Computing Wilson quotients in average polynomial time {#sec:average}
=====================================================
In this section we give algorithms that prove Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[thm:main-space\]. The algorithms depend on three fundamental operations: integer multiplication, integer division, and enumeration of primes. We discuss the complexity of these operations first. We will give only a high level description of all algorithms, allowing the industrious reader to supply their own details concerning data layout and access patterns by the Turing machine.
If $X$ and $Y$ are integers with at most $N$ bits, their product can be computed in time $N \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} N$ and space $O(N)$ using FFT methods [@SS-multiply; @Fur-faster]. For division with remainder, we want $Q = {\lfloor {X/Y} \rfloor}$ (assuming $Y > 0$) and $R = X \bmod Y$. These can also be computed in time $N \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} N$ and space $O(N)$ [@Ber-fastmult].
Consider the problem of enumerating the primes $M < p \leq N$. In our implementation (see section \[sec:implementation\]) we used a simple sieve of Eratosthenes, i.e. after precomputing a table of primes $q \leq \sqrt{N}$, we initialise a bit-array of length $N - M$ and strike out multiples of each $q$ to eliminate the composites. Assuming a RAM model with unit time access to arbitrary array elements, and in which integers of size $O(\log N)$ can be manipulated in unit time, the complexity is at most $$\sum_{\substack{q \leq \sqrt N \\ \text{$q$ prime}}} \left\lceil \frac{N - M}q \right\rceil \leq \sum_{\substack{q \leq \sqrt N \\ \text{$q$ prime}}} \left(\frac{N - M}q + 1\right) = O((N - M) \log \log N + \sqrt N)$$ by Mertens’ theorem.
While this simple algorithm is perfectly adequate in practice, in the Turing model the analysis is incorrect, because of the unavailability of unit-time array access. For completeness, Proposition \[prop:enumerate-interval\] below gives a bound for the Turing model, following the approach suggested in [@SGV-fast-algorithms p. 226]. This result is not optimal, but suffices for our purposes. The key tool is merge sort, which can be implemented efficiently on a Turing machine; see [@Die-turing] for a discussion of this, and for further applications of this observation in computational number theory.
\[prop:enumerate\] The primes $p \leq N$ may be enumerated in time $$O(N \log^2 N \log \log N)$$ and space $$O(N \log N \log \log N).$$
First enumerate the primes $q \leq \sqrt N$ by trial division. There are $O(\sqrt N)$ candidates, and each requires $O(N^{1/4})$ divisibility tests, so the time cost is $N^{3/4 + {\varepsilon}}$.
Now for each $q \leq \sqrt N$, generate the multiples of $q$ bounded by $N$. The number of such multiples is $d = \sum_{q \leq \sqrt N} {\lfloor {N/q} \rfloor} = O(N \log \log N)$. Each successive multiple is computed via a single addition of integers of size $O(\log N)$, so the time and space required to construct the list is $O(d \log N)$. Sort the list using merge sort; this costs time $O(d \log d \log N) = O(N \log^2 N \log \log N)$ and space $O(d \log N) = O(N \log N \log \log N)$. The complement of the resulting list in $1 \leq x \leq N$ is the desired set of primes, and can be computed in one more pass in time $O(d \log N)$.
\[prop:enumerate-interval\] The primes $M < p \leq N$ may be enumerated in time $$O((N - M + \sqrt N) \log^2 N \log \log N)$$ and space $$O((N - M + \sqrt N) \log N \log \log N)$$
First enumerate the primes $q \leq \sqrt N$ using Proposition \[prop:enumerate\]. This requires time $O(\sqrt N \log^2 N \log \log N)$ and space $O(\sqrt N \log N \log \log N)$.
Now for each $q \leq \sqrt N$, generate the multiples of $q$ in the interval $M < x \leq N$. Determining the first multiple of each $q$, namely $q{\lceil {(M+1)/q} \rceil}$, costs $O(\log^2 N)$ per prime (assuming naive arithmetic), so $O(\sqrt N \log^2 N)$ altogether. The number of such multiples is $$\begin{gathered}
d \leq \sum_{q \leq \sqrt N} {\lceil {(N - M)/q} \rceil} \leq \sum_{q \leq \sqrt N} (N - M)/q + 1 \\
= O((N - M) \log \log N + \sqrt N) = O((N - M + \sqrt N) \log \log N).\end{gathered}$$ The proof is concluded in the same way as Proposition \[prop:enumerate\].
Having dealt with these preliminaries, we now turn to computing Wilson quotients. First we give a simple algorithm that proves Theorem \[thm:main\], and which will serve as a template for the more involved algorithm needed for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main-space\]. The structure of the computation bears some similarity to the parallel prefix tree in [@BK-adders].
First use Proposition \[prop:enumerate\] to enumerate the primes $p \leq N$ in time $N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Let $d = {\lceil {\log_2 N} \rceil}$. For each $0 \leq i \leq d$ and $0 \leq j < 2^i$ let $$U_{i,j} = \left\{k \in {\mathbf{Z}}: j \frac{N}{2^i} < k \leq (j + 1) \frac{N}{2^i} \right\}.$$ Thus $U_{i,0}, \ldots, U_{i,2^i - 1}$ partition the interval $0 < k \leq N$ into $2^i$ sets of roughly equal size. For $0 \leq i < d$ we have the disjoint union $U_{i,j} = U_{i+1,2j} \cup U_{i+1, 2j+1}$, and $|U_{d,j}| = 0$ or $1$ for every $j$.
For each $i$, $j$ let $$A_{i,j} = \prod_{k \in U_{i,j}} k, \qquad\qquad S_{i,j} = \prod_{\substack{p \in U_{i,j} \\ \text{$p$ prime}}} p^2.$$ Note that $A_{i,j} = A_{i+1,2j} A_{i+1,2j+1}$, and that $A_{i,j}$ has $O(2^{-i} N \log N)$ bits. We have $A_{d,j} = 1$ or $k$ according to whether $U_{d,j} = \emptyset$ or $\{k\}$. We may compute all the $A_{i,j}$ using a product tree [@Ber-fastmult], working from the bottom of the tree ($i = d$) to the top ($i = 0$). The cost at each level of the tree is $2^i (2^{-i} N \log N) \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} N = N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$, so the total cost to compute all the $A_{i,j}$ is $N \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$. Similarly we may compute all the $S_{i,j}$ using a product tree and the precomputed table of primes, in time $N \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$. (In fact, because of the estimate $\sum_{p \leq N} \log p = O(N)$, this product tree takes time only $N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$, but we will not use this here.)
Now let $$W_{i,j} = \prod_{0 \leq r < j} A_{i, r} \pmod{S_{i,j}} = \left(\left\lfloor j \frac{N}{2^i} \right\rfloor\right)! \pmod{S_{i,j}}.$$ We may compute all the $W_{i,j}$ in time $N \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$ by working from the top of the tree to the bottom, starting with $W_{0,0} = 1$ and then using the relations $$\begin{aligned}
W_{i+1,2j} & = W_{i,j} \pmod{S_{i+1,2j}}, \label{eq:W-rel1} \\
W_{i+1,2j+1} & = W_{i,j} A_{i+1,2j} \pmod{S_{i+1,2j+1}}. \label{eq:W-rel2}\end{aligned}$$
Finally we may read the Wilson quotients off the bottom layer of the $W_{i,j}$ tree: for each $p \leq N$, let $j = {\lceil {2^d p/N} \rceil} - 1$. Then $U_{d,j} = \{p\}$, so $S_{d,j} = p^2$ and $W_{d,j} = (p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$.
Now we consider Theorem \[thm:main-space\]. The first step (Stage 1) is to evaluate $M! \pmod S$ where $S = \prod_{M < p \leq N} p^2$. Using a full product tree for $M!$ would lead to time complexity $M \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} M$, since $\log M! = \Theta(M \log M)$. In the next proposition, we reduce this to $M \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} M$ by using a space-optimised variant of the factorial algorithm of [@SGV-fast-algorithms]. In practice Stage 1 makes a significant contribution to the total running time, so the reduction in time by a factor of $\log M$ is significant.
\[prop:factorial\] Let $S > 0$ be an integer with at most $B$ bits. Then $N! \pmod S$ may be computed in time $$N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$$ and space $$O(B + \sqrt N \log N \log \log N).$$
Let $N! = p_1^{e_1} \cdots p_r^{e_r}$ be the prime factorisation of $N!$. For each $j$ we have $$\label{eq:e-bound}
e_j = {\lfloor {N/p_j} \rfloor} + {\lfloor {N/p_j^2} \rfloor} + \cdots + {\lfloor {N/p_j^{{\lfloor {\log N / \log p_j} \rfloor}}} \rfloor} \leq \frac{N}{p_j - 1}.$$ Let $d = {\lceil {\log_2(N+1)} \rceil}$, so that $N < 2^d$, and for each $1 \leq j \leq r$ let $$e_j = f_{0,j} + 2f_{1,j} + \cdots + 2^{d-1} f_{d-1,j}$$ be the binary representation of $e_j$, i.e. with $f_{i,j} = 0$ or $1$. Then $$\label{eq:prod-A}
N! = A_0 (A_1)^2 (A_2)^4 \cdots (A_{d-1})^{2^{d-1}},$$ where $$A_i = p_1^{f_{i,1}} \cdots p_r^{f_{i,r}}.$$ Observe that if $p_j - 1 > 2^{-i} N$ then $e_j < 2^i$ by , so $f_{i,j} = 0$. Thus actually $$A_i = \prod_{p_j \leq 2^{-i} N + 1} p_j^{f_{i,j}},$$ and we have the following estimate for the size of $A_i$: $$\log A_i \leq \sum_{p \leq 2^{-i} N + 1} \log p = O(2^{-i} N).$$
We will first show how to compute $A_i \pmod S$ in time $$(2^{-i} N + \sqrt N) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$$ and space $O(B + \sqrt N \log N \log \log N)$.
Partition the interval $1 < k \leq 2^{-i} N + 1$ into subintervals, say $T_1, \ldots, T_m$, where each subinterval, except possibly the last, has length $$L = \left\lfloor \max\left(\sqrt N, \frac{B}{\log N \log \log N}\right)\right\rfloor.$$ For each subinterval $T_r$, perform the following operations.
First use Proposition \[prop:enumerate-interval\] to enumerate the primes in $T_r$. For each subinterval, this uses space $O((L + \sqrt N) \log N \log \log N) = O(B + \sqrt N \log N \log \log N)$. The time cost for each subinterval of length $L$ is $(L + \sqrt N) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N = L \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$. There are at most $2^{-i} N/L$ such subintervals, so their total cost is $2^{-i} N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$. The last interval has length at most $2^{-i} N$, so contributes $(2^{-i} N + \sqrt N) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$. The time cost over all subintervals is therefore $(2^{-i} N + \sqrt N) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Now compute $f_{i,j}$ for each $p_j \in T_r$. Using , the time complexity is $(\log N / \log p) \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} N = \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$ for each prime, which over all subintervals is $\pi(2^{-i} N) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N = 2^{-i} N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Append the primes for which $f_{i,j} = 1$ to a separate buffer. Whenever the total length of that buffer reaches $B$ (i.e. when it contains $B/\log N$ primes), or when we finish processing the last interval, use a product tree to multiply together the primes in the buffer (using space $O(B)$), and then clear the buffer to receive more primes. Accumulate the result of the product tree into a running product for $A_i \pmod S$, using a single multiplication modulo $S$ (again space usage is $O(B)$). The total time for the product trees over all intervals is $(\log A_i) \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} B = 2^{-i} N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$, since we may certainly assume that $B = O(\log N!) = O(N \log N)$. The time for the modular multiplications is ${\lfloor {(\log A_i) / B} \rfloor} B \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} B = 2^{-i} N \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} N$. We conclude that $A_i \pmod S$ may be computed within the promised time and space bounds.
Now let $$C_i = A_i (A_{i+1})^2 \cdots (A_{d-1})^{2^{d-1-i}}$$ for $0 \leq i \leq d - 1$. We have $C_{d-1} = A_{d-1} \pmod S$ and $C_i = A_i (C_{i+1})^2 \pmod S$ for $0 \leq i \leq d - 2$. Using these relations, we compute in sequence $A_{d-1}, C_{d-1}, A_{d-2}, C_{d-2}, \ldots, A_0, C_0 \pmod S$. By , at the end we have obtained $C_0 = N! \pmod S$. To estimate the time complexity, note that $$\begin{aligned}
\log C_i & = O(2^{-i} N + 2 (2^{-i-1} N) + \cdots + 2^{d-1-i} (2^{-d+1} N)) \\
& = O(2^{-i} N \log N).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore computing $C_i = A_i (C_{i+1})^2 \pmod S$ from $A_i \pmod S$ and $C_{i+1} \pmod S$ has time complexity $2^{-i} N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$. (Here we have used the fact that if $X$ and $Y$ are integers with at most $M$ bits, then $XY \pmod S$ can be computed from $X \pmod S$ and $Y \pmod S$ in time $M \log^{1+{\varepsilon}} M$. Indeed if $XY < S$ then no modular reduction is performed, whereas if $XY \geq S$, we need to perform one modular reduction whose time cost is bounded by a constant multiple of the cost of the full multiplication.) The space complexity is $O(B)$, with the previous values of $A_i$ and $C_i$ discarded as we proceed. Summing over $i$, the total time cost is $N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Finally we may prove Theorem \[thm:main-space\].
We must first enumerate the primes $M < p \leq N$. Using Proposition \[prop:enumerate-interval\] directly for this would use too much space, but we may instead apply it to successive subintervals of length $K = {\lfloor {L / \log N \log \log N} \rfloor}$, where $L = N - M$. The space used is $O((K + \sqrt N) \log N \log \log N) = O(L + \sqrt N \log N \log \log N) = O(L)$, plus the space needed to store the primes, namely $O((\pi(N) - \pi(M))\log N)$. To estimate the latter, note that according to [@IK-analytic Thm. 6.6] we have $\pi(N) - \pi(M) = O(L / \log L)$. Our assumption $L > \sqrt N \log N \log \log N$ then implies that $(\pi(N) - \pi(M))\log N = O(L)$. Thus the space usage is indeed $O(L)$. The time over all subintervals is $L \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N + (L/K) \sqrt N \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N = L \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N + \sqrt N \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Multiply the squares of the primes together using a product tree to obtain $S = S_{0,0} = \prod_{M < p \leq N} p^2$. The number of bits in $S$ is $B = O(L)$, so this takes space $O(L)$ and time $L \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$.
Use Proposition \[prop:factorial\] to compute $M! \pmod S$ in time $M \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} M$ and space $O(L + \sqrt N \log N \log \log N) = O(L)$. This is Stage 1.
For Stage 2, we use a similar strategy as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], but taking additional care to economise on space usage. Let $d = {\lceil {\log_2 L} \rceil}$. For each $0 \leq i \leq d$ and $0 \leq j < 2^i$ let $$U_{i,j} = \left\{k \in {\mathbf{Z}}: M + j \frac{L}{2^i} < k \leq M + (j + 1) \frac{L}{2^i} \right\}.$$ For each $i$ this yields a partition of the interval $M < k \leq N$ into $2^i$ sets. As in Theorem \[thm:main\], put $$A_{i,j} = \prod_{k \in U_{i,j}} k, \qquad\qquad S_{i,j} = \prod_{\substack{p \in U_{i,j} \\ \text{$p$ prime}}} p^2.$$ The definition of $W_{i,j}$ is slightly different; we take $$W_{i,j} = M! \prod_{0 \leq r < j} A_{i, r} \pmod{S_{i,j}} = \left(\left\lfloor M + j \frac{L}{2^i} \right\rfloor\right)! \pmod{S_{i,j}}.$$
We do not have enough space to store all of the $A_{i,j}$ and $S_{i,j}$, so we must proceed differently to the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We will use a strategy similar to the proof of [@vzGS-frobenius Lemma 2.1].
We begin at the top of the tree with $W_{0,0} = M! \pmod{S_{0,0}}$, which was computed above using Proposition \[prop:factorial\]. As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], we use relations and to work our way down the tree. Every new pair of values $W_{i+1,2j}$ and $W_{i+1,2j+1}$ overwrites the previous value of $W_{i,j}$. For fixed $i$, the total size of the $W_{i,j}$ at level $i$ is $O(L)$, so the space for storing the $W_{i,j}$ never exceeds $O(L)$.
For the top $\ell = {\lfloor {2 \log_2 \log N} \rfloor}$ levels of the tree, we recompute each required $A_{i,j}$ and $S_{i,j}$ as we encounter them, discarding intermediate values (i.e. $A_{i,j}$ and $S_{i,j}$ from lower levels of the product tree) as we proceed. Also, in the evaluation of , we do not compute $A_{i+1,2j+1}$ exactly, but rather only modulo $S_{i+1,2j+1}$, by reducing as appropriate during the product tree computation. The time complexity contributed by each level of the tree is thus $L \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$ (this is a factor of $\log N$ more than in Theorem \[thm:main\], due to the recomputations), but over the first $\ell$ levels this amounts to only $L \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N \log \log N = L \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$.
When we reach level $\ell$, we switch back to the strategy of Theorem \[thm:main\]. For each $j$ at level $\ell$, we compute the entire trees beneath $A_{\ell,j}$ and $S_{\ell,j}$. This requires space $O(\log(A_{\ell,j}) \log N) = O(2^{-\ell} L \log^2 N) = O(L)$. The time contribution from each level is $L \log^{2+{\varepsilon}} N$, so over all levels is $L \log^{3+{\varepsilon}} N$. The Wilson quotients are extracted from the $W_{d,j}$ just as in Theorem \[thm:main\].
Factorial identities modulo $p^2$ {#sec:identities}
=================================
Let $e$ be an even divisor of $p - 1$, and let $f = (p-1)/e$. In this section we describe a method for reducing computation of $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ to that of $f! \pmod{p^2}$.
As mentioned in the introduction, identity , corresponding to the case $e = 2$, has been applied to the computation of Wilson quotients for almost a century. The cases $e = 4$ and $e = 6$ were introduced by [@CDP-search].
Our method can be applied in principle to any $e$. The simplest case, and the only case we will describe in this paper, is when the $e$-th cyclotomic field over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ has class number 1. It is known that this occurs for precisely the following values of $e$ ([@Was-cyclotomic Ch. 11]): $$\begin{gathered}
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, \\
32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 60, 66, 70, 84, 90,\end{gathered}$$ and these are the values of $e$ that we used in our implementation.
It is straightforward to modify the algorithms given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main-space\] to compute $f! \pmod{p^2}$ instead of $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$. For example, given a set $T$ of primes $p$ lying in the interval $M < p \leq N$ and satisfying $p = 1 \pmod e$, the modified Stage 1 involves using Proposition \[prop:factorial\] to compute ${\lfloor {M/e} \rfloor}! \pmod{\prod_{p \in T} p^2}$.
To apply this to the main Wilson prime search, each prime $p$ is assigned to the ‘best’ possible $e$ for that prime, i.e. the largest divisor of $p - 1$ appearing in the above list. Then for each $e$, our strategy is to use the (suitably modified) algorithm of Theorem \[thm:main-space\] to compute $w_p$ for all $p$ assigned to $e$.
It is a difficult theoretical problem to analyse the savings that accrue from this strategy. If we assume that the amount of RAM is fixed, then Stage 1 will dominate for sufficiently large $N$. In Stage 1 we expect a speedup by roughly a linear factor of $e$, since we are only computing ${\lfloor {M/e} \rfloor}!$ rather than $M!$. Therefore, in the limit of large $N$, we expect a savings of a factor of $e$ for the primes assigned to $e$.
In practice however these ideal conditions are not met. Stage 2 does make a significant contribution, especially for larger values of $e$. The effect of $e$ on Stage 2 is complex. As $e$ increases, a fixed interval $M < p \leq N$ will contain fewer and fewer primes of interest. The number of such primes depends in a complicated way on the complete list of admissible $e$. To make best use of available RAM, for larger $e$ we will generally choose a larger interval, so that the number of primes in the interval is roughly constant, but the relationship is not linear.
In addition, we must take into account the cost of deducing $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ from $((p-1)/e)! \pmod{p^2}$. We refer to this step of the computation as Stage 3. We have not attempted to give a theoretical bound for the cost of Stage 3. In general it becomes more expensive as $e$ increases. In our computation it accounted for only a few percent of the total running time (see Table \[tab:stages\]).
Let us estimate the overall savings, over many primes, under the assumption that the speedup is linear in $e$, and ignoring the cost of Stage 3. Let $S$ be a set of permissible values of $e$, for example, the set $\{2, 4, \ldots, 84, 90\}$ given above. We assume that for each $e \in S$, we apply the above strategy to those primes $p$ for which $e$ is the largest divisor of $p - 1$ that appears in $S$. Let $Q_S = \operatorname{LCM}(S)$. For $k \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/Q_S{\mathbf{Z}})^*$, let $b_S(k) = \max\{e \in S: k = 1 \pmod e \}$. Then the expected savings is $$R_S = \frac{1}{\phi(Q_S)} \sum_{k \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/Q_S{\mathbf{Z}})^*} \frac{1}{b_S(k)}.$$
For example, if we only use identity , then $S = \{2\}$, $Q_S = 2$, and $R_S = 1/2$, so we save a factor of $2$ over the naive algorithm.
The identities used in [@CDP-search] correspond to choosing $S = \{2, 4, 6\}$, in which case $Q_S = 12$ and $R_S = (1/6 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/2)/4 = 13/48$, saving a further factor of $24/13 \approx 1.85$.
Taking $S$ to be the full set $S = \{2, 4, \ldots, 84, 90\}$, we have $$Q_S = 6983776800 = 2^5 \cdot 3^3 \cdot 5^2 \cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13 \cdot 17 \cdot 19.$$ A brute force computation finds that $$R_S = \frac{22695187978681}{201921527808000} \approx 0.112,$$ indicating a further savings of a factor of roughly 2.41 compared to [@CDP-search].
Now we explain the reduction. Fix a primitive $e$-th root of unity $\omega \in {\mathbf{Z}}_p$. Let $\Gamma_p : {\mathbf{Z}}_p \to {\mathbf{Z}}_p^*$ denote the $p$-adic gamma function. The next proposition, whose proof is adapted from [@BEW-gauss-jacobi Thm. 9.3.1], gives a congruence between $(p-1)!/f!^e$ and a special value of the $p$-adic gamma function.
\[prop:ratio\] Let $$C = \frac1p \sum_{j=1}^{e-1} \big( (1 - \omega^j)^p - (1 - \omega^j) \big) \in {\mathbf{Z}}_p.$$ Then $$\frac{(p-1)!}{f!^e} = -\Gamma_p(1/e)^e (1 + pC) \pmod{p^2}.$$
Let $M = p^2 - (p^2 - 1)/e = p^2 - f(p+1)$. Then $M = 1/e \pmod{p^2}$ and $1 \leq M < p^2$. By the definition and elementary properties of $\Gamma_p(x)$ (see for example [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined Ch. 14]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_p(1/e) & = \Gamma_p(M) \pmod{p^2} \\
& = - \prod_{\substack{1 \leq j < M \\ p {\mathrel{\nmid}}j}} j \pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Splitting the product into blocks of length $p$ we obtain $$\Gamma_p(1/e) = - \left(\prod_{k=0}^{{\lceil {M/p} \rceil} - 1} \prod_{r=1}^{p-1} (kp + r) \right) \left( \prod_{j=M}^{{\lceil {M/p} \rceil}p - 1} j \right)^{-1} \pmod{p^2}.$$ Since ${\lceil {M/p} \rceil} = p - f + {\lfloor {f/p} \rfloor} = p - f$, $$\Gamma_p(1/e) = - \left(\prod_{k=0}^{p - f - 1} \prod_{r=1}^{p-1} (kp + r) \right) \left( \prod_{j=p^2 - fp - f}^{p^2 - fp - 1} j \right)^{-1} \pmod{p^2}.$$ For the first term, observe that for any $k \in {\mathbf{Z}}$ we have $$\frac{\prod_{r=1}^{p-1} (kp + r)}{(p-1)!} = \prod_{r=1}^{p-1} (1 + kp/r) = 1 + kp \sum_{r=1}^{p-1} 1/r = 1 \pmod{p^2}.$$ Therefore $$\prod_{k=0}^{p - f - 1} \prod_{r=1}^{p-1} (kp + r) = (p-1)!^{p - f} \pmod{p^2}.$$ For the second term, $$\prod_{j=p^2 - fp - f}^{p^2 - fp - 1} j = \prod_{j=-fp - f}^{- fp - 1} j = (-1)^f \prod_{r=1}^f (r + fp) \pmod{p^2}.$$ To evaluate this last product, note that $$\frac{\prod_{r=1}^f (r + fp)}{f!} = \prod_{r=1}^f (1 + fp/r) = 1 + fp \sum_{r=1}^f 1/r \pmod{p^2}.$$ Moreover, for any $1 \leq j \leq e - 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(1 - \omega^j)^p - (1 - \omega^j)}p
& = \frac1p \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \binom{p}{k} (-\omega^j)^k \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \frac{(p-1)(p-2) \cdots (p - k + 1)}{k (k-1) \cdots 1} (-\omega^j)^k \\
& = -\sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \frac{(k-1)!}{k!} \omega^{jk} = -\sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \omega^{jk}/k \pmod{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$C = -\sum_{j=1}^{e-1} \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \omega^{jk}/k = -\sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \frac1k \sum_{j=1}^{e-1} \omega^{jk} \pmod{p}.$$ Since $$\sum_{j=1}^{e-1} (\omega^k)^j = -1 + \begin{cases} e & \text{if $e {\mathrel{|}}k$}, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases}$$ we get $$C = - \sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \frac{1}{k} - e \sum_{r=1}^f \frac{1}{er} = - \sum_{r=1}^f 1/r \pmod{p}.$$
Putting everything together, we have $$\Gamma_p(1/e) = \frac{-(p-1)!^{p-f} (-1)^f}{f! (1 - fpC)} \pmod{p^2}.$$ From Wilson’s theorem we have $(p-1)!^p = -1 \pmod{p^2}$, and so $$\Gamma_p(1/e)^e = \frac{(p-1)!^{-ef}}{f!^e (1 - fpC)^e} = \frac{(p-1)!^{-p+1}} {f!^e (1 - efpC)} = \frac{-(p-1)!}{f!^e (1 + pC)} \pmod{p^2}$$ Rearranging, we obtain the desired formula.
Next we will use the Gross–Koblitz formula to relate $\Gamma_p(1/e)$ to a certain Gauss sum. Let $K = {\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_e)$, where $\zeta_e$ is a primitive $e$-th root of unity. The ring of integers of $K$ is $O_K = {\mathbf{Z}}[\zeta_e]$. Let $\omega_0 \in {\mathbf{Z}}$ be an integer congruent to $\omega \pmod p$, and let $P = (p, \zeta - \omega_0)$. Then $P$ is a prime ideal of $O_K$ of degree $1$ lying above $p$, i.e. $O_K/P \cong {\mathbf{F}}_p$. Let $\chi : {\mathbf{F}}_p^* \to K^*$ be the $(-f)$-th power of the Teichmüller character; that is, $\chi(u) = u^{-f} \pmod P$ for any $u \in {\mathbf{F}}_p^*$. Define the Gauss sum $$S(\chi) = \sum_{j=1}^{p-1} \chi(j) \zeta_p^j \in K(\zeta_p),$$ where $\zeta_p$ is a primitive $p$-th root of unity.
\[prop:gross-koblitz\] We have $S(\chi)^e \in K$. Regarding $K$ as embedded in ${\mathbf{Q}}_p$ via the map that sends $\zeta_e$ to $\omega$, we have $$-\Gamma_p(1/e)^e = \frac{(-S(\chi))^e}{p}.$$
The first statement follows from [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined Ch. 1, Thm. 1.3(i)]. The second statement is a consequence of the Gross–Koblitz formula, for example [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined Ch. 15, Thm. 4.3]. In the notation of [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined], take $r = 1$, $q = p$, $a = p - 1 - f$. The above formula falls out after taking $e$-th powers.
The final ingredient is the Stickelberger factorisation of the ideal of $K$ generated by $S(\chi)^e$. For $c \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/e{\mathbf{Z}})^*$, let $\sigma_c$ denote the automorphism of $K/{\mathbf{Q}}$ that sends $\zeta_e$ to $\zeta_e^c$.
\[prop:stickelberger\] $$(S(\chi)^e) = \prod_{\substack{c=1 \\ (c, e) = 1}}^{e-1} \sigma_{c^{-1}}(P)^c.$$
Raise both sides of [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined Ch. 1, Thm. 2.2] to the power of $e$.
\[prop:root-of-unity\] Suppose that $P$ is principal, and let $\theta$ be a generator. Let $$\beta = \prod_{\substack{c=1 \\ (c,e) = 1}}^{e-1} \sigma_{c^{-1}}(\theta)^c \in O_K.$$ Then $$S(\chi)^e = \zeta_e^i \beta$$ for some $0 \leq i < e$.
By Proposition \[prop:stickelberger\], $S(\chi)^e$ and $\beta$ differ by a unit of $O_K$. Moreover, $$\sigma_{-1}(\beta) = \prod_c \sigma_{-c^{-1}}(\theta)^c = \prod_c \sigma_{c^{-1}}(\theta)^{e-c}$$ so $$\beta \sigma_{-1}(\beta) = \prod_c \sigma_{c^{-1}}(\theta)^e = N_{K/{\mathbf{Q}}}(\theta)^e = N(P)^e = p^e.$$ Thus the image of $\beta$ under every complex embedding $K \to {\mathbf{C}}$ has absolute value $p^{e/2}$. But $S(\chi)^e$ has the same property [@Lan-cyclotomic-combined p. 4]. Therefore $S(\chi)^e/\beta$ has absolute value $1$ in every complex embedding, and so is a root of unity in $K$ [@Was-cyclotomic Lemma 1.6]. Since $e$ is even, every root of unity is a power of $\zeta_e$, and the conclusion follows.
\[thm:cyclotomic\] Let $p = 1 \pmod e$, where $e$ is even. Assume that $K = {\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_e)$ has class number $1$. Assume we are given as input:
- a primitive $e$-th root of unity in ${\mathbf{F}}_p^*$, represented as an integer $1 \leq \omega_0 < p$,
- a generator $\theta$ of the ideal $P = (p, \zeta_e - \omega_0)$, represented as $\theta = g(\zeta_e)$ for some polynomial $g \in {\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ of degree less than $\phi(e)$, and
- $f! \pmod{p^2}$.
Then we may compute $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ using $O(e^2 + e\log p)$ arithmetic operations on integers with $O(\log p)$ bits.
The big-$O$ estimates given in the above theorem are strictly speaking meaningless, since they only apply to finitely many $e$. We give the estimates anyway as an indication of how the running time might reasonably be expected to behave in practice.
We may compute a suitable $\omega_0$ using a simple probabilistic algorithm as follows. Select a random $1 \leq x \leq p - 1$. Then $\omega_0 = x^f \pmod p$ has order exactly $e$ with probability $\phi(e)/e \geq 1/e$. We can compute the exact order using at most $e$ arithmetic operations in ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$. This is repeated until we find a suitable $\omega_0$.
The computational bottleneck is actually in finding $\theta$, which we consider after the proof of the theorem.
We will take ‘arithmetic operation’ to mean an addition or multiplication modulo $p$, $p^2$ or $p^3$.
We first lift the root of unity, putting $\omega_1 = \omega_0^{p^2} \pmod{p^3}$, so that $\omega_1 = \omega \pmod{p^3}$. This requires $O(\log p)$ arithmetic operations. We next compute the powers $\omega_1^i$ for $0 \leq i < e$, using $O(e)$ arithmetic operations. Computing $C$ from Proposition \[prop:ratio\] requires $O(e \log p)$ arithmetic operations.
Let $\gamma$ be the image in ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ of $\beta/p$, where $\beta$ is as in Proposition \[prop:root-of-unity\], i.e. $$\gamma = \frac1p \prod_{\substack{c=1 \\ (c,e) = 1}}^{e-1} g(\omega^{c^{-1}})^c.$$ With this formula, we may compute $\gamma \pmod{p^2}$ using $O(e^2)$ arithmetic operations. Combining Propositions \[prop:ratio\], \[prop:gross-koblitz\], \[prop:stickelberger\] and \[prop:root-of-unity\], we have $$\omega^{-i} (p-1)! = (-f!)^e \gamma (1 + pC) \pmod{p^2}$$ for some $0 \leq i < e$, so we can compute $\omega^{-i} (p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ using a further $O(\log e)$ operations. However, we know that $(p-1)! = -1 \pmod p$, so we can determine $i$ by comparing with the tabulated powers of $\omega$.
Before discussing the computation of $\theta$, we illustrate Theorem \[thm:cyclotomic\] with a numerical example. Take $p = 3333331$, $e = 18$, $f = 185185$, and the $18$th root $\omega_0 = 1819843$. The Teichmüller lift is $$\omega = 1819843 + 1422487p + 90367p^2 \pmod{p^3},$$ and $$C = \frac{(1 - \omega)^p - (1 - \omega) + \cdots + (1 - \omega^{17})^p - (1 - \omega^{17})}p = 418399 \pmod p.$$ Using the cyclotomic GCD algorithm discussed below, we find a generator $\theta = g(\zeta_e)$ of $P = (p, \zeta_e - \omega_0)$ given by $$g(x) = -5x^5 - 10x^4 + 7x^3 + 3x^2 + 10x - 4.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma & = \frac1p g(\omega) g(\omega^{11})^5 g(\omega^{13})^7 g(\omega^5)^{11} g(\omega^7)^{13} g(\omega^{17})^{17} \\
& = 1628187 + 503367p \pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now assuming that we have computed $$f! = 461190 + 275007p \pmod{p^2},$$ we find that $$\omega^{-i} (p-1)! = (-f!)^e \gamma (1 + pC) = 1780730 + 2171988p \pmod{p^2}.$$ Comparing with the powers of $\omega$, we find that $\omega_0^{3} = -1780730 \pmod p$, so $i = 3$ and $$(p-1)! = 3333330 + 27003p \pmod{p^2}.$$ We conclude that $w_p = 27004$.
Now we consider the problem of computing $\theta$. The standard approach to the ideal generator problem is based on lattice reduction (see for example [@Coh-compnt]), and indeed there exist highly optimised implementations in software packages such as Pari/GP [@PARI-2.3.5].
After some experimentation we settled on a different approach, which we found to be considerably faster than Pari in practice. Our algorithm is closer in spirit to the elementary Euclidean GCD algorithm. We emphasise that this is not a general-purpose algorithm for finding ideal generators: it assumes that $K$ has class number $1$, and also uses the fact that we know in advance that the generator is an irreducible element whose norm is not too small. In addition we are unable to prove that the ‘algorithm’ terminates. In practice we find that it does terminate quite quickly. Pseudocode is shown in Algorithm \[algo:gcd\] below. The algorithm is applied to the inputs $X = p$ and $Y = \zeta_e - \omega_0$, and their GCD is precisely the desired $\theta$.
\[algo:gcd\]
Several aspects of the algorithm deserve further discussion.
All elements of $O_K$ appearing in the algorithm are represented exactly, as ${\mathbf{Z}}$-linear combinations of the basis elements $\{1, \zeta_e, \ldots, \zeta_e^{d-1}\}$, where $d = \phi(e) = [K:{\mathbf{Q}}]$, i.e. as polynomials in $\zeta_e$. We first attempt to run the algorithm with all coefficients represented by signed 64-bit integers, and ignoring all overflows. If the algorithm terminates, we can check the output by verifying that the proposed $\theta$ divides both $p$ and $\zeta_e - \omega_0$. This usually succeeds. If it is incorrect, or if the algorithm runs for too long without terminating, we restart it. If this fails several times, we switch to an implementation that uses an arbitrary precision representation for the coefficients. This eliminates the possibility of overflow, so that if the algorithm terminates, the output is guaranteed to be correct. Again, if it runs for too long, we restart it. In practice this always eventually succeeds.
Exact multiplication of elements of $O_K$ (lines \[line:reduce\] and \[line:update-2\]) is achieved by naive polynomial multiplication followed by reduction modulo the cyclotomic polynomial $\phi_e(x)$. Exact division (line \[line:update-2\]) is achieved by the formula $X/Y = X \prod_{\sigma \neq 1} \sigma(Y) / N(Y)$, where the denominator $N(Y) = \prod_{\sigma} \sigma(Y)$ is a rational integer. Here $\sigma$ denotes an automorphism of $K$, which is evaluated by cyclic permutation of coordinates followed by reduction modulo $\phi_e(x)$.
Let $\tau_1, \overline{\tau_1}, \ldots, \tau_{d/2}, \overline{\tau_{d/2}}$ be the complex embeddings $K \hookrightarrow {\mathbf{C}}$, and let $\tau = (\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_{d/2}) : K \to {\mathbf{C}}^{d/2}$ be the corresponding vector of embeddings. For each variable $V$ in Algorithm \[algo:gcd\], we also maintain a second representation, namely a double-precision floating point approximation to $\tau(V)$.
In lines \[line:swap\] and \[line:update\], the norms are approximated by multiplying together the coordinates of $\tau(V)$, rather than by computing an exact norm in ${\mathbf{Z}}$.
In line \[line:quotient\], we first approximate $\tau(X/Y)$ by computing $\tau_i(X) / \tau_i(Y)$ (as a floating-point complex number) for each $i$. Applying the inverse of $\tau$ yields an approximation to $X/Y$ in $K \otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}{\mathbf{R}}$. We select $Q$ by simply rounding each coordinate to the nearest integer. In the ideal situation we will have $N(X/Y - Q) < 1$. If this holds, then line \[line:update\] will succeed in updating $X$, and then we have made some progress in reducing the norm. However there is no guarantee that $N(X/Y - Q) < 1$ will occur. One possibility is that there exists some $Q' \in O_K$ such that $N(X/Y - Q') < 1$, but that our simple-minded method for selecting $Q$ did not locate it. To mitigate against this, we make a few attempts to adjust the coordinates of $Q$ to locate a suitable $Q'$. This may still fail, and moreover it may turn out that there does not exist *any* $Q'$ with the right property. This may occur if $K$ is not Euclidean with respect to the norm; for example it is known that ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_{32})$ has this property [@Len-euclidean]. In this case, we will fall through to lines \[line:choose-U\]–\[line:update-2\].
The goal of lines \[line:choose-U\]–\[line:update-2\] is to make some random perturbation, in the hope that we will be lucky in finding a good $Q$ on the next iteration. In our implementation, we take $S$ to be the set of elements of $O_K$ of norm $q$, where $q$ is the smallest prime $q = 1 \pmod e$ (i.e. take all the conjugates of a generator of any prime ideal dividing $qO_K$). If we are lucky enough that $U$ divides $Y$, then we know $U$ cannot divide $X$, since we have assumed that the GCD has norm $p$, which is much larger than $q$. Thus dividing $Y$ by $U$ does not change the GCD. Otherwise, we simply multiply $X$ by $U$ and continue. This cannot change the GCD for the same reason.
The rationale for this perturbation strategy is as follows. If $X/Y$ is sufficiently close to an integer, then our method for selecting $Q$ should find it. Otherwise, $UX/Y$ is likely to be ‘randomly distributed’ modulo the integer lattice, and there is a reasonable chance that it will be close to an integer. We have not attempted to formulate this argument precisely or prove anything about it.
Finally we discuss the issue of units. Whenever we compute a new element of $O_K$, say $X$, we examine the size of its coefficients, and compare this to $N(X)$. If the coefficients are too large, we apply a balancing procedure, replacing $X$ by $u^{-1} X$ for a suitable unit $u \in O_K^*$. This of course does not alter the GCD. An extreme example of an ‘unbalanced’ element is a high power of a nontrivial unit $u \in O_K^*$, which has large coefficients but norm $1$. Without this balancing step, we soon encounter coefficient explosion (and overflow).
The condition we used to test for unbalancedness in our implementation is as follows: if $X = c_0 + c_1 \zeta_e + \cdots + c_{d-1} \zeta_e^{d-1}$, we declare that $X$ is unbalanced if $\frac1d\sum_{i=0}^{d-1} |c_i| > 10 |N(X)|^{1/d}$. There is no particular theoretical justification for this particular measure of size, nor of the choice of constant $10$. We used it because it is fast to evaluate and seems to give good results in practice.
To balance an element $X$ we proceed as follows. (This strategy is inspired by the definition of ‘unbalanced’ in [@Wik-lary].) Consider the logarithmic embedding $L: O_K\setminus\{0\} \to {\mathbf{R}}^{d/2}$ defined by $a \mapsto (\log|\tau_i(a)|)_i$. By Dirichlet’s unit theorem, the image of the unit group $O_K^*$ under this map is a lattice of full rank in the hyperplane $t_0 + \cdots + t_{d/2-1} = 0$. The vector $(\log|\tau_i(X)| - \frac1d\log|N(X)|)_i$ lies in this hyperplane. Armed with a precomputed list of generators of $O_K^*$ (obtained for example via Pari), we may therefore use simple linear algebra over ${\mathbf{R}}$ to select a unit $u$ so that $\log|\tau_i(u)|$ is close to $\log|\tau_i(X)| - \frac1d\log|N(X)|$ for all $i$. Then we replace $X$ by $u^{-1} X$ and continue. The rationale is that our choice of $u$ ensures that $|\tau_i(u^{-1} X)|$ is close to $|N(X)|^{1/d}$ for all $i$, so that the coefficients of $u^{-1} X$ will be reasonably small (although they might not actually satisfy the test for balancedness mentioned in the previous paragraph).
Implementation and hardware {#sec:implementation}
===========================
Our implementation is written in C, using OpenMP for parallelisation at the level of the individual compute node. We used the GMP library [@gmp-5.0.5] for multiple-precision integer arithmetic, with the following important exception.
For very large integer multiplications — for operands exceeding around $10^7$ bits, depending on the hardware — we switch to our own implementation based on number-theoretic transforms (NTTs). This proceeds by splitting the input into small chunks of perhaps several words each, converting the problem to that of multiplying polynomials in ${\mathbf{Z}}[x]$. This is then achieved by reducing modulo several suitable 62-bit primes $q$, multiplying the polynomials using FFTs over ${\mathbf{Z}}/q{\mathbf{Z}}$, and reconstructing the product in ${\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ via the Chinese Remainder Theorem. The FFT arithmetic is optimised using techniques described in [@Har-ntt]. To ensure the running time behaves smoothly as a function of the input size, we allow the number of primes to vary between 3 and 6, and we select a transform length of the form $2^k 3^\ell$ where $0 \leq \ell \leq 6$; that is, we use mainly radix-$2$ transforms, but allow a few layers of radix-$3$ transforms. We use a strategy similar to Bailey’s trick [@Bai-fft] to improve memory locality.
The main reason that we did not use GMP’s large integer multiplication code is that GMP does not take advantage of multiple cores in a shared memory environment. In contrast, our implementation is parallelised using OpenMP. This is crucial, because in Stage 1, the average complexity per prime is inversely proportional to the amout of RAM available. To make effective use of $n$ cores, it is not good enough to process $n$ intervals separately using one core each, since each core will have only $1/n$ of the available RAM, and will run in effect at $1/n$ of the speed. We must actually parallelise within the integer arithmetic, to get all cores working cooperatively on a single interval.
Furthermore, our integer multiplication code is optimised heavily in favour of conserving memory. Its performance varies across platforms, but in all cases is competitive with GMP. For example, on a node of Katana (see below), multiplying two 1-gigabyte integers took 178s using GMP, with peak memory usage 9.1GB. Our code performs the same multiplication in 121s using only 5.3GB; running on 8 cores it takes 20s (a 6-fold speedup), using the same memory.
A natural extension of this idea, which we did not pursue, is to increase the effective RAM available by making use of the fast networks on modern HPC systems to treat several nodes as a single computational unit. Whether this yields any speedup in searching for Wilson primes is an interesting question for future research.
We ran our implementation over a period of about four months on several clusters at New York University (“Cardiac”, “Bowery”, and “Union Square”), the University of New South Wales (“Katana” and “Tensor”), and the National Computational Infrastructure facility at the Australian National University (“Vayu”). Table \[tab:clusters\] summarises the characteristics of the nodes on each cluster, and the total CPU time expended on each cluster. Table \[tab:stages\] gives a breakdown of the total CPU time into Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3.
In the previous section it was pointed out that Stage 1 should dominate the computation for sufficiently large $p$. The data in Table \[tab:stages\] shows that we have not yet reached this region. A more detailed accounting shows this behaviour beginning to occur in some parts of the computation; for example, for $e = 2$, on the machines with 32GB RAM, we found that Stage 1 starts to dominate for $p$ around $5 \times 10^{12}$. The threshold increases with $e$ and with the amount of RAM per node.
Cluster Architecture RAM (GB) Core-hours
-------------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------
Cardiac AMD Barcelona 32 465000
16 cores, 2.3GHz
Bowery Intel Nehalem 48/96/256 263000
12 cores, 2.67–3.07GHz
Union Square Intel Xeon 16/32 154000
8 cores, 2.33GHz
Tensor Intel Xeon 16/24 145000
8 cores, 3.0GHz
Katana Intel Xeon 24/96/144 123000
12 cores, 2.8–3.06GHz
Vayu Intel Nehalem 24 13000
8 cores, 2.93GHz
: Cluster data[]{data-label="tab:clusters"}
Core-hours
--------- ------------
Stage 1 464000
Stage 2 655000
Stage 3 44000
: Breakdown of CPU time[]{data-label="tab:stages"}
We used a client-server strategy to distribute work among the clusters. A master script ran on a server at NYU. When a compute node is ready to begin work, it sends a request via HTTP to the server. The server is responsible for choosing a value of $e$ (as in Section \[sec:identities\]) and a range of primes $M < p < N$ to assign to that node. This basic outline is complicated by the fact that the time needed to complete a single block was generally much longer than the running time permitted for a single job by each cluster’s job scheduler. It was therefore necessary to serialise intermediate computations to disk at appropriate intervals, and reload them by another job later on. Load balancing was also complicated by varying cluster availability over the duration of the project.
Any computation of this size is bound to run into hardware failures and other problems. We took several measures to validate our results.
First, for each $p$ we check that our proposed valued for $(p-1)! \pmod{p^2}$ satisfies $(p-1)! = -1 \pmod p$. Second, in the notation of the proof of Theorem \[thm:cyclotomic\], we check that $(-f!)^e \gamma$ is an $e$th root of unity modulo $p$. This simultaneously provides a strong verification of the cyclotomic GCD computation and of the computation of $f!$, at least modulo $p$.
Finally, we wrote a completely independent program to compute $w_p$ using the $p^{1/2 + {\varepsilon}}$ algorithm of [@BGS-recurrences], together with identity (but none of the results of Section \[sec:identities\]). The underlying polynomial arithmetic is handled by the NTL library [@ntl-5.5.2]. We ran this implementation on the $27\,039\,026$ saved residues and found complete agreement. This computation was run on Katana and Tensor, together with a Condor cluster, utilising idle time on machines in the School of Mathematics and Statistics at UNSW; it took $440\,000$ CPU hours altogether.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the HPC facilities and staff at NYU, UNSW and NCI for providing computational resources and support. Thanks to Richard Brent, Claus Diem, Felix Fröhlich, Mark Rodenkirch for helpful discussions, and a referee for their comments that simplified the presentation. Several members of mersenneforum.org used their personal computers to search up to $4 \times 10^{11}$ with an early implementation written by the second author.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by FCT doctoral grant SFRH/BD/ 69914/2010.
[^2]: The third author was partially supported by the Australian Research Council, DECRA Grant DE120101293.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Solving ground states of quantum many-body systems has been a long-standing problem in condensed matter physics.Here, we propose a new unsupervised machine learning algorithm to find the ground state of a general quantum many-body system utilizing the benefits of artificial neural network. Without assuming the specific forms of the eigenvectors, this algorithm can find the eigenvectors in an unbiased way with well controlled accuracy. As examples, we apply this algorithm to 1D Ising and Heisenberg models, where the results match very well with exact diagonalization.'
author:
- Jiaxin Wu
- Wenjuan Zhang
bibliography:
- 'ref\_ML.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: |
Finding Quantum Many-Body Ground States\
with Artificial Neural Network
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Machine learning (ML) has become a popular topic in physics, since its ingenuity and flexibility unprecedentedly allow computers to learn automatically about the underlying physics from the input data. Previous efforts have been carried out in designing various machine learning algorithms to study different physics problems, such as using Boltzmann machine to model thermodynamic observables [@Torlai2016], and using artificial neural network to study two-body scattering with short-range potentials [@Wu2018]. In addition, in order to identify quantum phase transitions, @Wetzel2017 utilize principal component analysis and variational autoencoder, meanwhile @Broecker2017 proposed a method using convolutional neural networks.
In condensed matter physics, one of the main hurdles is to find the eigenstates of interacting systems with reasonable system sizes. In the presence of interactions, the dimension of the Hilbert space grows exponentially with the system size, which prevents us from solving the Hamiltonian exactly except for small systems with exact diagonalization (ED). To solve this problem, many numerical methods have been put forward, such as quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) [@Foulkes2001; @Suzuki1993; @Ceperley1995], density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) [@White1992; @White1993; @Schollwoeck2005; @Schollwoeck2011], and so on. Everyone of them has its own advantages and constraints. For example, QMC uses stochastic sampling based on a probability that is related to the partition function of the system. It is a powerful algorithm to simulate thermodynamic properties of many-body systems, and the many-body ground states can be deduced from finite-size scaling. However, QMC suffers from the notorious “sign problem” rendering it unfit for some fermionic models. DMRG, on the other hand, is able to obtain accurate results for general large 1D or quasi-1D systems by keeping the most relevant components in local reduced density matrices, yet it performs poorly for higher dimensional systems. Variants of DMRG, Projected Entangled Pair States (PEPS) and multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA), have been proposed as solutions for the dimensional limitation. However DMRG and its variants use power law methods to diagonalize large matricies, redering the algorithm inefficient beyond a model dependent cut off. With new tools provided by machine learning, we want to ask whether there exist new algorithms in finding the eigenstates of a general Hamiltonian. Recently, Carleo and Troyer [@Carleo2017] proposed to use restricted Boltzmann machine to find a variational ground state and its time evolution for a given Hamiltonian. In this paper, we address the problem by exploring an alternative unsupervised machine learning method with artificial neural network. Our goal is to find the ground-state eigenvectors of a general Hamiltonian without any assumptions of the form the eigenvectors.
The structure of this paper is organized as the following. We describe our machine learning algorithm in Section \[sec:NN\_structure\]. To illustrate how well this method works, we apply it to find the ground states of 1D Ising model and Heisenberg model, and compare the spin-spin correlators and ground-state energy with exact diagonalization in Section \[sec:result\]. In the end, We conclude that using this method one is able to find the ground states accurately, and discuss how this method can potentially be applied to large systems beyond ED.
\[sec:NN\_structure\] Neural Network Structure
==============================================
\[sec:intro\_tradition\]Traditional Deep Learning Structure
-----------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Let us start by introducing the structure of a deep learning artificial NN. Traditionally, A deep learning NN is constructed by an input layer, multiple hidden layers, and a output layer (See Fig. \[fig:nnstructure\](a).). The input layer $X_0$ usually contains information of the input data, such as a vector describing every pixel of a picture. A hidden layer $X_j \ (j = 1,2,3,\cdots ,L-1)$ is a vector with arbitrary dimension, where every element is connected with every other element from the previous and next layer. The $X_j$’s are connected through parameters $W_j$’s and $B_j$’s: $$X_{j+1} = f(W_{j+1} X_j +B_{j+1}),$$ where $W_j$ is a matrix and $B_j$ is a vector. $f$ is a non-linear function called activation function which introduces non-linearity in the model. The notation here means that the activation function is acting on every element of the vector $(W_{j+1} X_j +B_{j+1})$. The role of $f$ is important, because it is likely that $X_L$ and $X_0$ cannot be related by linear operations. Without the non-linearity from the activation function, a multi-layer NN structure has no difference from having only the input and output layers. The common choices of $f$ are sigmoid, tanh, etc. Within the same layer, the elements are independent of each other. An output layer $X_L$ can be a number or a vector containing output information from the NN. The task of a NN is to map the input $X_0$ to an output $X_L$ where $X_L$ is as close to the desired output $Y$ as possible.
In order to accomplish the task, one needs to have a well defined cost function, which guides the direction of the learning process. It usually quantifies the difference between $X_L$ and $Y$. As one of the simplest examples, the cost function could be defined as $$C = \frac{1}{2}|Y-X_L|^2.$$ In this case, if $X_L$ is the same as $Y$, the cost function $C=0$. The more $X_L$ deviates from $Y$, the larger $C$ is. Now the goal is to minimize $C$ by updating the parameters in the NN. Because the optimization depends on the knowledge of the desired outputs, which requires one to label the data beforehand, this is a typical supervised machine learning method. The initial parameters $W_j$’s are usually chosen randomly and the $B_j$’s are left to be zero vectors. One can optimize the output by repeatedly updating the parameters in the direction where $C$ decays the fastest. To be more precise, $$\label{eq:update}
W_j := W_j - \eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial W_j},\ B_j := B_j - \eta \frac{\partial C}{\partial B_j},$$ where the partial derivative of $C$ is operated with respect to every matrix or vector element, and the sign “$:=$” denotes updating the left-hand side with the value on the right-hand side. $\eta$ is a positive number called the learning rate, and it determines how fast $C$ descends in every update. As an example shown in Fig. \[fig:nnstructure\](b), when $\frac{\partial C}{\partial W_j}<0 $ at point $W_j'$, the new value of $W_j$ is updated forward. While $\frac{\partial C}{\partial W_j}>0 $ at point $W_j''$, $W_j$ is updated backward. In this way, the parameters are always updated in the direction of minimizing $C$ the fastest.
For a given algorithm, one has the freedom to tune the number of layers $N$, the number of nodes in every hidden layers, the learning rate $\eta$. These are called hyper parameters. Changing these parameters can affect the performance of the algorithm. Therefore, one usually needs to have some trial runs to optimize the choice of hyper parameters.
\[sec:modified\_structure\]Modified Neural Network to Find Eigenvectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the deep learning structure, we propose a modified machine learning algorithm to find the ground state of a general Hamiltonian. Here, the input layer $X_0$ is a vector indicating the initial guess of the eigenvector given Hamiltonian $H$. Without prior knowledge of the eigenvetors, one can choose $X_0$ as a random vector. Noticed that the eigenvector for a general Hamiltonian is complex, $X_0$ is a complex vector, which can be decomposed as $$X_0 = X_0^R + i X_0^I,$$ where superscript $R$ and $I$ mean the real and imaginary part respectively. To simplify the calculation, we propagate the real and imaginary part of $X$ through the NN separately, i.e. $$X_{j+1}^R = f(W_{j+1}^R X_j^R + B_{j+1}^R),\ X_{j+1}^I = f(W_{j+1}^I X_j^I + B_{j+1}^I).$$ Here, all $W^{R/I}_j$’s and $B^{R/I}_j$’s are real, and we choose the activation function to be $\tanh$. To test whether the output vector $X_N$ is an eigenvector of $H$, we first normalize $X_N$ such that $X_N^{\dagger}\cdot X_N = 1$. Then we calculate $$\label{eq:HX}
H\cdot X_N = E \tilde{X}_N,$$ where $\tilde{X}_N$ is also properly normalized, and $E$ is a scalar. When $X_N$ is an eigenvector, $\tilde{X}_N=X_N$ and $E$ is the eigenenergy. To quantify how close $X_N$ is to be an eigenvector, we define the cost function as $$\label{eq:cost}
C \equiv 1- |\tilde{X}_N^{\dagger}\cdot X_N|^2.$$ When $X_N$ is close to be an eigenvector, $C\rightarrow 0$; whereas when $X_N$ is far from being an eigenvector, $C \rightarrow 1$. The goal of the learning process is to minimize $C$ as close to zero as possible, which can be done with gradient descent (See appendix.\[appendix:grad\_C\].) according to Eq.(\[eq:update\]).
Noticed that for the activation function $f(x)=\tanh(x)$, its derivative is the largest when $x=0$, which means the machine learns the most effectively when $W_{j+1}^{R/I} X_j^{R/I} + B_{j+1}^{R/I} \rightarrow 0$ for all $j$’s. To speed up the learning process, we initialize all elements of $W_j$’s with normal distributed random numbers multiplying by a small number (usually $10^{-2}\sim10^{-4}$), and zero all $B_j$’s. For large systems, initializing $W_j$’s with small matrix elements can greatly improve the learning speed and the accuracy of the output vectors.
The minimization process stops when $C < \epsilon_c$, where $\epsilon_c$ is the threshold for the cost function. It is a small positive number with $\epsilon_c<1$. The smaller $\epsilon_c$ is, the more accurate the output eigenstates are, and usually the more layers are required in the NN.
The cost function in Eq.(\[eq:cost\]) has many minimums, and each of them corresponds to an eigenvector of $H$. However, the eigenvectors with an eigenenergy further away from 0 are more likely to be found. The reason is the following. Supposed that the $\{\Psi_m\}$ is the set of orthonormal eigenvectors for $H$ with eigenvalues $\{\mathcal{E}_m\}$, one can then write $X_N$ as a superposition where $X_N=\sum_m A_m \Psi_m$. In every iteration, we compute Eq.(\[eq:HX\]), which could be written as $H\cdot \sum_m \Psi_m =E \sum_m \frac{\mathcal{E}_m}{E} \Psi_m = E \tilde{X}_N$. Under many iteration, the eigen vector correspond to the largest $\mathcal{E}_j$ is going to be more important than the other vectors by some powers of $\mathcal{E}_j$. This idea is similar to the power iteration method. In physics, we are usually most interested in the few lowest energy states. To increase the probability that the output states are one of them, one can shift the energy levels down by subtracting $H$ with a constant such that the highest energy states have eigenenergy close to 0. Therefore, after shifting the energy levels, the form of the cost function in Eq.(\[eq:cost\]) determines that one will most likely finds the few eigenstates with the lowest eigenenergy. Since the definition of $C$ doesn’t require prior knowledge of the correct eigenvectors, this is an unsupervised machine learning algorithm.
Gain Function for Convergence to Ground States
----------------------------------------------
The cost function introduced in Section \[sec:modified\_structure\] is good when one is interested to see a few eigenstates with relatively low energy. However, in a lot of cases, we are only interested in the ground state. If $H$ has large dimensions with some low excited states, it could take quite some trials until one finds the ground state. With the cost function in Eq.(\[eq:cost\]), one way to find it is to project out every output eigenstate in $H$ before running the next trail, and compare all the eigenvalues from these different eigenstates to determine which one corresponds to the ground state. But this projection method requires every output eigenstate to be extremely accurate, otherwise the Hamiltonian will get mixed up. In this subsection, we introduce the gain function, as opposed to the cost function, to help find the ground state more directly.
The gain function is defined as $$\label{eq:gain}
G \equiv |{X}_N^{\dagger}\cdot (H X_N)|^2 = |E X_N^{\dagger} \cdot \tilde{X}_N|^2.$$ After properly shifting the energy levels, $G$ is maximized only when $X_N$ is the ground state eigenvector. One can then use gradient ascent (See Appendix.\[appendix:grad\_G\] for more details.) $$\label{eq:update_gain}
W_j := W_j + \eta \frac{\partial G}{\partial W_j},\ B_j := B_j + \eta \frac{\partial G}{\partial B_j},$$ to iteratively maximize $G$. In other words, the gradient ascent process refines $X_N$ to be the ground state eigenvector.
The typical behaviors of $G$ and $C$ in the process of gradient ascent is shown in Fig. \[fig:G\_C\]. While maximizing the gain function $G$, the cost function $C$ is able to jump out of the minimums of some excited states and reach the ground state minimum.
Unlike the cost function having a universal minimum value, the maximum value for the gain function is model dependent, which equals to the ground state energy square. Without prior knowledge, it is sometimes difficult to guess it accurately. In this case, we stop the optimization process when $G$ increase slowly and $C$ is small. To be more precise, we keep the gain function value from the last optimization step and call it $G'$. The process stops when $0<\frac{G-G'}{|G'|}<\epsilon_g$ and $C<\epsilon_c$, where $0<\epsilon_g<1$ is a small number acting as a threshold for the gain function increasing rate. The cost function is now used as a “quality control”. It prevents the optimization process from stopping at regions where $G$ is passing by saddle points but the output vector is not an eigenvector. In general, using the gain function can significantly reduce the number of steps needed for the learning process with the same cost function threshold $\epsilon_c$. Moreover, for the same NN structure, using the gain function usually increases the accuracy of the output eigenvectors, i.e. smaller $\epsilon_c$ becomes achievable.
However, based on the stopping condition described above, there are still chances where the optimization stops before the ground state is found, namely when an excited state eigenvector also correspond to a local minimum or saddle point in $G$. This is a legitimate concern, and one should either compare several outputs with different initial condition, or judge based on estimate of the ground state energy, to decide whether the output vector is the ground state. As shown in Fig. \[fig:RoG\], however, the probability of getting a ground state eigenvector is rather high when using the gain function in the optimization process.
\[sec:result\]Numerical Results
===============================
![\[fig:RoG\]The acceptance rate under different random initial condition for Ising and Heisenberg models obtained by using the cost function and the gain function respectively. With small system size, we can project the output states from the ML algorithms to the ones from exact diagonalization (ED), and determines whether the output states are ground states.](RoG.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
To validate the ML algorithm, we apply it to find the ground states of the 1D Ising model with staggered field and anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg models, where the two Hamiltonian are given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{Ising} =& \sum_{j}[S_j^z S_{j+1}^z + h\sum_j (-1)^jS_j^z] -\frac{L-1}{4},\\
H_{AFH} =& \sum_{j}(S^x_j S^x_{j+1}+S^y_j S^y_{j+1}+S^z_j S^z_{j+1})-\frac{L}{4},
\end{aligned}$$ respectively. $S_j^{\alpha} = \frac{1}{2} \sigma_j^{\alpha}$ is the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ operator of the $j$th site with $\sigma_j^{\alpha}$’s being the Pauli matrices, and $L$ is the total number of sites in each system. In both cases, we use periodic boundary condition and shift the energy levels by adding a constant. For the Ising model, we also add a small staggered field ($h=0.1$ in our case) to split the ground state degeneracy for more straight forward comparison between the exact ground state and the output ground state. In principle, the machine learning algorithm works even if there is degeneracy, where the output ground state should be in one of the superposition of the degenerate ground states. However, the ground states found with different initial conditions are not necessarily orthogonal to each other. One way to find all the ground states is to project out the ground states from the previous calculation in the Hamiltonian before running the algorithm. However, this procedure requires every ground state is obtained with very high accuracy, otherwise the Hamiltonian will be mixed up. To avoid this complicated situation in our demonstration, we choose models without ground state degeneracy.
In Fig. \[fig:RoG\], we compare the neural network’s ability of finding the ground states using the cost function versus the gain function. Under many trials of random initial condition, let $N_g$ be the number of ground states found, and $N_{tot}$ be the total number of eigenstates found. We define the acceptance rate of ground states as $\frac{N_g}{N_{tot}}$. When the systems are relatively small, both methods give rather high acceptance rate. As the system size grows, the dimension of the Hilbert space grows exponentially, and it becomes less likely to find the ground states by minimizing the cost function. However, the gain function remains relatively effective as a guidance to find the ground states. Noticed that the acceptance rate also depend on the hyper parameters, so this figure only provide a qualitative ratio.
![\[fig:EvsL\]Ground state energy comparison between ED and the ML algorithm. ](EvsL.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Next, we show the ground-state spin-spin correlations and energy calculated from maximizing the gain function versus ED in Fig. \[fig:corr\] and Fig. \[fig:EvsL\]. Plotted values for ML are the mean value of 100 output ground states with different random initial condition, and the error bars indicate the standard deviations in this ensemble. Fig. \[fig:corr\] and Fig. \[fig:EvsL\] show that the results from the ML algorithm match the ones from ED quite well.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we introduce a new machine learning algorithm to find the ground state eigenvector of a general Hamiltonian based on artificial neural network. This method does not have any constraints on the form of the Hamiltonian, nor does it require any prior knowledge of the target ground state. Moreover, the results are obtained with a controllable error rate. Therefore, the outputs are unbiased and can be made very accurate. Compare to ED, this algorithm does not involve solving any multivariable equations, but only matrix multiplications. As a result, one potential direction of applying it to large systems is to store the large matrices in hard drives and read in a few at a time for the matrix multiplication. Besides, the dimension of the matrices in the hidden layer can likely be reduced especially in the presence of symmetries in the Hamiltonian. In our discussion, we fix the dimension of the matrices in the hidden layers in order to reduce the number of hyper parameters, but there is no clear reason that this has to be the case. Reducing the dimension of these matrices can not only reduce the cost of memory, but also improve the speed of the algorithm. The minimum dimension may even reveal information about the “order parameter” of the Hamiltonian. Future work is needed to further explore these two possibilities.
We thank Tin-Lun Ho, Niravkumar Patel, James Rowland and Wayne Zheng for illuminating discussion. JW further acknowledges support from MURI Grant FP054294-D, the NASA Grant on Fundamental physics 1541824, and the OSU MRSEC Seed Grant. WZ acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR-1629382.
\[appendix:grad\_C\]Gradient Descent of Cost Function
=====================================================
To update the parameters $W_j$’s and $B_j$’s, one needs to find the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial C}{\partial W_j}$ and $\frac{\partial C}{\partial B_j}$. A simple way to do it is to first calculate the partial derivatives with respect to the last layer $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial B_N}=\frac{\partial C}{\partial X_N}\frac{\partial X_N}{\partial B_N}=\frac{\partial C}{\partial X_N}\frac{\partial f(Z_N)}{\partial Z_N},$$ where $f$ is the activation function, and $Z_j = W_j X_{j-1}+B_j$. In our calculation, we choose $f(z)=\tanh(z)$. Notice that for $\tanh(z)$, its derivative is the steepest at $z=0$, which means that the machine learns the fastest when the value of $Z_j$’s are small. So when one initialize the parameters $W_j$’s, it is beneficial to choose small random numbers, and let $B_j$’s to be zero. Using the above result, one can calculate the partial derivative of the second to last layer and so on. For the $j$th layer, $$\label{eq:chain_rule}
\frac{\partial C}{\partial B_j} = (\frac{\partial C}{\partial X_N}\frac{\partial X_N}{\partial X_{N-1}}\cdots\frac{\partial X_{j+1}}{\partial X_j}) \frac{\partial f(Z_j)}{\partial Z_j}.$$ Once $\frac{\partial C}{\partial B_j}$ is known, $\frac{\partial C}{\partial W_j} = \frac{\partial C}{\partial B_j}X_{j-1}$. Repeatedly, one can update the parameters from the last layer to the first layer, and finish one updating process. This procedure is called back propagation.
With the definition of cost function C in Eq.(\[eq:cost\]), $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial X^R_{N}}=-2 \operatorname{Re}{(\tilde{X}_N \mathcal{P})},\ \frac{\partial C}{\partial X^I_{N}}=-2 \operatorname{Im}{(\tilde{X}_N \mathcal{P})},$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ is a scalar defined as $\mathcal{P} \equiv {\tilde{X}_N^{\dagger} \cdot X_N}$. In our algorithm, the real and imaginary parts are updated separately, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial C}{\partial B^R_{N}} = \frac{\partial C}{\partial X^R_{N}}\frac{\partial X^R_N}{\partial B^R_{N}}=-2 \operatorname{Re}{(\tilde{X}_N \mathcal{P})} \operatorname{sech}^2(Z^R_{N})\\
\frac{\partial C}{\partial B^I_{N}} = \frac{\partial C}{\partial X^I_{N}}\frac{\partial X^I_N}{\partial B^I_{N}}=-2 \operatorname{Im}{(\tilde{X}_N \mathcal{P})} \operatorname{sech}^2(Z^I_{N}).\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z^{R/I}_j = W^{R/I}_j X^{R/I}_{j-1}+B^{R/I}_j$, and $\operatorname{sech}$ is obtained from the fact that we use $\tanh$ as the activation function. For $j\in[1,N)$, we calculate $\frac{\partial C}{\partial B^{R/I}_{j}}$ based on the chain rule in Eq.(\[eq:chain\_rule\]), except that the real and imaginary parts are separate, i.e. $$\label{eq:chain_rule_RI}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial C}{\partial B^R_j} =& (\frac{\partial C}{\partial X^R_N}\frac{\partial X^R_N}{\partial X^R_{N-1}}\cdots\frac{\partial X^R_{j+1}}{\partial X^R_j}) \frac{\partial f(Z^R_j)}{\partial Z^R_j},\\
\frac{\partial C}{\partial B^I_j} =& (\frac{\partial C}{\partial X^I_N}\frac{\partial X^I_N}{\partial X^I_{N-1}}\cdots\frac{\partial X^I_{j+1}}{\partial X^I_j}) \frac{\partial f(Z^I_j)}{\partial Z^I_j}.\\
\end{aligned}$$ As for $W_j$’s, we have $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial W^R_{j}} = \frac{\partial C}{\partial B^R_{j}} (X_{j-1}^R)^{T}, \ \frac{\partial C}{\partial W^I_{j}} = \frac{\partial C}{\partial B^I_{j}} (X_{j-1}^I)^{T}.$$ To minimize $C$ to zero, we update the parameters $W_j$’s and $B_j$’s using gradient descent based on Eq.(\[eq:update\]) until $C$ is smaller than a threshold $\epsilon_{c}$, where $\epsilon_c <<1$.
\[appendix:grad\_G\]Gradient Ascent of Gain Function
====================================================
Similarly to gradient descent, we need to calculate the partial derivatives of $\frac{\partial G}{\partial W_j}$ and $\frac{\partial G}{\partial B_j}$ for each update for $G$’s gradient ascent. We continue to use the idea of back propagation described in Appendix.\[appendix:grad\_C\].
For the gain function defined in Eq.(\[eq:gain\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial G}{\partial X^R_N} =& 4\operatorname{Re}(H X_N) (X_N^{\dagger} H X_N),\\ \frac{\partial G}{\partial X^I_N} =& 4\operatorname{Im}(H X_N) (X_N^{\dagger} H X_N).
\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial G}{\partial B^R_N} = \frac{\partial G}{\partial X^R_N}\frac{\partial X^R_N}{\partial B^R_N}=&4\operatorname{Re}(H X_N) (X_N^{\dagger} H X_N)\operatorname{sech}^2(Z^R_{N}),\\
\frac{\partial G}{\partial B^I_N} = \frac{\partial G}{\partial X^I_N}\frac{\partial X^I_N}{\partial B^I_N}=&4\operatorname{Im}(H X_N) (X_N^{\dagger} H X_N)\operatorname{sech}^2(Z^I_{N})\\
\end{aligned}$$ For $1\leq j<N$, $\frac{\partial G}{\partial B_j}$ can be obtained through chain rule similar to Eq.(\[eq:chain\_rule\_RI\]) while separating the real and imaginary parts. For $W_j$’s, $$\frac{\partial G}{\partial W^R_{j}} = \frac{\partial G}{\partial B^R_{j}} (X_{j-1}^R)^{T}, \ \frac{\partial G}{\partial W^I_{j}} = \frac{\partial G}{\partial B^I_{j}} (X_{j-1}^I)^{T}.$$
Since we want to maximize $G$, we need to update the parameters in a opposite direction compared to $C$, i.e. following Eq.(\[eq:update\_gain\]) with a positive learning rate $\eta$. Furthermore, the upper bound of $G$ depends on the Hamiltonian $H$, so that we cannot define a general threshold at which the gradient ascent stops. Alternatively, we calculate the gain function from the current step $G_c$ and from the last step $G_l$, and the gradient ascent stops when the gain function almost stop increasing at consecutive steps while the cost function is under the threshold, i.e. $(G_c - G_l)/G_l < \epsilon_g$ with $(G_c - G_l)>0$ and $C<\epsilon_c$. Here, $\epsilon_g$ is the threshold for the increased ratio of the gain function and $\epsilon_g << 1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A homogenized flux and body force approach for modeling compressible viscous flows through porous wall is described. The homogeneous model computes the flux through the porous wall as a weighted average of the flux on the wall and the flux through the pore, and takes into account the friction loss on the pore boundary as a body force term. The approach avoids the pore-level resolution mesh, therefore, allows for incorporating porosity for practical use in complex problems, like space landing parachute simulations. Moreover, the proposed model takes account of the compressibility of the flow and does not require the prescribed mass flow rate or discharge coefficient, which marks key differences from other homogenized porous models. To test the homogenized model, a series of pore-level resolved direct numerical simulations with different simple pore geometries and inflow Mach numbers are conducted. The comparisons with these simulations show that the proposed model provides accurate predictions of homogenized quantities near the porous wall.'
address:
- 'Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305'
- 'Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305'
- 'Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305'
author:
- 'Daniel Z. Huang'
- Man Long Wong
- 'Sanjiva K. Lele'
- Charbel Farhat
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'A Homogenized Flux-Body Force Approach for Modeling Porous Wall Boundary Conditions in Compressible Viscous Flows'
---
[2]{}
Introduction
============
Porous walls and membranes appear in a wide range of engineering and scientific applications, such as filtration processes [@nassehi1998modelling; @griffiths2013control; @ling2016dispersion] to separate particulates or molecules from a bulk fluid, multiperforated plates in gas turbines [@apte2001unsteady; @mendez2008large; @mendez2008adiabatic; @mendez2007large] to produce the necessary cooling, parachute system decelerators [@kim20062; @karagiozis2011computational; @gao2016numerical; @huang2018simulation], and windbreaks or shelterbelts [@judd1996wind; @patton1998large; @wang2001shelterbelts] to reduce the relative flow speed and maintain stability. However, pore-level resolved simulations for most of these large scale engineering applications are still computationally unaffordable. Therefore, high precision and efficient modeling of the fluid flow behavior in such systems is important to improve the understanding of the effects of porous materials and to develop porous wall and membrane related processes and technologies.
The modeling of fluid flows through porous walls or membranes has been inspired by a variety of investigations of flows in porous media. @kim20062 and @gao2016numerical coupled Darcy’s law and Ergun’s law to introduce an internal pressure jump boundary condition into the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations for the simulation of a porous parachute. @wilson1985numerical and @wang2001shelterbelts modeled a windbreak similar to a plant canopy by adding a local momentum extraction source term near the windbreak. They calibrated the pressure-loss coefficient in the source term using the pressure drop across the windbreak and the momentum of the flow measured in wind tunnel experiments [@judd1996wind]. @nassehi1998modelling and @griffiths2013control analyzed cross-flow filtration with the Navier–Stokes equations by applying the slip-wall boundary condition [@beavers1967boundary] on a porous tube in order to investigate the transport of solutes or particles in a tube with porous walls. Notably, all of the aforementioned investigations are limited to low Mach number (incompressible) flows.
There are only a few research studies regarding the effects of permeability on high Mach number compressible flows. Those studies combined Darcy’s equation with the continuity equation [@muskat1934flow], or derived compressible variants of Darcy’s law [@shepherd1988transient; @schmidt2014compressible] from the continuity equation and the force balance equation between drag and the pressure drop across an element of porous material. There have also been several efforts that aimed to model the porous surface for film-cooling in gas turbines under high-speed flight conditions. @apte2001unsteady treated the porous chamber wall as a mass inflow condition with white noise in the mass flow rate. @mendez2008adiabatic built a homogeneous model for the multiperforated plate in which the homogenized mass flux is related to the constant discharge coefficient estimated from the pore-level resolved simulations.
The present work proposes a homogenized model for a porous wall boundary in high Mach number compressible viscous flows. To begin, the homogenized fluxes through the porous wall are weighted averages of fluxes through pores and fluxes on the solid wall part. The friction loss due to the pore boundary is modeled as a body force term near the porous wall which depends on the thickness of the porous wall and an assumed pore geometry. Compared with previous models, the present model does not require prescribing the mass flow rate, discharge coefficient, and/or other permeability parameters.
The homogenized porous model is verified using the Mars Science Laboratory parachute fabric and a porous flow model problem at the typical supersonic free-stream Mars landing conditions. High Mach number flows through porous membranes initiated with shocks hitting the porous membranes are simulated with shock Mach numbers ranging between $1.46$ and $2.31$. Compared with pore-level resolved direct numerical simulation (DNS) results, this homogenized model is able to predict homogenized quantities with reasonable accuracy.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, the governing equations are introduced in \[sec: gov\]. Then, the homogenized porous model suitable for practical simulations is presented in \[sec: model\]. The performance of the proposed model is assessed in \[sec: app\] by comparing its results with their counterparts from pore-level resolved DNS. Finally, conclusions are offered in \[sec: conclusion\].
Governing equations {#sec: gov}
===================
Throughout this paper, flows are assumed to be compressible and viscous, and are governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, which are written as: $$\label{eq: ns}
\dfrac{\partial \bm{W}}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot \mathcal{F}(\bm{W}) = \nabla\cdot \mathcal{G}(\bm{W}),$$ where $\bm{W}$ is the vector of the conservative variables describing the fluid state. $\mathcal{F}(\bm{W})$ and $\mathcal{G}(\bm{W})$ are respectively the inviscid and viscous flux tensor functions of the conservative variables. Specifically, $$\bm{W} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho \\[4mm]
\rho \bm{v} \\[4mm]
E
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
\mathcal{F}(\bm{W}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho \bm{v} \\[2mm]
\rho \bm{v} \otimes \bm{v} + p\mathcal{I} \\[2.5mm]
\bigl(E + p \bigr)\bm{v}
\end{pmatrix},
\quad \mathrm{and} \quad
\mathcal{G}(\bm{W}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\[2.5mm]
{\uptau} \\[1.5mm]
{\uptau}\boldsymbol \cdot \bm{v} - \bm{q}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\rho$, $\bm{v}$, and $E$ denote the density, velocity, and total energy per unit volume of the fluid, respectively. They are given by: $$\bm{v} = (u, v, w)^{T} \quad \textrm{and} \quad E = \rho e + \dfrac{1}{2}\rho (u^2 + v^2 + w^2),$$ where $e$ denotes the specific (i.e., per unit of mass) internal energy. In the physical inviscid flux tensor $\mathcal{F}$, $p$ is the static pressure and $\mathcal{I} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ is the identity matrix. In the viscous flux tensor $\mathcal{G}$, ${\uptau}$ and $\bm{q}$ denote the viscous stress tensor and heat flux vector, respectively, and are defined as: $${\uptau} = \mu( \nabla^T \bm{v} + \nabla \bm{v}) - \dfrac{2}{3}\mu(\nabla\boldsymbol{\cdot} \bm{v})\mathcal{I}
\quad \mathrm{and} \quad
\bm{q} = -\kappa \nabla T,$$ where $\mu$ is the dynamic shear viscosity, and $\kappa$ is the thermal conductivity. $T$ is the temperature.
The system of equations \[eq: ns\] is closed by assuming that the gas is ideal and calorically perfect: $$p = \rho R T \quad \mathrm{and} \quad e = \frac{R}{\gamma - 1} T,$$ where $R$ and $\gamma$ are the gas constant and specific heat ratio, respectively.
Homogenized flux-body force approach {#sec: model}
====================================
In this section, the homogenized approach with sub-cell modeling is introduced using a simplified model problem with flow through a porous wall (see figure \[fig: computational domain\]). The porous wall is placed at the center of a square domain, which is periodic and symmetric in both transverse directions ($y$ and $z$ directions). Therefore, periodic boundary conditions can be imposed in both transverse directions by leveraging the periodicity of the porous wall and assuming that the flows are laminar and symmetric.
(-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.4, 0.3, 0) node\[anchor=north\][$x$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.8, 0) node\[anchor=south\][$y$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.3, 0.5) node\[xshift=-5\]\[anchor=south\][$z$]{};
(0.1, 0.5) – (1.1, 0.5) node\[xshift=-3,yshift=3\]\[anchor=south\]\[scale=1.0\] [Upstream flow]{}; (0.1, 0.3) – (1.1, 0.3); (0.1, 0.1) – (1.1, 0.1); node at (1.1,1.2) [Periodic]{}; node at (1.1,-0.2) [Periodic]{};
node at (2.2, 1.6) [Porous wall]{};
(2 + 0.5, 0.05) – (2 + 0.5, 0.95) node\[yshift=-12\]\[anchor=north west\]\[scale=1.0\] [$500\ \mathrm{\mu m}$]{}; (2 - 0.3, -0.1) – (2 , -0.1) node\[anchor=north\]\[scale=1.0\] [$80\ \mathrm{\mu m}$]{};
(2,1,0) coordinate (o) – ++(-,0,0) coordinate (a) – ++(0,-,0) coordinate (b) edge coordinate \[pos=1\] (g) ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) coordinate (c) – cycle (o) – ++(0,0,-) coordinate (d) – ++(0,-,0) coordinate (e) edge (g) – (c) – cycle (o) – (a) – ++(0,0,-) coordinate (f) edge (g) – (d) – cycle;
(4,1,0) coordinate (o) – ++(-,0,0) coordinate (a) – ++(0,-,0) coordinate (b) edge coordinate \[pos=1\] (g) ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) coordinate (c) – cycle (o) – ++(0,0,-) coordinate (d) – ++(0,-,0) coordinate (e) edge (g) – (c) – cycle (o) – (a) – ++(0,0,-) coordinate (f) edge (g) – (d) – cycle;
In the homogenized approach, the mesh spacing is assumed to be much larger than the pore size, and the thickness of the porous wall is ignored. A homogenized quantity $\bar{\phi}$, such as a spanwise-averaged or cell-averaged quantity of an original quantity $\phi$, is written as: $$\bar{\phi} = \frac{\int_\Omega \phi \, d\Omega}{|\Omega|},$$ where $\Omega$ is the homogenizing area. For the model problem, we take homogenization in both transverse directions with the domain cross-sectional area. The homogenized transverse velocity components $\bar{v}$ and $\bar{w}$ are zero due to the symmetry of the problem setup. The homogenized \[eq: ns\] are given as: $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial \bar\rho}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \overline{\rho u}}{\partial x} &= 0,\\
\frac{\partial \overline {\rho u}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \overline { \rho u u + p}}{\partial x} &=
\frac{\partial \overline {\tau_{xx}}}{\partial x} + {\frac{ \overline {\partial \tau_{xy}}}{\partial y}} + {\frac{ \overline {\partial \tau_{xz}}}{\partial z}},\\
\frac{\partial \overline E}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \overline {(E + p)u}}{\partial x} &=
\frac{\partial \overline{\tau_{xx} u-q_x}}{\partial x} + {\frac{\overline {\partial \tau_{xy} u}}{\partial y}} + {\frac{\overline {\partial \tau_{xz} u}}{\partial z}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq: Homogenized-NS}$$ Specifically, $\tau_{xx}$, $\tau_{xy}$, and $\tau_{xz}$ are components of viscous stress tensor ${\uptau}$ which have expressions as: $$\tau_{xx} = \mu \left( \frac{4}{3}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\partial v}{\partial y} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\partial w}{\partial z} \right),\quad
\tau_{xy} = \mu \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} \right),\quad \textrm{and} \quad
\tau_{xz} = \mu \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial z} + \frac{\partial w}{\partial x} \right),
\label{eq: viscous stress}$$ and $q_x$ is the $x$-component of heat flux vector $\bm{q}$ that has expression as: $$q_x = -\kappa\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}.$$
Homogenized inviscid flux {#sec: inviscid}
-------------------------
(-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.4, 0.3, 0) node\[anchor=north\][$x$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.8, 0) node\[anchor=south\][$y$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.3, 0.5) node\[anchor=south\][$z\ \ $]{}; (0,0) rectangle (4,1); (1,0) rectangle (3,1); (2 - 0.08,0) rectangle (2 + 0.08,0.4); (2 - 0.08,0.6) rectangle (2 + 0.08,1.0);
at (0.5,0.5)\[circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt\]; at (1.5,0.5)\[circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt\]; at (2.5,0.5)\[circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt\]; at (3.5,0.5)\[circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt\]; node\[scale=1.2\] at (1.3,0.8) [$\overline{\bm{W}}_i$]{}; node\[scale=1.2\] at (2.7,0.8) [$\overline{\bm{W}}_j$]{}; (1.7, 0.05) – (1.9, 0.05); (1.7, 0.15) – (1.9, 0.15); (1.7, 0.25) – (1.9, 0.25); (1.7, 0.35) – (1.9, 0.35); (1.7, 0.45) – (1.9, 0.45); (1.7, 0.55) – (1.9, 0.55); (1.7, 0.65) – (1.9, 0.65); (1.7, 0.75) – (1.9, 0.75); (1.7, 0.85) – (1.9, 0.85); (1.7, 0.95) – (1.9, 0.95);
(1,0) rectangle (2, 0.4); (1,0.6) rectangle (2, 1.0); (1,0.4) rectangle (2, 0.6);
(2,0) rectangle (3, 0.4); (2,0.6) rectangle (3, 1.0); (2,0.4) rectangle (3, 0.6);
The inviscid flux derivative on the left hand side of \[eq: Homogenized-NS\] is discretized by the finite volume method. We assume the control volume boundary between node $i$ and node $j$ coincides with the porous wall (see \[fig: homogenized flux\]). Therefore, inviscid fluxes in the $x$ direction, $\bm{F}_{ij}^{ave}$, and $\bm{F}_{ji}^{ave}$, on both sides of the porous wall should be treated specifically. Let $\alpha$ denote the void fraction or porosity of the porous wall. Before constructing the homogeneous fluxes, we consider two extreme cases: when the porosity $\alpha = 1$, the fluxes through the porous wall are regular fluxes, which can be approximated by Riemann solver such as Roe’s solver [@roe1981approximate]: $$\bm{F}_{ij}^{ave} = - \bm{F}_{ji}^{ave} = \bm{F}^{Roe}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i, \overline{\bm{W}}_j, n_{ij}),$$ where $\overline{W}_i$ and $\overline{W}_j$ are homogenized conservative state variables on both sides of the porous wall, and $n_{ij}$ is the unitary outer normal to the control volume boundary. When the porosity $\alpha = 0$, the porous wall degenerates to a solid wall. The fluxes are approximated as wall boundary fluxes: $$\bm{F}_{ij}^{ave} = \bm{F}^{wall}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i, n_{ij}) \quad \textrm{ and } \quad
\bm{F}_{ji}^{ave} = \bm{F}^{wall}(\overline{\bm{W}}_j, n_{ji}).$$
Eventually, for any porosity $\alpha$, the homogenized inviscid fluxes through the porous wall are modeled as weighted averaged fluxes, as follows: $$\begin{split}
\bm{F}^{ave}_{ij} &= \alpha \bm{F}^{Roe}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i,\overline{\bm{W}}_j, n_{ij}) + (1 - \alpha) \bm{F}^{wall}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i, n_{ij}),\\
\bm{F}^{ave}_{ji} &= -\alpha \bm{F}^{Roe}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i,\overline{\bm{W}}_j, n_{ij}) + (1 - \alpha) \bm{F}^{wall}(\overline{\bm{W}}_j, n_{ji}).
\end{split}
\label{eq: homogeneous inviscid flux}$$ The cells adjacent to the porous wall are divided into two parts (see \[fig: homogenized flux\]): the part attached to the hole (colored in blue); the part attached to the wall (colored in red). The flux through the porous wall consists of the flux related to the blue part and the flux associated with the red part, which correspond to the two terms in \[eq: homogeneous inviscid flux\]. It is worth mentioning that the homogenized inviscid fluxes conserve both mass and energy and the wall fluxes have zero mass and energy components.
Homogenized viscous flux and body force {#sec: viscous}
---------------------------------------
The viscous part on the right hand side of \[eq: Homogenized-NS\] is discretized by the finite element method (as same as the 2nd order finite difference method for the one-dimensional model problem). The wall normal viscous flux terms, $\partial \overline {\tau_{xx}} / \partial x$, and, $\partial \left( \overline{\tau_{xx} u-q_x} \right) / \partial x$, are further simplified as follows, due to the periodicity: $$\overline {\tau_{xx}} = \frac{4}{3}\mu\frac{\partial \overline {u}}{\partial x} \quad \textrm{ and } \quad
\overline{\tau_{xx} u-q_x} = \frac{4}{3}\mu\overline{\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} u} + \kappa \frac{\partial \overline{T}}{\partial x},$$ The wall normal viscous fluxes in the $x$ direction, $\bm{G}_{ij}^{ave}$, and $\bm{G}_{ji}^{ave}$, are modeled as weighted averaged fluxes, similar as the inviscid fluxes in \[sec: inviscid\]: $$\begin{split}
\bm{G}_{ij}^{ave} = \alpha \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu\frac{\overline {u}_j - \overline {u}_i}{\delta_x} \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu \left( \frac{\overline {u}_j - \overline {u}_i}{\delta_x} \right) \left( \frac{\overline {u}_i + \overline {u}_j}{2} \right) + \kappa \frac{\overline{T}_j - \overline{T}_i}{\delta_x}
\end{pmatrix}
+
(1 - \alpha) \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu\frac{\overline {u}^{g}_j - \overline {u}_i}{\delta_x} \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu \left( \frac{\overline {u}^{g}_j - \overline {u}_i}{\delta_x} \right) \left( \frac{\overline {u}_i + \overline {u}^g_j}{2} \right) + \kappa \frac{\overline{T}^{g}_j - \overline{T}_i}{\delta_x}
\end{pmatrix},\\
\bm{G}_{ji}^{ave} = \alpha \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu\frac{\overline {u}_i - \overline {u}_j}{\delta_x} \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu \left( \frac{\overline {u}_i - \overline {u}_j}{\delta_x} \right) \left( \frac{\overline {u}_i + \overline {u}_j}{2} \right) + \kappa \frac{\overline{T}_i - \overline{T}_j}{\delta_x}
\end{pmatrix}
+
(1 - \alpha) \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu\frac{\overline {u}^{g}_i - \overline {u}_j}{\delta_x} \\
\frac{4}{3}\mu \left( \frac{\overline {u}^{g}_i - \overline {u}_j}{\delta_x} \right) \left( \frac{\overline {u}^g_i + \overline {u}_j}{2} \right) + \kappa \frac{\overline{T}^{g}_i - \overline{T}_j}{\delta_x}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}
\label{eq: homogeneous viscous flux}$$ where $\overline{u}^g_i$ , $\overline{u}^g_j$, $\overline{T}^g_i$, and $\overline{T}^g_j$ are ghost velocity and temperature variables, which are populated based on the no-slip wall boundary condition and the adiabatic wall boundary condition. $\delta_x$ is the grid spacing in the $x$ direction.
The other terms, $\overline{\partial \tau_{xy} / \partial y} + \overline{\partial \tau_{xz} / \partial z}$, and, $\overline{\partial \tau_{xy} u / \partial y} + \overline{\partial \tau_{xz} u / \partial z}$, vanish away from the pore, since they contain derivatives in the homogenized directions. However, these terms characterize the friction loss near the pore boundary or at the expanded jet stream boundary, where the solution is not $C^1$ continuous. These terms can only be evaluated if fully resolved wall normal velocity component profile $u$ in the pore is available, thus requires sub-cell modeling.
The proposed model is inspired by the Hagen-Poiseuille flow that is homogeneous in the $x$ direction and begins by postulating a parabolic shape function for the wall normal velocity component profile, $u=u(y,z)$, in the pore. The shape function depends on the geometry of the pore. Several pore geometries are considered in the current study including geometries with circular, square, and gapped shapes (see \[fig: geometry0\]).
[0.06]{}
(0.5,0.7) – (0.8,0.7) node\[anchor=north\][$y$]{}; (0.5,0.7) – (0.5,1.0) node\[anchor=south\][$z$]{};
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (0.5,0.5) circle (0.2); (0.5,0.5) – (0.7,0.5) node\[midway , above=0.1\][$r$]{};
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (0.3,0.3) rectangle (0.7,0.7); (0.5,0.5) – (0.7,0.5) node\[midway , above=0.1\][$r$]{};
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (0.4,1.0); (0.6,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (0.5,0.5) – (0.6,0.5) node\[midway , above=0.1\][$r$]{};
### Circular pore
For the circular geometry shown in \[fig: geometry0\_circle\], the velocity profile in the pore is given by: $$\label{eq: cicle velocity}
u(y, z) = C \left( r^2 - y^2 - z^2 \right),$$ where $r$ is the radius of the circular pore and $C$ is a parameter. The averaged velocity satisfies: $$\overline{u} = \frac{\int_\Omega u \, dy dz}{|\Omega|} = C \frac{\alpha r^2}{2}.
\label{eq: cicle velocity ave}$$ From \[eq: cicle velocity\] and \[eq: cicle velocity ave\], the following equations hold: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2}} &= -8 \frac{\overline{u}}{r^2},\\
\overline{u \left( \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2} \right) } &= -8 \frac{\overline{u}^2}{\alpha r^2},\\
\overline{ \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial z} \right)^2} &= 8 \frac{\overline{u}^2}{\alpha r^2} .
\end{split}
\label{eq: circle visc}$$ Substituting \[eq: circle visc\] into \[eq: viscous stress\] leads to the sub-cell model of the friction loss for the circular pore case: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy}}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz}}{\partial z}} &= -8\mu \frac{\overline{u}}{r^2}, \\
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy} u}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz} u}{\partial z}} &= 0.
\end{split}\label{eq: circle dissipation}$$
### Square pore
For the square geometry shown in \[fig: geometry0\_square\], the velocity profile in the pore is given by [@white2006viscous p. 113]:
$$u(y, z) = C\frac{16r^2}{ \pi^3}\sum_{i=1,3,5 ...}^{\infty} \left[ (-1)^{(i-1)/2} \left( 1 - \frac{\cosh{(i\pi z/2r)}}{\cosh{(i\pi/2)}} \right) \frac{\cos{(i\pi y/2r)}}{i^3} \right],
\label{eq: square velocity}$$
where $2r$ is the width of the square pore, and $C$ is a parameter. The averaged velocity satisfies: $$\label{eq: square velocity ave}
\overline{u} = \frac{\int_\Omega u \, dy dz}{|\Omega|} = C \frac{\alpha r^{2}}{3} \left[1 - \frac{192}{\pi^5}\sum_{i=1,3,5 ...}^{\infty}\frac{\tanh{(i\pi/2)}}{i^5} \right].$$ From \[eq: square velocity\] and \[eq: square velocity ave\], the following equations hold: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2}} &= - \frac{3}{\zeta} \frac{\overline{u}}{r^2},\\
\overline{u \left( \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2} \right) } +
\overline{\left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\Big)^2 + \Big(\frac{\partial u}{\partial z} \right)^2} &= 0,
\end{split}\label{eq: square visc}$$ where $$\zeta = 1 - \frac{192}{\pi^5}\sum_{i=1,3,5 ...}^{\infty}\frac{\tanh{(i\pi/2)}}{i^5} \approx 0.421731044865.$$ Substituting \[eq: square visc\] into \[eq: viscous stress\], the sub-cell model of the friction loss for the square pore case is given by: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy}}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz}}{\partial z}} &= -\frac{3}{\zeta} \mu \frac{\overline{u}}{r^2}, \\
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy} u}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz} u}{\partial z}} &= 0.
\end{split}\label{eq: square dissipation}$$
### Gapped shape pore
For the gapped shape shown in \[fig: geometry0\_gap\], the velocity profile in the pore is given by: $$\label{eq: slot velocity}
u(y, z) = C \left( r^2 - y^2 \right),$$ where $2r$ is the width of the gap and $C$ is a parameter. The averaged velocity satisfies: $$\label{eq: slot velocity ave}
\overline{u} = \frac{\int_\Omega u \, dy dz}{|\Omega|} = C \frac{2\alpha r^2}{3}.$$ From \[eq: slot velocity\] and \[eq: slot velocity ave\], the following equations hold: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2}} &= -3 \frac{\overline{u}}{ r^2}, \\
\overline{u \left(\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2} \right) } &= -3 \frac{\overline{u}^2}{\alpha r^2}, \\
\overline{\left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} \right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial z} \right)^2} &= 3 \frac{\overline{u}^2}{\alpha r^2}.
\end{split}\label{eq: slot visc}$$ Substituting \[eq: slot visc\] into \[eq: viscous stress\] leads to the following sub-cell model of the friction loss for the gap: $$\begin{split}
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy}}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz}}{\partial z}} &= -3 \mu \frac{\overline{u}}{r^2}, \\
\overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy} u}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz} u}{\partial z}} &= 0.
\end{split}\label{eq: slot dissipation}$$
All scenarios reveal that the friction loss contributes only to the momentum loss, but not the total energy, since kinetic energy is degraded to internal energy by the friction. For certain void fraction, e.g. $\alpha = 8\%$, the momentum loss for a circular pore in \[eq: circle dissipation\] is about $314.16 (\mu\overline{u})$, the momentum loss for a square pore in \[eq: square dissipation\] is about $348.56 (\mu\overline{u})$, and the momentum loss for a gap in \[eq: slot dissipation\] is about $1875 (\mu\overline{u})$. This explains that the smaller aspect ratio holes lead to smaller momentum loss or dissipation.
These pore shape dependent source or body force terms given by \[eq: circle dissipation,eq: square dissipation,eq: slot dissipation\] are added near the porous wall by using a Dirac delta function, which is approximated by the Gaussian function: $$D(x) = \exp{\left[ -\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{x - x_0}{\sigma} \right)^2 \right] },
\label{eq: source dist}$$ where $x_0$ is the porous wall position, and $\sigma = \eta/(2\pi)$ where $\eta$ is the thickness of the porous wall or membrane. Note that the integral of $D(x)$ equals to the membrane thickness. The friction loss is incorporated into the model as a source term $\bm{S}$ given by: $$\bm{S} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
L_{m} D(x) \left( \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xy}}{\partial y}} + \overline{\frac{\partial \tau_{xz}}{\partial z}} \right) \\
0 \end{pmatrix},$$ where $L_{m}$ represents the effective membrane thickness factor which is needed, because besides the pore boundary, the expanded jet stream through the pore ($C^0$ continuous solution) also contributes to the momentum loss.
Verification and application problems {#sec: app}
=====================================
In this section, the homogenized porous model is verified on the Mars Science Laboratory parachute fabric, the PIA-C-7020 Type I fabric with Ripstop weave, under typical supersonic free-stream Mars landing conditions. The porous fabric [@cruz2017permeability] (see \[fig: fabric\]) has about 8% porosity based on the X-ray microtomography result in [@paneraix], the thickness is around $80\ \mathrm{\mu m}$ [@lin2010flexible], and the periodicity is about $500\ \mathrm{\mu m}$ in both directions. Due to the lack of supersonic permeability test data on this material, pore-level resolved DNS results are used as reference solutions. Moreover, as discussed in \[sec: viscous\], the pore geometry has significant impact on the friction loss. Hence, the equivalent pore geometry of the complicated Ripstop weave pattern is first explored based on low Mach number permeability test data and the DNS results in \[sec: exp\].
Problem setup
-------------
To setup the simulations, several simplifications are made here. Firstly, by leveraging the periodicity of the weave pattern, we simulate only a small square fabric piece of length $500\ \mathrm{\mu m}$, which corresponds to the weave repeat size. Secondly, the fabric is assumed to be rigid, and the weave pattern is simplified by lumping all slots between spun fibres into a center rectangular hole, which matches the void fraction $\alpha$. The simplified geometries are shown in \[fig: geometry\], for various pore aspect ratios — 1:1, 2:1, 8:1, and 12.5:1. The piece of fabric is placed at the center of the computational domain (see \[fig: computational domain\]). Periodic boundary conditions are imposed in both transverse directions and different initial conditions and inflow/outflow boundary conditions are applied.
![Microtomography of a parachute fabric. Image credit: NASA/LBNL-Berkeley [@paneraix].[]{data-label="fig: fabric"}](Fabric.png){width="0.4\linewidth"}
[0.06]{}
(0.5,0.7) – (0.8,0.7) node\[anchor=north\][$y$]{}; (0.5,0.7) – (0.5,1.0) node\[anchor=south\][$z$]{};
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (2.5/7.,2.5/7.) rectangle (4.5/7.,4.5/7.0);
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (0.4,0.3) rectangle (0.6,0.7);
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0); (0.45, 0.1) rectangle (0.55, 0.9);
[0.2]{}
(0,0) rectangle (0.46,1.0); (0.54,0) rectangle (1.0,1.0);
Explore equivalent pore geometry {#sec: exp}
--------------------------------
The permeability of the aforementioned parachute fabric was measured by @cruz2017permeability. The test was conducted using a Textest Instruments FX 3300 Labotester III Air Permeability Tester, which consists of a test chamber with a vacuum pump. The sample fabric was clamped over the test head opening, therefore the upstream conditions were at the atmospheric pressure. The differential pressure was selected and maintained by the vacuum pump in the chamber and the resultant permeability in terms of flow velocity was measured.
Modeling the entire chamber and pumping process is computationally unaffordable and mathematically challenging, thus the pore-level resolved DNS are carefully designed as following, to mimic the experimental conditions [@cruz2017permeability]. The computational domain is of size $4\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ in the $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions. Extrapolation boundary conditions are enforced at the left and right boundaries in $x$ direction so as to minimize reflection of spurious waves back into the computational domain. The gas properties of the air are taken as: $$\gamma = 1.4, \quad R = 287.2 \ \mathrm{J \ kg^{-1}K^{-1}},\quad \textrm{and} \quad \mu = 1.846\times 10^{-5} \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-1}s^{-1}}.$$ At the initial time, the quiescent air in the computational domain is uniformly at the laboratory’s temperature $T = 296.5 \ \mathrm{K}$ and the pressure upstream is at the laboratory’s atmospheric pressure $p = 94625 \ \mathrm{Pa}$. The pressure downstream is chosen to form an initial pressure difference, which spans a wide range ($100 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, $200 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, $500 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, $1000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, $2000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, $3000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, and $4000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$). It is worth mentioning that these initial pressure differences are not the pressure differences in the experimental results.
At the beginning of each simulation, pressure waves propagate in both directions away from the porous membrane. Meanwhile, the pressure difference across the porous wall drops, the fluid flow near the porous wall accelerates immediately. A weak jet stream forms downstream, which is depicted in \[fig: NASA\_Mach\] by the Mach number profile in the central $x$-$y$ plane at time $t=15.8 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ for each case. There are major differences in the Mach number profiles among different aspect ratio holes. The smaller aspect ratio holes ($2/7\times2/7 \textrm{ and } 20\% \times 40\%$) lead to larger maximum Mach numbers at around 0.2, which verifies our explanation about the friction loss in \[sec: viscous\].
![The Mach number profiles in central $x$-$y$ plane for cases with holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (top-left), $20\% \times 40\%$ (top-right), $10\% \times 80\%$ (bottom-left), and $8\% \times 100\%$ (bottom-right), with an initial pressure difference of $3000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, at $t=15.8 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$.[]{data-label="fig: NASA_Mach"}](NASA_Mach.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The pressure difference across the porous membrane tends to become quasi-steady at late times and the velocity on both sides of porous membrane also converges at about $t=15.8 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ for each case. compares the relation between the pressure difference and the (permeability) flow velocity measured in [@cruz2017permeability] with $99.7$ confidential interval and the relations obtained in the present simulations with different pore geometries in \[fig: geometry\]. In the present simulations, the pressure difference is evaluated as the pressure jump across the fabric at $t=15.8 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$, when the pressure difference tends to stabilize. The permeability velocity through the porous membrane, $u^{\textrm{permeability}}$, is evaluated as the averaged mass flux on any cross section, $\Omega$, divided by the initial upstream density, $\rho^{\textrm{upstream}}$: $$u^{\textrm{permeability}} = \frac{\int_{\Omega} \rho u \, d\Omega}{\rho^{\textrm{upstream}} \Omega},$$ although, in such an incompressible regime the density fluctuation is negligible at roughly $2\%$. The agreement of these numerical results and the experimental results is good, though there are deviations for small aspect ratio pore geometries. These deviations may be due to the fact that these slots in the fabric are aggregated into solo holes. According to [@ergun1949fluid], for a given permeability, the total pressure drop, $(\Delta p)^{\textrm{total}}$, can be split into components due to the viscous ($(\Delta p)^{\textrm{viscous}}$) and inertial ($(\Delta p)^{\textrm{inertial}}$) effects: $$(\Delta p)^{\textrm{total}} = (\Delta p)^{\textrm{viscous}} + (\Delta p)^{\textrm{inertial}}.$$ At high Reynolds number, the inertial effect is dominant, whereas the viscous effect prevails at low Reynolds number. Our current study falls into the latter category. In this category, one contribution of the viscous effect is the friction loss due to the shear stress near the surface of each spun fibre. And pore geometries with smaller aspect ratio holes ($2/7 \times 2/7$ and $20\% \times 40\%$) corresponding with smaller pore surface, therefore, leads to smaller pressure difference for a given velocity through the porous membrane. Therefore, the geometries with large aspect ratio holes ($10\% \times 80\%$ and $8\% \times 100\%$) are closer to the experimental results of the Mars Science Laboratory parachute fabric.
![A comparison of the relations between velocity and differential pressure from the experimental measurements and DNS results. The experimental measurements are denoted by blue circles with 99.7 confidential interval error bars. The DNS results are denoted by other symbols. Orange circles: $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole; green squares: $20\% \times 40\%$ aspect ratio hole; red diamonds: $10\% \times 80\%$ aspect ratio hole; purple triangles: $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole.[]{data-label="fig: validation"}](Validation.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Model verification under Mars landing conditions
------------------------------------------------
There is a lack of research regarding the effects of permeability on high Mach number compressible flows, especially when there are interactions between shock waves and porous membranes. This is significant to understand the dynamics of supersonic parachute decelerators [@cruz2017permeability; @kim20062; @huang2018simulation; @rabinovitch2019towards]. The DNS results of shock interacting with the porous wall are reported in this section. Specifically, planar shock waves at different Mach numbers initialized $250 \ \mathrm{\mu m}$ ahead of the porous membrane (see \[fig: Mars initial flow\]), compressing the flow, hitting the porous wall and rebounding back, are simulated.
(-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.4, 0.3, 0) node\[anchor=north\][$x$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.8, 0) node\[anchor=south\][$y$]{}; (-0.9, 0.3, 0) – (-0.9, 0.3, 0.5) node\[xshift=-5\]\[anchor=south\][$z$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (5,1); (3 - 0.08,0) rectangle (3 + 0.08,1.0);
(2.6, 0) rectangle (2.6, 1.0); node at (2.6, 1.2) [Shock]{}; node at (3.0, -0.2) [Porous wall]{};
(0.1, 0.5) – (1.1, 0.5) node\[yshift=3\]\[anchor=south\]\[scale=1.0\] [Post-shock regime]{};
node at (4.1, 0.5) [Pre-shock regime]{}; (0.1, 0.3) – (1.1, 0.3); (0.1, 0.1) – (1.1, 0.1);
The initial post-shock conditions are set as the Mars landing conditions — the low density and low pressure conditions: $$p = 260\ \mathrm{Pa} \quad\textrm{ and }\quad \rho = 0.0067 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}.$$ The Mars atmosphere mainly consists of carbon dioxide, CO$_2$. The gas properties are given by: $$\gamma=1.33, \quad R=188.4 \ \mathrm{J \ kg^{-1}K^{-1}},\quad \textrm{and} \quad \mu = 1.03\times10^{-5} \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-1}s^{-1}}.$$ Note that the bulk viscosity effect is not considered in the simulations but there is a brief discussion on the effect in \[sec: bulk\_viscosity\]. The initial shock Mach numbers, $M_s$, considered are 1.46, 1.96, and 2.31. In all cases, the flows in the pre-shock regime are quiescent and the initial conditions are obtained from Rankine–Hugoniot shock jump conditions. The detailed initial conditions are listed in \[tab: initial condition\].
$M_s$ Post-shock regime Pre-shock regime
-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.46$ $\rho=0.0067 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =127.98 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 260 \ \mathrm{Pa}$ $\rho=0.004119 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =0.0 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 112.73 \ \mathrm{Pa}$
$1.96$ $\rho=0.0067 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =213.31 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 260 \ \mathrm{Pa}$ $\rho=0.002774 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =0.0 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 61.240 \ \mathrm{Pa}$
$2.31$ $\rho=0.0067 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =255.97 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 260 \ \mathrm{Pa}$ $\rho=0.002300 \ \mathrm{kg \ m^{-3}}$, $u =0.0 \ \mathrm{m \ s^{-1}}$, $p = 43.772 \ \mathrm{Pa}$
: Initial conditions of post-shock and pre-shock regimes in the simulations.[]{data-label="tab: initial condition"}
The simplified porous membrane geometries (see \[fig: geometry\]) with $2/7\times2/7$ and $8\%\times100\%$ (a gap) aspect ratio holes are chosen in this section. The computational domain is of size $10 \ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5 \ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5 \ \mathrm{mm}$ in the $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions. Extrapolation boundary conditions are enforced at the left and right boundaries in $x$ direction so as to minimize spurious reflection of shock waves, and periodic boundary conditions are used in both transverse directions.
In each case, when the shock bounces back from the porous wall, a high density and high pressure zone is generated upstream of the porous wall. As a result, the flow through the small hole is like flow through a converging-diverging nozzle. Downstream of the porous membrane, the flow immediately accelerates and expands to low density and low pressure conditions. shows the Mach number profiles at the end time $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. As we can see, it is similar with the low Mach number scenario (see \[fig: NASA\_Mach\]) that small aspect ratio holes lead to jet streams at higher Mach numbers. However, we also observe that flows are choked for all these high Mach number cases. depicts the streamlines on the $x$-$y$ plane for each case. Note that we can see that the flow expands downstream of the porous membrane and pushes the circulations to the corner for the two highest shock Mach number cases with high aspect ratio hole.
![The Mach number profiles in $x$-$y$ plane for cases with holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left column), $8/\% \times 100/\%$ (right column), and different initial shock Mach numbers: $M_s = 1.46, \ 1.96,\ \textrm{and} \ 2.31$ (top to bottom), at $23.4 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$.[]{data-label="fig: Mars_Mach"}](Mars_Mach.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![The streamlines in $x$-$y$ plane for cases with holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left column), $8/\% \times 100/\%$ (right column), and different initial shock Mach numbers: $M_s = 1.46, \ 1.96,\ \textrm{and} \ 2.31$ (top to bottom), at $23.4 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$.[]{data-label="fig: Mars_Streamline"}](Mars_Streamline.png){width="0.85\linewidth"}
The Reynolds numbers based on jet flow velocity at the pore exit are reported in \[tab: Reynolds number\]. The Reynolds number $Re$ is defined as: $$Re = \left( \frac{\int_{A} \rho u^2 \, dA}{\rho^{\textrm{upstream}} A} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\rho^{\textrm{upstream}} d}{\mu},$$ where $A$ is the pore area and $d = \sqrt{4A/\pi}$ is the equivalent pore diameter. These Reynolds numbers are very low due to the low density and the small pore size, which illustrate the significance of modeling the viscous effect.
Aspect ratio of hole $M_s=1.46$ $M_s=1.96$ $M_s=2.31$
---------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
$2/7 \times 2/7$ 7.3 13.50 17.96
$8\% \times 100\%$ 16.43 23.75 27.38
: Jet flow velocity based Reynolds numbers, $Re$, for simulations with different aspect ratio holes and initial shock Mach numbers, $M_s$.[]{data-label="tab: Reynolds number"}
Furthermore, the averaged mass flow rate is plotted against the pressure difference on both sides of the porous membrane for each aspect ratio case in \[fig: Pressure\_Massflux\_Relation\]. The data set shows an approximate linear relation given by: $$\overline{\rho u} \approx K \overline{\Delta p}.$$ Through least square fitting, for the cases with $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole, the coefficient is found as $K = 1.61 \times 10^{-4} \ \mathrm{s \ m^{-1}}$, and for the cases with $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole, the coefficient is found as $K = 8.54\times 10^{-5} \ \mathrm{s \ m^{-1}}$. The linear relation satisfies the Darcy’s law and the coefficient depends only on the center pore geometry.
![Linear fits of averaged mass flux against pressure jump using data collected from the high Mach number pore-level resolved DNS at different times.[]{data-label="fig: Pressure_Massflux_Relation"}](Pressure_Massflux_Relation.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The homogenized model is applied to the aforementioned high Mach number compressible flow through porous membrane cases. The one dimensional computational domain (due to homogenization in both transverse directions) for the model simulations is $x \in [-0.5, 0.5] \ \mathrm{cm}$. Finite volume and finite element methods are used respectively for the inviscid and viscous fluxes (see \[sec: implementation\]). The time discretization is performed using the second-order explicit Runge–Kutta scheme with a CFL number of 0.5. All three sets of simulations of $M_s=1.46$, 1.96, and 2.31 shock waves interacting with the porous membranes with different aspect ratio holes are conducted using the present porous model with 400 and 2000 uniform grid points. For the cases with $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole, the jet stream expands immediately downstream the membrane. Hence, the effective membrane thickness factor $L_m$ is set to be 1; For the cases with $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole, the jet stream remains longer, thus the effective membrane thickness factor $L_m$ is set to be 4. In \[fig: 3d\_M06 results,fig: 3d\_M1 results,fig: 3d\_M12 results\], it is shown that the predictions of averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles by the present homogenized model at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ reasonably agree with the pore-level resolved DNS results. It is worth mentioning that the averaged density and pressure are much less sensitive to the factor $L_m$ compared to the averaged velocity.
Moreover, the predicted drag forces are depicted in \[fig: drag results\]. For the pore-level resolved DNS, the net drag force consists of forces due to pressure jump $\Delta p$ and the normal shear stress jump $\Delta \tau_{xx}$ across the membrane, and the shear forces on the pore boundaries. We observe that the net shear force on the pore boundaries roughly equal to the net “virtual" force due to pressure and normal shear stress differences between the two ends of the pore on the pore cross section. Therefore, in our homogenized model, the drag force $F_D$ is computed as follows: $$F_D = (\Delta p - \Delta \tau_{xx}) S,$$ where $S$ is fabric area that includes both the solid and void parts. The “virtual" force on the void part approximately captures the net shear force on the pore boundaries and the results match well with the DNS results.
![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 1.46$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M06 results"}](3d_M06.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 1.46$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M06 results"}](2d_M06.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 1.96$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M1 results"}](3d_M1.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 1.96$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M1 results"}](2d_M1.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 2.31$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M12 results"}](3d_M12.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Predicted averaged density, streamwise velocity, and pressure profiles (top to bottom) with initial shock Mach number $M_s = 2.31$ and holes of different aspect ratios: $2/7 \times 2/7$ (left) and $8\% \times 100\%$ (right) at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$. Blue solid line: pore-level resolved simulation; orange dashed line: present model with 400 grid points; green dash-dotted line: present model with 2000 grid points.[]{data-label="fig: 3d_M12 results"}](2d_M12.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
![Predicted drag forces on the porous wall per unit area against shock Mach number at $t=23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ from the pore-level resolved DNS and the homogenized porous model. Red circles: DNS with $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole; dark green diamonds: DNS with $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole; orange triangles: model with $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole; light green squares: model with $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole; black stars: solid wall case (zero porosity).[]{data-label="fig: drag results"}](Drag.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec: conclusion}
==========
A novel homogenized porous model specifically for high Mach number compressible flows through porous membranes is built. Comparing with previous models, which require mass flow rate, discharge coefficients or other permeability parameters, the present homogenized model starts from the first principle, by modifying the convective and diffusive fluxes to take account of the effects of void fraction, and considers the friction loss due to hole geometry through a body force term. The model is valid for different hole geometries, and for various high Mach number flow conditions. The results of the model were found to be in good agreement with the pore-level resolved DNS results. The incorporation of the present model to any numerical software is straight forward (see \[sec: implementation\]). Therefore, the present model enables considering porous effects in practical applications, such as the simulation of parachute inflation process [@kim20062; @gao2016numerical; @huang2018simulation].
Moreover, the permeability of the Mars Science Laboratory parachute fabric, the PIA-C-7020 Type I fabric with Ripstop weave, was studied numerically in this work. The equivalent simple pore geometry is built, which matches the complicated Ripstop weave pattern, in terms of the relation between the pressure jump and the velocity obtained from experiments. And in the Mars landing condition simulations, the linear relation between the pressure difference and mass flux was discovered, which conforms to Darcy’s law. However, the Mars atmosphere conditions are simplified, as the bulk viscosity is not incorporated in the present study, while further exploration will be considered. In addition, the fluid structure interaction of the flexible membrane would also be of considerable interest.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Daniel Z. Huang and Charbel Farhat acknowledge partial support by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) under Contract JPL-RSA No. 1590208, and partial support by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under Early Stage Innovations (ESI) Grant NASA-NNX17AD02G.
\[appendix\]
Implementation details of the homogenized approach {#sec: implementation}
==================================================
The implementation details of the homogenized porous wall model in the in-house computational framework with the FInite Volume method with Exact two-material Riemann problems (FIVER) [@wang2011algorithms; @lakshminarayan2014embedded; @main2017enhanced; @huang2018family; @borker2019mesh] is discussed in this section.
FIVER semi-discretizes the governing \[eq: ns\] by a vertex-based finite volume method for inviscid fluxes and a finite element method for viscous fluxes. Using the standard characteristic function associated with each control volume $\mathcal{C}_i$, the standard piecewise linear test function $\psi_i$ associated with each node $i$, and the equivalence between the two functional spaces [@farhat1993two], the weak and semi-discrete form of \[eq: ns\] reads as follows: $$\label{eq: ns semi-discrete}
\|\mathcal{C}_i\|\dfrac{\partial \bm{W}_i}{\partial t} +
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{K}(i)}
\int_{\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}}\mathcal{F}(\bm{W}_h) \boldsymbol \cdot n_{ij} \,\mathrm{d}\partial\Omega\, +
\int_{\partial\mathcal{C}_{i} \cap \partial\Omega_\infty} \mathcal{F}(\bm{W}_h) \boldsymbol \cdot n_\infty \,\mathrm{d}\partial\Omega\, +
\sum_{\Omega_e \ni i}\int_{\Omega_e} \nabla{\psi^e_i} \boldsymbol \cdot \mathcal{G}(\bm{W}_h) \,\mathrm{d}\Omega_e\, = 0.$$ Here, $\|\mathcal{C}_i\|$ denotes the volume of $\mathcal{C}_i$, $\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}$ denotes the cell boundary between $\mathcal{C}_i$ and $\mathcal{C}_j$, $n_{ij}$ denotes the unit outward normal to $\partial \mathcal{C}_{ij}$, $\bm{W}_h$ denotes the spatial approximation of the fluid state $\bm{W}$, $\bm{W}_i$ denotes the average values of $\bm{W}_h$ in $\mathcal{C}_i$, $\mathcal{K}(i)$ denotes the set of nodes connected by an edge to the node $i$, $\partial\Omega_\infty$ denotes the far-field boundary of the fluid domain with unit outward normal $n_\infty$, and $\psi^e_i$ denotes the restriction of $\psi_i$ to the fluid primal cell $\Omega_e$.
![Spatial discretization of a two-dimensional fluid computational domain and a structure. Active and inactive nodes are marked, respectively, with black and white bullets. The exact two-material Riemann problem is at the surrogate material interface $\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}$.[]{data-label="FIG: FIVER"}](FIVER.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
At the fluid-structure interface, assuming edge $i\mathrm{-}j$ intersects the interface and node $i$ is in the fluid domain as in \[FIG: FIVER\], the convective flux through $\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}$ is evaluated as: $$\label{EQ: NUM FLUX FS}
\int_{\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}}\mathcal{F}(\bm{W}_h) \boldsymbol \cdot n_{ij} \,\mathrm{d}\partial\Omega\, \approx
\|\partial\mathcal{C}_{ij}\| \, F^{Roe}_{ij}\big(\bm{W}_{i}, \bm{W}_{i}^\star, n_{ij}, \mathrm{EOS}_i\big),$$ which corresponds to $F^{wall}(\overline{\bm{W}}_i, n_{ij})$ in the homogenized inviscid fluxes \[eq: homogeneous inviscid flux\]. FIVER assumes the midpoint $M$ of the edge $i$-$j$ coincides with the embedded discrete interface and reconstructs the fluid state vector $\bm{W}_{i}^*$ at the embedded discrete interface by solving a one-dimensional exact Riemann problem or piston problem [@wang2011algorithms]. This procedure avoids traversing the fluid-structure interface as in the ghost fluid method. Moreover, solving the half Riemann problem guarantees the characteristic theory and captures well the shock wave or rarefaction wave near the fluid-structure interface. Reconstruction procedure near the fluid-structure interface is incorporated in [@main2017enhanced; @huang2018family] to improve the order of the accuracy near the interface.
As for the viscous integral in \[eq: ns semi-discrete\], ghost node procedure is applied to impose boundary conditions in the elements intersected by the fluid-structure interface, such as element $\Omega^F_{e_{ijk}}$ in \[FIG: FIVER\]. The idea here is to populate the velocity and temperature at the inactive node $j$ by a linear or constant extrapolation procedure [@lakshminarayan2014embedded; @huang2018family]. Consequently, variables in the primal cell $\Omega_e$ required to evaluate the viscous fluxes can be rewritten as: $$\bm{V}^e = \frac{1}{N^e_n}\left(\sum_{\substack{k=1, \\ k \textrm{ is active}}}^{N^e_n} \bm{V}_k + \sum_{\substack{k=1, \\ k \textrm{ is inactive}}}^{N^e_n} \bm{V}_k^g\right)
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\nabla \bm{V}^e = \sum_{\substack{k=1, \\ k \textrm{ is active}}}^{N^e_n} \nabla {\psi^e_k}\bm{V}_k + \sum_{\substack{k=1, \\ k \textrm{ is inactive}}}^{N^e_n} \nabla{\psi^e_k}\bm{V}_k^g.$$ Here $\bm{V}_k$ denotes the primitive variable vector at the node $k$, including velocity and temperature. $\bm{V}_k^g$ is the populated ghost variables at node $k$, and $\bm{V}^e$ and $\nabla \bm{V}^e$ are the averaged variables in the primal cell $\Omega_e$. The viscous flux corresponds to the wall bounded flux in the homogenized viscous fluxes in \[eq: homogeneous viscous flux\].
As for the body force term, it is added near the porous wall. The approximated delta function $D(x)$ (see \[eq: source dist\]) is evaluated based on the distance to the porous wall. For efficiency purpose, adding the source term to one or two layers of mesh away from the porous wall is enough.
Details of the pore-level resolved DNS
======================================
The pore-level resolved DNS are performed using the in-house Hydrodynamics Adaptive Mesh Refinement Simulator (HAMeRS) [@wong2017high; @wong2016multiresolution; @wong2019high]. The parallelization of the code and all construction, management and storage of adaptive cells, the communication at coarse-fine patch interfaces, and the multi-time stepping, are facilitated by the Structured Adaptive Mesh Refinement Application Infrastructure (SAMRAI) library [@wissink2001large; @hornung2002managing; @hornung2006managing] from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
The derivative of the inviscid flux vector in \[eq: ns\] is semi-discretized on a uniform grid by a high-order accurate nonlinear finite difference scheme that belongs to the family of Weighted Compact Nonlinear Schemes (WCNS) originally proposed by @deng2000developing. For the approximation of the derivative of the inviscid flux in the $x$ direction $\bm{F}$, the sixth order accurate Midpoint-and-Node-to-node Differencing (MND) scheme proposed by Nonomura et al. [@nonomura2013robust] is used: $$\widehat{\frac{\partial \bm{F}}{\partial x}} \bigg|_{i,j,k} =
\frac{1}{\delta_x} \left[
\frac{3}{2} \left(\tilde{\bm{F}}_{i+\frac{1}{2},j,k} - \tilde{\bm{F}}_{i-\frac{1}{2},j,k} \right)
- \frac{3}{10} \left(\bm{F}_{i+1,j,k} - \bm{F}_{i-1,j,k} \right) + \frac{1}{30} \left(\tilde{\bm{F}}_{i+\frac{3}{2},j,k} - \tilde{\bm{F}}_{i-\frac{3}{2},j,k} \right)
\right],
\label{eq: MND_3D}$$ where $\delta_x$ is the grid spacing in the $x$ direction. The scheme approximates the flux derivative using the flux vector $\tilde{\bm{F}}$ at the midpoint between cell nodes approximated with a fifth order accurate upwind-biased Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory (WENO) interpolation originated from the nonlinear weighting technique by @jiang1996efficient. The characteristic variables projected from primitive variables are interpolated, which is observed to suppress pressure oscillations at contact discontinuities in [@johnsen2006implementation; @nonomura2012numerical]. The flux can then be approximated by HLLC Riemann solver [@toro1994restoration]. However, it is well known that HLLC Riemann solver can give rise to numerical instability near shocks in some multi-dimensional problems when the shock normal direction does not align well with the grid normal surface direction. Therefore, a more robust hybridized HLLC-HLL Riemann solver is used instead in the shock wave region, detected by a Ducros-like shock sensor, $s$, by @larsson2007effect under the criteria: $$s = \frac{-\theta}{ |\theta| + |\bm{\omega}| + \epsilon} > 0.65,$$ where $\theta = \nabla\boldsymbol{\cdot} \bm{v}$ is the volumetric dilatation rate and $\bm{\omega} = \nabla\boldsymbol{\times} \bm{v}$ is the vorticity. $\epsilon$ is a very small value close to machine epsilon to prevent division by zero. The detailed implementation of the hybrid HLLC-HLL Riemann solver can be found in work by @huang2011cures. The discretiztion of the inviscid fluxes in $y$ and $z$ directions is similar with grid spacings $\delta_y$ and $\delta_z$ respectively.
The derivative of the viscous flux vector $\bm{G}$ in $x$ direction is spatially approximated by the sixth order central finite difference method: $$\widehat{ \frac{\partial \bm{G}}{\partial x} } \bigg|_{i,j,k} = \frac{1}{\delta_x} \left[ \frac{1}{60} \left( \bm{G}_{i+3,j,k} - \bm{G}_{i-3,j,k} \right) - \frac{3}{20} \left( \bm{G}_{i+2,j,k} - \bm{G}_{i-2,j,k} \right) + \frac{3}{4} \left( \bm{G}_{i+1,j,k} - \bm{G}_{i-1,j,k} \right) \right].
\label{eq: diffusive}$$ The gradients of velocity and temperature at cell nodes are also computed as \[eq: diffusive\]. This means conservative discretizations of the viscous fluxes in the Navier–Stokes equations are enforced as \[eq: diffusive\] is applied repeatedly. The adiabatic wall boundary condition is applied on the rigid fabric wall by the ghost node method. The ghost node values and first order derivatives are populated by mirroring. The third order total variation diminishing Runge–Kutta scheme [@gottlieb1998total] is used for temporal discretization.
The grid sizes of all simulations presented in current work are listed in \[tab: mesh info\], all grids are uniform in each directions. Two convergent tests are conducted, including the low Mach number flow through a porous membrane with a $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole with an initial pressure jump of $4000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$, and the high Mach number flow induced by a $M_s=1.46$ shock through a porous membrane with a $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole. The finer grids have twice number of grid points in each direction. The pressure profiles for both fine and coarse grids are reported in \[fig: grid convergence\], which indicates grid convergence of our current study.
Problem description Pore size Domain size Grid size
------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Permeability test $2/7 \times 2/7 $ $4\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $800 \times 182 \times 182$
Permeability test $20\% \times 40\%$ $4\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $800 \times 200 \times 200$
Permeability test $10\% \times 80\%$ $4\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $800 \times 200 \times 200$
Permeability test $8\% \times 100\%$ $4\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $1600 \times 200$
Shock porous wall interaction $2/7 \times 2/7$ $10\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $2000 \times 84 \times 84$
Shock porous wall interaction $8\% \times 100\%$ $10\ \mathrm{mm} \times 0.5\ \mathrm{mm}$ $2000 \times 200$
: Grid information of different simulations.[]{data-label="tab: mesh info"}
![Grid convergence study of low Mach number flow through a $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole with an initial pressure jump of $4000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$ at $t = 5.3 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ (left), and the high Mach number flow induced by a $M_s=1.46$ shock through a $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole at $t = 23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ (right). Blue solid line: coarse mesh; orange dashed line: fine mesh.[]{data-label="fig: grid convergence"}](NASA_4000_2d_mesh_convergence.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Grid convergence study of low Mach number flow through a $8\% \times 100\%$ aspect ratio hole with an initial pressure jump of $4000 \ \mathrm{Pa}$ at $t = 5.3 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ (left), and the high Mach number flow induced by a $M_s=1.46$ shock through a $2/7 \times 2/7$ aspect ratio hole at $t = 23.46 \ \mathrm{\mu s}$ (right). Blue solid line: coarse mesh; orange dashed line: fine mesh.[]{data-label="fig: grid convergence"}](Mars_M06_3d_mesh_convergence.png "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
Discussion about the role of bulk viscosity {#sec: bulk_viscosity}
===========================================
A more general form of the stress tensor for a compressible Newtonian fluid is given by: $${\uptau} = \mu( \nabla^T \bm{v} + \nabla \bm{v}) - (\dfrac{2}{3}\mu - \mu_v)(\nabla\boldsymbol{\cdot} \bm{v})\mathcal{I},$$ where $\mu_v$ is the bulk viscosity. However, the bulk viscosity has not been considered in the verification. But it might be interesting to analyze its effect, since the Mars atmosphere mainly consists of CO$_2$, which is known for its large bulk viscosity. The volumetric dilatation rate, $\nabla\boldsymbol{\cdot} \bm{v}$, and the shear strain rate component, $\partial u / \partial y + \partial v / \partial x$, are depicted in \[fig: strain rate\] for the case initially with a $M_s = 1.96$ shock wave. The volumetric dilatation rate is large near the pore outlet, due to the expansion of the high density and high pressure flow. The homogenized dilatation rate $\overline{\nabla\boldsymbol{\cdot} \bm{v}}$ is approximated by \[eq: homogeneous viscous flux\] in the present model. The shear strain rate is significant near the pore boundary, which is modeled in \[sec: viscous\]. also shows that the shear strain rate is only several times larger than the volumetric dilatation rate. Therefore, based on the present study, the bulk viscosity has a potentially important role under the flow conditions on Mars, since $\mu_v/\mu \gg 1$ at the conditions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The conversion of the Crab pulsar wind from one dominated by Poynting flux close to the star to one dominated by particle-born energy at the termination shock is considered. The idea put forward by Coroniti (1990) and criticised by Lyubarsky & Kirk (2001) that reconnection in a striped wind is responsible, is generalised to include faster prescriptions for the a priori unknown dissipation rate. Strong acceleration of the wind is confirmed, and the higher dissipation rates imply complete conversion of Poynting flux into particle-born flux within the unshocked wind.'
author:
- 'J.G. Kirk'
- 'O. Skj[æ]{}raasen'
title: 'The $\sigma$ problem of the Crab pulsar wind'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
A puzzling feature of the relativistic MHD wind of the Crab pulsar is that it appears to arrive at its termination shock as a particle dominated flow (Rees & Gunn 1974; Kennel & Coroniti 1984; Emmering & Chevalier 1987). This is difficult to understand, because the wind almost certainly carries its energy by Poynting flux close to the star, and, given that relativistic MHD winds collimate only weakly (Beskin, Kuznetsova & Rafikov 1998; Chiueh, Li, & Begelman 1998; Bogovalov & Tsinganos 1999; Lyubarsky & Eichler 2001, Lyubarsky 2002) it is not obvious how the transformation to particle-born flux can occur, or why it is apparently not observed. The acceleration intrinsic to axisymmetric [*force-free*]{} winds (Buckley 1977; Contopoulos & Kazanas 2002) does not alleviate the difficulty, since the flow is still magnetically dominated outside the sonic point where such solutions lose their validity.
An obliquely rotating neutron star drives a wind which, near the equatorial plane, consists of alternating stripes of magnetic field of opposite polarity. The magnetic field is linked alternately to the open field lines emerging from different magnetic hemispheres, as these are swept around the rotational equator. This led Coroniti (1990) to suggest that reconnection or, more accurately, dissipation at the current sheet separating the alternating polarities, might effect the required conversion. He estimated the dissipation rate by assuming the thickness of the current sheet was approximately equal to the gyro radius of the hot particles it contained and found that the magnetic field could be annihilated before the wind reached the termination shock. However, Coroniti’s treatment neglected the acceleration of the wind flow. Using the same micro-physics estimate for dissipation, Lyubarsky & Kirk (2001) showed that this effect results in an annihilation rate far too small to be effective.
Kirk & Skj[æ]{}raasen (2003) recently identified the dissipation estimate of Coroniti as a lower limit and examined the effect of alternative micro-physics prescriptions, including an upper limit on the dissipation rate. Their findings, which we paraphrase in this paper, re-open the possibility that the conversion of Poynting flux to particle-born flux occurs through dissipation of magnetic field energy at the current sheet of a striped wind.
Small wavelength approximation and dissipation prescriptions
============================================================
The approach of Lyubarsky & Kirk (2001) and Kirk & Skj[æ]{}raasen (2003) is based on computing the slow evolution of an entropy wave as it is convected outwards by the stellar wind. The method employs a separation of length scales into a short one, identified with the wavelength of the magnetic field reversals, and a long one, identified with the radius, i.e., the scale on which the density changes as a result of the spherically expanding flow. The equations of conservation of particles and energy/momentum are then ordered in the small parameter formed from the ratio of these lengths. The entropy wave whose evolution is sought can be described in several ways. One is in terms of the parameters which describe the [*Harris sheath*]{} (Harris 1962; Hoh 1968); another is in terms of the parameters of two uniform fluid layers — one hot and unmagnetized, the other cold and magnetized — separated from each other by discontinuities in density, velocity and magnetic field, but having equal pressures. Each of these configurations satisfies the zeroth order conservation equations, indicating that the wave does not evolve on this short length-scale.
On the long length scale, however, evolution of the wave is possible. It is computed by regularising the expansion, i.e., by demanding that the secular terms in the first-order equations vanish. The conservation equations by themselves are not sufficient to solve for all the parameters of the wave as a function of radius — an additional constraint is required, reflecting the need for new physics input to determine the rate at which dissipation proceeds. In MHD simulations, the new input needed to describe dissipation is a functional relation between the current and the electric field: an [*anomalous conductivity*]{}. For our computations, however, it suffices to prescribe one of the wave parameters (the thickness of the Harris sheath, for example) in terms of the others.
The Coroniti (1990) prescription implies a relative drift speed of the oppositely charged species roughly equal to that of light. In other words, there exists no Harris equilibrium for a sheath thinner than that assumed by Coroniti. The thinner the sheet, the slower the dissipation, so that Coroniti’s prescription provides a lower limit on the dissipation rate. Kirk & Skj[æ]{}raasen (2003) consider two alternative prescriptions: that the sheath thickness is governed by the (linear) growth rate of the tearing instability, as suggested by Lyubarsky (1996), and that the expansion speed of the sheath is limited to its internal sound speed. The motivation for the latter choice stems from the observation that only the oscillating component of the magnetic field in the entropy wave can be dissipated. This suggests that the boundaries of the hot fluid must be in causal contact in order to guarantee that they advance into regions of opposite magnetic polarity at equal speeds. Thus, expansion at the internal sound speed provides an upper limit to the dissipation rate.
Implications for the Crab pulsar wind
=====================================
The dissipation of the magnetic field in the wind of the Crab pulsar depends on the particle load carried by the wind. For a particle loss rate of $\dot{N}<6\times10^{38}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$, the theoretical upper limit on the dissipation rate lies below the lower limit given by the Coroniti prescription, so that the treatment is inconsistent. In this case, slow evolution of the entropy wave is impossible. Presumably the system adjusts by either becoming unsteady or by steadily converting the flux into a mode which propagates in the fluid frame (e.g., an electromagnetic mode). For $6\times10^{38}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}<\dot{N}<3\times10^{40}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$ none of the three dissipation prescriptions succeeds in converting significant amounts of Poynting flux before the termination shock is encountered. For $\dot{N}>3\times10^{40}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$, however, dissipation at the fastest permitted rate, as depicted in Fig. 1, results in complete conversion before the termination shock is encountered. This rather high level of pair injection into the Nebula cannot be explained in terms of current theories of cascade formation in the inner magnetosphere (Hibschmann & Arons 2001), but is nevertheless consistent with the observed number of radio-emitting electrons (Gallant et al 2002).
Can the conversion of Poynting flux to particle-born flux be observed directly? Arons (1979) noticed that conditions in the wind will make such a signal pulse at the rotation frequency of the star. The obvious implication that the optical to gamma-ray pulses are indeed the signature of this conversion is further supported by the approximate correspondence of the sheet geometry to the observed pulse form (Kirk, Skj[æ]{}raasen, & Gallant 2002).
We thank Yves Gallant and Yuri Lyubarsky for helpful discussions.
Arons J. 1979 , 24, 437 Beskin V.S., Kuznetsova I.V., & Rafikov R.R. 1998 , 299, 341 Bogovalov S.V., & Tsinganos K. 1999 , 305, 211 Buckley R. 1977 , 180, 125 Chiueh T., Li Z.Y., & Begelman M.C. 1998 , 505, 835 Contopoulos I., & Kazanas D. 2002 , 566, 336 Coroniti F.V. 1990 , 349, 538 Emmering R.T., & Chevalier R.A. 1987 , 321, 334 Gallant Y.A., van der Swaluw E., Kirk J.G., & Achterberg A. 2002 in Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, Eds: P.O. Slane, B.M. Gaensler, ASP Conference Series Vol. 271, 99 Harris E.G. 1962 Nuovo Cimento, 23, 115 Hibschman J.A., & Arons J. 2001 ApJ 560, 871 Hoh F.C. 1968 Physics Fluids, 9, 277 Kennel C.F., & Coroniti F.V. 1984 , 283, 694 Kirk J.G., & Skj[æ]{}raasen O. 2003 , 591, 366 Kirk J.G., Skj[æ]{}raasen O., & Gallant Y.A. 2002 , 388, L29 Lyubarsky Y. 1996 , 311, 172 Lyubarsky Y. 2002 , 329, L34 Lyubarsky Y., & Eichler D. 2001 , 562, 494 Lyubarsky Y., & Kirk J.G. 2001 , 547, 437 Rees, M. J., & Gunn, J. E. 1974, , 167, 1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent experimental results point to the existence of coherent quantum phenomena in systems made of a large number of particles, despite the fact that for many-body systems the presence of decoherence is hardly negligible and emerging classicality is expected. This behaviour hinges on collective observables, named [*quantum fluctuations*]{}, that retain a quantum character even in the thermodynamic limit: they provide useful tools for studying properties of many-body systems at the mesoscopic level, in between the quantum microscopic scale and the classical macroscopic one. We hereby present the general theory of quantum fluctuations in mesoscopic systems and study their dynamics in a quantum open system setting, taking into account the unavoidable effects of dissipation and noise induced by the external environment. As in the case of microscopic systems, decoherence is not always the only dominating effect at the mesoscopic scale: certain type of environments can provide means for entangling collective fluctuations through a purely noisy mechanism.'
address:
- '${}^1$Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, Trieste, 34151 Italy'
- '${}^2$Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste, 34151 Trieste, Italy'
- '${}^3$School of Physics and Astronomy and Centre for the Mathematics and Theoretical Physics of Quantum Non-Equilibrium Systems, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK'
- '${}^4$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Wien, A-1091, Vienna, Austria'
author:
- 'F. Benatti$^{1,2}$, F. Carollo$^{3}$, R. Floreanini$^2$ H. Narnhofer$^4$'
title: Quantum Fluctuations in Mesoscopic Systems
---
[*Keywords*]{}: quantum fluctuations, mesoscopic systems, open quantum dynamics, entanglement
Introduction {#section1}
============
When dealing with quantum systems formed by a large number of elementary constituents, the study of their microscopic properties becomes impractical, due to the high multiplicity of the basic elements. Instead, collective observables, [*i.e.*]{} observables involving all system degrees of freedom, can be directly connected to measurable quantities, and therefore constitute the most suited operators to be used to describe the physical properties of such many-body systems. Collective observables are of extensive character, growing indefinitely as the number $N$ of microscopic constituents becomes large: they need to be normalized by suitable powers of $1/N$ in order to obtain physically sensible definitions. In this way, provided the system density is kept fixed, these normalized collective observables become independent from the number of constituents, allowing oneself to work in the so-called thermodynamic, large $N$ limit [@Feynman]-[@Sewell1].
Typical examples of collective observables are provided by the so-called [*mean-field*]{} operators: they are averages over all constituents of single particle quantities, an example of which is the mean magnetization in spin systems. Although the single particle observables possess a quantum character, mean-field observables show in general a classical-like behaviour as the number $N$ of constituents increases, thus becoming examples of the so-called [*macroscopic observables*]{}. The well-established mean-field approach to the study of many-body systems precisely accounts for their behaviour at this macroscopic, semiclassical level, where very little, if none, quantum character survives.
It thus came as a surprise the report of having observed coherent quantum behaviour also in systems made of a large number of particles [@Julsgaard]-[@Purdy], typically, involving Bose-Einstein condensates, namely thousands of ultracold atoms trapped in optical lattices [@Leggett1]-[@Lewenstein2], hybrid atom-photon [@Haroche]-[@Klimov] or optomechanical systems [@Wallquist]-[@Bowen], where decoherence effects can hardly be neglected and emerging classicality is ultimately expected. Mean-field observables can not be used to explain such a behaviour: as mentioned, being averages quantities, scaling as $1/N$ for large $N$, they show a semiclassical character. However, other kinds of collective observables have been introduced and studied in many-body systems [@Goderis1]-[@Verbeure-book]; they account for the variation of microscopic quantities around their averages computed with respect to a chosen reference state: in analogy with classical probability theory, they are called [*quantum fluctuations*]{}. These observables still involve all system degrees of freedom; however, scaling as $1/\sqrt{N}$ with the number of constituents, they retain some quantum properties even in the thermodynamic limit. Being half-way between the microscopic observables, those describing the behaviour of single particles in the system, and the macroscopic mean-field observables, they are named [*mesoscopic*]{}. Indeed, quantum fluctuations always form noncommutative algebras, thus providing a useful tool for analyzing those quantum many-body properties that persist at an intermediate scale, in between the microscopic world and the classical macroscopic one.
One of the most striking manifestation of a quantum behaviour is the possibility of establishing correlations between parts of a physical system that have no classical analog, [*i.e.*]{} of generating [*entanglement*]{} between them [@Horodecki]-[@Modi]. At first considered as a mere curiosity, quantum correlations and entanglement have nowadays become physical resources allowing the realization of protocols and tasks in quantum information technologies not permitted by purely classical means [@Nielsen; @Petritis].
Entanglement is however an extremely fragile resource, that can be rapidly depleted by the action of an external environment. In general, any quantum system, and in particular a many-body one, can hardly be considered to be completely isolated: coupling to its surroundings is unavoidable and, generically, this leads to noisy and decoherence effects, eventually washing away any quantum behaviour [@Alicki1]-[@Spohn1].
Nevertheless, it has been found that an external environment can be responsible not only for degrading quantum coherence and entanglement, but, quite surprisingly, also of enhancing quantum correlations through a purely mixing mechanism. Indeed, it has been shown that, in certain circumstances, two independent, non interacting systems can become entangled by the action of a common bath in which they are immersed. In general, the obvious way of entangling two quantum systems is through a direct interaction among them; a different possibility is to put them in contact with an external environment: the presence of the bath induces a mixing-enhancing mechanism able to actually generate quantum correlations among them [@Plenio1]-[@Benatti5]. This interesting effect has been proven to occur in microscopic systems, made of two qubits or oscillators; surprisingly, it works at the mesoscopic scale also in many-body systems, provided one focuses on suitably chosen fluctuation observables.
Aim of this report is to give an overview of the theory of quantum fluctuations in reference to quantum correlations and entanglement in open many-body quantum systems at the mesoscopic scale.
Observables having the form of fluctuations were first introduced in the late 1980’s in the analysis of quantum lattice systems with short-range interactions [@Goderis1]-[@Goderis3]. There, it was observed that the set of all these fluctuation observables form an algebra, that, irrespective of the nature of the microscopic constituents, turns out to be nonclassical, [*i.e.*]{} noncommutative, and always of bosonic character: it is at the elements of this algebra that one should look in order to properly describe quantum features of many-body systems at the mesoscopic scale. These results proved to be very useful in understanding the basis of the linear response theory and the Onsager relations [@Goderis4]-[@Goderis6], and started extensive studies on the characteristics and basic time evolution of the fluctuation operator algebra in various physical models [@Goderis7]-[@Pascazio].
Despite these successes, since recently very little was known of the behaviour of quantum fluctuations in open many-body systems, [*i.e.*]{} in systems in contact with an external environment: this is the most common situation encountered in actual experiments, that can never be thought of as completely isolated from their surroundings. Taking as reference systems models made of a collection of either spins or oscillators immersed in a common bath, a comprehensive analysis of open, dissipative dynamics of many-body fluctuation operators can be given [@Carollo1]-[@Surace]. With respect to the unitary time evolutions explored so far, the presence of the external environment poses specific challenges in the derivation of the mesoscopic dynamics, leading however to interesting new physical results: two non-interacting many-body systems in a common bath can become entangled at the level of mesoscopic fluctuations, and, in certain situations, the created quantum correlations can persisit even for asymptotic long times.
Of particular interest is the application of the theory of quantum fluctuations to models with long-range interactions [@Binney]-[@Bagarello], shedding new light on the physical properties of such many-body systems at the mesoscopic scale. In these cases, the microscopic dynamics is implemented through mean-field operators, [*i.e.*]{} with interaction and dissipative terms scaling as $1/N$; in the thermodynamic limit, it converges to a non-Markovian [@Rivas2]-[@Vega], unitary dynamics on local operators, while giving rise to a non-linear, dissipative dynamics at the level of quantum fluctuations.
In detail the structure of the review is as follows.
In the following Section, the basic mathematical tools for the description of many-body quantum systems are briefly reviewed: they are based on the algebraic approach to quantum mechanics, which represents the most general formulation of the theory, valid for both finite and infinite dimensional systems [@Bratteli]-[@Spohn2]. The characteristic properties of collective many-body observables, and in particular quantum fluctuations, are subsequently discussed: in presence of short-range correlations, in the thermodynamic limit, fluctuation operators are seen to become bosonic quantum variables with Gaussian characteristic function [@Adesso-thesis]-[@Eberly]. Such a limiting behaviour is rooted in the extension to the quantum setting of the classical central limit theorem [@Cushen; @Quagebeur]. These abstract results are then applied to the discussion of many-body systems composed by spin-chains or collections of independent oscillators.
Section \[section3\] is instead devoted to the study of the dynamics of quantum fluctuations. The focus is on open, dissipative time evolutions as given by microscopic, local generators in Kossakowski-Lindblad form [@Kossakowski1]-[@Lindblad]. Under rather general conditions, one can show that the emergent, large $N$ mesoscopic dynamics for the bosonic fluctuations turns out to be a quantum dynamical semigroup of quasi-free type, thus preserving the Gaussian character of the fluctuation algebra. When dealing with bipartite many-body systems, this emergent dissipative Gaussian dynamics is able to create mesoscopic entanglement at the level of fluctuation operators through a purely noisy mechanism, namely, without environment mediated interaction among the mesoscopic degrees of freedom. Remarkably, in certain situations, the generated entanglement can persist for asymptotic long times. The behaviour of the created collective quantum correlations can be studied as a function of the characteristics of the external environment in which the mesoscopic system is immersed. One then discovers that a sort of entanglement phase transition is at work: a critical temperature can always be identified, above which quantum correlations between mesoscopic observables can not be created.
Section \[section4\] deals with systems with long-range interactions [@Thirring3]-[@Bagarello]. In the thermodynamic limit, the dissipative dynamics of such systems behaves quite differently depending on whether one focuses on microscopic or collective observables. Quite surprisingly, the time evolution of local, [*i.e.*]{} microscopic, observables turns out to be an automorphism of non-Markovian character, generated by a time-dependent Hamiltonian, while that of quantum fluctuations, [*i.e.*]{} of mesoscopic observables, consists of a one-parameter family of non-linear maps. These maps can be extended to a larger algebra in such a way that their generator becomes time-independent, giving rise to a semigroup of completely positive maps, whose generator is however of hybrid type, containing quantum as well as classical contributions.
Finally, let us point out that the theory of quantum fluctuations is very general and independent from the specific models here discussed. In this respect, it can be applied in all instances where mesoscopic, coherent quantum behaviours are expected to emerge, [*e.g.*]{} in experiments involving spin-like and optomechanical systems, or trapped ultra-cold atom gases: the possibility of entangling these many-body systems through a purely mixing mechanism may reinforce their use in the actual realization of quantum information and communication protocols.
Many-body collective observables {#section2}
================================
We shall consider quantum systems composed by $N$ (distinguishable) particles and analyze their behavior in the the so-called thermodynamic, large $N$ limit by studying their collective properties.
The proper treatment of infinite quantum systems requires the use of the algebraic approach to quantum physics: in the coming subsection, we shall briefly summarize its main features, underlying the concepts and tools that will be needed in the following discussions. \[For a more detailed presentation, see the reference textbooks [@Bratteli]-[@Strocchi2].\]
Observables and states {#section2.1}
----------------------
Any quantum system can be characterized by the collections of observations that can be made on it through suitable measurement processes [@Strocchi3]. The physical quantities that are thus accessed are the observables of the system, forming an algebra $\cal A$ under multiplication and linear combinations, the algebra of observables.
$\bullet$ [*$C^\star$-algebras*]{}In general, the algebra $\cal A$ turns out to be a non-commutative $C^\star$-algebra; this means that it is a linear, associative algebra (with unity) over the field of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$, [*i.e.*]{} a vector space over $\mathbb{C}$, with an associative product, linear in both factors. Further, $\cal A$ is endowed with an operation of conjugation: it posses an antilinear involution $\star: {\cal A}\to {\cal A}$, such that $(\alpha^\star)^\star=\alpha$, for any element $\alpha$ of $\cal A$. In addition, a norm $|| \cdot ||$ is defined on $\cal A$, satisfying $||\alpha\beta||\leq ||\alpha||\, ||\beta||$, for any $\alpha,\, \beta \in {\cal A}$ (thus implying that the product operation is continuous), and such that $||\alpha^\star \alpha||=||\alpha||^2$, so that $||\alpha^\star||=||\alpha||$; moreover, $\cal A$ is closed under this norm, meaning that $\cal A$ is a complete space with respect to the topology induced by the norm (a property that in turn makes $\cal A$ a Banach algebra).
In the case of an $n$-level system, $\cal A$ can be identified with the $C^\star$-algebra ${\cal M}_n(\mathbb{C})$ of complex $n\times n$ matrices; the $\star$-operation coincides now with the hermitian conjugation, $M^\star=M^\dagger$, for any element $M\in {\cal M}_n(\mathbb{C})$, while the norm $||M||$ is given by the square root of the largest eigenvalue of $M^\dagger M$. Nevertheless, the description of a physical system through its $C^\star$-algebra of observables is particularly appropriate in presence of an infinite number of degrees of freedom, where the canonical formalism is in general problematic.
$\bullet$ [*States on $C^\star$-algebras*]{}Although the system observables, [*i.e.*]{} the hermitian elements of $\cal A$, can be identified with the physical quantities measured in experiments, the explicit link between the algebra $\cal A$ and the outcome of the measurements is given by the concept of a state $\omega$, through which the expectation value $\omega(\alpha)$ of the observable $\alpha \in {\cal A}$ can be defined.
In general, a state $\omega$ on a $C^\star$-algebra $\cal A$ is a linear map $\omega: {\cal A} \to \mathbb{C}$, with the property of being positive, [*i.e.*]{} $\omega(\alpha^\star \alpha)\geq 0$, $\forall\alpha \in {\cal A}$, and normalized, $\omega({\bf 1})=1$, indicating with ${\bf 1}$ the unit of $\cal A$. It immediately follows that the map $\omega$ is also continuous: $|\omega(\alpha)|\leq ||\alpha||$, for all $\alpha \in {\cal A}$.
This general definition of state of a quantum system comprises the standard one in terms of normalized density matrices on a Hilbert space $\cal H$; indeed, any density matrix $\rho$ defines a state $\omega_\rho$ on the algebra ${\cal B}({\cal H})$ of bounded operators on ${\cal H}$ through the relation $$\omega_\rho(\alpha)={\rm Tr}[\rho\,\alpha]\ ,\qquad \forall\alpha\in {\cal B}({\cal H})\ ,
\label{2.1}$$ which for pure states, $\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$, reduces to the standard expectation: $\omega_\rho(\alpha)=\langle \psi |\alpha|\psi\rangle$. Nevertheless, the definition in terms of $\omega$ is more general, holding even for systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, for which the usual approach in terms of state vectors may be unavailable.
As for density matrices on a Hilbert space $\cal H$, a state $\omega$ on a $C^\star$-algebra $\cal A$ is said to be pure if it can not be decomposed as a convex sum of two states, [*i.e.*]{} if the decomposition $\omega=\lambda\,\omega_1+(1-\lambda)\, \omega_2$, with $0\leq\lambda\leq 1$, holds only for $\omega_1=\omega_2=\omega$. If a state $\omega$ is not pure, it is called mixed. It is worth noticing that, for consistency, the assumed completeness of the relation between observables and measurements on a physical system requires that the observables separate the states, [*i.e.*]{} $\omega_1(\alpha)=\omega_2(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha \in {\cal A}$ implies $\omega_1=\omega_2$, and similarly that the states separate the observables, [*i.e.*]{} $\omega(\alpha)=\omega(\beta)$ for all states $\omega$ on $\cal A$ implies $\alpha=\beta$.
$\bullet$ [*GNS-Construction*]{}Although the above description of a quantum system through its $C^\star$-algebra of observables (its measurable properties) and states over it (giving the observable expectations) looks rather abstract, it actually allows an Hilbert space interpretation, through the so-called [*Gelfang-Naimark-Segal(GNS)-construction*]{}.
[**GNS Theorem**]{} [*Any state $\omega$ on the $C^\star$-algebra $\cal A$ uniquely determines (up to isometries) a representation $\pi_\omega$ of the elements of $\cal A$ as operators in a Hilbert space ${\cal H}_\omega$, containing a reference vector $|\omega\rangle$, whose matrix elements reproduce the observable expectations: $$\omega(\alpha)=\langle\omega| \pi_\omega(\alpha) |\omega\rangle\ ,\qquad \alpha\in{\cal A}\ .
\label{2.2}$$* ]{}
This result makes apparent that the notion of Hilbert space associated to a quantum system is not a primary concept, but an emergent tool, a consequence of the $C^\star$-algebra structure of the system observables. We shall now apply these basic algebraic tools to the description of many-body quantum systems.
Quasi-local algebra {#section2.2}
-------------------
Being distinguishable, each particle in the many-body system can be identified by an integer index $k\in\mathbb{N}$. In view of the previous discussion, its physical properties can be described by the $C^\star$ algebra $\mathfrak{a}^{[k]}$ of single-particle observables, that will be assumed to be the same algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ for all particles. When its dimension $d$ is finite, $\mathfrak{a}$ can be identified with $\mathcal{M}_d(\mathbb{C})$; nevertheless, it can be also infinite-dimensional ([*e.g.*]{} the oscillator algebra).
Referring to different degrees of freedom, operator algebras of different particles commute: $\left[\mathfrak{a}^{[i]},\mathfrak{a}^{[j]}\right]=0$, $i\neq j$. By means of the tensor product structure one can construct [*local algebras*]{}, referring just to a finite number of particles. For instance, the algebra $$\mathcal{A}_{[p,q]}=\bigotimes_{i=p}^{q}\mathfrak{a}^{[i]},\qquad p,q\in\mathbb{N},\ p\le q \ ,
\label{2.3}$$ contains all observables pertaining to the set of particles whose label is between $p$ and $q$. The family of local algebras $\left\{\mathcal{A}_{[p,q]}\right\}_{p\le q}$ possesses the following properties [@Bratteli]: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Big[\mathcal{A}_{[p_1,q_1]},\, \mathcal{A}_{[p_2,q_2]}\Big]=0\qquad {\rm if}\ \ [p_1,q_1]\cap [p_2,q_2]=\emptyset\ ,\\
\mathcal{A}_{[p_1,q_1]}\subseteq\mathcal{A}_{[p_2,q_2]}\qquad\qquad {\rm if }\ \ [p_1,q_1]\ \subseteq [p_2,q_2]\ .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ One then consider the union of these algebras over all possible finite sets of particles, $\bigcup_{p\le q}\mathcal{A}_{[p,q]}$, and its completion with respect to the norm inherited from the local algebras. The resulting algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called the [*quasi-local*]{} algebra: it contains all the observables of the system. In the following, generic elements of $\mathcal{A}$ will be denoted with capital letters, $X$, while lower case letters, $x$, will represent elements of $\mathfrak{a}$. Actually, any observable $x\in \mathfrak{a}$ of particle $k$ can be embedded into $\mathcal{A}$ as $$x^{[k]}=\ldots \otimes{\bf 1}\otimes x\otimes {\bf 1}\otimes\ldots\ ,
\label{2.4}$$ where in the above infinite tensor product of identity operators, $x$ appears exactly at position $k$. As a result, $x^{[k]}\in\mathcal{A}$ acts non trivially only on the $k$-th particle. Furthermore, some operators in the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$ act non-trivially only on a finite set of particles: they will be called (strictly) [*local*]{} operators. Since $\mathcal{A}$ is the norm closure of the union of all possible local algebras, the set of all its local elements is dense; in other terms, any element of $\mathcal{A}$ can be approximated (in norm) by local operators, with an error that can be made arbitrarily small.
States for the system will be described by positive, normalized, linear functionals $\omega$ on $\mathcal{A}$: they assign the expectation value $\omega(X)$ to any operator $X\in\mathcal{A}$. In the following, we shall restrict the attention to states for which the expectation values of a same observable for different particles coincide: $$\omega\big(x^{[j]}\big)=\omega\big(x^{[k]}\big)\ ,\qquad j\neq k\ .
\label{2.5}$$ In other terms, the mean value of single-particle operators are the same for all particles; to remark this fact, we shall use the simpler notation: $$\omega\big(x^{[k]}\big)\equiv\omega(x)\ ,\qquad x\in\mathfrak{a}\ .
\label{2.6}$$ When the single-particle algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ is finite dimensional, recalling (\[2.1\]), one can further write: $\omega(x)=\Tr[\rho\, x]$, with $\rho$ a single-particle density matrix.
In addition to property (\[2.5\]), called [*translation invariance*]{}, we shall require that the states $\omega$ of the system to be also [*clustering*]{}, [*i.e.*]{} not supporting correlations between far away localized operators: $$\hskip -.5cm
\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\omega\Big(A^\dagger\, \tau_z\big(X\big)\, B\Big)=
\omega\Big(A^\dagger\, B\Big)\, \lim_{|z|\to\infty}\omega\Big(\tau_z\big(X\big)\Big)
=\omega\Big(A^\dagger\, B\Big)\,\omega\big(X\big)\ ,
\label{2.7}$$ where $\tau_z:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A}$ is the spacial translation operator.
Using this algebraic setting, we shall see that the common wisdom that assigns a “classical” behaviour to operator averages while a non-trivial dynamics to fluctuations holds also in the case of quantum many-body systems. More specifically, mean-field observables will be shown to provide a classical (commutative) description of the system, typical of the “macroscopic” world, while fluctuations around operator averages will still retain some quantum (noncommutative) properties: they describe the “mesoscopic” behaviour of the system, at a level that is half way between the microscopic and macroscopic scale.
Mean-field observables {#section2.3}
----------------------
Single-particle operators, or more in general local operators, are observables suitable for a microscopic description of a many-body system. However, due to experimental limitations, these operators are hardly accessible in practice; only, collective observables, involving all system particles, are in general available to the experimental investigation.
In order to move from a microscopic description to a one involving collective operators, potentially defined over system with an infinitely large number of constituents, a suitable scaling needs to be chosen. The simplest example of collective observables are [*mean-field*]{} operators, [*i.e.*]{} averages of $N$ copies of a same single site observable $x$: $$\overline{X}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N x^{[k]}\ .
\label{2.8}$$ We are interested in studying their behaviour in the thermodynamic, large $N$ limit.
As a first, preliminary step, let us consider two such operators, $\overline{X}^{(N)}$ and $\overline{Y}^{(N)}$, constructed from single-particle observables $x$ and $y$, respectively, and compute their commutator: $$\Big[\overline{X}^{(N)},\, \overline{Y}^{(N)}\Big]= \frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{j,k=1}^N \Big[x^{[j]},\, y^{[k]}\Big]=
\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{k=1}^N \Big[x^{[k]},\, y^{[k]}\Big]\ ,
\label{2.9}$$ where the last equality comes from the fact that operators referring to different particles commute. Since $(1/N)\sum_{k=1}^N \Big[x^{[k]},\, y^{[k]}\Big]$ is clearly itself a a mean-field operator, one realizes that the commutator of two mean-field operators is still a mean-field operator, although with an additional $1/N$ factor; because of this extra factor, it vanishes in the large $N$ limit. In other terms, mean-field operators seem to provide only a “classical”, commutative description of the many-body system, any quantum, non-commutative character being lost in the thermodynamic limit.
The above result actually holds in the so-called [*weak operator topology*]{} [@Bratteli], [*i.e.*]{} under state average. More precisely, for a clustering state $\omega$, one has: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\left(A^\dagger\, \overline{X}^{(N)}\, B\right)=\omega\big(A^\dagger B\big)\,\omega(x)\ ,
\qquad A,\, B\in\mathcal{A}\ .
\label{2.10}$$ Indeed, for any integer $N_0<N$ one can write: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\left(A^\dagger\, \overline{X}^{(N)}\, B\right)=
\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Bigg( A^\dagger\ \Bigg[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N_0} x^{[k]}
+ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=N_0+1}^{N} x^{[k]}\Bigg]\, B\Bigg)\ .$$ Clearly, the first piece in the r.h.s. gives no contributions in the limit. Concerning the second term, we can appeal to the fact that local operators are norm dense in $\mathcal{A}$; then, without loss of generality, one can assume $N_0$ to be large so that $B$ involves only particles with labels $\leq N_0$. Recalling the clustering property (\[2.7\]), one then immediately gets the result (\[2.10\]). This means that, in the weak operator topology, the large $N$ limit of $\overline{X}^{(N)}$ is a scalar multiple of the identity operator: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \overline{X}^{(N)} = \omega(x)\, {\bf 1}\ .$$ With similar manipulations, one can also prove that the product $\overline{X}^{(N)}\overline{Y}^{(N)}$ of two mean-field-observables weakly converges to $\omega(x)\omega(y)$ [@Carollo3]: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\overline{X}^{(N)}\,\overline{Y}^{(N)}\,=\,\omega(x)\,\omega(y)\, {\bf 1}\ .
\label{2.11}$$ Furthermore, under the stronger $L_1$-clustering condition (see next Section and [@Verbeure-book]), $$\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\left|\omega\big(x^{[1]}y^{[k]}\big)\,-\,\omega(x)\omega(y)\right|<\infty\, ,
\label{2.12}$$ the following scaling can be proven [@Carollo3]: $$\label{2.13}
\left|\omega\Big( \overline{X}^{(N)}\,\overline{Y}^{(N)}\Big)-\,\omega(x)\,\omega(y)\right|
=O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)\, .$$ It thus follows that the weak-limit of mean-field observables gives rise to a commutative (von Neumann) algebra.
Therefore, mean-field observables describe what we can call “macroscopic”, classical degrees of freedom; although constructed in terms of microscopic operators, in the large $N$ limit they do not retain any fingerprint of a quantum behaviour. Instead, as remarked in the Introduction, we are interested in studying collective observables, [**]{} involving all system particles, showing a quantum character even in the thermodynamic limit. Clearly, a less rapid scaling than $1/N$ is needed.
Quantum fluctuations {#section2.4}
--------------------
Fluctuation operators are collective observables that scale as the square root of $N$ and represent a deviation from the average. Given any single-particle operator $x$ and a reference state $\omega$, its corresponding fluctuation operator $F^{(N)}(x)$ is defined as $$F^{(N)}(x)\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N \Big(x^{[k]}-\omega(x){\bf 1}\Big)\ ;
\label{2.14}$$ it is the quantum analog of a fluctuation random variable in classical probability theory [@Feller].
Although the scaling $1/\sqrt N$ does not in general guarantee convergence in the weak operator topology, one can make sense of the large $N$ limit of (\[2.14\]) in some state-induced topology. Indeed, note that the mean value of the fluctuation always vanishes: $\omega\big(F^{(N)}(x)\big)=\,0$. Moreover, one has: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big(\big[F^{(N)}(x)\big]^2\Big)=
\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j,k=1}^N\Big(\omega\left(x^{[j]}x^{[k]}\Big)-\omega(x)^2\right)\\
\hskip 7cm \le\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\Big|\omega\left(x^{[1]}x^{[k]}\right)-\omega(x)^2\Big|\ ,
\label{2.15}\end{aligned}$$ so that for states satisfying the $L_1$-clustering condition, introduced earlier in (\[2.12\]), the variance of the fluctuations is bounded in the limit of large $N$.
In addition, fluctuation operators retain a quantum behaviour in the large $N$ limit. Consider two single-particle operators $x,\, y\in \mathfrak{a}$ and call $z\in \mathfrak{a}$ their commutator. Since $[x^{[j]}\,,\, y^{[k]}]=\delta_{jk}\,z^{[j]}$, following steps similar to the one used in the proof of (\[2.10\]), one can write for a clustering state $\omega$: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\left(A^\dagger\ \left[F^{(N)}(x)\,,\,F^{(N)}(y)\right]\, B\right)=\lim_{N\to\infty}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\omega\left(A^\dagger z^{(k)}\, B\right)=\omega(A^\dagger B)\,\omega(z) ,$$ with $A$ and $B$ arbitrary elements of $\mathcal{A}$. Thus, commutators of fluctuations of local operators give rise to mean-field observables, and as such, behave for large $N$ as scalar multiples of the identity, $\omega(z)\,\mathbf{1}$. In other terms, in the thermodynamic limit fluctuations provide commutation relations that look like standard canonical bosonic ones. These results indicate that, at the mesoscopic level, a non-commutative bosonic algebraic structure naturally emerges: quantum fluctuations indeed form a so-called [*quantum fluctuation algebra*]{}.
In order to explicitly construct this algebra, one starts by considering the set of self-adjoint elements of the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$. Actually, as shown by the examples presented below, only subsets of this set are in general physically relevant, so that one can limit the discussion to one of them. Let us then fix a set of linearly independent, self-adjoint elements $\{x_1,\ x_2,\ \ldots ,\ x_n\}$ in the single-particle algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ and consider their real linear span: $$\mathcal{X}=\Big\{x_r\ \big|\ x_r\equiv\vec{r}\cdot\vec{x}=\sum_{\mu=1}^n r_\mu\, x_\mu,\ \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^n\Big\}\ .
\label{2.16}$$ Following the definition (\[2.14\]), one can then construct the fluctuation operators $F^{(N)}(x_\mu)$ corresponding to $x_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots, n$, and the one corresponding to the generic combination $x_r\in\mathcal{X}$, obtained from those by linearity: $$F^{(N)}(x_r)=\sum_{\mu=1}^N r_\mu\, F^{(N)}(x_\mu)\equiv \vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)\ ;
\label{2.17}$$ we want to study the large $N$ behaviour of these fluctuation operators, having fixed a state $\omega$ satisfying the invariance and clustering properties in (\[2.5\]) and (\[2.7\]).
In order to build well behaved fluctuations, the discussion leading to (\[2.15\]) suggests to choose observables $x_\mu$ for which the $L_1$-clustering property (\[2.12\]) is satisfied for all elements of the space $\mathcal{X}$. This condition guaranties that the $n\times n$ [*correlation matrix*]{} $C^{(\omega)}$, with components: $$C^{(\omega)}_{\mu\nu}=\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( F^{(N)}(x_\mu)\ F^{(N)}(x_\nu)\Big)\ ,
\qquad \mu,\nu=1,2,\ldots, n\ ,
\label{2.18}$$ be well defined [@Verbeure-book]. This matrix can be decomposed as $$C^{(\omega)}=\Sigma^{(\omega)} + \frac{i}{2} \sigma^{(\omega)}\ ,
\label{2.19}$$ in terms of the [*covariance matrix*]{}, namely its real, symmetric part $\Sigma^{(\omega)}$, with components $$\Sigma^{(\omega)}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( \Big\{F^{(N)}(x_\mu),\ F^{(N)}(x_\nu)\Big\}\Big)\ ,
\label{2.20}$$ with $\{\ ,\, \}$ indicating anticommutator, and its imaginary, antisymmetric part $\sigma^{(\omega)}$, with components: $$\sigma^{(\omega)}_{\mu\nu}=-i\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( \Big[F^{(N)}(x_\mu),\ F^{(N)}(x_\nu)\Big]\Big)\ .
\label{2.21}$$ Although this matrix need not be invertible, it is usually called the [*symplectic matrix*]{} [@Verbeure-book]. Indeed, for a non-degenerate $\sigma^{(\omega)}$, the real $n$-dimensional space $\mathcal{X}$ becomes a symplectic space.[^1] As such, it supports a bosonic algebra $\mathcal{W}\big(\mathcal{X}, \sigma^{(\omega)}\big)$, defined as the complex vector space generated by the linear span of operators $W(\vec{r}\,)$, with $\vec{r}\in \mathbb{R}^n$, obeying the following algebraic relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.22}
W(\vec{r_1})\ W(\vec{r_2}) = W(\vec{r_1}+\vec{r_2})\
\e^{ -\frac{i}{2} \vec{r_1}\cdot \sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot \vec{r_2} }\ ,\qquad \vec{r_1}, \vec{r_2}\in \mathbb{R}^n\ ,\\
\Big[W(\vec{r}\,)\Big]^\dagger=W(-\vec{r}\,)=\Big[W(\vec{r}\,)\Big]^{-1}\ ,\qquad W({0})={\bf 1}\ .
\label{2.23}\end{aligned}$$ These relations are just a generalization of the familiar commutation relations of Weyl operators constructed with single-particle position and momentum operators; for this reason the unitary operators $W(\vec{r}\,)$ are called (generalized) [*Weyl operators*]{}, and the algebra $\mathcal{W}\big(\mathcal{X}, \sigma^{(\omega)}\big)$ they generate, a (generalized) [*Weyl algebra*]{} [@Bratteli; @Petz]. As for any operator algebra, a state $\Omega$ on this Weyl algebra is a positive, normalized linear functional $\Omega:\ \mathcal{W}\big(\mathcal{X}, \sigma^{(\omega)}\big)\to \mathbb{C}$, assigning its mean value to any element of the algebra. The so-called [*quasi-free*]{} states $\Omega_\Sigma$ form an important class of such states: they are characterized by giving a mean value to Weyl operators in Gaussian form [@Ferraro; @Holevo], $$\Omega_\Sigma\Big( W(\vec{r}\,) \Big)=\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma\cdot \vec{r} }\ ,\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^n\ .
\label{2.24}$$ The covariance $\Sigma$ is a positive, symmetric matrix, which, together with the symplectic matrix, obeys the condition $$\Sigma + \frac{i}{2}\sigma^{(\omega)}\geq 0\ ,
\label{2.25}$$ thus assuring the positivity of $\Omega_\Sigma$. Quasi-free states are [*regular*]{} states,[^2] and as such they admit a representation in terms of Bose fields. Let us denote by $\pi_{\Omega_\Sigma}$ the GNS-representation based on the quasi-free state $\Omega_\Sigma$; then, in this representation, the Weyl operators can be expressed as: $$\pi_{\Omega_\Sigma}\Big[ W(\vec{r}\,) \Big] = \e^{i \vec{r}\cdot \vec{F}} \ ,
\label{2.26}$$ in terms of $n$ (unbounded) Bose operators $F_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots, n$. They provide an explicit expression for the associated covariance matrix as their anticommutator: $$\Sigma_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2} \Omega_\Sigma\Big( \big\{ F_\mu,\ F_\nu\big\} \Big) \ ,
\label{2.27}$$ while, thanks to the algebraic relation (\[2.22\]), their commutator gives the symplectic matrix: $$\sigma^{(\omega)}_{\mu\nu}=-i \big[ F_\mu,\ F_\nu\big] \ .
\label{2.28}$$ The analogy of the relations (\[2.27\]) and (\[2.28\]) with the results (\[2.20\]) and (\[2.21\]) suggests to consider elements in the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$ obtained by exponentiating the fluctuations $F^{(N)}(x_r)$ in (\[2.17\]), $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}\ ,
\label{2.29}$$ and focus on states $\omega$ for which the expectation $\omega\big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,) \big)$ becomes Gaussian in the large $N$ limit. The operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$ will be called [*Weyl-like*]{} operators as they behave as true Weyl operators in the thermodynamic limit. Indeed, let us consider the product of two Weyl-like operators; using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& W^{(N)}(\vec{r_1}\,)\ W^{(N)}(\vec{r_2}\,)=\exp\Bigg\{i F^{(N)}(x_{r_1+r_2})
-\frac{1}{2}\Big[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),F^{(N)}(x_{r_2})\Big]\\
\nonumber
&&\hskip 4cm -\frac{i}{12}\Bigg(\Big[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),\left[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),F^{(N)}(x_{r_2})\right]\Big]\\
&&\hskip 4cm -\Big[F^{(N)}(x_{r_2}),\left[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),F^{(N)}(x_{r_2})\right]\Big]\Bigg)+\dots\Bigg\}\ .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As already seen, in the large $N$ limit, the first commutator on the r.h.s. is proportional to the identity, while all the additional terms vanish in norm; for instance, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\lim_{N\to\infty}\bigg\|\Big[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),\left[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),F^{(N)}(x_{r_2})\right]\Big]\bigg\|=\\
&&=\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N^{3/2}}
\left\|\sum_{k=1}^N\Big[x_{r_1}^{[k]},\left[x_{r_1}^{[k]},x_{r_2}^{[k]}\right]\Big]\right\|
\le\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{4}{\sqrt{N}}\|x_{r_1}\|^2\, \|x_{r_2}\|=0\, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in the thermodynamic limit the Weyl-like operators are seen to obey the following algebraic relations: $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r_1}\,)\ W^{(N)}(\vec{r_2}\,)\simeq
W^{(N)}(\vec{r_1} + \vec{r_2}\,)\ \e^{-\frac{1}{2}\big[F^{(N)}(x_{r_1}),F^{(N)}(x_{r_2})\big]}\ ,
\label{2.30}$$ which, recalling (\[2.21\]), reduce to the Weyl relations (\[2.22\]). In other terms, under suitable conditions, in the large $N$ limit the operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$ behave as the Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)$ of the algebra $\mathcal{W}\big(\mathcal{X}, \sigma^{(\omega)}\big)$. The precise way in which this statement should be understood is provided by the following result:
\[theorem1\] Given the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$ and the real linear vector space $\mathcal{X}$ as in (\[2.16\]), and a clustering state $\omega$ on $\mathcal{A}$, satisfying the conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.31}
&& 1)\ \sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\left|\omega\big(x_{r_1}^{[1]}\, x_{r_2}^{[k]}\big)\,
-\,\omega(x_{r_1})\omega(x_{r_2})\right|<\infty\ ,\qquad \vec{r_1},\ \vec{r_2}\in\mathbb{R}^n\\
&&2)\ \lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big( \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot \vec{r} }\ ,\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^n\ ,
\label{2.32}\end{aligned}$$ one can define a Gaussian state $\Omega$ on the Weyl algebra ${\cal W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$ such that, for all $\vec{r}_i\in\mathbb{R}^n$, $i=1,2,\ldots,m$, $$\hskip -1.5cm \lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\,\cdots W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_m)\Big)=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}_1)\,W(\vec{r}_2)\,\cdots W(\vec{r}_m)\Big)\ ,
\label{2.33}$$ with $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot \vec{r}}=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)\ ,\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^n\ .
\label{2.34}$$
Notice that the Gaussian state $\Omega$ on the algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, with covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\omega)}$, is indeed a well defined state. First of all, it is normalized as easily seen by setting $\vec{r}=0$ in (\[2.34\]). Further, its positivity is guaranteed by the positivity of the correlation matrix (\[2.18\]): $$C^{(\omega)}=\Sigma^{(\omega)} + \frac{i}{2} \sigma^{(\omega)}\ge 0\ .$$ Being Gaussian, the state $\Omega$ gives rise to a regular representation of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, so that one can introduce the Bose fields $F_\mu$ as in (\[2.26\]) and, through (\[2.29\]) and (\[2.34\]), [*i.e.*]{} $\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\big( \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}\big)=\Omega\big( \e^{i \vec{r}\cdot \vec{F}} \big)$, identify the large $N$ limit of local fluctuation operators with those Bose fields: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}F^{(N)}(x_\mu)=F_\mu\ ,\qquad \mu=1,2,\ldots,n\ .
\label{2.35}$$ Let us stress that these fields, despite being collective operators, retain a quantum, non-commutative character. They describe the behaviour of many-body systems at a level that is half way between the microscopic world of single-particle observables and the macroscopic realm of mean-field operators discussed earlier. In this respect, the large $N$ limit that allows to pass from the exponential (\[2.29\]) of the local fluctuations (\[2.14\]) to the mesoscopic operators belonging to the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, as described by the previous Theorem, can be called the [*mesoscopic limit*]{}. It can be given a formal definition:
**Mesoscopic limit.** [ *Given an operator $O^{(N)}$, linear combination of exponential operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$, we shall say that it possesses the mesoscopic limit $O$, writing $$m-\lim_{N\to\infty} O^{(N)}= O\ ,$$ if and only if $$\hskip -1.5cm \lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,O^{(N)}\,W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\Big)=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}_1)\,O\,W(\vec{r}_2)\Big)\ ,\quad \forall\, \vec{r}_{1},\ \vec{r}_{2}\in \mathbb{R}^n\ .
\label{2.36}$$* ]{}
Note that, by varying $\vec{r}_{1},\ \vec{r}_{2}\in \mathbb{R}^n$, the expectation values of the form $\Omega\big( W(\vec{r}_1)\,O\,W(\vec{r}_2)\big)$ completely determine any generic operator $O$ in the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$: essentially, they represent its corresponding matrix elements.[^3] Similar considerations can be formulated concerning the dynamics of many-body systems at the mesoscopic level. More precisely, given a one-parameter family of microscopic dynamical maps $\Phi^{(N)}_t$ on the quasi-local algebra ${\cal A}$, we will study its action on the Weyl-like operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$, in the limit of large $N$. In other terms, we shall look for the limiting [*mesoscopic dynamics*]{} $\Phi_t$ acting on the elements $W(\vec{r}\,)$ of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$. In line with the previously introduced mesoscopic limit, to which it reduces for $t=\,0$, we can state the following definition:
**Mesoscopic dynamics.** [*Given a family of one-parameter maps $\Phi^{(N)}_t\, : {\cal A} \to {\cal A}$, we shall say that it gives the mesoscopic limit $\Phi_t$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, $$m-\lim_{N\to\infty} \Phi^{(N)}_t = \Phi_t\ ,$$ if and only if $$\hskip -1.5 cm
\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,\Phi^{(N)}_t\big[W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\big]\,
W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\Big)=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}_1)\,\Phi_t\big[W(\vec{r}\,)\big]\, W(\vec{r}_2)\Big)\ ,
\label{2.37}$$ for all $\vec{r},\ \vec{r}_{1},\ \vec{r}_{2}\in \mathbb{R}^n$.*]{}
Spin and oscillator many-body systems {#section2.5}
-------------------------------------
In order to make more transparent the definitions and results so far presented, we shall now briefly consider physically relevant models in which the whole treatment can be made very explicit.
### Spin chain. {#section2.5.1}
A paradigmatic example of a many-body system, often discussed in the literature, is given by a chain of 1/2 spins. The microscopic description of the system involves three operators $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$, obeying the $su(2)$-algebra commutation relations: $$\big[ s_j,\ s_k\big]=i \epsilon_{jk\ell}\, s_\ell\ ,\qquad j,k,\ell = 1,2,3\ .
\label{2.38}$$ Together with the identity operator $s_0\equiv {\bf 1}/2$, they generate the single-spin algebra $\mathfrak{a}$, which in this particular case can be identified with $\mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$, the set of all $2\times 2$ complex matrices; this algebra is attached to each site of the chain. The tensor product of single-site algebras from site $p$ to site $q$, $p\leq q$, as in (\[2.3\]), forms the local algebras $\mathcal{A}_{[p,q]}$. The union of these local algebras over all possible finite sets of sites, together with its completion, gives the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$: it contains all the observables of the spin chain.
We shall equip $\mathcal{A}$ with a thermal state $\omega_\beta$, at temperature $1/\beta$, constructed from the tensor product of single-site thermal states: $$\omega_\beta=\bigotimes_k\ \omega_\beta^{[k]}\ .
\label{2.39}$$ At the generic site $k$, the state $\omega_\beta^{[k]}$ is determined by its expectation on the basis operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\omega_\beta^{[k]}\Big(s_0^{[k]}\Big)=\frac{1}{2}\ ,\quad
\omega_\beta^{[k]}\Big(s_1^{[k]}\Big)=\omega_\beta^{[k]}\Big(s_2^{[k]}\Big)=\,0\ ,\\
&&\omega_\beta^{[k]}\Big(s_3^{[k]}\Big)=-\frac{\eta}{2}\ ,\qquad \eta\equiv\tanh\left(\frac{\beta\varepsilon}{2}\right)\ .
\label{2.40}\end{aligned}$$ It can be represented by a Gibbs density matrix $\rho_\beta^{[k]}$ constructed with the site-$k$ Hamiltonian $$h^{[k]}= \varepsilon\, s_3^{[k]}\ ,
\label{2.41}$$ so that for any operator $x^{[k]}\in\mathfrak{a}^{[k]}$: $$\omega_\beta^{[k]}\Big(x^{[k]}\Big)=\Tr\Big[ \rho_\beta^{[k]}\, x^{[k]}\Big]\ ,\qquad
\rho_\beta^{[k]}=\frac{\e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}}{2\cosh(\varepsilon\beta/2)}\ .
\label{2.42}$$ For a chain containing a finite number $N$ of sites, the state $\omega_\beta$ in (\[2.39\]) can similarly be represented by a density matrix as: $$\rho_\beta^{(N)}=\frac{\e^{-\beta \sum_{k=1}^N h^{[k]}}}{\Tr\bigg[\e^{-\beta \sum_{k=1}^N h^{[k]}}\bigg]}\ .
\label{2.43}$$ However, this is not longer possible in the thermodynamic limit; indeed, although $\rho_\beta^{(N)}$ is always normalized for any $N$, it becomes ill-defined in the large $N$ limit, since it converges (in norm) to zero: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \left\| \rho_\beta^{(N)} \right\| =
\lim_{N\to\infty} \Bigg( \frac{1}{1+\e^{-\beta}} \Bigg)^N =\,0\ .$$ In other terms, states of infinitely long chains can not in general be represented by density matrices; on the other hand, the definition in (\[2.39\]) is perfectly valid in all situations.
Given the single-site spin operators $s_i$ and the state $\omega_\beta$, one can now construct the corresponding fluctuations as in (\[2.14\]): $$F^{(N)}(s_i)\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N \Big(s_i^{[k]}-\omega_\beta(s_i){\bf 1}\Big)\ ,\qquad i=1,2,3\ .
\label{2.44}$$ From them, the symplectic matrix $\sigma^{(\beta)}$ in (\[2.21\]) can be easily computed; taking into account the tensor product structure of the state $\omega_\beta$, it reduces to the expectation of the commutator of single-site operators: $$\sigma^{(\beta)}_{jk}= -i\, \omega_\beta\Big( \big[ s_j,\, s_k\big] \Big)\ ,
\label{2.45}$$ so that, explicitly: $$\sigma^{(\beta)}=\frac{\eta}{2}\
\pmatrix{
0 & -1 & 0\cr
1 & 0 & 0\cr
0 & 0 & 0\cr
}
\ .
\label{2.46}$$ Recalling (\[2.28\]), this matrix reproduces the commutators of the Bose operators $F_i$ obtained as mesoscopic limit of the three fluctuations (\[2.44\]); as a result, $F_3$ commutes with all remaining operators and therefore it represents a classical, collective degree of freedom. On the contrary, the two suitably rescaled operators $\hat{P}=\sqrt{2} F_1/\sqrt\eta$ and $\hat{X}=\sqrt{2} F_2/\sqrt\eta$ obey standard canonical commutations: $[\hat{X},\ \hat{P}]=i$, from which standard Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{i(r_1 \hat{P} + r_2 \hat{X})}$ can be defined. The corresponding Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\sigma^{(\beta)})$ is equipped with a quasi-free state $\Omega_\beta$, $$\hskip -1cm \lim_{N\to\infty}\omega_\beta\Big( \e^{i\big[ r_1 F^{(N)}(s_1) + r_2 F^{(N)}(s_2) \big]/\sqrt\eta}\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{4}\big[ (r_1^2 +r_2^2)\coth(\beta/2) \big]}=\Omega_\beta\Big( W(\vec{r}\,) \Big)\ ,
\label{2.47}$$ which is again a thermal state: it can be represented by a standard Gibbs density matrix: $$\Omega_\beta\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=\frac{\Tr\Big[ \e^{-\beta H}\, W(\vec{r})\Big]}{\Tr\Big[ \e^{-\beta H}\Big]}\ ,
\label{2.48}$$ in terms of the free Hamiltonian $$H=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\hat{X}^2 + \hat{P}^2\Big)\ .
\label{2.49}$$
### Harmonic chain. {#section2.5.2}
As a second example of many-body system, let us consider a chain of independent, free harmonic oscillators: the oscillator attached to site $k$ is described by the position $\hat{x}^{[k]}$ and momentum $\hat{p}^{[k]}$ variables; these operators obey standard canonical commutation relations, $[\hat{x}^{[j]},\, \hat{p}^{[k]}]=i\delta_{jk}$, so that the single-site algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ is now the Heisenberg algebra. The union of all these algebras for all sites gives the corresponding quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$, that is usually called the oscillator algebra: elements of this algebra are polynomials in all variables $(\hat{x}^{[k]},\ \hat{p}^{[k]})$, $k=1,2,\ldots$.
As in the previous example, we shall equip $\mathcal{A}$ with a thermal state $\omega_\beta$, of the form (\[2.39\]), with the single-site components $\omega_\beta^{[k]}$ represented by a Gibbs density matrix $\rho_\beta^{[k]}$ as in (\[2.42\]), where now: $$\rho^{[k]}_\beta=\frac{e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}}{\tr\big[e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}\big]}\ ,\quad
h^{[k]}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \Big[ \big(\hat{x}^{[k]}\big)^2 + \big(\hat{p}^{[k]}\big)^2 \Big]\ ,
\label{2.50}$$ with $\varepsilon$ the oscillator frequency, taken for simplicity to be the same for all sites. The state $\omega_\beta$ clearly satisfies both the translation invariance condition (\[2.5\]) and the clustering property (\[2.7\]): in fact, it is a Gaussian state. In order to show this, one constructs the Weyl operators $$\widehat{W}({\vec r}\,)=\e^{i \vec r \cdot \vec R}\ ,\qquad \vec r \cdot \vec R \equiv \sum_i r_i\, R_i\ ,
\label{2.51}$$ with $\vec{R}$ the vector with components $(\hat{x}^{[1]}, \hat{p}^{[1]},\, \hat{x}^{[2]}, \hat{p}^{[2]}\dots)$, and $\vec r$ a vector of real coefficients. Although any element of the oscillator algebra can be obtained by taking derivatives of $\widehat{W}({\vec r}\,)$ with respect to the components of $\vec{r}$, it is preferable to deal with Weyl operators, since these are bounded operators, unlike coordinate and momentum operators. Indeed, the oscillator algebra $\mathcal{A}$ should be really identified with the strong-operator closure of the Weyl algebra with respect to the so-called GNS-representation based on the chosen state $\omega_\beta$ (for details, see [@Strocchi5; @Thirring1; @Bratteli]). In this way, the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ contains only bounded operators; in the following, when referring to the oscillator algebra, we will always mean the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ constructed in this way.
The expectation of the Weyl operator $\widehat{W}({\vec r}\,)$ is indeed in Gaussian form, $$\omega_\beta\Big(\widehat{W}({\vec r}\,)\Big)=\e^{-\frac{1}{2} ({\vec r} \cdot \Sigma \cdot {\vec r})}\ ,
\label{2.52}$$ with a covariance matrix $\Sigma$, whose components $[\Sigma]_{ij}$ are defined through the anticommutator of the different components $R_i$ of $\vec R$: $$[\Sigma]_{ij}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\, \omega_\beta\Big( \{ R_i,\, R_j\} \Big)=\frac{1}{2\eta}\, [{\bf 1}]_{ij}\ ,
\label{2.53}$$ with $\eta$ as in (\[2.40\]). Since the covariance matrix is proportional to the unit matrix, the state $\omega_\beta$ exhibits no correlations among different oscillators; the state is therefore completely separable, as shown by its product form in (\[2.39\]).
As it will be useful in the following, we shall now focus on the following two quadratic elements of the single-site algebra $\mathfrak{a}$: $$x_1=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2}(\hat{x}^2-\hat{p}^2)\ , \hskip 2cm
x_2=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2} \left(\hat{x} \hat{p}+\hat{p} \hat{x}\right)\ ;
\label{2.54}$$ given the real, linear span $\mathcal{X}=\big\{x_r\ \big|\ x_r\equiv\vec{r}\cdot\vec{x}= r_1\, x_1 + r_2\, x_2,
\ \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^2\big\}$, let us consider the corresponding fluctuation operators, defined as in (\[2.17\]): $$F^{(N)}(x_r)=r_1\, F^{(N)}(x_1) + r_2\, F^{(N)}(x_2)= \vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)\ .
\label{2.55}$$ One easily checks that the large $N$ behaviors of the average of the Weyl-like operator obtained by exponentiating these fluctuations, $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}$, is Gaussian: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega_\beta\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\beta)}\cdot \vec{r}}\ ,
\qquad \Sigma^{(\beta)}=\frac{\eta^2+1}{4\eta}\,{\bf 1}_{2}\ ,
\label{2.56}$$ where with $\bold{1}_n$ we indicate the unit matrix in $n$-dimension. In addition, the product of two Weyl-like operators behave as a single one: $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\, W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\sim W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1+\vec{r}_2)\ e^{-\frac{i}{2}\vec{r}_1\cdot\sigma\cdot\vec{r}_2}\ ,
\label{2.57}$$ with a symplectic matrix proportional to the second Pauli matrix $\sigma=i\sigma_2$. This allows defining collective position $\hat{X}$ and momentum $\hat{P}$ operators, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}F^{(N)}(x_1)=\hat{X}\ ,\qquad \lim_{N\to\infty}F^{(N)}(x_2)=\hat{P}\ ,
\label{2.58}$$ such that $[\hat{X},\ \hat{P}]=i$, and a Gaussian state $\Omega_\beta$ on the corresponding algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma)$ of Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{r_1 \hat{X} + r_2 \hat{P}}$, such that $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega_\beta\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\beta)}\cdot \vec{r}}=
\Omega_\beta\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)\ .
\label{}$$ The state $\Omega_\beta$ is again thermal: it can be represented by a single-mode Gibbs density matrix, in terms of a free oscillator Hamiltonian in the variables $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}$.
Quantum fluctuation dynamics {#section3}
============================
In the previous Section we have introduced and studied a class of many-body observables, the quantum fluctuations, that appear to be the most appropriate for analyzing system properties at the mesoscopic scale. So far we have devoted our attention to the “kinematics” of such collective observables; in this Section instead we shall analyze their dynamical properties. More specifically, we shall study what kind of dynamics emerges at the mesoscopic level starting from a given microscopic time-evolution for the elementary constituents of the many-body system.
As remarked in the Introduction, in actual experimental conditions, many-body systems can hardly be considered isolated from their surroundings and need to be treated as open quantum systems. Although the total system composed by the many-body system plus the environment in which it is immersed is a closed system and as such its time-evolution is unitary, generated by the total system-environment Hamiltonian, the sub-dynamics of the system alone, obtained by tracing over the uncontrollable environment degrees of freedom, is in general irreversible and rather complex, showing dissipative and noisy effects. However, in many physical situations the interaction with the environment can be considered to be weak, and correlations in the environment to decay fast with respect to the typical system time-scale; in such situations, memory effects can be neglected and the dynamics of the many-body system can be expressed as an effective, reduced dynamics involving only the system degrees of freedom. It can be described by a family of one-parameter ($\equiv$ time) maps, obeying the semigroup property, [*i.e.*]{} composing only forward in time: they are called “quantum dynamical semigroups” [@Alicki1]-[@Spohn1]; as such, they are generated by master equations that take a specific form, the so-called Kossakowski-Lindblad form [@Kossakowski1]-[@Lindblad]. Such generalized open dynamics have been widely studied and applied to model many dissipative quantum effects in optical, molecular and atomic physics.
Dissipative microscopic dynamics {#section3.1}
--------------------------------
Let us then consider a system composed by $N$ particles described by the local algebra $\mathcal{A}^{(N)}\subset \mathcal{A}$ whose microscopic, open dynamics is generated by master equations of the following, general form: $$\hskip -1cm
\partial_tX(t)=\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X(t)]\ ,\qquad \mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[X]\,+\,\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]\ ,
\quad X\in\mathcal{A}^{(N)}\ ;
\label{3.1}$$ the first contribution, $$\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[X]=i\Big[H^{(N)},\,X\Big]\ ,
\label{3.2}$$ is the purely Hamiltonian one, whose generator $H^{(N)}$ can be taken to be the sum of single-particle Hamiltonians $h^{[k]}=\big(h^{[k]}\big)^\dagger$: $$H^{(N)}=\sum_{k=1}^{N}\,h^{[k]}\ ,\qquad {H^{(N)}}^\dagger=H^{(N)}\ ,
\label{3.3}$$ while the term $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ introduces irreversibility and can be cast in the following, generic Kossakowski-Lindblad form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hskip -1cm
\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]&=&\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}J_{k\ell}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^m\,
D_{\alpha\beta}\,\Big(v_\alpha^{[k]}\,X\,(v_{\beta}^{[\ell]})^\dagger
-\frac{1}{2}\left\{v_{\alpha}^{[k]}\,(v_\beta^{[\ell]})^\dagger\,,\,X\,\right\}\Big)\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}J_{k\ell}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^m\, D_{\alpha\beta}\,
\Big(v_\alpha^{[k]}\,\left[X\,,\,(v_\beta^{[\ell]})^\dagger\right]\,
+\,\left[v_\alpha^{[k]}\,,\,X\right]\,(v_\beta^{[\ell]})^\dagger\Big)\ ,
\label{3.4}\end{aligned}$$ with $v_\alpha^{[k]}$ single-particle operators. While the Hamiltonian contribution does not contain any interaction among the $N$ particles, in the purely dissipative term $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ the mixing action of the operators $v_\alpha$ is weighted by the coefficients $J_{k\ell}\,D_{\alpha\beta}$, involving in general different particles. Altogether, they form the Kossakowski matrix $J\otimes D$; in order to ensure the complete positivity[^4] of the generated dynamical maps $\displaystyle\Phi_t^{(N)}={\rm e}^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$, both $J$ and $D$ must be positive semi-definite.[^5]
In order to enforce translation invariance, one attaches the same hamiltonian to each sites $h^{[k]}=h$, and further considers different particle couplings $J_{k\ell}$ of the form $$J_{k\ell}=J(|k-\ell|)\ ,\qquad J_{kk}=J(0)> 0\ .
\label{3.5}$$ Furthermore, we shall assume the strength of the mixing terms to be such that: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}|J_{k\ell}|<\infty\ ;
\label{3.5-1}$$ recalling the examples presented at the end of the previous Section involving one-dimensional chain systems, this condition establishes a fast decay of the strength of the statistical couplings of far separated sites along the chains, so that the mixing effects due to the presence of the environment are short-range.[^6] Notice that the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ does not mediate any direct interaction between different particles. Nevertheless, the dissipative contribution $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ accounts for environment induced dissipative effects, as it results by rewriting it as the anti-commutator $\{K^{(N)},\ X\}$ with the pseudo-Hamiltonian $K^{(N)}$, $$K^{(N)}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}J_{k\ell}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^m\,
D_{\alpha\beta}\ v_{\alpha}^{[k]}\,(v_\beta^{[\ell]})^\dagger\ ,$$ plus the additional term $$\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}J_{k\ell}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^m\, D_{\alpha\beta}\
v_\alpha^{[k]}\,X\,(v_{\beta}^{[\ell]})^\dagger\ ,$$ also known as quantum noise. This last piece contributes to statistical mixing: indeed, by diagonalizing the non-negative matrix $J\otimes D$ and recasting the corresponding contribution to $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ into the Kraus-Stinespring form $\sum_a L_a\,X\,L_a^\dagger$ of completely positive maps, it gives rise to a map transforming pure states into mixed ones.
Finally, we shall further require the time-invariance of the reference microscopic state $\omega$, $$\omega\bigg(\Phi_t^{(N)}[X]\bigg)=\omega(X) \Leftrightarrow\,\omega\Big(\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]\Big)=0\ ,
\label{3.6}$$ so that the initial phase of the many-body system is not disrupted by the dynamics [@Strocchi1]. As we shall see in Section \[section4\], the release of condition (\[3.6\]) gives rise to additional issues in the definition and interpretation of the properties of the fluctuation operators, opening the way to the possibility of mesoscopic, non-linear and non-Markovian time-evolutions.
Mesoscopic dissipative dynamics {#section3.2}
-------------------------------
We shall now study the large $N$ limit of the dynamics generated by (\[3.1\]) when acting on the elements of the fluctuation algebra as introduced in Section \[section2\], in order to determine what kind of time-evolution emerges at the mesoscopic level. When the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ in (\[3.1\]) contains only the Hamiltonian part, without any dissipative contribution, the emerging mesoscopic dynamics turns out to be unitary and reversible [@Goderis1; @Verbeure-book]. When the effects induced by the environment are taken into account, and $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ is nonvanishing, the mesoscopic dynamics that emerges in the limit of large $N$ from the local time-evolution $\Phi^{(N)}_t={\rm e}^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$, ${t\geq0}$, generated by (\[3.1\])-(\[3.4\]), is instead a non-trivial dissipative semigroup $\Phi_t$ of completely positive maps on the algebra of fluctuations.
In order to describe these maps explicitly, let us recall that the fluctuation algebra is constructed starting from the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ ([*cf.*]{} (\[2.16\])) of a selection of $n$ physically relevant single-particle hermitian operators $x_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots, n$; out of them, the fluctuations $F^{(N)}(x_r)=\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)$ and Weyl-like operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)= \e^{\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}$ are constructed. In general, there is no guarantee that the action of the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ on $F^{(N)}(x_r)=\sum_{\mu=1}^N r_\mu\, F^{(N)}(x_\mu)$ would give a single-particle fluctuation still belonging to $\mathcal{X}$. In order to recover, out of the action of $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$, a mesoscopic dynamics for the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, the large $N$ limit of the algebra generated by $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$, one has to assume the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ be mapped into itself by the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$, namely that: $$\hskip -1cm
\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[x^{[k]}_\mu]=\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[x^{[k]}_\mu]\,+\,\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[x^{[k]}_\mu]
=\sum_{\nu=1}^n \mathcal{L}_{\mu\nu}\,x^{[k]}_\nu\ ,\qquad
\mathcal{L}\equiv\mathcal{H}+\mathcal{D}\ ,
\label{3.7}$$ where $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are $n\times n$ coefficient matrices specifying the action of the Hamiltonian $\mathbb{H}^{(N)}$ and dissipative $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ contributions on $x^{[k]}_\mu$. Given the microscopic dynamics, such assumption is not too restrictive: in general, it can be satisfied by suitably enlarging the set $\mathcal{X}$ of physically relevant single-particle operators.
With these assumptions, one can show that the mesoscopic dynamics emerging from the large $N$ limit of the time evolution $\Phi^{(N)}_t$, as specified by (\[2.37\]), is again a dissipative semigroup of maps $\Phi_t$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$, transforming Weyl operators into Weyl operators. Maps of this kind are called [*quasi-free*]{} and their generic form is as follows [@Petz]-[@Demoen]: $$\Phi_t\big[W(\vec{r}\,)\big]=\e^{f_t(\vec{r})}\, W(\vec{r}_t)\ ,
\label{3.8}$$ with given time-dependent prefactor and parameters $\vec{r}_t$. In the present case, one finds: $$\vec{r}_t= \mathcal{M}_t{}^T\cdot \vec{r}\ ,\qquad \mathcal{M}_t=\e^{t {\cal L}}\ ,
\label{3.9}$$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is the $n\times n$ matrix introduced in (\[3.7\]), while $T$ represents matrix transposition. Instead, the exponent of the prefactor can be cast in the following form: $$f_t(\vec{r}_t)=-\frac{1}{2}\, \vec{r}_t\cdot \mathcal{K}_t \cdot \vec{r}_t\ ,\qquad
\mathcal{K}_t=\Sigma^{(\omega)} - \mathcal{M}_t\cdot \Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot\mathcal{M}_t{}^T \ ,
\label{3.10}$$ where $\Sigma^{(\omega)}$ is the covariance matrix defined in (\[2.20\]). With these definitions, one can state the following result (whose proof can be found in [@Carollo2; @Carollo3]):
Given the invariant state $\omega$ on the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$, the real linear vector space $\mathcal{X}$ generated by the single-particle operators $x_\mu\in\mathfrak{a}$ and the corresponding Weyl-like operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i \vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x) }$, evolving in time with the semigroup of maps $\Phi^{(N)}_t\equiv\e^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$, generated by $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ in (\[3.1\])-(\[3.4\]) and leaving $\mathcal{X}$ invariant, the mesoscopic limit $$m-\lim_{N\to\infty}\Phi^{(N)}_t\Big[W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big]=\Phi_t\left[W(\vec{r}\,)\right]\ ,$$ defines a Gaussian quantum dynamical semigroup $\left\{\Phi_t\right\}_{t\ge0}$ on the Weyl algebra of fluctuations $\mathcal{W}\left(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)}\right)$, explicitly given by (\[3.8\])-(\[3.10\]).
The mesoscopic evolution maps $\Phi_t$ are clearly unital, [*i.e.*]{} they map the identity operator into itself, as it follows by letting $\vec{r}=\,0$ in (\[3.8\]). In addition, they compose as a semigroup; indeed, for all $s,\ t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_s \circ \Phi_t \big[ W(\vec{r}\,)\big]&=&\e^{-\frac{1}{2}\big(\vec{r}\cdot \mathcal{K}_t\cdot\vec{r}
+\vec{r}_t\cdot \mathcal{K}_s\cdot\vec{r}_t\big) }\ W\big((\vec{r}_t)_s\big)\\
&=& \e^{-\frac{1}{2}\big(\vec{r}\cdot \mathcal{K}_t\cdot\vec{r}
+\vec{r}\cdot \big(\mathcal{M}_t\, \mathcal{K}_s\,\mathcal{M}_t^T\big)\cdot\vec{r}\big) }\ W\big(\vec{r}_{t+s}\big)\\
&=&\e^{-\frac{1}{2}\, \vec{r}\cdot \mathcal{K}_{t+s}\cdot\vec{r}}\, W\big(\vec{r}_{t+s}\big)
=\Phi_{t+s}\Big[ W(\vec{r}\,) \Big]\ .\end{aligned}$$ Further, the maps $\Phi_t$ are completely positive, since one can easily check that the following condition [@Demoen] is satisfied (see Appendix D in [@Carollo7]): $$\Sigma^{(\omega)} +\frac{i}{2}\, \sigma^{(\omega)} \geq
\mathcal{M}_t\cdot \Big( \Sigma^{(\omega)} +\frac{i}{2}\, \sigma^{(\omega)}\Big)\cdot\mathcal{M}_t{}^T\ .
\label{3.11}$$ Thanks to the properties of unitality and complete positivity, the maps $\Phi_t$ obey Schwartz-positivity: $$\Phi_t\big[X^\dag X\big]\,\geq\,\Phi_t\big[X^\dag\big]\,\Phi_t\big[X\big]\ .
\label{3.12}$$ Using this property and the unitarity of the Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)$, one further finds: $$\left|{\rm e}^{f_t(\vec{r})}\right|=\big\|\Phi_t \big[ W(\vec{r}\,)\big]\big\|\leq \|W(\vec{r}\,)\|=1\ .$$ This last result also follows from the positivity of the matrix $\mathcal{K}_t$ in (\[3.10\]): this is a direct consequence of the time-invariance of the microscopic state $\omega$ with respect to the microscopic dissipative dynamics $\Phi_t^{(N)}$ [@Carollo3; @Carollo7]. For the same reason, also the mesoscopic Gaussian state $\Omega$ is left invariant by the mesoscopic dynamics $\Phi_t$; indeed, recalling (\[2.34\]), one has: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega\left(\Phi_t\left[W(\vec{r}\,)\right]\right)&=&{\rm e}^{f_r(t)}\,\Omega\left(W(\vec{r}_t)\right)=
{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\, \vec{r}\cdot \mathcal{K}_t\cdot\vec{r}
-\frac{1}{2}\vec{r}_t\cdot \Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot\vec{r}_t}\\
&=&
{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\, \vec{r}\cdot \mathcal{K}_t\cdot\vec{r}
-\frac{1}{2}\vec{r}\cdot \big(\mathcal{M}_t\, \Sigma^{(\omega)}\, \mathcal{M}_t{}^T\big)\cdot\vec{r}}
={\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\, \vec{r}\cdot \Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot\vec{r}}
=\Omega\left(W(r)\right)\ .\end{aligned}$$ More in general, given any state $\hat\Omega$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}\left(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)}\right)$, one defines its time-evolution under $\Phi_t$ according to the dual action: $\hat\Omega\mapsto\hat\Omega\circ \Phi_t$. For states admitting a representation in terms of density matrices, one can then define a dual map $\widetilde{\Phi}_t$ acting on any density matrix $\rho$ on $\mathcal{W}\left(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)}\right)$ by sending it into $\rho(t)=\widetilde{\Phi}_t[\rho]$, according to the duality relation $$\tr\Big[\widetilde{\Phi}_t[\rho]\, W(\vec r\,)\Big]=\tr\Big[\rho\;\Phi_t[W(\vec r\,)]\Big]\ .
\label{3.12-1}$$ As already observed, useful states on $\mathcal{W}\left(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)}\right)$ are Gaussian states $\Omega_\Sigma$, which are characterized by a Gaussian expectation on Weyl operators ([*cf.*]{} (\[2.24\])): $$\Omega_\Sigma\Big(W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)= \tr\Big[\rho_\Sigma\, W(\vec{r}\,)\Big]=\e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\vec{r}\cdot\Sigma\cdot \vec{r})}\ ,
\label{3.13}$$ with $$[\Sigma]_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2} \tr \Big[ \rho_\Sigma\, \big\{ F_\mu,\, F_\nu\big\} \Big]\ ,\qquad \mu,\ \nu=1,\ldots,n\ ,
\label{3.14}$$ $\{F_\mu\}$ being the bosonic operators introduced in (\[2.26\]), $W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i \vec{r}\cdot \vec{F}}$. These states are completely identified by their covariance matrix $\Sigma$; in particular, as already observed, positivity of $\rho_\Sigma$ is equivalent to the following condition [@Holevo]: $$\Sigma+\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{(\omega)}\geq0\ .
\label{3.15}$$ One can easily verify that the map $\widetilde{\Phi}_t$ transform Gaussian states into Gaussian states: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tr\Big[\widetilde{\Phi}_t[\rho_\Sigma]\, W(\vec{r}\,)\Big] &=&
{\rm e}^{f_r(t)}\, \tr\Big[\rho_\Sigma\, W(\vec{r}_t\,)\Big]\\
&=&\e^{\left(f_r(t)\,-\,\frac{1}{2}(\vec{r}_t\cdot \Sigma\cdot \vec{r}_t)\right)}=
\tr\Big[\rho_{\Sigma(t)}\, W(\vec{r}\,)\Big]\ ,
\label{3.16}\end{aligned}$$ with the time-dependent covariance matrix $\Sigma(t)$ explicitly given by: $$\Sigma(t)=\Sigma^{(\omega)}\,-\,\mathcal{M}_t\cdot\Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot\mathcal{M}_t{}^T+
\,\mathcal{M}_t\cdot\Sigma\cdot\mathcal{M}_t{}^T\ .
\label{3.17}$$ From these results, one recovers the time-invariance of the mesoscopic state $\Omega$, since starting from the initial covariance $\Sigma\equiv\Sigma^{(\omega)}$, the evolution (\[3.17\]) gives: $\Sigma(t)=\Sigma^{(\omega)}$.
Mesoscopic entanglement through dissipation {#section3.3}
-------------------------------------------
The presence of an external environment typically leads to decohering and mixing-enhancing phenomena; dissipation and noise are common effects observed in quantum systems weakly coupled to it [@Alicki1]-[@Chruscinski1]. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that suitable environments are capable of creating and enhancing quantum correlations among quantum systems immersed in them [@Plenio1]-[@Benatti5]; indeed, entanglement can be generated solely through the mixing structure of the irreversible dynamics, without any direct interaction between the quantum systems. This mechanism of environment induced entanglement generation has been studied for systems made of few qubits or oscillator modes [@Benatti2]-[@Benatti5]; in addition, specific protocols have been proposed to prepare predefined entangled states via the action of suitably engineered environments [@Kraus]-[@Muschik2].
Instead, using the just established mesoscopic dynamics on the algebra of fluctuations, we want now to study the possibility of entanglement generation in many-body systems through a similar purely noisy mechanism. More specifically, we shall consider bipartite systems using the chain models presented in Section \[section2\], immersed in a common bath, and show that the emergent dissipative quantum dynamics at the level of fluctuation observables is capable of generating non-trivial quantum correlations.
### Spin chains. {#section3.3.1}
Let us consider a many-body system composed by two spin-1/2 chains, one next to the other, of the type already discussed in Section \[section2.5.1\], both immersed in a common thermal bath at temperature $T=1/\beta$. A single site in this double chain system is composed by the corresponding two sites in the two chains and will be labelled by an integer $k$. Following the treatment of Section \[section2\], the tensor product spin algebra $\mathfrak{a}=\mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})\otimes \mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$ will be attached to each of these sites; it is generated by the sixteen products $s_i\otimes s_j$, $i,j=0,1,2,3$, built with the spin operators $s_1$, $s_2$, $s_3$ and $s_0={\bf 1}/2$. Note that the single-site operators $s_i\otimes s_0$ and $s_0\otimes s_i$, $i=1,2,3$, represent single-spin operators, pertaining to the first, the second of the two chains, respectively. The tensor product of single-site algebras from site $p$ to site $q$, $p\leq q$, as in (\[2.3\]), forms the local algebras $\mathcal{A}_{[p,q]}$; the union of these local algebras over all possible finite sets of sites, together with its completion, gives the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$.
We shall equip $\mathcal{A}$ with a thermal state $\omega_\beta$, at the bath temperature $1/\beta$, constructed from the tensor product of single-site thermal states as in (\[2.39\]), $\omega_\beta=\bigotimes_k\ \omega_\beta^{[k]}$; the only non vanishing single-site expectations are then: As in (\[2.42\]), $\omega_\beta^{[k]}$ can be represented by a Gibbs density matrix $\rho_\beta^{[k]}$ constructed with the site-$k$ Hamiltonian $$h^{[k]}= \varepsilon\, \Big( s_3^{[k]}\otimes {\bf 1} + {\bf 1}\otimes s_3^{[k]}\Big)\ ,
\qquad \rho_\beta^{[k]}=\frac{\e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}}{2\cosh(\varepsilon\beta/2)}\ .
\label{3.19}$$ Being the product of single-site states, the state $\omega_\beta$ does not support any correlation between the two spin chains; further, it clearly obeys the clustering condition (\[2.7\]).
Following the general construction discussed in the previous Section, we shall now focus on a subset of all single-particle observables, specifically on: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.20-1}
\hskip -1cm
&&\hskip -1cm x_1=4(s_1\otimes s_0)\ ,\
x_2=4(s_2\otimes s_0)\ ,\ x_3=4(s_0\otimes s_1)\ , \ x_4=4(s_0\otimes s_2)\ ,\\
\label{3.20-2}
&&\hskip -1cm x_5=4(s_1\otimes s_3)\ , \ x_6=4(s_2\otimes s_3)\ ,\ x_7=4(s_3\otimes s_1)\ ,\
x_8=4(s_3\otimes s_2)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and on the real linear span $\mathcal{X}$ generated by them (we have introduced suitable factors 4 for later convenience). Observe that $\omega_\beta(x_\mu)=\,0$, $\mu=1,2\ldots, 8$, and further that the condition (\[2.31\]) is satisfied, since it simply reduces to $\big|\omega_\beta\big(x_{r_1}\, x_{r_2}\big)\big|<\infty$.
Although there are sixteen single-site observables of the form $s_j\otimes s_k$, $j,k=0,1,2,3$, it turns out that the set of local fluctuation operators, $$\label{fluctexpl}
F^{(N)}(x_\mu)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\Big(x^{[k]}_\mu-\omega(x_\mu){\bf 1}\Big)
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^{N} x^{[k]}_\mu\ ,
\label{3.21}$$ corresponding to the above subset, gives rise to a set of mesoscopic bosonic operators $F_\mu$ whose Weyl algebra commutes with the one generated by the remaining eight elements: it is then consistent to limit the analysis to the eight single-site operators in (\[3.20-1\]) and (\[3.20-2\]). In addition, note that the couple of operators $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$, $x_4$ refer to observables belonging to the first, respectively second spin chain: as we shall see, they provide collective operators associated to two different mesoscopic degrees of freedom.
In order to explicitly construct the fluctuation algebra corresponding to the chosen linear span $\mathcal{X}$, one needs first to compute the correlation matrix $C^{(\beta)}$ as defined in (\[2.18\]). Since $\omega_\beta$ is a product state, one simply has: $$\hskip -1cm C^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu}=\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( F^{(N)}(x_\mu)\ F^{(N)}(x_\nu)\Big)
={\rm Tr}\Big[\rho_\beta\, x_\mu\, x_\nu\Big]\ ,
\quad \mu,\nu=1,2,\ldots, 8\ ;
\label{3.22}$$ the explicit form of this $8\times 8$ matrix can be expressed as a three-fold tensor product of $2\times 2$ matrices, $$C^{(\beta)}=
\left(\bold{1}_2-\eta\,\sigma_1\right)\otimes\bold{1}_2\otimes\left(\bold{1}_2+\eta\,\sigma_2\right)\ ,
\label{3.23}$$ where $\sigma_i$ are standard Pauli matrices, while $\bold{1}_2$ is the unit matrix in two dimensions. In computing tensor products, we adopt the convention in which the entries of a matrix are multiplied by the matrix to its right. Similarly, one easily obtains the corresponding covariance matrix, $$\Sigma^{(\beta)}=(\bold{1}_2-\eta\sigma_1)\otimes \bold{1}_2\otimes \bold{1}_2\ ,
\label{3.24}$$ and symplectic matrix, $$\sigma^{(\beta)}=-2i\eta\, (\bold{1}_2-\eta\sigma_1)\otimes\bold{1}_2\otimes\sigma_2 \ ,
\label{3.25}$$ so that: $C^{(\beta)}=\Sigma^{(\beta)} +i \sigma^{(\beta)}/2$. The symplectic matrix gives the commutator of the Bose operators $F_\mu$, the mesoscopic limit of the fluctuations in (\[3.21\]): $[F_\mu,\ F_\nu]=i\sigma^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu}$.
Let now assume that the interaction of the double chain with the bath in which it is immersed be weak, so that the effects of the environment can be described by a general master equation of the form (\[3.1\])-(\[3.4\]). For the $N$-site Hamiltonian $H^{(N)}$ we take the sum of $N$ copies of the single-site one in (\[3.19\]), $H^{(N)}=\sum_{k=1}^N h^{[k]}$. The dissipative pieces of the generator is instead constructed using the following single-site operators: $$\hskip -.5cm
v_1=s_+\otimes s_-\ ,\quad v_2=s_-\otimes s_+\ ,\quad
v_3=2(s_3\otimes s_0)\,,\quad v_4=2(s_0\otimes s_3)\ ,
\label{3.26}$$ where $s_\pm=s_1 \pm i s_2$, while for the $4\times 4$ matrix $D$ we take: $$D= {\bf 1}_2\otimes{\bf 1}_2 + \gamma\, \sigma_1\otimes ({\bf 1}_2 +\sigma_1)
\ .
\label{3.27}$$ The parameter $\gamma$ needs to satisfy the condition $|\gamma|\leq 1/2$ in order for $D$ to be positive semi-definite; it encodes the mixing-enhancing power of the environment.[^7] With these choices, the dissipative part $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ of the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ can be recast in a double commutator form, so that one explicitly has: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=&&i\varepsilon\sum_{k=1}^N \Big[ s_3^{[k]}\otimes {\bf 1} + {\bf 1}\otimes s_3^{[k]},\ X\Big]\\
&&\hskip 1cm +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}J_{k\ell}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^4
D_{\alpha\beta}\Big[\left[v_\alpha^{[k]},\,X\right],\,
(v_\beta^{[\ell]})^\dagger\Big]\ .
\label{3.28}\end{aligned}$$ Since operators at different sites commute, the action of this generator on any operator $x_\mu^{[k]}$ at site $k$ simplifies to, recalling (\[3.5\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathbb{L}^{(N)}\Big[x_\mu^{[k]}\Big]=&&
i\varepsilon \Big[ s_3^{[k]}\otimes {\bf 1} + {\bf 1}\otimes s_3^{[k]},\ x_\mu^{[k]}\Big]\\
&&\hskip 1cm +\frac{J(0)}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^4
D_{\alpha\beta}\Big[\left[v_\alpha^{[k]},\,x_\mu^{[k]}\right],\,
(v_\beta^{[k]})^\dagger\Big]\ ,
\label{3.29}\end{aligned}$$ and one can check that the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ is mapped to itself by the action of $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$; indeed, one finds: $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}\big[ x_\mu^{[k]}\big]=\sum_{\nu=1}^8 \mathcal{L}_{\mu\nu}\ x_\nu^{[k]}$, with the $8\times 8$ hermitian matrix $\mathcal{L}$ explicitly given by: $$\mathcal{L}\equiv\mathcal{H} + \mathcal{D}=-i\varepsilon\, \bold{1}_2\otimes\bold{1}_2\otimes\sigma_2
-J(0)\Big(\bold{1}_8-\gamma\, \sigma_1\otimes\sigma_1\otimes\bold{1}_2\Big)\ .
\label{3.30}$$ Via the definitions (\[3.9\]) and (\[3.10\]), with $\mathcal{L}$ as in (\[3.30\]), one can now explicitly construct the emergent mesoscopic dynamics $\Phi_t$ on the Weyl algebra of fluctuations $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$. As in the general case treated earlier, also in the present case the mesoscopic dynamics turns out to be a semigroup of unital, completely positive maps, whose generator is at most quadratic in the fluctuation operators $F_\mu=\lim_{N\to\infty} F^{(N)}(x_\mu)$. Indeed, one finds that the map $W_t(\vec{r}\,) \equiv \Phi_t\big[W(\vec{r}\,)\big] =\e^{f_t(\vec{r})}\, W(\vec{r}_t)$ is generated by a master equation of the form $\partial_t W_t(\vec{r}\,)=\mathbb{L}\big[ W_t(\vec{r}\,)\big]$, with $$\hskip-1.5cm
\mathbb{L}[W_t]=\frac{i}{2}\,\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^8 \mathfrak{H}^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu}\big[F_\mu F_\nu\,,\,W_t\big]
+\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^8 \mathfrak{D}^{(\beta)}_{\mu\nu}\left(F_\mu\,W_t\,F_\nu\,-\,\frac{1}{2}\big\{
F_\mu F_\nu\,,\,W_t\big\}\right);
\label{3.31}$$ in this expression, $\mathfrak{H}^{(\beta)}$ represents a Hermitian $8\times 8$ matrix and $\mathfrak{D}^{(\beta)}$ a positive semi-definite $8\times 8$ matrix, both expressible in terms of the correlation matrix (\[3.23\]), the invertible symplectic matrix (\[3.25\]) and the matrix in (\[3.30\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\mathfrak{H}^{(\beta)}=-i(\sigma^{(\beta)})^{-1}\left(\mathcal{L}\,C^{(\beta)}\,-\,C^{(\beta)}\,\mathcal{L}^{T}\right)\,(\sigma^{(\beta)})^{-1}\ ,\\
&&\mathfrak{D}^{(\beta)}=(\sigma^{(\beta)})^{-1}\left(\mathcal{L}\,C^{(\beta)}\,+\,C^{(\beta)}\mathcal{L}^{T}\right)(\sigma^{(\beta)})^{-1}\ .
\label{3.32}\end{aligned}$$ The Weyl algebraic structure $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$, associated with chosen set $\mathcal{X}$ and the microscopic thermal state $\omega_\beta$, can be more appropriately described in terms of four-mode bosonic annihilation and creation operators $(a_i,\ a_i^\dagger)$, $i=1,2,3,4$, obeying canonical commutation relations: $$[a_i,\ a_j^\dagger]=\delta_{ij}\ ,\qquad [a_i,\ a_j]=[a_i^\dagger,\ a_j^\dagger]=\,0\ .
\label{3.33}$$ In fact, one can set: $$F_\mu=\sum_{i=1}^4 f_\mu{}^i\Big( a_i + a_i^\dagger \Big)
\ ,
\label{3.34}$$ with $f_\mu{}^i$ complex coefficients, whose nonvanishing entries are explicitly given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&f_1{}^1=if_2{}^1=f_3{}^3=if_4{}^3=\sqrt\eta\ ,\\
\label{3.34-1}
&&f_5{}^1=if_6{}^1=f_7{}^3=if_8{}^3=-\eta^{3/2}\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&f_5{}^2=if_6{}^2=f_7{}^4=if_8{}^4=-\left(\frac{\eta}{1-\eta^2}\right)^{1/2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ From the first line of (\[3.34-1\]) one deduces that the creation and annihilation operators $(a_1,\ a_1^\dagger)$ and $(a_3,\ a_3^\dagger)$, coming from the couples of single-site operators $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$, $x_4$, refer to the first, respectively the second chain. In other terms, $(a_1,\ a_1^\dagger)$ and $(a_3,\ a_3^\dagger)$ describe two independent mesoscopic degrees of freedom emerging from distinct chains. Instead, $(a_2,\ a_2^\dagger)$ and $(a_4,\ a_4^\dagger)$ result from combinations of spin operators involving both chains at the same time.
The fluctuation algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$, generated by the Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i\vec{r}\cdot \vec{F}}$, inherits a quasi-free state $\Omega_\beta$ from the microscopic state $\omega_\beta$; it is defined by the covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\beta)}$ in (\[3.24\]), through the following expectation: $$\Omega_\beta\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\beta)}\cdot \vec{r}}\ ,
\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^8\ .
\label{3.35}$$ In the formalism of creation and annihilation operators, the state $\Omega_\beta$ can be represented by the following density matrix, $$\label{3.36}
\rho_{\Sigma^{(\beta)}}=\frac{{\rm e}^{-\beta\, H}}{\tr\left({\rm e}^{-\beta\,H}\right)}
\ ,\qquad H=\varepsilon\sum_{i=1}^4a^\dag_i a_i\ ,$$ namely by a Gibbs state at inverse temperature $\beta$ with respect the quadratic hamiltonian $H$, so that $\displaystyle \Omega_\beta(W)=\tr(\rho_{\Sigma^{(\beta)}}\,W)$, for any $W\in \mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$. As discussed earlier, coming from a time-invariant microscopic state $\omega_\beta$, also this mesoscopic state is invariant under the action of the mesoscopic dynamics.
These general results can now be used to analyze the dynamical behaviour of the quantum correlations between the two chains while following the mesoscopic time evolution $\Phi_t$ and in particular to study the possibility of bath assisted mesoscopic entanglement generation between the two spin chains.
By [*mesoscopic entanglement*]{} we mean the existence of mesoscopic states carrying non-local, quantum correlations among the collective operators pertaining to different chains. More precisely, we shall focus on the modes $(a_1,\, a_1^\dagger)$ and $(a_3,\, a_3^\dagger)$, that, as already observed, are collective degrees of freedom attached to the first, second chain, respectively. In order to have a non-trivial dynamics, as initial state we shall take the time-invariant mesoscopic thermal state in (\[3.36\]) further squeezed with a common real parameter $\mathfrak{r}$ along the first and third modes. The resulting state is still uncorrelated, but its corresponding covariance matrix $\Sigma_\mathfrak{r}^{(\beta)}$, being $\mathfrak{r}$-dependent, is no longer time-invariant; rather, it will follow the general evolution given in (\[3.17\]).
One can now study at any later time $t$ the entanglement content of the reduced, two-mode Gaussian state obtained by tracing over the $(a_2,\ a_2^\dagger)$ and $(a_4,\ a_4^\dagger)$ modes; in practice, one needs to focus on the reduced covariance matrix, obtained from $\Sigma_\mathfrak{r}^{(\beta)}(t)$ by eliminating rows and columns referring to the second and fourth mode. Partial transposition criterion is exhaustive in this case [@Simon], so that entanglement is present between the remaining first and third collective modes if the smallest symplectic eigenvalue $\Lambda(t)$ of the partially transposed two-mode, reduced covariant matrix is negative. Actually, the logarithmic negativity, defined as: $$E(t)=\max\Big\{0,\ -\log_2 \Lambda(t)\Big\}\ ,\\
\label{3.37}$$ gives a measure of the entanglement content of the state [@Souza; @Isar], and it can be analytically computed for the model under study [@Carollo3; @Carollo7]. One then easily discovers that the dissipative, mesoscopic dynamics $\Phi_t$ generated by (\[3.31\]) can indeed produce quantum correlations among the two initially separable infinite spin chains. As illustrated by the sample behaviour of $E(t)$ reported in Fig.\[Fig1\] and Fig.\[Fig2\], the amount of created entanglement increases as the dissipative parameter $\gamma$ gets larger, while it decreases and last for shorter times as the initial system temperature increases, indicating the existence of a critical temperature, above which no entanglement is possible.
![Spin chain: Behaviour in time of the logarithmic negativity $E(t)$ for different values of the dissipative coupling $\gamma$, at fixed temperature $T\equiv1/\beta=1/10$, and squeezing parameter $\mathfrak{r}=1$.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.pdf)
![Spin chain: Behaviour in time of the logarithmic negativity $E(t)$ for different values of the temperature $T\equiv 1/\beta$, at fixed dissipative, $\gamma=1/2$, and squeezing, $\mathfrak{r}=1$, parameters.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.pdf)
### Oscillator chains. {#section3.3.2}
In a similar way, one can study the behaviour of a many-body system composed by two infinite chains of oscillators, [*i.e.*]{} two copies of the model discussed in Section \[section2.5.2\]. As in the previous case, each site $k$ of the double chain consists of a couple of harmonic oscillators, described by the corresponding position $\hat{x}^{[k]}_\alpha$ and momentum $\hat{p}^{[k]}_\alpha$ operators, the index $\alpha=1,2$ labelling the two chains; these observables obey a standard Heisenberg algebra, $\big[ \hat{x}^{[j]}_\alpha,\ \hat{p}^{[k]}_\beta \big]= i\,\delta_{jk}\ \delta_{\alpha\beta}$, and the union of all these single-site algebras gives the system quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$. The oscillators are free and therefore their independent microscopic dynamics is generated by the Hamiltonian: $$h^{[k]}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^2 h^{[k]}_\alpha\ ,\qquad
h^{[k]}_\alpha = \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \Big[ \big( \hat{x}^{[k]}_\alpha\big)^2
+ \big( \hat{p}^{[k]}_\alpha\big)^2 \Big]\ ,
\label{3.38}$$ with $\varepsilon$ the common oscillator frequency. However, the double chain is assumed immersed in a thermal bath, and needs to be treated as an open quantum system. We shall then equip the system with a thermal state $\omega_\beta$ at the bath temperature $1/\beta$, of the product form (\[2.39\]), with the single-site components $\omega_\beta^{[k]}$ represented by a Gibbs density matrix $\rho_\beta^{[k]}=e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}/\tr\big[e^{-\beta h^{[k]}}\big]$, with $h^{[k]}$ given by (\[3.38\]) above.
In order to construct a proper fluctuation algebra for this system, it is convenient to restrict the discussion to the following single-site, hermitian operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& x_1=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2}\Big( (\hat{x}_1)^2- (\hat{p}_1)^2\Big)\ , \hskip 2cm
x_2=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2} \Big( \hat{x}_1 \hat{p}_1+ \hat{p}_1 \hat{x}_1\Big)\ ,\\
\label{3.39}
&& x_3=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2}\Big( (\hat{x}_2)^2- (\hat{p}_2)^2\Big)\ ,\hskip 2cm
x_4=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{2}\Big( \hat{x}_2 \hat{p}_2+ \hat{p}_2 \hat{x}_2 \Big)\ ,\\
&& x_5=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\eta}}\, \Big( \hat{x}_1 \hat{x}_2- \hat{p}_1 \hat{p}_2\Big)\ ,\hskip 2.1cm
x_6 = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\eta}}\, \Big( \hat{x}_1 \hat{p}_2+ \hat{p}_1 \hat{x}_2\Big)\ ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta=\tanh(\beta\varepsilon/2)$, and their corresponding linear span: $$\mathcal{X}=\Big\{x_r\ \big|\ x_r\equiv\vec{r}\cdot\vec{x}=\sum_{\mu=1}^6 r_\mu\, x_\mu,\ \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^6\Big\}\ .
\label{3.40}$$ One can then form the quantum fluctuations as in (\[2.17\]), and study the large $N$ behaviour of the corresponding Weyl-like operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(x)}$, to find: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega_\beta\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\beta)}\cdot \vec{r}}\ ,
\qquad \Sigma^{(\beta)}=\frac{\eta^2+1}{4\eta}\,{\bf 1}_{6}\ ,
\label{3.41}$$ a generalization of (\[2.56\]). Together with the covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\beta)}$, one can also define a $6\times 6$, antisymmetric, symplectic matrix, $$\big[\sigma^{(\beta)}\big]_{\mu\nu}=-i\omega_\beta\Big(\big[x_\mu,\, x_\nu\big]\Big)\ ,\qquad
\sigma^{(\beta)}={\bf 1}_3\otimes i\sigma_2\ ,
\label{3.42}$$ and thus construct the Weyl algebra of fluctuations $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$. Through the mesoscopic limit (\[2.36\]), the microscopic state $\omega_\beta$ provides a Gaussian state $\Omega_\beta$ on this algebra, so that any of its elements, $W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i\,\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}}$, can be represented by means of six collective field operators $F_\mu$, obeying canonical commutation relations, $[F_\mu,\ F_\nu]=i\big[\sigma^{(\beta)}\big]_{\mu\nu}$.
In view of the explicit form (\[3.42\]) of the symplectic matrix, the components $F_\mu$ can be labelled as $$\vec{F}=(\hat X_1,\hat P_1,\hat X_2,\hat P_2,\hat X_3,\hat P_3)\ ,
\label{3.43}$$ with the $\hat X_i$ position- and $\hat P_i$ momentum-like operators, satisfying $$\left[\hat X_i,\hat P_j\right]=i\delta_{i,j}\ ,\qquad i,j=1,2,3\ .$$ Recalling the definitions (\[3.39\]), one sees that the couple $\hat X_1$, $\hat P_1$ are operators pertaining to the first chain of oscillators, while $\hat X_2$, $\hat P_2$ to the second one. On the contrary, $\hat X_3$, $\hat P_3$ are mixed operators belonging to both chains. Further, one can show that any other single-site oscillator operator not belonging to the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ give rise to fluctuation operators that in the large $N$ limit dynamically decouple from the six in (\[3.39\]) (see later and [@Surace]); this is why we can limit the discussion to the chosen set.
Notice that the mesoscopic state $\Omega_\beta$ results separable with respect to the three modes (\[3.43\]): its covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\beta)}$ is diagonal, thus showing neither quantum nor classical correlations. Indeed, the state $\Omega_\beta$ can be represented by a density matrix $\rho_\Omega$ in product form, $\rho_\Omega=\prod_{i=1}^3 \rho_\Omega^{(i)}$, with $\rho_\Omega^{(i)}$ standard free oscillator Gaussian states in the variables $\hat X_i$ and $\hat P_i$.
For a system weakly coupled to the external bath and composed by $N$ sites, the dynamics can be modelled through the general master equation (\[3.1\]): $$\partial_tX(t)=\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X(t)]\ ,\qquad \mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[X]\,+\,\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]\ .
\label{3.44}$$ The Hamiltonian piece (\[3.2\]) involves the total Hamiltonian, $H^{(N)}=\sum_{k=1}^N h^{[k]}$, the sum of $N$ terms of the form (\[3.38\]). Assuming for simplicity the same bath coupling for all sites, the dissipative part of the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ can be given the following generic structure: $$\hskip -1cm
\mathbb{D}^{(N)}\left[X\right]\equiv\sum_{k=1}^N \mathbb{D}^{[k]}[X]=\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{4} C_{\alpha\beta}
\left( v^{[k]}_{\alpha} X v^{[k]}_{\beta}-\frac{1}{2}\left\{v^{[k]}_{\alpha}v^{[k]}_{\beta},\, X \right\}\right)\ ,
\label{3.45}$$ where $v^{[k]}$ represents the microscopic, site-$k$ operator-valued four-vector with components $(\hat{x}_1^{[k]},\ \hat{p}_1^{[k]},\ \hat{x}_2^{[k]},\ \hat{p}_2^{[k]} )$; the $4\times 4$ Kossakowski matrix $C$ with elements $C_{\alpha\beta}$ encodes the bath noisy properties and will be taken of the following form: $${C}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\mathbb{A} & \mathbb{B} \\ \hline
\mathbb{B}^\dagger & \mathbb{A}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{3.46}$$ with $$\mathbb{A}=\frac{1+\e^{-\beta\varepsilon}}{2} \Big({\bf 1}_2 -i\eta\, \sigma_2\Big)\ ,
\qquad
\mathbb{B}=\lambda\, \mathbb{A}\ ,
\quad \eta=\tanh(\beta\varepsilon/2)\ .
\label{3.47}$$ The first two entries in the four-vector $v^{[k]}$ refer to variables pertaining to the first chain, while the remaining two to the second chain, so that the diagonal blocks $\mathbb{A}$ of the Kossakowski matrix describe the evolution of the two chains independently interacting with the same bath; in absence of $\mathbb{B}$, the dynamics of the binary system would then be in product form. Instead, the off-diagonal blocks $\mathbb{B}$ statistically couple the two chains, and the strength of this coupling is essentially measured by the parameter $\lambda$.[^8] Further, the condition of complete positivity on the generated dynamics requires $C$ to be positive semidefinite, which in turn gives $\lambda^2\leq 1$.
By direct computation, one easily sees that the Kossakowski-Lindblad generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ above leaves the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ in (\[3.40\]) invariant. Acting on the fluctuation operators $F^{(N)}(x_\mu)$ of the six single-site variables introduced in (\[3.39\]), one explicitly finds: $$\mathbb{L}^{(N)}\big[\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(X)\big]=\vec{r}\cdot\mathcal{L}\cdot \vec{F}^{(N)}(X)\ ,
\label{3.48}$$ with: $$\mathcal{L}=(\e^{-\beta\varepsilon}-1)\, {\bf 1}_6 + 2\varepsilon\, \sigma^{(\beta)} +
\frac{\lambda(\e^{-\beta\varepsilon}-1)}{\sqrt2}
\left( \begin{array}{lll}
0&{ 0}&{ \bf 1}_2 \\
0&{ 0}&{ \bf 1}_2 \\
{ \bf 1}_2&{ \bf 1}_2&0 \end{array} \right)
\ ,
\label{3.49}$$ The master equation (\[3.44\]), with $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ as in (\[3.45\]), generates a one-parameter family of transformations $\Phi_t^{(N)}$ mapping Gaussian states into Gaussian states [@Vanheuverzwijn; @Benatti3], which in the large $N$, mesoscopic limit gives rise to a quasi-free semigroup of maps $\Phi_t$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$. Its explicit form is again as in (\[3.8\]), (\[3.9\]), (\[3.10\]) with a matrix $\mathcal{L}$ precisely given by (\[3.49\]). One further checks that since the starting microscopic thermal state $\omega_\beta$ is left invariant by $\Phi_t^{(N)}$, also the mesoscopic Gaussian state $\Omega_\beta$ on $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\beta)})$ is left invariant by the limiting maps $\Phi_t$.
Let us then initially prepare the double chain of oscillators in an uncorrelated state and then investigate whether the just obtained mesoscopic dynamics is able to generate entanglement between them at the level of collective observables. More precisely, let us focus on the operators $\hat X_1$, $\hat P_1$ and $\hat X_2$, $\hat P_2$, that, as already observed, are collective degrees of freedom attached to the first, second chain, respectively. One can then study the dynamics of the corresponding reduced, two-mode Gaussian states by tracing the full three-mode state over the variables $\hat X_3$, $\hat P_3$.
As in the case of spin chains discussed earlier, let us take as initial state the mesoscopic Gaussian state $\Omega_\beta$, further squeezed with a real parameter $\mathfrak{r}$ along the first two modes. The entanglement content of the reduced state at any later time $t$ can then be analyzed by looking at the corresponding logarithmic negativity $E(t)$ as defined in (\[3.37\]), which also in this can be analytically computed [@Carollo6; @Surace]. One easily sees that $E(t)$ become positive in a finite time, reaching a maximum, whose value increases as the dissipative parameter $\lambda$ gets larger and the initial bath temperature lowers. Since also in this case there are no direct interactions between the bipartite system, as the total Hamiltonian is that of free, independent oscillators, entanglement between the two chains is generated at the mesoscopic, collective level by the purely noisy action of the common environment.
Nevertheless, there is a striking difference between the behaviour of this model and that made of spins. As observed before, in the case of spin chains entanglement is present only for a finite interval of time [@Eberly], the larger, the lower the bath temperature is; only in certain specific situations, involving strictly vanishing temperatures, quantum correlations persist for large times. Here instead, a non vanishing entanglement can survive for asymptotically long times, even in presence of a non vanishing initial temperature (see Fig.\[Fig3\]). Usually the presence of an environment produces dissipation and noise, ultimately contrasting the presence of any non-classical correlation; on the contrary, in this case the environment is able to create and sustain collective quantum correlations among the two chains for arbitrarily long times and at non-vanishing temperatures. This result clearly reinforce the possibility of using many-body spintronic and optomechanical systems in implementing quantum information protocols.
![Oscillator chain: Behaviour in time of the logarithmic negativity $E(t)$ for different values of the temperature $T\equiv1/\beta$, at fixed dissipative, $\lambda=1$, and squeezing, $\mathfrak{r}=1$, parameters. Entanglement rapidly reaches an asymptotic nonvanishing value, even at nonzero temperatures.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.pdf)
Long-range interaction systems: mean-field dissipative dynamics {#section4}
===============================================================
In the previous Section, we have discussed the dynamics of quantum fluctuations in open systems for which the mixing effects due to the presence of the environment are short-range. Long-range interactions are nevertheless crucial in explaining coherent phenomena in many-body systems, from phase transitions to condensation phenomena. Accurate descriptions of these collective effects can be obtained through an effective approach, based on the so-called [*mean-field dynamics*]{}, whose generator scales as the inverse of the number of particles [@Alexandrov]-[@Hepp].
As in the previous sections, let us consider a generic many-body system made by a large number $N$ of microscopic constituents, each characterized by the same single-particle algebra of observables $\mathfrak{a}$, of dimension $d$. It is convenient to fix an orthonormal basis in this algebra, [*i.e.*]{} a collection of $d^2$ single-particle, hermitian operators $v_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots, d^2$, such that: $${\rm Tr}\big(v_\mu\, v_\nu \big)=\, \delta_{\mu\nu}\ .
\label{4.1}$$ The unitary, mean-field dynamics for the system is then generated by quadratic interaction Hamiltonians, scaling as $1/N$, [*i.e.*]{} as a mean-field operator ([*cf.*]{} (\[2.8\])): $$H^{(N)}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2} \mathfrak{h}_{\mu\nu} \sum_{k=1}^N v^{[k]}_\mu \sum_{\ell=1}^N v^{[\ell]}_\nu
=\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^n \mathfrak{h}_{\mu\nu}\, V^{(N)}_\mu\, V^{(N)}_\nu\ ,
\label{4.2}$$ where the hermitian operators $$V^{(N)}_\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N v^{[k]}_\mu\ ,
\label{4.3}$$ scale as fluctuations. This Hamiltonian treats each particle on the same footing: all microscopic constituents of the many-body system interact among themselves with the same strength, vanishing as $1/N$ in the large $N$ limit. As such, it can be taken to model long-range interactions in many-body systems, providing in many instances a very good description of their dynamical behaviour in the thermodynamic limit.
For systems in weak interaction with external environments, a common instance in actual experiments, the reversible, unitary dynamics provided by the previous Hamiltonian should be extended to a dissipative, open dynamics generated by a suitable Kossakowski-Lindblad operator. The corresponding master equation generating the time-evolution of any element $X$ in the local algebra will then take the generic form given in (\[3.1\]), $$\hskip -1cm
\partial_t X(t)=\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X(t)]\ ,\qquad \mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[X]\,+\,\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]\ ,
\quad X\in\mathcal{A}^{(N)}\ ,
\label{4.4}$$ where the first contribution, $$\mathbb{H}^{(N)}[X]=i\Big[H^{(N)},\,X\Big]\ ,
\label{4.5}$$ is the purely Hamiltonian one, while, in keeping with the structure of (\[4.2\]), the dissipative term $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ can be taken of the form: $$\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2} C_{\mu\nu}\left(\Big[V^{(N)}_\mu\,,\,X\Big]\,V^{(N)}_\nu\,+\,
V^{(N)}_\mu\,\Big[X\,,\,V^{(N)}_\nu\Big]\right)\ .
\label{4.6}$$ In the large $N$ limit, $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ scales as $1/N$, due to the $1/\sqrt{N}$ scaling of the operators $V^{(N)}_\mu$. As the Hamiltonian contribution in (\[4.2\]) and (\[4.5\]) models long-range, unitary dynamical effects, similarly the dissipative piece in (\[4.6\]) gives rise to long-range mixing effects. It can can be obtained through standard weak-coupling techniques [@Alicki1] starting from a microscopic system-environment interaction Hamiltonian of the form $\sum_\mu V_\mu^{(N)} \otimes B_\mu$, where $B_\mu$ are suitable hermitian bath operators; notice that the $1/\sqrt{N}$ scaling of this interaction Hamiltonian is the same as in the Dicke model, used to describe light-matter interaction [@Hepp]-[@Bagarello].
As already discussed in the previous Section, the Kossakowski matrix $C_{\mu\nu}$ needs to be non-negative in order to ensure the complete positivity of the generated dynamical maps $\Phi_t^{(N)}={\rm e}^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$; at the microscopic level, they will then form a quantum dynamical semigroup of unital maps on the local algebra $\mathcal{A}^{(N)}\subset\mathcal{A}$: $$\Phi_t^{(N)}\circ \Phi_s^{(N)}=\Phi_{t+s}^{(N)}\ ,\quad t,s\geq0\ ,\qquad
\Phi_t^{(N)}[{\bf 1}]={\bf 1}\ .
\label{4.7}$$ We shall now study the large $N$ limit of the dynamics generated by (\[4.4\]) in three different scenarios: [*i)*]{} evolution of macroscopic observables, typically the limiting mean-field operators introduced in Section \[section2.3\]; [*ii)*]{} dynamics of microscopic, quasi-local observables, [*i.e.*]{} operators involving only a finite number of particles; [*iii)*]{} emerging mesoscopic dynamics of quantum fluctuations. These three cases give rise to distinct behaviours, quite different from the one discussed in the previous Section in reference to the master equation (\[3.1\])-(\[3.4\]), whose generator does not scale as a mean-field operator.
Dissipative dynamics of macroscopic observables {#section4.1}
-----------------------------------------------
We shall start by studying the large $N$ limit of the microscopic dissipative dynamics $\Phi_t^{(N)}$ introduced above on the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$; in other terms, we shall investigate the behaviour $\Phi_t^{(N)}[X]$, where $X\in\mathcal{A}$ is either a strictly local element, that is different from the identity matrix, over a fixed, finite number of particles or can be approximated (in norm) by strictly local operators.
As before, we shall consider microscopic states $\omega$ on $\mathcal{A}$ that satisfy the requirements in (\[2.5\]) and (\[2.7\]), [*i.e.*]{} they are translational invariant and clustering, but not necessarily invariant under the large $N$ limit of the microscopic dynamics; in other terms, it might happen that: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\bigg(\Phi_t^{(N)}[X]\bigg)\neq\omega(X)\ , \qquad X\in\mathcal{A}\ .
\label{4.8}$$ As a result, recalling the discussion of Section \[section2.3\] according to which mean-field operators $\overline{X}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N x^{[k]}$ become multiple of the identity in the thermodynamic limit, macroscopic averages associated to these operators might now also change in time.
Let us then focus on the mean-field observables constructed with the single-particle basis elements $v_\mu$; their time-evolved averages, $$\omega_\mu(t):=\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\left(\Phi_t^{(N)}\left[\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}v_\mu^{[k]}\right]\right)\ ,
\label{4.9}$$ will in general depend on time in the large $N$ limit. In order to write down the equation of motion obeyed by these macroscopic variables, it is convenient to decompose the coefficients of the mean-field hamiltonian in (\[4.2\]) as $\mathfrak{h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+i \kappa_{\mu\nu}$, with the real part $h$ and the imaginary one $\kappa$ satisfying the relations $$h_{\mu\nu}=h_{\nu\mu}\ ,\qquad \kappa_{\mu\nu}=-\kappa_{\nu\mu}\ .
\label{4.10}$$ Similarly, the Kossakowski matrix $C=[C_{\mu\nu}]$ can be decomposed in its self-adjoint symmetric and anti-symmetric components as $$A:=\frac{C+C^{T}}{2}\ ,\quad B:=\frac{C-C^{T}}{2}\ ,\qquad A_{\mu\nu}=A_{\nu\mu}\ ,\ \
B_{\mu\nu}=-B_{\nu\mu}\ ,
\label{4.11}$$ where $T$ denotes matrix transposition. Then, the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ in (\[4.4\]) can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.12-1}
&&\hskip -1cm\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=\mathbb{A}^{(N)}[X]+\mathbb{B}^{(N)}[X]\ ,\\
\label{4.12-2}
&&\hskip -1cm\mathbb{A}^{(N)}[X]=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2}\widetilde{A}_{\mu\nu}\,
\left[\Big[V^{(N)}_\mu\,,\,X\Big]\,,\,V^{(N)}_\nu\right]\ ,\quad
\widetilde{A}_{\mu\nu}:=A_{\mu\nu}\,-\,2\kappa_{\mu\nu}\ ,\\
\label{4.12-3}
&&\hskip -1cm\mathbb{B}^{(N)}[X]:=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2}\widetilde{B}_{\mu\nu}\,
\left\{\Big[V^{(N)}_\mu\,,\,X\Big]\,,\,V^{(N)}_\nu\right\}\ ,\quad
\widetilde{B}_{\mu\nu}:=B_{\mu\nu}\,+\,2i\,h_{\mu\nu}\ .\end{aligned}$$ By taking the time derivative of (\[4.9\]) and using the above decomposition for the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$, one can deduce that the macroscopic averages $\omega_\mu(t)$ obey the following non-linear equations [@Carollo5]: $$\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\omega_\mu(t)=i\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma=1}^{d^2}
f_{\alpha\mu}{}^\gamma\, \widetilde{B}_{\alpha\beta}\ \omega_\beta(t)\, \omega_\gamma(t)\ ,\quad \mu=1,2,\cdots,d^2\ .
\label{4.13}$$ where $f_{\alpha\beta}{}^\gamma$ are the real structure constant for the basis elements $v_\alpha$ of the single-particle algebra $\mathfrak{a}$, $[v_\alpha,\ v_\beta]=i\sum_{\gamma=1}^{d^2} f_{\alpha\beta}{}^\gamma\ v_\gamma$.
For later convenience, it is useful to recast this evolution equation in a compact, matrix form; denoting by $\vec{\omega}_t$ the vector with components $\omega_\mu(t)$, (\[4.13\]) can be rewritten as $$\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\vec{\omega}_t=D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}\cdot\vec{\omega}_t\ ,\qquad
D_{\mu\gamma}^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}=
i\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{d^2} f_{\alpha\mu}{}^\gamma\, \widetilde{B}_{\alpha\beta}\ \omega_\beta(t)\ ,
\label{4.14}$$ where the matrix $D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ depends implicitly on time through the time-evolution: $\vec{\omega}\mapsto\vec{\omega}_t$. Since $\widetilde B$ changes sign under conjugation, the matrix $D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ is real; further, it is antihermitian: $(D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)})^\dagger=-D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$.
The non-linear equations (\[4.14\]), with initial condition $\vec{\omega}_{t=0}=\vec{\omega}$, are formally solved by the matrix expression: $$\vec{\omega}_t=M_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot \vec{\omega}\ ,\quad
M_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\equiv\mathbb{T}{\rm e}^{\int_0^t{\rm d}s\,D^{(\vec{\omega}_s)}}\ ,
\label{4.15}$$ where $\mathbb{T}$ denotes time-ordering; the dependence of the $d^2\times d^2$ matrix $M_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ on the time-evolution $\vec{\omega}\mapsto\vec{\omega}_t$ embodies the non-linearity of the dynamics. Despite the time-ordering, since there is no explicit time-dependence in the equations (\[4.13\]), the time-evolution of the macroscopic averages composes as a semigroup, $$\vec{\omega}\mapsto\vec{\omega}_s\mapsto(\vec{\omega}_s)_t=\vec{\omega}_{s+t}\qquad \forall\ s,t\geq 0\ .
\label{4.16}$$ In addition, since the matrix $D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ is antisymmetric and the macroscopic averages are real, the quantity $\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d^2}\omega^2_\alpha(t)$ is a constant of motion.
### Spin chain: macroscopic observables {#section4.1.1}
As a specific example, let us consider the many-body system introduced in Section \[section2.5.1\], given by a chain of 1/2 spins. In this case, the single-particle algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ coincides with $\mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$, the set of $2\times 2$ complex matrices. A basis in this algebra is given by the three spin operators $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ obeying the $su(2)$-algebra commutation relations, $[s_j,\ s_k]=i\epsilon_{jk\ell}\, s_\ell$, together with the identity $s_0={\bf 1}/2$.
For sake of simplicity, let us consider a purely dissipative mean-field dynamics, generated by $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}=\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$, with $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ as in (\[4.6\]), with: $$V^{(N)}_\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N s^{[k]}_\mu\ , \quad \mu=0,1,2,3\ .
\label{4.17}$$ By choosing an environment giving a Kossakowski matrix of the form: $$C=\pmatrix{
1&i&0\cr
-i&1&0\cr
0&0&0\cr
}\ ,
\label{4.18}$$ the generator $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ in (\[4.6\]) can be conveniently recast in the following compact form: $$\hskip -1.5cm
\mathbb{D}^{(N)}[X]=V_+^{(N)}\, X\, V_-^{(N)}-
\frac{1}{2}\Big\{V^{(N)}_+\,V^{(N)}_-\,,\,X\Big\}\ ,\qquad V^{(N)}_\pm=V^{(N)}_1\pm i\,V^{(N)}_2\ .
\label{4.19}$$ The symmetric and anti-symmetric components of $C$ are then given by $$A=\pmatrix{
1&0&0\cr
0&1&0\cr
0&0&0\cr}
\qquad
B=\pmatrix{
0&i&0\cr
-i&0&0\cr
0&0&0\cr}
\ .
\label{4.20}$$ Taking for the microscopic state $\omega$ the thermal state introduced in Section \[section2.5.1\], the only non-trivial macroscopic averages $\omega_\mu(t)$ in (\[4.9\]) are $\omega_{1,2,3}(t)$, while $\omega_0(t)=1/2$ for all $t\geq 0$. Therefore, one can limit the discussion to the vector $\vec{\omega}_t=\left(\omega_1(t),\omega_2(t),\omega_3(t)\right)$; since $\|s_\mu\|\leq 1/2$, its components belong to the interval $[-1/2\,,\,1/2]$. In the present case, the equations (\[4.13\]) simply become: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\omega_1(t)=-\omega_1(t)\,\omega_3(t)\ ,\\
\label{4.21}
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\omega_2(t)=-\omega_2(t)\,\omega_3(t)\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\omega_3(t)=\omega^2_1(t)\,+\,\omega^2_2(t)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the following matrix $D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ as defined in (\[4.14\]): $$D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}=
\pmatrix{
0&0&\omega_1(t)\cr
0&0&\omega_2(t)\cr
-\omega_1(t)&-\omega_2(t)&0
}\ .
\label{4.22}$$ As already observed, the norm $\xi\equiv[(\omega_1(t))^2 + (\omega_2(t))^2 + (\omega_3(t))^2]^{1/2}$ of $\vec{\omega}_t$ is a constant of motion, so that the third equation can be readily solved: $$\omega_3(t)=\xi\tanh\left(\xi(t+c)\right)\ ,
\label{4.23}$$ where the constant $c$ is related to the initial condition: . Inserting this result in the remaining two equations, one further gets: $$\omega_1(t)=\,\frac{\cosh(c\,\xi)}{\cosh(\xi(t+c))}\,\omega_1\ ,\quad
\omega_2(t)=\,\frac{\cosh(c\,\xi)}{\cosh(\xi(t+c))}\,\omega_2\ ,
\label{4.24}$$ where $\omega_{1,2}\equiv\omega_{1,2}(0)$. Notice that the only time-invariant solution of the equations (\[4.21\]) is given by: $\omega_1=\omega_2=\,0$ and $\omega_3=\xi$, which is a stable solution for $\xi\geq 0$; in this case, starting from any initial triple $(\omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3)$, one always converges to $(0,0,\xi)$ in the long time limit.
Dissipative dynamics of microscopic observables: emergent unitary dynamics {#section4.2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having determined the dynamics of the basic macroscopic averages, we can now focus on the large $N$ time evolution of strictly local observables. In order to get a hint on the limiting dynamics, let us consider a single-particle operator $x^{[k]}$ as in (\[2.4\]), and the action of the generator (\[4.12-1\]) on it. Since operators at different sites commute, the double commutator in the first contribution (\[4.12-2\]) to $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ yields $$\mathbb{A}^{(N)}\big[x^{[k]}\big]=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2}\widetilde A_{\mu\nu}\Big[\left[v_\mu^{[k]},x^{[k]}\right],v_\nu^{[k]}\Big]\ .
\label{4.25}$$ The norm of $\mathbb{A}^{(N)}\big[x^{[k]}\big]$ vanishes as $N\to\infty$, since the double sum contains a finite number of contributions, each of them norm bounded. On the other hand, the second contribution (\[4.12-3\]) to $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ gives: $$\mathbb{B}^{(N)}\big[x^{[k]}\big]=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N \sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2}\widetilde B_{\mu\nu}
\Big\{\left[v_\mu^{[k]},x^{[k]}\right],v_\nu^{[\ell]}\Big\}\ .
\label{4.26}$$ As discussed in Section \[section2.3\], for any clustering state $\omega$, the mean-field observable $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N v_\nu^{[\ell]}$ tends in the large $N$ limit to a scalar quantity, given by $\omega_\nu\equiv\omega(v_\nu)$. As a consequence, in the limit, the contribution (\[4.26\]) becomes a commutator with a state-dependent Hamiltonian: $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\mathbb{B}^{(N)}\big[x^{[k]}\big]=i\left[H^{[k]}_{\vec\omega}\,,\,x^{[k]}\right]\ ,\qquad
H^{[k]}_{\vec\omega}=-i\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^3 \widetilde B_{\mu\nu}\,\omega_\nu\,v_\mu^{[k]}\ .
\label{4.27}$$ Since $(\widetilde B_{\mu\nu})^*=-\widetilde B_{\mu\nu}$, while the expectations $\omega_\nu$ are real, it follows that $H^{[k]}_\omega$ is hermitian, as $(v_\nu^{[k]})^\dag=v_\nu^{[k]}$.
However, this result is not sufficient for determining the correct dynamical equation for $x^{[k]}$; indeed, according to (\[4.4\]), one should analyze the action of the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ on the time-evolved $x^{[k]}$ at the generic time $t$, [*i.e.*]{} on $\Phi_t^{(N)}[x^{[k]}]\equiv{\rm e}^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}[x^{[k]}]$. Further, one should keep in mind that, as previously discussed, the state $\omega$ might not be time-invariant in the large $N$ limit: averages of mean-field observables will in general depend on time. Recalling (\[4.9\]), this suggests that the Hamiltonian in (\[4.27\]) should be substituted by a time-dependent one, with $\vec\omega$ replaced by $\vec\omega_t$. Explicit computation (see [@Carollo5]) indeed provides the expected result: $H^{[k]}_{\vec{\omega}_t}=-i\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^3 \widetilde B_{\mu\nu}\,\omega_\nu(t)\,v_\mu^{[k]}$.
In addition, taking an arbitrary initial time $t_0$, not necessarily $t_0=\,0$ as so far implicitly understood, the emergent dynamics on strictly local observables $x^{[k]}$ will be the result of the large $N$ limit of the microscopic dynamical map $\Phi_{t-t_0}^{(N)}={\rm e}^{(t-t_0)\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$; as such, it is generated by an Hamiltonian of the form $$H^{[k]}_{\vec{\omega}_{t-t_0}}=-i\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^3 \widetilde B_{\mu\nu}\,\omega_\nu(t-t_0)\,v_\mu^{[k]}\ ,
\label{4.28}$$ which now explicitly depends on the initial time $t_0$, besides the running time $t$. In other terms, in the large $N$ limit, the irreversible, dissipative semigroup of maps $\Phi_{t-t_0}^{(N)}$ when acting on local observables gives rise, rather surprisingly, to a family of unitary maps $\alpha_{t-t_0}=\lim_{N\to\infty}\Phi_{t-t_0}^{(N)}$. Further, these automorphisms do not satisfy the microscopic composition law (\[4.7\]), nor the one typical of two-parameter semigroups, $\gamma_{t,t_0}=\gamma_{t,s}\circ\gamma_{s,t_0}$, for any $t_0\leq s\leq t$, due to the explicit initial-time dependence of their generator. The unitary maps $\alpha_{t-t_0}$ generated by the Hamiltonian in (\[4.28\]) thus provide an instance of non-Markovian evolution as defined in [@Chruscinski2].
The extension of these results to any quasi-local operator $X\in\mathcal{A}$ is given by the following theorem [@Carollo5].
\[theorem3\] Given a translation-invariant state $\omega$ on the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$ satisfying the $L_1$-clustering prooperty (\[2.12\]), in the large $N$ limit the local dissipative generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ in (\[4.12-1\])-(\[4.12-3\]) defines on $\mathcal{A}$ a one-parameter family of automorphisms that depend on the state $\omega$ and are such that, for any initial time $t_0\geq 0$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\left(A\,\Phi^{(N)}_{t-t_0}[X]\,B\right)=\omega\Big(A\,\alpha_{t-t_0}[X]\,B\Big)\ ,
\label{4.29}$$ for all $A,B,X\in\mathcal{A}$. If $X$ has finite support, [*i.e.*]{} it involves only a finite number $S$ of particles, then $$\alpha_{t-t_0}[X]=\big(U^{(S)}_{t-t_0}\big)^\dag\,X\,U^{(S)}_{t-t_0}\ ,\quad
U^{(S)}_{t-t_0}=\mathbb{T}{\rm e}^{-i\int_0^{t-t_0}{\rm d}u\, H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_u}}\ ,
\label{4.30}$$ with an explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonian: $$\label{auto3}
H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_t}=-i\,\sum_{k=1}^{S}\,\sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^{d^2}\widetilde{B}_{\mu\nu}\,\omega_\nu(t)\,v_\mu^{(k)} \ .
\label{4.31}$$
Let us remark that the convergence of the mean-field dissipative dynamics $\Phi^{(N)}_{t-t_0}$ to the automorphism $\alpha_{t-t_0}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ should be intended in the weak-operator topology associated with the GNS-representation based on the state $\omega$. Further, notice that the automorphisms $\alpha_t$, being the limit of the semigroup $\Phi^{(N)}_t$, have a meaning only for $t\geq0$; in other terms, although the inverted automorphisms $(\alpha_t)^{-1}=\alpha_{-t}$ surely exist, they have no physical relevance, since they can not arise from the underlying non-invertible microscopic dynamics. Finally, as previously explained, the automorphisms $\alpha_{t-t_0}$ represent an example of non-Markovian time evolution; nevertheless, when $\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\circ\Phi_t^{(N)}$ provides a time-invariant state on the quasi-local algebra $\mathcal{A}$, then one recovers for $\alpha_t$ the one-parameter semigroup composition law as in (\[4.7\]).
### Spin chain: quasi-local observables {#section4.2.1}
Let us now reconsider the example of a spin-1/2 chain presented in Section \[section4.1.1\]. From the specifications and results collected there, one can immediately write down the explicit expression of the Hamiltonian in (\[4.31\]) involving the first $S$ sites of the chain: $$H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_t}=\sum_{k=1}^{S}\left(\omega_1(t)s_2^{[k]}-\omega_2(t)s_1^{[k]}\right)\ .
\label{4.32}$$ Observe that this Hamiltonian commute with itself at different times, $[H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_{t_1}}\,,\,H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_{t_2}}]=0$, for all $t_{1}$, $t_2$, so that the time-ordering in the definition of the unitary operator implementing the finite time evolution in (\[4.30\]) is irrelevant. Then, starting the dynamics at $t_0=\,0$, one easily finds: $$U^{(S)}_t = {\rm e}^{-i\int_0^t{\rm d}u\, H^{(S)}_{\vec{\omega}_u}}=
\prod_{k=1}^{S}{\rm e}^{-i\gamma(t)\left(\omega_1\,s_2^{[k]}-\omega_2\,s_1^{[k]}\right)}\ ,
\label{4.33}$$ where the function $\gamma(t)$ results from the time integration of $\omega_1(t)$ and $\omega_2(t)$ in (\[4.24\]); explicitly: $$\gamma(t)=\cosh(c\,\xi)\,\Big[\arctan\Big({\rm e}^{-\xi(t+c)}\Big)-\arctan\Big({\rm e}^{-\xi c}\Big)\Big]
\ .
\label{4.34}$$ According to the result of [*Theorem \[theorem3\]*]{} above, the unitary transformation $U^{(S)}_t$ is responsible for the limiting time evolution of any local observables involving the $S$ selected chain sites. In particular, in the case of single-site spin operators, $\vec{s}=(s_1,s_2,s_3)$, one finds, dropping the now superfluous label $S$: $$U_t^\dagger \, \vec{s}\ U_t = \mathcal{M}_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot \vec{s} \ ,
\label{4.35}$$ where the $3\times 3$ matrix $\mathcal{M}_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ is explicitly given by: $$\hskip -2.3cm
\mathcal{M}_t^{(\vec{\omega})}=\frac{1}{\omega_{12}}\pmatrix{
\omega_1^2\cos\gamma_{12}(t)+\omega_2^2&\omega_1\omega_2\left(\cos\gamma_{12}(t)-1\right)&\omega_{12}\,\omega_1\sin\gamma_{12}(t)\cr
\omega_1\omega_2\left(\cos\gamma_{12}(t)-1\right)&\omega_2^2\cos\gamma_{12}(t)+\omega_1^2&\omega_{12}\,\omega_2\sin\gamma_{12}(t)\cr
-\omega_{12}\,\omega_1\sin\gamma_{12}(t)&-\omega_{12}\,\omega_2\sin\gamma_{12}(t)&\omega_{12}^2\cos\gamma_{12}(t)
}\ ,
\label{4.36}$$ with $\omega_{12}=\sqrt{(\omega_1)^2 + (\omega_2)^2}$ and $\gamma_{12}(t)=\omega_{12}\,\gamma(t)$.
Dissipative dynamics of fluctuations: emergent non-linear open dynamics {#section4.3}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After having studied the large $N$ dynamics dictated by the microscopic dissipative evolution equation (\[4.4\]) on quasi-local observables, we shall now consider the limiting dynamics of fluctuation operators.
As explained in Section \[section2.4\], they form an algebra, the fluctuation algebra, which is determined by choosing the set of relevant single-particle, hermitian observables generating the linear span $\mathcal{X}$ as in (\[2.16\]). In the present case, it is natural to focus on the basis elements $v_\mu\in \mathfrak{a}$ entering the generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ through the Hamiltonian $H^{(N)}$ in (\[4.2\]) and the dissipative contribution $\mathbb{D}^{(N)}$ in (\[4.6\]), so that $$\mathcal{X}=\Big\{v_r\ \big|\ v_r\equiv\vec{r}\cdot\vec{v}=\sum_{\mu=1}^{d^2} r_\mu\, v_\mu,\
\vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^{d^2}\Big\}\ .
\label{4.37}$$ The definition given in (\[2.14\]) of the fluctuation operators needs however to be modified, as the chosen system state $\omega$ need not be left invariant by the microscopic time evolution generated by $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$: $$\omega_t^{(N)}=\omega\circ\Phi_t^{(N)}\neq\omega\ .
\label{4.38}$$ As fluctuations account for deviations of observables from their mean values, it is then necessary to extend the definition (\[2.14\]) to a time-dependent one: $$F^{(N)}_t(v_\mu)\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N \Big(v_\mu^{[k]}
-\omega_t^{(N)}\left(v_\mu^{[k]}\right){\bf 1}\Big)\ .
\label{4.39}$$ This change guaranties the vanishing of the mean value of fluctuations, $\omega_t^{(N)}\Big(F^{(N)}_t(v_\mu)\Big)=\,0$, a property that needs to be satisfied for all times. The new definition (\[4.39\]) further implies that also the symplectic matrix defined in (\[2.21\]) might be in general time-dependent: $$\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}_{\mu\nu}
=-i\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega_t^{(N)}\Big( \Big[F_t^{(N)}(v_\mu),\ F_t^{(N)}(v_\nu)\Big]\Big)\ .
\label{4.40}$$ However, its dependence on time occurs only through the vector $\vec{\omega}_t$ of mean-field averages introduced in (\[4.9\]); indeed, the commutator: $$\Big[F_t^{(N)}(v_\mu),\ F_t^{(N)}(v_\nu)\Big]=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left[v_\mu^{[k]},\ v_\nu^{[k]}\right]
=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d^2} f_{\mu\nu}{}^\alpha v_\alpha^{[k]}\ ,
\label{4.41}$$ results time-independent, while: $$\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}_{\mu\nu}=-i\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d^2} f_{\mu\nu}{}^\alpha\, \omega_\alpha(t)\ .
\label{4.42}$$ Let us now consider the fluctuation operators corresponding to the generic combination $v_r\in\mathcal{X}$ at time $t=\,0$; dropping for simplicity the superfluous label $0$, one then has ([*cf.*]{} (\[2.17\])): $$F^{(N)}(v_r)=\sum_{\mu=1}^N r_\mu\, F^{(N)}(v_\mu)\equiv \vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(v)\ ,
\label{4.43}$$ together with the corresponding Weyl-like operators, as in (\[2.29\]): $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(v)}\ .
\label{4.44}$$ For a state $\omega$ which satisfy the two properties in (\[2.31\]) and (\[2.32\]), in the large $N$ limit, $W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$ give rise to Weyl operators: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,) = W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}}
\ ;
\label{4.45}$$ they are elements of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$ defined with the symplectic matrix $\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}$, with components as in (\[4.42\]), but evaluated at $t=\,0$. Indeed, the bosonic operators $F_\mu$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}F^{(N)}(v_\mu)=F_\mu\ ,\qquad \mu=1,2,\ldots,d^2\ ,
\label{4.46}$$ obey the following commutator relations: $\left[F_\mu,\,F_\nu\right]=i\sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(\vec{\omega})}$. As discussed in Section \[section2\], these limits need to be understood as mesoscopic limits, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot \vec{r}}=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)\ ,\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^{d^2}\ ,
\label{4.47}$$ where $\Omega$ is the Gaussian state on the algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$ defined by covariance matrix: $$\Sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}_{\mu\nu}=
\frac{1}{2}\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( \Big\{F^{(N)}(v_\mu),\ F^{(N)}(v_\nu)\Big\}\Big)\ .
\label{4.48}$$ We are now ready to study the behaviour in the limit of large $N$ of the microscopic dissipative dynamics $\Phi_t^{(N)}$ generated by the dissipative generator $\mathbb{L}^{(N)}$ in (\[4.4\]) on the Weyl-like operators (\[4.44\]). Recalling the definition (\[2.37\]), one can show that: $$\hskip -1.6 cm
\lim_{N\to\infty} \omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,\Phi^{(N)}_t\big[W_t^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\big]\,
W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\Big)=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}_1)\,\Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\big[W(\vec{r}\,)\big]\, W(\vec{r}_2)\Big)\ ,
\label{4.49}$$ for all $\vec{r},\ \vec{r}_{1},\ \vec{r}_{2}\in \mathbb{R}^{d^2}$, where $W_t^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)$ is the Weyl-like operator constructed with the time-dependent fluctuation operator introduced in (\[4.39\]), $W_t^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}_t^{(N)}}$. This limit defines the mesoscopic dynamics $\Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$, whose explicit form is given by the following result [@Carollo5]:
\[theorem 4\] The dynamics of quantum fluctuations is given by the mesoscopic map $\Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\equiv m-\lim_{N\to\infty}\Phi_t^{(N)}$, where $$\Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\Big[W(\vec{r}\,)\Big]=\e^{-\frac{1}{2}\vec{r}\cdot\, Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot\vec{r}}\
W(\vec{r}_t)\ ,\qquad \vec{r}_t=\left(X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\right)^T\cdot \vec{r}\ ,
\label{4.50}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.51-1}
&&\hskip -1.5cm
X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}=\mathbb{T}{\rm e}^{\int_0^t{\rm d}s\, Q^{(\vec{\omega}_s)}}\\
\label{4.51-2}
&&\hskip -1.5cm
Q^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}=-i\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}\,\widetilde{B}\,+\,D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}\\
\label{4.51-3}
&&\hskip -1.5cm
Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}=X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot\Bigg[\int_0^t{\rm d}s\, (X_s^{(\vec{\omega})})^{-1}\,
\Big(\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_s)}\cdot A\cdot [\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_s)}]^T\Big)\,[(X_s^{(\vec{\omega})})^{-1}]^T\Bigg]
\cdot (X_t^{(\vec{\omega})})^T\ .\end{aligned}$$
In the above expression, $\widetilde{B}=B+\,2i\,h$ as defined in (\[4.12-3\]), while $A$ and $B$ are the symmetric and antisymmetric components of the Kossakowski matrix $C$ ([*cf.*]{} (\[4.11\])); further, $D^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ is the matrix defined in (\[4.14\]), while $\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ is the time-dependent symplectic matrix with entries given by (\[4.42\]).
The structure of the mesoscopic dynamics looks like that of Gaussian maps transforming Weyl operators into Weyl operators with rotated parameters and further multiplied by a damping factor; note in fact that $Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ is positive, since so is the Kossakoski matrix, hence $A$. However, its explicit dependence on the mean-field quantities $\vec{\omega}$ makes the maps $\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t$ not respectful of the algebraic structure of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$, making them acting non-linearly on it.
Indeed, let us consider the action of $\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t$ on the product of two Weyl operators. Assuming linearity, using the Weyl algebraic relations (\[2.22\]), one would write: $$\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[W(\vec{r_1})W(\vec{r}_2)\right]=
\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[{\rm e}^{i\,\vec{r}_2\cdot\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot\vec{r}_1}
\,W(\vec{r_2})W(\vec{r}_1)\right]={\rm e}^{i\,\vec{r}_2\cdot\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot\vec{r}_1}
\,\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[\,W(\vec{r_2})W(\vec{r}_1)\right]\ .$$ However, direct evaluation gives instead: $$\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[W(\vec{r}_1)W(\vec{r}_2)\right]
={\rm e}^{i\,\vec{r}_2\cdot\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}\cdot\vec{r}_1}
\,\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[\,W(\vec{r}_2)W(\vec{r}_1)\right]\ ,
\label{4.52}$$ where the symplectic matrix appearing in the prefactor is $\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}$ and not the one at $t=\,0$. This is a consequence of the fact that the local operators $W^{(N)}(\vec{r_1})$ and $W^{(N)}(\vec{r_2})$ satisfy a Baker-Campbell-Haussdorf relation of the form: $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)=W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_2)\,W^{(N)}(\vec{r}_1)\,
\exp\left(\Big[\vec{r}_2\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}\,,\,\vec{r}_1\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}\Big]\,
+\,O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\right)\right)\ .$$ Since the leading order term in the argument of the exponential function is a mean-field quantity, it keeps evolving in time under the action of $\Phi^{(N)}_t$, becoming the scalar quantity $i\,\vec{r}_2\cdot\sigma^{(\vec{\omega}_t)}\cdot\vec{r}_1$ in the large $N$ limit.
At first sight, the non-linearity of the obtained mesoscopic dynamics on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$ appears rather puzzling, as any physically consistent generalized quantum dynamics should be described by a semigroup of linear, completely positive maps. The origin of this apparent clash stems from the explicit dependence on time of the symplectic matrix, leading to time-evolving canonical commutation relations, a rather uncommon situation. The proper tool to deal with such instances is provided by a suitable algebra extension, allowing to deal with quantum fluctuations obeying algebraic rules that depend on the macroscopic averages. One is thus led to introduce a hybrid system, in which there appear together quantum and classical degrees of freedom, strongly intertwined since the commutator of two fluctuations is a classical dynamical variable.
Without entering into technical details (see [@Carollo5] for the full treatment), the dynamical maps $\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t$ can be extended to linear maps $\Phi_t$ on a larger algebra than $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$. The Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$ explicitly depends on the the vector $\vec{\omega}$ of macroscopic averages through the symplectic matrix $\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}$; the idea is then to collect together these algebras for all possible values of $\vec{\omega}$. The proper mathematical way to due this is through a direct integral von Neumann algebra [@Bing]: $$\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X})\equiv\int^{\oplus}{\rm d}\vec{\omega}\ \mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})\ .
\label{4.53}$$ The most general element of this extended algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X})$ are operator-valued functions $W^f_{\vec{r}}$, defined by: $$W^f_{\vec{r}}:\, \vec{\omega}\mapsto f(\vec{\omega})\,W^{(\vec{\omega})}(\vec{r}\,)\ ,
\label{4.54}$$ where $f$ is any element of the von Neumann algebra of bounded functions with respect to the measure ${\rm d}\vec{\omega}$, while $W^{(\vec{\omega})}(\vec{r}\,)$ is a Weyl operators in $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\vec{\omega})})$, [*i.e.*]{} the operator-valued functions $W^1_{\vec{r}}$ evaluated at $\vec{\omega}$.
On this extended algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X})$, one can consider the action of a linear dynamical map $\Phi_t$ defined as follows: $$\left(\Phi_t\Big[W^f_{\vec{r}}\Big]\right)(\vec{\omega})=
f(\vec{\omega}_t)\,\Phi^{(\vec{\omega})}_t\left[W^{(\vec{\omega})}(\vec{r}\,)\right]\ .
\label{4.55}$$ One can show that these extended maps $\Phi_t$ form a one-parameter semigroup of completely positive, unital, Gaussian maps on the von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X})$.
The generator $\mathbb{L}$ of this semigroup can be obtained in the usual way by taking the time-derivative of $\Phi_t$ at $t=0$; clearly, because of the direct integral form of the algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X})$ on which it acts, it will be of the form $\mathbb{L}=\int^\oplus{\rm d}\vec{\omega}\ \mathbb{L}^{(\vec{\omega})}$. The components $\mathbb{L}^{(\vec{\omega})}$ of the generator result of hybrid form [@Ciccotti]-[@Kapral], containing a drift contribution that makes $\vec{\omega}$ evolve in time as a solution to the dynamical equation (\[4.14\]), together with mixed classical-quantum pieces and fully quantum contributions. As such, it can not be written in the typical Kossakowski-Lindblad form; actually, in general, even the purely quantum contributions can not be cast in this form, despite the fact that the linear maps $\Phi_t$ constitute a semigroup of completely positive transformations.
These results have been only recently clarified and their applications to concrete situations are in the process of being developed; they are not only of mathematical interest, but also of great physical relevance since in almost all experimental setups the macroscopic properties of the system actually vary in time. This observation is particularly important in applications in quantum information and communication protocols based on collective bosonic degrees of freedom requiring the presence of quantum correlations. Since non-classical correlations ([*e.g.*]{} entanglement), are directly related to the behaviour of the commutation relations, the hybrid dynamical structure presented above may play an important role in modelling actual experiments.
As a preliminary step in this direction, in the next Section we shall see that, in analogy with the results presented in Section \[section3.3\], entanglement can be dissipatively generated at the mesoscopic level of quantum fluctuations also by starting with microscopic dynamics generated by mean-field operators of the form (\[4.6\]).
Mesoscopic entanglement through dissipation: mean-field dynamics {#section4.4}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Let us reconsider the many-body system composed by two spin-1/2 chains and immersed in a common environment introduced in Section \[section3.3.1\]. As discussed there, the single-particle algebra is given by $\mathfrak{a}=\mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})\otimes \mathcal{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$ and the sixteen tensor products $s_i\otimes s_j$, $i,j=0,1,2,3$, built with the spin operators $s_1$, $s_2$, $s_3$ and $s_0={\bf 1}/2$, constitute a basis in it. We shall equip the system with the state $\omega=\bigotimes_k\ \omega^{[k]}_\zeta$, tensor product of the same single-site state $\omega_\zeta$ for all sites, for which the only nonvanishing single-site expectations are: $$\omega_\zeta\left(s_3\otimes {\bf 1}\right)=
\omega_\zeta\left({\bf 1}\otimes s_3\right)=-\zeta\ ,\quad
\omega_\zeta\left(s_3\otimes s_3\right)=-\zeta^2\ ,\quad \zeta\geq0\ .
\label{4.56}$$ We are interested in the dissipative effects induced by the environment on the many-body system at the mesoscopic level by a microscopic dynamics of mean field type; we shall thus neglect any Hamiltonian contribution and focus on a microscopic time evolution generated by an operator of the form (\[4.6\]). Further, instead of dealing with all the sixteen operators $s_i\otimes s_j$, it suffices to restrict the treatment to a set $\mathcal{X}$ generated by the following six single-site operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.56-1}
&&v_1=s_1\otimes s_0\ ,\quad
v_2=s_2\otimes s_0\ ,\quad v_3=s_3\otimes s_0\ ,\\
\label{4.56-2}
&&v_4=s_0\otimes s_1\ , \quad v_5=s_0\otimes s_2\ ,\quad v_6=s_0\otimes s_3\ .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the three operators (\[4.56-1\]) represent single-particle observables pertaining to the first chain, while the remaining three refer to the second chain.
For a system composed by $N$ sites, out of these six single-site operators, we can then construct the operators $V^{(N)}_\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_{k=1}^N v^{[k]}_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots,6$, scaling as fluctuations. Given any quasi-local element $X$ of the system, its microscopic dynamics will then be described by an evolution equation of the form: $\partial_t X(t)=\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X(t)]$; as generator, we take: $$\mathbb{L}^{(N)}[X]=\sum_{\mu,\nu=1,2,4,5} C_{\mu\nu}\left(V^{(N)}_\mu\,X\,V^{(N)}_\nu\,
+\frac{1}{2}\,
\Big\{V^{(N)}_\mu\,V^{(N)}_\nu ,X\,\Big\}\right)\ ,
\label{4.57}$$ involving only four operators $V^{(N)}_\mu$, and choose a Kossakowski matrix $C$ of the form: $$C=\pmatrix{ 1 & 1\cr
1 & 1\cr} \otimes
\pmatrix{ 1 & -ib\cr
ib & a\cr}\ ,\qquad a\geq b^2\ .
\label{4.58}$$ Let us first focus on the dynamics of the macroscopic observables, and as in Section \[section4.1\], study the large $N$ behaviour of the averages of the mean-field operators constructed with the six basis elements of $\mathcal{X}$, $\omega_\mu(t):=\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\left(\Phi_t^{(N)}\left[\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}v_\mu^{[k]}\right]\right)$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots,6$, with $\Phi_t^{(N)}=\e^{t \mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$. Their evolution is given by the nonlinear equations in (\[4.13\]); since in the present case the structure constant $f$ are given by the $\epsilon$ symbol, see (\[2.38\]), and $\tilde{B}$ reduces to the antisymmetric part of the Kossakowski matrix in (\[4.58\]), one explicitly finds: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{s}_1=-b\, \mathfrak{s}_1\, \mathfrak{s}_3 -b\, \mathfrak{s}_3\, \mathfrak{t}_1\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{s}_2=-b\, \mathfrak{s}_2\, \mathfrak{s}_3 -b\, \mathfrak{s}_3\, \mathfrak{t}_2\ ,\\
\label{4.59}
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{s}_3=b\, (\mathfrak{s}_1)^2 + b\, (\mathfrak{s}_2)^2 +
b\, \mathfrak{s}_1\, \mathfrak{t}_1 +b\, \mathfrak{s}_2\, \mathfrak{t}_2\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{t}_1=-b\, \mathfrak{t}_1\, \mathfrak{t}_3 -b\, \mathfrak{t}_3\, \mathfrak{s}_1\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{t}_2=-b\, \mathfrak{t}_2\, \mathfrak{t}_3 -b\, \mathfrak{t}_3\, \mathfrak{s}_2\ ,\\
\nonumber
&&\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\mathfrak{t}_3=b\, (\mathfrak{t}_1)^2 + b\, (\mathfrak{t}_2)^2 +
b\, \mathfrak{t}_1\, \mathfrak{s}_1 +b\, \mathfrak{t}_2\, \mathfrak{s}_2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where, for sake of clarity, the components $\omega_\mu(t)$, $\mu=1,2,\ldots,6$, of the vector $\vec{\omega}(t)$ have been relabeled as $\vec{\omega}=(\mathfrak{s}_1,\mathfrak{s}_2,\mathfrak{s}_3, \mathfrak{t}_1,\mathfrak{t}_2,\mathfrak{t}_3)$.
Recalling that the chosen state $\omega$ for the system satisfies the properties (\[4.56\]), one immediately sees that the initial conditions for this nonlinear system of equations at $t=\,0$ are: $\vec{\omega}=(0,0,-\zeta,0,0,-\zeta)$. But this is a fixed point of the system (\[4.59\]), so that in this particular case, the macroscopic observables are time-independent, or equivalently, the microscopic state $\omega$ is left invariant by the evolution generated by (\[4.57\]).
Using these results, one can now study the limiting dynamics of the fluctuation operators constructed out of the single-site observables (\[4.56-1\]) and (\[4.56-2\]), or equivalently of the elements of their linear span $\mathcal{X}$. Since the macroscopic observables result time-independent, the generalized definition of fluctuations in (\[4.39\]) reduces to the original one in (\[2.14\]), without any time dependence in the averaged term. The fluctuation operators are then defined by: $$F^{(N)}(v_\mu)\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta N}}\sum_{k=1}^N \Big(v_\mu^{[k]}-\omega\left(v_\mu^{[k]}\right)\Big)\ ,
\qquad \mu=1,2,\ldots, 6\ ,
\label{4.60}$$ where, for later convenience, we have also included a rescaling factor $1/\sqrt\zeta$, while their corresponding Weyl-like operators are given by: $$W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\equiv \e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(v)}\ , \qquad
\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}^{(N)}(v)=\sum_{\mu=1}^6 r_\mu\, F^{(N)}(v_\mu)\ ,\quad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^6\ .
\label{4.61}$$ Since the chosen system state $\omega$ is translation invariant and manifestly satisfies the clustering condition (\[2.12\]), in the large $N$ limit the Weyl-like operators (\[4.61\]) define elements $W(\vec{r}\,)=\e^{i\vec{r}\cdot\vec{F}}$ of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\, \sigma^{(\omega)})$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\omega\Big( W^{(N)}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)=
\e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{r}\cdot\Sigma^{(\omega)}\cdot \vec{r}}=
\Omega\Big( W(\vec{r}\,)\Big)\ ,\qquad \vec{r}\in\mathbb{R}^6\ ,
\label{4.62}$$ where $\sigma^{(\omega)}$ is the symplectic matrix as defined in (\[2.20\]), explicitly giving $$\sigma^{(\omega)}=\pmatrix{1 & 0\cr
0 & 1\cr}
\otimes
\pmatrix{ 0 & 1 & 0\cr
-1 & 0 & 0\cr
0 & 0 & 0\cr}\ ,
\label{4.63}$$ while $\Omega$ is the Gaussian state on the algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\, \sigma^{(\omega)})$ with covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\omega)}$ as given in (\[2.21\]), $$\Sigma^{(\omega)}=\frac{1}{4\zeta}\, {\bf 1}_6\ .
\label{4.64}$$ The Bose fields $F_\mu$ appearing in the Weyl operators $W(\vec{r}\,)$ are the mesoscopic limit of the fluctuation operators: $\lim_{N\to\infty}F^{(N)}(v_\mu)=F_\mu$, for which: $[F_\mu,\, F_\nu]=i\sigma^{(\omega)}_{\mu\nu}$. As a result, $F_3$ and $F_6$ are classical variables, commuting with all remaining operators.
We shall then focus on the reduced Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\tilde\sigma^{(\omega)})$, with elements $W(\vec{r}\,)$ containing only the four operators $F_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,4,5$, and defined by the $4\times 4$ symplectic matrix $\tilde\sigma^{(\omega)}=i{\bf 1}_2\otimes\sigma_2$, obtained from (\[4.63\]) by deleting the third and sixth row/column. Similarly, the restriction $\widetilde\Omega$ of the state $\Omega$ on $\mathcal{W}(\tilde\sigma^{(\omega)})$ is the two-mode Gaussian state with covariance $\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}={\bf 1}_4/4\zeta$. In fact, $(F_1,\, F_2)$ and $(F_4,\, F_5)$ constitute independent bosonic modes, obeying standard commutation relation. In addition, because of the definitions (\[4.56-1\]) and (\[4.56-2\]), the first couple represents mesoscopic observables referring to the first chain, while the second couple represents observables of the second chain. It is then interesting to see whether these collective bosonic modes, pertaining to different chains, can get entangled by the action of the limiting, mesoscopic dynamics obtained from the generator (\[4.57\]).
As initial state we shall take the Gaussian state $\widetilde\Omega$, with covariance $\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}$ given above; being proportional to the unit matrix, the state does not support any correlation (classical or quantal) between the two mesoscopic modes. This state is not left invariant by the mesoscopic dynamics $\Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}= m-\lim_{N\to\infty}\e^{t\mathbb{L}^{(N)}}$, explicitly given in Theorem 4; indeed, one finds that $\widetilde\Omega_t\equiv\widetilde\Omega\circ \Phi_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ remains Gaussian, with a time-dependent covariance matrix given by: $$\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}_t=
X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot \widetilde\Sigma^{(\vec{\omega})}\cdot \Big[X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\Big]^T
+ Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}\ ,
\label{4.65}$$ with $X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ and $Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}$ as in (\[4.51-1\])-(\[4.51-3\]). Fortunately, in the present case the averages of macroscopic observables are time-independent, so that these two matrices can be easily computed; explicitly: $$X_t^{(\vec{\omega})}=\frac{1}{2} \pmatrix{ x^{(+)}_t & -x^{(-)}_t\cr
-x^{(-)}_t & x^{(+)}_t\cr} \otimes {\bf 1}_2\ ,
\qquad x^{(\pm)}_t=1\pm \e^{-2b\zeta t}\ ,
\label{4.66}$$ $$Y_t^{(\vec{\omega})}=y_t\, \pmatrix{ 1 & 1\cr
1 & 1\cr} \otimes
\pmatrix{a & 0\cr
0 & 1\cr}\ ,
\qquad y_t=\frac{1}{4b}\left( 1- \e^{-4b\zeta t}\right)
\ .
\label{4.67}$$ As discussed in Section \[section3.3.1\], the entanglement content of the evolved Gaussian state can be studied by looking at the logarithmic negativity $E(t)$, defined in (\[3.37\]) in terms of the smallest symplectic eigenvalue of the partially transposed covariance matrix (\[4.65\]). One can check that there are regions in the $(a, b, \zeta)$ parameter space for which $E(t)$ is indeed positive; further, one finds that the generated entanglement can persist for asymptotic long times.
In order to show this, using (\[4.65\])-(\[4.67\]), let us compute the asymptotic covariance matrix $\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}_\infty = \lim_{t\to\infty}\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}_t$; explicitly, one finds: $$\widetilde\Sigma^{(\omega)}_\infty=\frac{1}{8\zeta} \pmatrix{ \Sigma^{(+)} & \Sigma^{(-)}\cr
\Sigma^{(-)} & \Sigma^{(+)}\cr} \ ,
\label{4.68}$$ with $$\Sigma^{(\pm)}=\pmatrix{ 1 \pm \frac{2a\zeta}{b} & 0\cr
0 & 1 \pm \frac{2\zeta}{b}\cr}\ .
\label{4.69}$$ With the help of these two matrices, one can now compute the asymptotic logarithmic negativity $E_\infty$ (see [@Souza; @Isar]), obtaining: $$E_\infty=-\log_2\left(\frac{1+a-|a-1|}{4b\zeta}\right) \ .
\label{4.70}$$ For $a< 1$, and provided $a/2b\zeta<1$, $E_\infty$ is positive, thus signaling asymptotic entanglement between the two chains at the collective level of mesoscopic observables. Therefore, the microscopic dissipative generator in mean-field form (\[4.57\]) gives rise to a dynamical evolution at the level of mesoscopic observables able to create quantum correlations among collective operators pertaining to different chains, and in addition to sustain this generated entanglement for asymptotic long times.
Outlook {#section5}
=======
The study of quantum many-body systems, [*i.e.*]{} of systems with a very large number $N$ of microscopic constituents, requires analyzing collective observables, involving all system degrees of freedom. Not all such collective operators are useful for discussing the quantum behaviour of the model, since most of them lose any quantum character as the number of particles increases. Mean-field observables are typical examples of this behaviour, as they form an abelian, commutative algebra in the thermodynamic limit.
Only fluctuation-like operators, built out of deviations from mean values, do retain a quantum character even in the large $N$ limit: these are the observables to be used for studying the behaviour of many-body system at the mesoscopic level, in between the microscopic realm of their constituents and the macroscopic, semiclassical scale. Quantum fluctuations turn out to be bosonic operators, obeying canonical commutation relations. As the many-body system is in general immersed in a weakly-coupled external environment, their dynamics is non-unitary, encoding dissipative and noisy effects. It can be described by a one-parameter semigroup of completely positive maps generated by a master equation in Lindblad form, although for interactions scaling as $1/N$, the so-called mean-field couplings, the semigroup character of the time evolution can be recovered only through a suitable extension of the underlying fluctuation algebra.
The presence of an external environment and the consequent dissipative phenomena it generates usually lead to loss of quantum coherence. However, in certain circumstances, via a purely mixing mechanism, the environment can act as a coherent enhancing medium for a couple of independent many-body systems immersed in it. In these cases, mesoscopic entanglement between the two systems can be generated at the level of quantum fluctuations. This result has clearly importance in actual experiments, where [*ab initio*]{} preparation of many-body systems in an highly entangled state is in general difficult; instead, inserting them in a suitably engineered environment could more easily generate quantum correlations among them.
Finally, let us mention two additional developments of the theory of quantum fluctuation, not included in the previous discussion. In systems with long-range correlations, phase transitions could occur, so that the scaling of the order $1/\sqrt{N}$ might not be appropriate in order to get physically sensible mesoscopic observables. In such cases, one defines the so-called [*abnormal*]{} fluctuation operators $F^{(N)}_\delta$, scaling as $1/N^\delta$, with $0<\delta<1$ [@Verbeure-book]. For states carrying a non-trivial second and third moment for the observables $F^{(N)}_\delta$, one can show that the mesoscopic limit $\lim_{N\to\infty} F^{(N)}_\delta=F_\delta$ defines well-behaved bosonic observables, belonging to a non-abelian Lie algebra.
On the other hand, a different kind of canonical algebraic structure obeyed by quantum fluctuations has been discussed in Section \[section4\] while studying systems with mean-field like interactions, [*i.e.*]{} scaling as $1/N$. In general, for such systems, the macroscopic observables explicitly depend on time, leading to a modification of the definition of the fluctuation operators (see (\[4.39\])). At the mesoscopic level, this gives rise to limiting bosonic observables obeying commutation relations evolving in time, providing an interesting instance in which algebraic and dynamical features come out interconnected. Indeed, these mesoscopic, collective fluctuations posses richer dynamical properties, able to reveal weak, but far reaching correlations between the system microscopic constituents [@Carollo4]; these correlations can not be detected by any local measure on the many-body system, but still have non-negligible effects on the dynamics of collective, fluctuation observables.
The presented results are just a selection of possible applications of quantum fluctuations in modelling the collective quantum behaviour of open many-body system at the interface between the microscopic and the macroscopic world; we are confident that our presentation will stimulate further theoretical developments, as well as experimental applications.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[100]{}
R.P. Feynman, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} (Benjamin, Reading (MA), 1972)
F. Strocchi, [*Elements of Quantum mechanics of Infinite Systems*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore 1985)
W. Thirring, [*Quantum Mathematical Physics: Atoms, Molecules and Large Systems*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2002)
G.L. Sewell [*Quantum Theory of Collective Phenomena*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986)
B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin and E.S. Polzik, [*Nature*]{} [**413**]{} (2001) 400 F. Fillaux, A. Cousson and M.J. Gutmann, [*J. Phys. B*]{} [**18**]{} (2006) 3229 J.D. Jost [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**459**]{} (2009) 683 K. Hammerer, A.S. Sørensen, and E.S. Polzik, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{} (2010) 1041 H. Krauter [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} (2011) 080503 K.C. Lee [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**334**]{} (2011) 1253 H. Krauter [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Physics*]{} [**9**]{} (2013) 400 M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**10**]{} (2014) 271 C.-J. Yang, J.-H. An, W. Yang and Y. Li, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**92**]{} (2015) 062311 J. Li, I.M. Haghighi, N. Malossi, S. Zippilli and D. Vitali, [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{} (2015) 103037 P.V. Klimov [*et al.*]{}, [*Sci. Adv.*]{} (2015) 1501015 R. Schmied [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**352**]{} (2016) 441 P.-Y. Hou [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Comm.*]{} [**7**]{} (2016) 11736 T.P. Purdy, K.E. Grutter, K. Srinivasan and J.M. Taylor, Observation of optomechanical quantum correlations at room temperature, [arXiv:1605.05664]{}
A.J. Leggett, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{} (2001) 307 L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003)
C.J. Pethick and H. Smith, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)
M. Köhl and T. Esslinger, [*Europh. News*]{} [**37**]{} (2006) 18 , M. Inguscio, W. Ketterle and C. Salomon, Eds., (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006)
M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen and U. Sen, [*Adv. in Phys.*]{} [**56**]{} (2007) 243 S. Giorgini, L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{} (2008) 1215 I. Bloch, J. Dalibard and W. Zwerger, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{} (2008) 885 V.I. Yukalov, [*Laser Physics*]{} [**19**]{} (2009) 1 M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera and V. Ahufinger, [*Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)
S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, [*Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities and Photons*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)
A.J. Leggett, [*Quantum Liquids*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)
A.D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer and D.E. Pritchard, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{} (2009) 1051
C.G. Gerry and P.L. Knight, [*Introductory Quantum Optics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)
Z. Ficek and R. Tanas, Phys. Rep. [**372**]{} (2002) 369
R.R. Puri, [*Mathematical Methods of Quantum Optics*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2001)
W.H. Louisell, [*Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation*]{}, (Wiley, New York, 1973)
M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, [*Quantum Optics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)
D.F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, [*Quantum Optics*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1994)
W. Vogel and D.-G. Welsch, [*Quantum Optics*]{}, (Wiley, New York, 2006)
A.B. Klimov and S.M. Chumakov, [*A Group-Theoretical Approach to Quantum Optics*]{} (Wiley, Weinheim, 2009)
M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Rabl, M. Lukin and P. Zoller, [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**T137**]{} (2009) 014001 I. Favero and K. Karrai, [*Nature Phot.*]{} [**3**]{} (2009) 201 A.A. Clerk, M.H. Devoret, S.M. Girvin, F. Marquardt and R. J. Schoelkopf, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{} (2010) 1155 G.J. Milburn and M. J. Woolley, [*Acta Physica Slovaca*]{}, [**61**]{} (2011) 483 M.H. Devoret and R.J. Schoelkopf, [**Science**]{} [**339**]{} (2013) 1169 Y. Chen, [*J. Phys. B*]{} [**46**]{} (2013) 104001 P. Meystre, [Ann. der Physik]{} [**525**]{} (2013) 215 M. Aspelmeyer, T.J. Kippenberg and F. Marquardt [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**86**]{} (2014) 1391 B. Rogers, N. Lo Gullo, G. De Chiara, G. M. Palma and M. Paternostro, [*Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol.*]{} [**2**]{} (2014) 11 M. Metcalfe, [*Appl. Phys. Rev.*]{} [**1**]{} (2014) 031105 T. Farrow and V. Vedral, [*Opt. Comm.*]{} [**337**]{} (2015) 22 G. Kurizki [*et al.*]{}, [*PNAS*]{} [**112**]{} (2015) 3866 W. Bowen and G. Milburn, [*Quantum Optomechanics*]{}, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016)
D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*Prob. Th. Rel. Fields*]{} [**82**]{} (1989) 527 D. Goderis and P. Vets, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**122**]{} (1989) 249 D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**128**]{} (1990) 533 A. Verbeure, *Many-Body Boson Systems* (Springer, London, 2011)
R. Horodecki [*et al.*]{}, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{} (2009) 865 Y.Shi, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**37**]{} (2004) 6807 L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh and V. Vedral, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{} (2008) 517 V. Vedral, [*Nature*]{} [**453**]{} (2008) 1004 K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek and V. Vedral, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**84**]{} (2012) 1655
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)
F. Benatti, M. Fannes, R. Floreanini, D. Petritis (Eds.), [*Quantum Information, Computation and Cryptography*]{}, Lect. Notes Phys. [**808**]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2010)
R. Alicki and K. Lendi, [*Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications*]{}, 2nd Ed., Lect. Notes Phys. [**717**]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007)
R. Alicki and M. Fannes, [*Quantum Dynamical Systems*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001)
R. Alicki, [*Invitation to Quantum Dynamical Semigroups*]{} in Lecture Notes in Physics [**597**]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2002) p.239
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [*The Theory of Open Quantum Systems*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)
C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, [*Quantum Noise*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2004)
F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. B*]{} [**19**]{} (2005) 3063
F. Benatti, [*Dynamics, Information and Complexity in Quantum Systems*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2009)
A. Rivas and S. Huelga, [*Open Quantum Systems*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2012)
D. Chruściński, [*On time-local generators of quantum evolution*]{} in [*Open Sys. Inf. Dyn.*]{}, [**21**]{} (2014) 1440004
A. Kossakowski, [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (1972) 247
A. Kossakowski, [*Bull. Acad. Polon. Ser. Sci. Math. Astonom. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{} (1972) 1021
A. Kossakowski, [*Bull. Acad. Polon. Ser. Sci. Math. Astonom. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{} (1973) 649
V.Gorini and A. Kossakowski and E.C.G. Sudarshan, [*J.Math. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{} (1976) 821
G. Lindblad, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{} (1976) 119
E.B. Davies, [*Quantum Theory of Open Systems*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1976)
V. Gorini, A. Frigerio, M. Verri, A. Kossakowski and E.G.C. Sudarshan, [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{} (1978) 149
R. Dümcke, H. Spohn, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**B34**]{}, 419 (1979)
H. Spohn, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**52**]{} (1980), 569
M.B. Plenio, S.F. Huelga, A. Beige and P.L. Knight, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**59**]{} (1999) 2468;
M.B. Plenio and S.F. Huelga, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} (2002) 197901
D. Braun, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{} (2002) 277901
M.S. Kim et al., [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{} (2002) 040101(R)
S. Schneider and G.J. Milburn, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{} (2002) 042107
A.M. Basharov, [*J. Exp. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**94**]{} (2002) 1070
L. Jakobczyk, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**35**]{} (2002) 6383
B. Reznik, [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{} (2003) 167
F. Benatti, R.Floreanini and M. Piani, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{} (2003) 070402
F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**39**]{} (2006) 2689
F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} (2009) 20011
F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Marzolino, [*Phys Rev. A*]{} [**81**]{} (2010) 012105
D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**56**]{} (1989) 721 D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**62**]{} (1991) 759 D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**106**]{} (1991) 375 D. Goderis, A. Verbeure and P. Vets, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**136**]{} (1991) 265 M. Broidioi, B. Nachtergaele and A. Verbeure, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**32**]{} (1991) 2929 A. Verbeure, V.A. Zagrebnov, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992) 329 A. Verbeure and V. A. Zagrebnov, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{} (1993) 785 A. Verbeure, V.A. Zagrebnov, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{} (1994) 1137 M. Broidioi, B. Momont and A. Verbeure, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{} (1995) 6746 B. Momont, A Verbeure, [*Reports Math. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{} (1997) 97 B. Momont, A. Verbeure, V.A. Zagrebnov, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{} (1997) 633 T. Michoel , B. Momont , A. Verbeure, [*Reports Math. Phys.*]{} [**41**]{} (1998) 361 N. Angelescu, A. Verbeure and V.A. Zagrebnov, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**205**]{} (1999) 81 N. Angelescu, A. Verbeure and V.A. Zagrebnov, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**100**]{} (2000) 829 J. Lauwers and A. Verbeure, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [*108*]{} (2002) 123 T. Matsui, [*Rev. Math. Phys.*]{} [**14**]{} (2002) 675 T. Matsui, [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{} [**4**]{} (2003) 63 J. Lauwers and A. Verbeure, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**37**]{} (2004) 3577 V. Jaksić, Y. Pautrat and C.-A. Pillet , [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**285**]{} (2009) 175 H. Narnhofer and W. Thirring, [*Phys Rev. A*]{} [**66**]{} (2002) 052304 H. Narnhofer, [*Found. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**17**]{} (2004) 235 H. Narnhofer, [*Sitzungsber. Abt. II*]{} [**214**]{} (2005) 161 H. Narnhofer, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**71**]{} (2005) 052326 H. Nakazato and S. Pascazio, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**48**]{} (1993) 1066
F. Benatti, F. Carollo and R. Floreanini, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**326**]{} (2014) 187
F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini, [*Ann. der Physik*]{} [**527**]{} (2015) 639
F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**57**]{} (2016) 062208
F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini and H. Narnhofer, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 380**]{} (2016) 381
F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini and H. Narnhofer, Quantum spin chain dissipative mean-field dynamics, preprint, 2016
F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini and J. Surace, Long-lived mesoscopic entanglement between two damped infinite harmonic chains, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{}, to appear
F. Carollo [*Quantum fluctuations and entanglement in mesoscopic systems*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of Trieste, 2016
J. Surace, [*Entangling two harmonic chains through a common bath*]{}, Master Thesis, University of Trieste, 2015
J. Binney, N. Dowrick, A. Fisher and M. Newman, [*The theory of critical phenomena*]{}, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1992)
A. Alexandrov, [*Theory of Superconductivity*]{}, (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2003)
P. W. Anderson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**112**]{} (1958) 1900
Y. Wada, F. Takano and N. Fukuda, [*Progr. Theoret. Phys.*]{} [**19**]{} (1958) 597
W. Thirring and A. Wehrl, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**4**]{} (1967) 303
K. Hepp and E.H. Lieb, [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**46**]{} (1973) 573
G. Alli and G.L. Sewell, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{} (1995) 5598
F. Bagarello and G.L. Sewell, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**39**]{} (1998) 2730
A. Rivas, S. Huelga and M. Plenio, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**77**]{} (2014) 094001
H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo and B. Vacchini, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**88**]{} (2016) 021002
D. Chruściński and A. Kossakowski, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{} (2010) 070406
I. de Vega and D. Alonso [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{} (2017) 015001
O. Bratteli, D.W. Robinson [*Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics*]{}, (Springer, Heidelberg, 1987)
G.G. Emch, [*Algebraic Methods in Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory* ]{} (Wiley, New York, 1972)
R. Haag, [*Local Quantum Physics*]{}, (Springer, Heidelberg, 1992)
F. Strocchi, [*An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum Mechanics*]{}, 2nd Ed., (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008)
F. Strocchi, [*Symmetry Breaking*]{}, 2nd Ed., (Springer, Heidelberg, 2008)
F. Strocchi, [*Eur. Phys. J. Plus*]{} [**127**]{} (2012) 12
F. Strocchi, [*Gauge Invariance and Weyl-polymer Quantization*]{}, Lect. Notes Phys. [**904**]{}, (Springer, Heidelberg, 2016)
R. Streater and A. Wightman, [*PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That*]{}, (Benjamin, New York, 1964)
F. Strocchi, [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{} (2004) 501
D. Petz D, [*An invitation to the algebra of canonical commutation relations*]{}, Leuven Notes in Math. and Theor. Phys. Vol. 2 (1990)
G.L. Sewell, [*Quantum Mechanics and Its Emergent Macrophysics*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002)
H. Spohn, [*Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Particles*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 1991)
G. Adesso, [*Enganglement of Gaussian states*]{}, PhD-Thesis, Università degli studi di Salerno, 2006
G. Adesso, [*Open Sys. Inf. Dyn.*]{} [**21**]{} (2014) 1440001 A. Ferraro, S. Olivares and M.G.A. Paris, [*Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information*]{} (Bibliopolis, Napoli, 2005)
A. Holevo, [*Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)
P. Marian and T.A. Marian, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**47**]{} (1993) 4474
P. Vanheuverzwijn, [*Ann. Inst. H. Poncaré*]{} [**A29**]{} (1978) 123
B Demoen, P. Vanhewerzwijn and A. Verbeure [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (1979) 27
R. Simon, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{} (2000) 2726
L.A.M. Souza, R.C. Drumond, M.C. Nemes and K.M. Fonseca Romero, [*Opt. Comm.*]{} [**285**]{} (2012) 4453
A. Isar, [*Romanian Rep. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} (2013) 711
T. Yu and J.H. Eberly, [*Science*]{} [**323**]{} (2009) 598
C.D. Cushen and R.L. Hudson, [*J. Appl. Probab.*]{} [**8**]{} (1971) 454 J. Quagebeur, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**57**]{} (1984) 1
W. Feller, *An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications*, (Wiley, New York, 1968)
B. Kraus, H.P. Büchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli and P. Zoller, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**78**]{} (2008) 042307
F. Ticozzi and L. Viola, [*IEEE Trans. Autom. Control*]{} [**53**]{} (2008) 2048
S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H.P. Büchler and P. Zoller, [*Nat. Phys.*]{} [**4**]{} (2008) 878
F. Verstraete, M.M. Wolf and J.I. Cirac, [*Nat. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (2009) 633
C.A. Muschik, H. Krauter, K. Jensen, J.M. Petersen, J.I Cirac and E.S. Polzik, [*J. Phys. B*]{} [**45**]{} (2012) 124021
L. Bing Ren, [*Intoduction to Operator Algebras*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)
R. Kapral, G. Ciccotti, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**110**]{} (1999) 8919
R. Grunwald, R. Kapral, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**110**]{} (2007) 114109
L. Diósi, [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**T163**]{} (2014) 014004
L. Fratino, A. Lampo and H.-T. Elze, [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**T163**]{} (2014) 014005
R. Kapral, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**27**]{} (2015) 073201
[^1]: When $\sigma^{(\omega)}$ is not invertible, one can restrict the discussion to a suitable, physically relevant subspace of $\mathcal{X}$ for which the restricted $\sigma^{(\omega)}$ becomes non-degenerate ([*e.g.*]{} see Sect.\[section2.5.1\] below).
[^2]: A state $\Omega$ on the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}$ is called regular if for any real constant $\alpha$ the map $\alpha \to \Omega\big( W(\alpha\,\vec{r_1}+\vec{r_2})\big)$ is continuous, for all $\vec{r_1},\ \vec{r_1}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ [@Bratteli]. Also [*irregular*]{} states of Weyl algebras have interesting physical applications; for a recent account, see [@Strocchi4].
[^3]: In more precise mathematical terms, the r.h.s of (\[2.36\]) corresponds to the matrix elements of the operator $\pi_\Omega(O)$ with respect to the two vectors $\pi_\Omega(W(\vec{r}_1) )|\Omega\rangle$, $\pi_\Omega(W(\vec{r}_2)) |\Omega\rangle$ in the GNS-representation of the Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{X},\sigma^{(\omega)})$ based on the state $\Omega$ [@Bratteli]. Since these vectors are dense in the corresponding Hilbert space, those matrix elements completely define the operators $O$.
[^4]: Complete positivity is a stronger condition than just requiring the positivity of the time-evolution; it needs to be enforced in order to obtain physically meaningful dynamics in all physical situations. For a complete discussion see [@Benatti-rev].
[^5]: The dissipative generator in (\[3.4\]) is very general and can be obtained through standard weak-coupling techniques [@Alicki1] starting from a microscopic system-environment interaction Hamiltonian of the form $\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^m v_\alpha^{[k]} \otimes b_\alpha^{[k]}$, where $b_\alpha^{[k]}$ are suitable hermitian bath operators.
[^6]: The role of long-range interactions will be discussed in the following Section \[section4\].
[^7]: More general and involved situations can surely be considered [@Carollo2; @Carollo3]; the simplified model discussed here results nevertheless quite adequate for showing a general physical phenomenon, namely bath-mediated, mesoscopic entanglement generation.
[^8]: As in the case of the spin chains discussed earlier, the dissipative generator in (\[3.45\]) can be obtained through standard weak-coupling techniques [@Alicki1] starting from a microscopic system-environment interaction Hamiltonian of the form $\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{4} v_\alpha^{[k]} \otimes b_\alpha^{[k]}$, where $b_\alpha^{[k]}$ are suitable hermitian bath operators.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum states of light having a Wigner function with negative values represent a key resource in quantum communication and quantum information processing. Here, we present the generation of such a state at the telecommunication wavelength of 1550nm. The state is generated by means of photon subtraction from a weakly squeezed vacuum state and is heralded by the ‘click’ of a single photon counter. Balanced homodyne detection is applied to reconstruct the Wigner function, also yielding the state’s photon number distribution. The heralding photons are frequency up-converted to 532nm to allow for the use of a room-temperature (silicon) avalanche photo diode. The Wigner function reads $W(0,0)=-0.063\pm0.004$ at the origin of phase space, which certifies negativity with more than 15 standard deviations.'
author:
- Christoph Baune
- Jaromír Fiurášek
- Roman Schnabel
title: Negative Wigner function at telecommunication wavelength from homodyne detection
---
*Introduction* – A quantum state having a negative Wigner function is distinct from the class of semi-classical or ‘classical’ states. The Gottesman-Knill theorem states that a wide class of systems can be efficiently simulated with classical methods [@Gottesman1999; @Bartlett2002]. This is not true for systems showing negative Wigner functions. While quantum computers can solve certain problems much faster than ordinary computers, a quantum computer outperforms its classical counterpart only when states with a negative Wigner function are used [@Mari2012].
The Wigner function [@Wigner1932] provides the full information about a quantum state. It is a quasi-probability function of the phase space spanned by the quadrature amplitudes $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$. These observables obey the commutation relation $[\hat{X},\hat{Y}] = i\,$ and cannot be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. Measurements on an ensemble, however, allow for a ‘tomographic’ approach in which marginal distributions are measured, from which the Wigner function can be reconstructed [@Vogel1989; @Lvovsky2009]. The marginal distributions are measured with a balanced homodyne detector (BHD).
Quantum states with (partly) negative Wigner functions can efficiently be generated from squeezed vacuum states by conditioning on successful photon subtraction, or from two-mode vacuum states by conditioning on the successful detection of a photon in the idler mode. Squeezed vacuum states of perfect purity show either zero or an even number of photons. For *weakly* squeezed, pure vacuum states the probability of measuring more than two photons can be neglected, and successful photon subtraction heralds in very good approximation a single photon Fock state [@Dakna1997; @Lvovsky2001; @Molmer2006], which shows the strongest negativity of all quantum states in the Wigner representation of $-1/\pi$.
Previous works demonstrated negative Wigner functions with balanced homodyne detection in both pulsed and continuous-wave optical setups at wavelengths around 800 nm and 1064 nm [@Lvovsky2001; @Zavatta04; @Ourjoumtsev06; @Neergaard-Nielsen06; @Neergaard-Nielsen2007a; @Wakui07; @Gerrits10; @Huang15]. A negative Wigner function at the prominent telecommunication wavelength of $1550$nm, however, could not be observed (with homodyne detection) so far. Photon subtraction at telecom wavelength was implemented with the use of superconducting transition-edge sensor [@Namekata10], but negative values of the Wigner function were not achieved due to low modal purity. A negative Wigner function of conditionally generated single photon states at telecom wavelength was inferred by measurements with single photon detectors [@Harder16].
Here we reconstruct for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, a negative Wigner function of a quantum state at the wavelength of 1550nm from balanced homodyne detector data. Our approach follows that of earlier works at other wavelengths, i.e. successful photon subtraction heralds the generation of the state. As a specific feature of this work, the detection of the heralding photon is assisted by on-the-fly frequency up-conversion to 532nm to allow for the exploitation of low noise, high quantum efficiency silicon avalanche photo detectors operated at room temperature.
![(Color online) Experimental setup for quantum state tomography on photon-subtracted states at the telecommunication wavelength of 1550nm [@Lvovsky2009]. First, squeezed vacuum states of 1550nm light are produced via cavity-enhanced parametric down-conversion (PDC). This process requires a pump field at 775nm. For pump intensities far below the oscillation threshold (about 1% of about 80mW) weakly squeezed vacuum states are produced. A small part of the squeezed state (0.5%) is tapped off at a beam splitter (BS) and is filtered and frequency up-converted to 532nm in a sum-frequency generation (SFG) cavity, pumped with about 140mW at 810nm. The up-converted mode at 532nm passes a second filter cavity (FC2) and is detected by a silicon avalanche photo detector (APD). A detection event of the APD projects the remaining state at 1550nm into a photon-subtracted state that, for weak squeeze factors, has a high overlap with a single photon Fock state. The photon-subtracted state is phase-randomized and analyzed via optical quantum state tomography using a balanced homodyne detector (BHD) [@Lvovsky2001]. DBS: dichroic beam splitter; $\blacksquare\!\!\blacksquare\!\!\blacksquare$: piezo-electrical positioner for keeping cavities on resonance.[]{data-label="fig:Setup"}](Fig1_FockSetup.pdf){width="46.00000%"}
*Experiment* – The experimental setup for quantum state tomography on photon-subtracted states is shown in Fig.\[fig:Setup\]. The ensemble of identical squeezed vacuum states of light at 1550nm is generated by cavity-enhanced parametric down-conversion (PDC) in periodically poled KTiOPO$_4$ (PPKTP) [@Mehmet2011]. A small fraction of the squeezed states (0.5%) is tapped by a beam splitter, filtered and finally detected by an avalanche photo diode (APD). The remaining part of the squeezed states is analyzed via balanced homodyne detection (BHD). Every click of the APD triggers an oscilloscope (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Agilent</span> *DSO 7014B*), which records the BHD signal for a short time period that contains the information about the single-photon subtracted state. The oscilloscope has a sampling rate of 2GSa/s and is controlled with a python program via the VISA protocol. The recorded raw data of every segment are directly transferred to a PC for precise extraction of the state’s information.
The filtering via FC1 and FC2 is required to match the temporal and spectral mode that are detected by APD and BHD [@Kumar2012]. The PDC cavity has a linewidth of 120MHz (FWHM) and a free spectral range (FSR) of 3.6GHz. The BHD is able to record the complete spectrum of a single longitudinal cavity mode since it has a flat response and a dark noise clearance of more than 15dB up to 200MHz with a local oscillator power of 15mW, disturbed just by a few electronic pick-up peaks in the dark noise of unknown origin above 100MHz. The PDC cavity, however, also produces photon pairs in longitudinal modes separated by multiples of twice the cavity’s free spectral range of several gigahertz. These spectral components must not arrive at the trigger APD since the BHD is not able to measure them.
The filtering of the trigger mode is performed by two subsequent transmissions through cavities having free spectral ranges that differ from each other and also from that of the PDC cavity to achieve efficient filtering. The first cavity has an FSR of about 2.35GHz. It is not an empty cavity but contains an optically pump nonlinear medium and up-converts the trigger mode from 1550nm to 532nm using sum-frequency generation (SFG). The up-conversion efficiency is up to $(90.2 \pm 1.5)\,\%$ [@Baune2014]. The ‘SFG cavity’ is doubly resonant for the intense pump wavelength at 810nm and the initial trigger mode wavelength at 1550nm. Ideally, double resonance is achieved simultaneously with optimum quasi-phase matching of the nonlinear medium (PPKTP) for all three wavelengths involved. In practice, the quasi-phase matching is not optimal when reaching double resonance, which reduces the nonlinearity. This, however, can be compensated for by increasing the pump field intensity; and even has an advantage. Due to the small phase mismatch, the free spectral ranges of the cavity at the two wavelengths differ and neighboring free spectral ranges are not simultaneously resonant. This effect improves the filtering strength for photons from higher order longitudinal modes of the squeezing resonator.
The frequency up-conversion of the trigger field from 1550 to 532nm is mainly done to enable the use of commercially available, room temperature high-quantum efficiency low-noise and easy-to-use silicon APDs, which are not responsive for infrared wavelengths. APDs for 1550nm based on InGaAs chips or superconducting sensors require cooling, in the latter case even down to cryogenic temperatures, to achieve comparable detection efficiencies and noise performance [@Hadfield2009]. Details on the up-conversion setup can also be found in [@Baune2014; @Fiurasek2015; @Baune2016]. The second filter stage was implemented with a short linear filter cavity (FC2). This cavity consists of two half-inch mirrors with a nominal reflectivity of 99% and a spacing of 3.2mm yielding a linewidth (FWHM) of 150MHz and a free spectral range of 47GHz.
The lengths of the filter cavities are adjustable via piezo-electric elements to which one of the cavity mirrors was attached. The length of FC1 was electro-optically controlled using light at 810nm, and its length stabilized on resonance. FC2 was intrinsically stable and was manually set on resonance.
*Data taking and analysis* – In a first step, $10^4$ triggered segments are recorded with a blocked signal port of the BHD to obtain a reference in terms of vacuum states. Each recorded segment consists of $10^3$ data points representing 250ns of data before and after each trigger event. In a second step, the signal port is opened and $K=5\cdot10^4$ triggered segments are recorded.
Initially it is not known which points of the segments (at time $\tau$) contain the information about the photon-subtracted state, and to what extend. These informations are represented by the (temporal) mode function $f_m(\tau)$. To determine $f_m(\tau)$ experimentally, one makes use of the fact, that the variance of an arbitrary quadrature amplitude of a Fock state $|n\rangle$ is higher than that of the vacuum state $|0\rangle$ (by the factor $(2n+1)$). When comparing the segments with each other, points that contain information about the photon-subtracted state thus show an increased variance $V(\tau)$ with $$V(\tau)=\kappa^2 |f_m(\tau)|^2+V_{\mathrm{0}} \, .
\label{eq:1}$$ Assuming $f_m(\tau)$ is real and positive, we get $f_m(\tau)=\sqrt{V(\tau)-V_{\mathrm{0}}}/\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is a normalization factor and $V_0$ is an asymptotic value of $V(\tau)$ for large distances from the mode function’s peak [@Morin2013].
Fig.\[fig:Segment\] (top) shows a recorded example segment, including the mode function of our setup as derived from all segments. The peak of $f_m(\tau)$ is not positioned exactly at the trigger time (i.e. $\tau=0$) but slightly earlier due to optical delays and different electronic response times of the APD and the BHD, cf. the discussion in references [@Baune2014; @Fiurasek2015].
![*Top:* Single segment of the BHD data as recorded by the oscilloscope together with the mode function $f_m(\tau)$ (smooth curve) as derived from the variance of all segments for individual times around the APD trigger events, see Eq.(\[eq:1\]). *Bottom:* Single segment multiplied with $f_m(\tau)$. Its integral provides a single quadrature amplitude value $X$ of the phase-randomized photon-subtracted state. []{data-label="fig:Segment"}](Fig2a_Segment.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![*Top:* Single segment of the BHD data as recorded by the oscilloscope together with the mode function $f_m(\tau)$ (smooth curve) as derived from the variance of all segments for individual times around the APD trigger events, see Eq.(\[eq:1\]). *Bottom:* Single segment multiplied with $f_m(\tau)$. Its integral provides a single quadrature amplitude value $X$ of the phase-randomized photon-subtracted state. []{data-label="fig:Segment"}](Fig2b_mSegment.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
In the next step of the data analysis the quadrature amplitudes of the photon-subtracted states are obtained. Every segment results in one quadrature value. The segments are post-processed by multiplying the mode function $f_{\mathrm{m}}(\tau)$ to the raw data. Fig.\[fig:Segment\] (bottom) shows an example for one segment. The quadrature value is obtained by integrating the filtered segment data. The vacuum reference data serve for calibration of the vacuum noise level, and the measured quadrature amplitudes are normalized such that their variance yields $\Delta^2 \hat X_{\mathrm{vac}} = 1/2$.
*Results* – The measured quadrature values for the vacuum state and the photon-subtracted squeezed state are shown in histograms in Fig.\[fig:QuadHistogram\], scaled to obtain normalized probability distributions. The solid lines represent the theoretical Gaussian quadrature distribution of a vacuum state $\pi^{-1/2} e^{-X^2}$ and the fitted model for a mixture of Fock states $|n\rangle$ with $n$ from zero to five.
Since the phase between the BHD local oscillator and the signal input was not stabilized but freely drifting, the homodyne detection samples the phase averaged quadrature distribution $P(X_{\overline \vartheta})= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}P(X_\vartheta) d\vartheta,$ [@Munroe95], where $\hat X_\vartheta = \hat X \rm{cos}\vartheta + \hat Y \rm{sin}\vartheta$ denotes the rotated quadrature and $\vartheta$ is the random phase. This is equivalent to measuring a quadrature distribution of a phase-randomized state, whose density matrix is diagonal in Fock basis, $\tilde{\rho}=\sum_{n} p_n|n\rangle\langle n|$. The quadrature distributions $P(X) = P(Y) = P(X_{\vartheta})$ of such a state depend only on the photon number distribution $p_n$, $$P(X) =\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n Q_{n}(X),
\label{Pqformula}$$ where $$Q_n(X)= \frac{1}{\pi^{1/2}2^n n!} H_n^2(X) e^{-X^2}$$ denotes the quadrature distribution of Fock state $|n\rangle$. For practical calculations, a cut-off $N$ in the Fock state expansion needs to be introduced in Eq. (\[Pqformula\]). A fit to the data with $N=5$ yields the probabilities $p_0=0.39$, $p_1=0.57$, $p_2=0$, $p_3=0.03$, $p_4=0$, $p_5=0.01$.
![Normalized marginal probability distributions of measured quadrature amplitude values. Solid lines represent theoretical models. The singly peaked curve corresponds to the vacuum state, i.e. a Gaussian distribution with variance $\Delta^2 \hat X_{\mathrm{vac}} = 1/2$. The doubly peaked curve corresponds to the single-photon subtracted state. The dip of the probability around the origin is clearly visible and characteristic for a single photon state. The solid curve is a model for a state with $p_0=0.39$, $p_1=0.57$, $p_2=0$, $p_3=0.03$, $p_4=0$, $p_5=0.01$ where $p_n$ is the probability of Fock state $|n\rangle$.[]{data-label="fig:QuadHistogram"}](Fig3_FockProj.pdf){width="8.9cm"}
Additionally, we applied a maximum likelihood estimation algorithm to reconstruct the photon number distribution $p_n$. The likelihood function can be expressed as $\mathcal{L}=\prod_{k=1}^K P(X_{k})$, where $K$ denotes the total number of detected quadrature values ($5\cdot 10^4$). The probability $p_n$ that maximizes $\mathcal{L}$ can be found by iterative expectation-maximization algorithm [@Dempster77; @Vardi93; @Rehacek01], whose single iteration reads $$p_m^{(j+1)}=\frac{p_m^{(j)}}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \frac{Q_m(X_{k})}{\sum_{n=0}^{N} p_n^{(j)} Q_n(X_{k})},$$ and a uniform distribution $p_{n}=1/(N+1)$ is chosen as the starting point of the iterations. As a result the following estimates of photon number probabilities are obtained: $p_0=0.392,$ $p_1=0.572,$ $p_2=0.003$, $p_3=0.028,$ $p_4=0.004,$ $p_5=0.001$. These very well agree with the values already obtained from a fit of the quadrature distribution, cf. Fig. \[fig:QuadHistogram\]. The relatively high vacuum contribution $p_0=0.392$ is caused by false trigger events, which originate from dark counts of the APD (10%) and imperfect filtering of higher-order longitudinal mode photon pairs from the PDC resonator and photons at 810nm (25%), and optical losses in the path to the BHD. The single-photon subtracted state is detected with an overall efficiency of about 90%, which includes propagation losses, limited detection efficiency of the homodyne detector and the beam splitter to tap off a small part for the trigger path. This efficiency is inferred with an auxiliary squeezing/anti-squeezing measurement when the PDC cavity is operated with much higher parametric gain, in analogy to the procedure used in [@Vahlbruch2016]. The imperfections mentioned above explain the overall probability of about 40% for detecting the vacuum state ($p_0 = 0.392$). In principle, the vacuum contribution can be considerably reduced (and thus that of a single photon considerably increased) by adding another filter cavity in front of the APD and by improving the detection efficiency of the BHD. The highest probabilities of single photons in a state analysed by balanced homodyne detection so far ($p_1 \approx 0.79$) were achieved in [@Morin2013; @Ogawa2016] at the wavelengths of 1064nm and 860nm, respectively.
The Wigner function of the density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$ can be expressed as $$W(X,Y)= \frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n p_n L_n(2X^2+2Y^2)e^{-X^2-Y^2},$$ where $L_n(x)$ denote the Laguerre polynomials. The Wigner function is plotted in Fig. \[fig:Fock\]. It clearly shows negative values around the origin, with a maximum negativity of $W(0,0)=-0.063\pm0.004$. The statistical predicate on the negativity of the Wigner function was obtained via a bootstrap algorithm that was applied to the data and the reconstruction algorithm is repeated with the new data set. The Wigner function is witnessed to be negative with more than 15 standard deviations.
![Reconstructed Wigner function of the single-photon subtracted, phase-randomized weakly squeezed vacuum state. The data is not corrected for any kind of optical loss. Around the origin, the Wigner function has negative values down to -0.063$\pm$0.004. This value achieves about 20% of the strongest negativity possible of $-1/\pi \approx -0.318$, which corresponds to a perfect measurement on a pure single photon Fock state.[]{data-label="fig:Fock"}](Fig4_FockTomo.pdf){width="8.8cm"}
*Summary* – Quantum state tomography of a phase-randomized nonclassical state at the telecommunication wavelength of 1550nm is performed using balanced homodyne detection. Without correction for any optical loss, the measurements yield a negative Wigner function with a value of $W(0,0)=-0.063\pm0.004$. The largest contribution to the state is a single-photon Fock state (57%), whereas 39% is contributed by the vacuum state. The state is generated by subtracting a single photon from a weakly squeezed vacuum state at a low transmission beam splitter. The tapped mode is detected with an avalanche photo detector with preceding frequency up-conversion to 532nm to allow for the use of room-temperature silicon detectors. This work shows the detection of negative Wigner functions at the prominent wavelength of 1550nm by means of balanced homodyne detection and detection of heralding photons without devices cooled below room temperature.\
The authors thank Sacha Kocsis, Mikhail Korobko and Axel Schönbeck for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (SCHN 757/4-1, The Centre for Quantum Engineering and Space-Time Research, QUEST); J.F. acknowledges financial support by the Czech Science Foundation (GB14-36681G).
[99]{}
D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” Proc. XXII Int. Colloq. Gr. Theor. Methods Phys. **1**, 32 (1999).
S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, “Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 097904 (2002).
A. Mari and J. Eisert, “Positive Wigner functions render classical simulation of quantum computation effort,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 230503 (2012).
E. P. Wigner, “On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium", Phys. Rev. **40**, 749?759 (1932).
K. Vogel, and H. Risken, “Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase, Phys. Rev. A **40**, 2847–2849 (1989)
A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, “Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography”, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 299 (2009)
M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrný, L. Knöll, and D.-G. Welsch, “Generating Schrödinger-cat-like states by means of conditional measurements on a beam splitter,” Phys. Rev. A **55**, 3184 (1997).
K. M[ø]{}lmer, “Non-Gaussian states from continuous-wave Gaussian light sources,” Phys. Rev. A **73**, 063804 (2006).
A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, “Quantum state reconstruction of the single-photon Fock state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 50402 (2001).
A Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, “Quantum-to-classical transition with single-photon-added coherent states of light,” Science **306**, 660 (2004).
A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, “Generating optical Schrödinger kittens for quantum information processing,” Science **312**, 83 (2006).
J.S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. Melholt Nielsen, C. Hettich, K. M[ø]{}lmer, and E.S. Polzik “Generation of a superposition of odd photon number states for quantum information networks,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 083604 (2006).
K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, “Photon subtracted squeezed states generated with periodically poled KTiOPO$_4$,” Opt. Express **15**, 3568 (2007).
J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, H. Takahashi, A. I. Vistnes, and E. S. Polzik, “High purity single photon source,” Opt. Express **15**, 7940 (2007).
T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T.S. Clement, B. Calkins, A.E. Lita, A.J. Miller, A.L. Migdall, S.W. Nam, R.P. Mirin, and E. Knill, “Generation of optical coherent-state superpositions by number-resolved photon subtraction from the squeezed vacuum,” Phys. Rev. A **82**, 031802(R) (2010).
K. Huang, H. Le Jeannic, J. Ruaudel, V.B. Verma, M.D. Shaw, F. Marsili, S.W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, Y.-C. Jeong, R. Filip, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, “Optical synthesis of large-amplitude squeezed coherent-state superpositions with minimal resources,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 023602 (2015).
N. Namekata1, Y. Takahashi, G. Fujii, D. Fukuda, S. Kurimura and S. Inoue, “Non-Gaussian operation based on photon subtraction using a photon-number-resolving detector at a telecommunications wavelength,” Nat. Photonics **4**, 655 (2010).
G. Harder, Ch. Silberhorn, J. Řeháček, Z. Hradil, L. Moťka, B. Stoklasa, and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, “Local sampling of the Wigner function at telecom wavelength with loss-tolerant detection of photon statistics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 133601 (2016).
M. Mehmet, S.Ast, T.Eberle, S.Steinlechner, H.Vahlbruch, and R.Schnabel, “Squeezed light at 1550 nm with a quantum noise reduction of 12.3 dB,” Opt. Express **19**, 25763 (2011).
C. Baune, J. Gniesmer, A. Schönbeck, C. E. Vollmer, J. Fiurášek, and R. Schnabel, “Strongly squeezed states at 532 nm based of frequency up-conversion,” Opt. Express **23**, 16035 (2015).
C. Baune, J. Gniesmer, S. Kocsis, C. E. Vollmer, P. Zell, J. Fiurášek, and R. Schnabel, “Unconditional entanglement interface for quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. A **93**, 10302 (2016).
J. Fiurášek, C. Baune, A. Schönbeck, and R. Schnabel, “Analysis of counting measurements on narrowband frequency up-converted single photons and the influence of heralding detector dead time,” Phys. Rev. A **91**, 13829 (2015).
C. Baune, A. Schönbeck, A. Samblowski, J. Fiurášek, and R. Schnabel, “Quantum non-Gaussianity of frequency up-converted single photons,” Opt. Express **22**, 22808 (2014).
R. H. Hadfield, “Single-photon detectors for optical quantum information applications,” Nat. Photonics **3**, 696 (2009).
R. Kumar, E. Barrios, A. MacRae, E. Cairns, E. H. Huntington, and A. I. Lvovsky, “Versatile wideband balanced detector for quantum optical homodyne tomography,” Opt. Commun. **285**, 5259 (2012).
M. Munroe, D. Boggavarapu, M. E. Anderson, and M. G. Raymer, “Photon-number statistics from the phase-averaged quadrature-field distribution: Theory and ultrafast measurement,” Phys. Rev. A **52**, R924(R) (1995).
A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, “Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm,” J. R. Statist. Soc. B **39**, 1 (1977).
Y. Vardi and D. Lee, “From image deblurring to optimal investments: Maximum likelihood solutions for positive linear inverse problems,” J. R. Statist. Soc. B **55**, 569 (1993).
J. Řeháček, Z. Hradil, and M. Ježek, “Iterative algorithm for reconstruction of entangled states,” Phys. Rev. A **63**, 040303(R) (2001).
H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Detection of 15dB squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **117**, 110801 (2016).
O. Morin, C: Fabre, and J. Laurat, “Experimentally Accessing the Optimal Temporal Mode of Traveling Quantum Light States”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 213602 (2013).
H. Ogawa, H. Ohdan, K. Miyata, M. Taguchi, K. Makino, H. Yonezawa, J. Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, “Real-Time Quadrature Measurement of a Single-Photon Wave Packet with Continuous Temporal-Mode Matching”, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 233602 (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: ' Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, 18 Hammond Street, Cambridge, MA USA'
author:
- 'K.M. Black'
title: 'Randall-Sundrum Gravitons and Black Holes at the LHC'
---
Theoretical Motivation
======================
In the last decade, a number of new approaches to solving the hierarchy problem have been developed. One of the most novel approaches involves the addition of extra spatial dimensions. The perceived of weakness gravity is postulated to arise from the fact that the gravity is allowed to propagate into the extra dimensions while the rest of the Standard Model particles are confined to the standard three spatial dimensions.
Randall and Sundrum [@RS1; @RS2] were amongst the first to develop such models. In the original model there are two 3-dimensional branes embedded in a universe with one extra spatial dimension. The two branes are separated by a distance in the extra dimension which gravity, but not the rest of the Standard Model particles, can propagate in.
The model has a space time metric given by: $$ds^{2} = e^{-2k|z|} [dt^{2} - d{x}^{2}] - dz^{2}
\label{RS-metric}$$
where x labels the familiar 3-dimensional space, z labels the extra spatial dimension, and $k=L^{-1}$ is the inverse of the radius of curvature of the extra dimension. Since gravity propagates in the bulk, the effective strength of gravity on our brane appears weaker. Using equation \[RS-metric\] the hierarchy relation can be written in the form [@RS1; @RS2] $$M^{2}_{Pl} = \frac{M^{3}_{5}}{k}(1 - e^{-2 \pi k r})
\label{mass-eff}$$
where $M_{Pl}$ is the effective Planck mass on the 3-dimensional brane, $M_{5}$ is the Planck mass in the bulk, and $k$ is the curvature of the extra dimension. This insight shows how one can remove the hierarchy problem in a rather simple way by modifying the geometry of space-time. Current experimental limits extracted from direct searches place constraints that vary on the coupling and range from several hundred GeV to approximately 1 TeV at the 95% confidence level.
Collider Phenomenology
======================
Since the graviton would couple to the energy-momentum tensor, in principle its presence should be observable through any Standard Model process. However, the most promising discovery mode at hadron colliders involves the direct production of gravitons and observation of their decay products. For example, a graviton could be produced and decay into an electron-positron pair and observed as a new heavy resonance in the dielectron mass distribution.
Banks and Fischler pointed out [@Willy] the possibility of black hole production in high energy scattering in models where gravity becomes strong at the TeV scale. Following this work, Dimopoulos and Landsberg [@GREG] developed a model for black hole production at the LHC.. For example, equation \[mass-eff\] shows that in the Randall-Sundrum model the bulk Planck mass could be lowered to the electroweak scale which is accessible at the LHC. Dimopoulos and Landsberg proposed the following (simplified) model of black hole production by colliding partons.
Following ref [@GREG], in $n$ dimensions the Schwartzchild radius is given by [@Myers]:
$$R_{s} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} M_{Pl}}[ \frac{M_{BH}}{M_{Pl}} (\frac{ 8 \Gamma(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2})^{\frac{1}{n+1}}]
\label{bh-eq}$$
Two colliding partons with center-of-mass energy equal to the mass of the black hole $\sqrt{s} = M_{BH}$ will form a black hole if the impact parameter is smaller than Schwartzchild radius in equation \[bh-eq\]. The cross-section is thus estimated from purely geometric considerations and is on the order of
$$\sigma_{BH} \approx \pi R^{2}_{s}$$
Depending on the number of extra dimensions and the Planck mass the black hole cross-section ranges from a few fb to 0.5 nb. It should be noted that the large cross-sections (compared to other beyond the standard model theories) come from essentially two factors:
- The lack of any small coupling constant.
- The geometric form of the cross-section which lacks any phase space suppression factor.
The black hole is expected to decay via Hawking radiation ’democratically’ into all Standard Model particles with equal probability. The black hole decay signature consists of two or more high energy particles decaying isotropically.
Feasibility Studies
===================
The ATLAS and CMS experiments have conducted several studies to estimate the sensitivity for the discovery of both Randall-Sundrum gravitons and black holes. Because of space limitations I focus on only two analysis (for additional studies see refs [@cms_diphoton; @cms_dijet; @atlas_rs; @atlas_fab; @cms_bh]).
Graviton Searches at CMS
------------------------
The search for dilepton resonances is one of the most promising discovery channels for a Randall-Sundrum graviton. The CMS collaboration has undertaken a detailed feasibility study in this channel [@cms_dimuon]. In this note , we limit ourselves to the dimuon channel. The signature is a resonance in the dimuon invariant mass spectrum. The main background for this search is Drell-Yan production of dimuon pairs. Other backgrounds include $t \bar{t}$ and diboson production - however these are negligible compared to the dominant Drell-Yan background.
The study requires events with two reconstructed muons. In order to simulate the trigger requirements, they require that at least one of the muons has $|\eta| < $ 2.1 and $p_{T} > $ 24 GeV. The total trigger efficiency depends on the resonance mass but is between 94%-97% for gravitons within the mass range from 1 to 5 TeV. Since very high momentum muons can radiate photons with a non-negligible probability, reconstructed photons within a $\Delta$ R cone of 0.1 around a muon are searched for. If one is found, the four-momentum of the closest one is added to that of the muon improving the mass resolution.
In order to estimate the discovery potential, ensemble experiments are performed. Pseudo-experiments are formed and the invariant mass spectrum is fit to two hypothesis. First, a signal and background hypothesis and secondly a background only hypothesis are assumed. The logarithm of the ratio of likelihoods of the two fits is used estimate the signal significance. Pseudo-experiments are constructed from both signal and background and background only Monte Carlo. From the mean value of the log-likelihood distribution one can estimate the amount of data needed to reach 5 $\sigma$ discovery.
The study also includes evaluation of various systematic effects including higher order corrections to the Drell-Yan cross section, parton distribution uncertainties, misalignment and pile-up effects, magnetic field uncertainties, and potential variations in the Drell-Yan shape. The results are shown in figure \[cms-dimuons-fig\] and indicate that the amount of integrated luminosity needed for discovery varies from 10-20 $\rm pb^{-1}$ for small masses and large coupling to several hundred $\rm fb^{-1}$ for large masses and small coupling.
The dilepton final state is completely specified by two variables which which are taken to be invariant mass and the scattering angle of collision of the dilepton pair. The angular distribution of the dilepton final state depends on the spin of the resonance. A similar study was undertaken to determine how much data is needed to distinguish between various spins and the results in figure \[cms-dimuons-fig\] show the ability to separate a spin 1 and spin 2 resonance as a function of the invariant mass and coupling.
![Discovery potential at CMS in the dimuon channel for Randall-Sundrum gravitons(left) and spin determination potential (right) .[]{data-label="cms-dimuons-fig"}](RS1_sign.pdf "fig:"){height="1.75in"} ![Discovery potential at CMS in the dimuon channel for Randall-Sundrum gravitons(left) and spin determination potential (right) .[]{data-label="cms-dimuons-fig"}](RS2_spin.pdf "fig:"){height="1.75in"}
Black Hole Searches at ATLAS
============================
The ATLAS collaboration has recently estimated the sensitivity to black hole production. A signature of black hole production at a hadron collider is the anomalous production of events with many high energy leptons and jets. The main backgrounds are expected to be $t \bar{t}$ pair production, W/Z + jet production, diphoton + jet production, and multijet production.
Although the signatures are expected to be quite dramatic and the cross-section quite large, a detailed study was undertaken to optimize the discovery potential. The event selection required events with one high $p_{T}$ electron or muon with $p_{T} > $ 50 GeV, and the scalar sum of the $p_{T}$ of all electrons, muons, and jets in the event ($\sum{p_{T}}$) $>$ 2.5 TeV.
The requirement on the high $p_{T}$ lepton is highly efficient against the multijet background while the very selective requirement on the scalar $p_{T}$ sum of the reconstruction objects was found to be very high rejection to all backgrounds. The total rejection was found to vary from $10^{5}$ for the vector boson + jets to $10^{7}$ for multijet events. The scalar $p_{T}$ sum distribution for signal and background is shown in figure \[atlas-black\]. The signal efficiency was found to depend on the exact parameters of the signal (number of extra-dimensions and Planck mass) and varied from about 20% to 60% .
The discovery potential was then estimated by counting events using $sig=\frac{S}{\sqrt{B}}$ to estimate the significance. The significance was required to be greater than 5 with at least 10 signal events. Depending on the number of extra dimensions and the black hole mass threshold the amount of luminosity required for discovery was found to vary from a few $\rm pb^{-1}$ to several hundred $\rm fb^{-1}$.
![Scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of all objects in the event (left) and black hole discovery potential as a function of black hole mass threshold (right).[]{data-label="atlas-black"}](sum_pt.pdf "fig:"){height="1.75in"} ![Scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of all objects in the event (left) and black hole discovery potential as a function of black hole mass threshold (right).[]{data-label="atlas-black"}](bh_disc.pdf "fig:"){height="1.75in"}
Conclusions
===========
The discovery of extra spatial dimensions, strong gravity ,and black holes at the LHC would be truly fascinating and spectacular. Many detailed studies to estimate the CMS and ATLAS potential to such possibilities have been undertaken. The amount of integrated luminosity for discovery varies as a function of the model parameters but could be as small as a few inverse picobarns. Both collaborations eagerly await the startup of the LHC later this year to probe the possibility of strong gravity at the TeV scale.
[99]{}
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, . L. Randall and R. Sundrum, . T. Banks and W. Fischler, hep-th/9906038, 1999. S. Dimopoulous and G. Landsberg, . R.C. Myers and M.J. Perry, . D.J. Kapner [*e*t al.]{}, . The DØ Collaboration, . The CDF Collaboration, . M.-C Lemaire, V.Litvin, H. Newman, CMS Note 2006/051. N. Akchurin, S. Esen, K. Gumus, R. Harris, CMS NOTE 2006/070. G. Azuelos, D. Cavalli, H. Przsiezniak, L.Vacavant, . F. Ledroit, G. Moreau, J. Morel, Atlas Note 2007/065. CMS Physics Technical Design Report, Vol.II, Physics Performance, CERN/LHCC 06-021. Belotelov [*e*t al.]{} , CMS Note 2006/104.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Meike Zehlike
- 'Gina-Theresa Diehn'
- Carlos Castillo
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title:
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
There has been recent interest in the use of machine learning (ML) approaches within mathematical software to make choices that impact on the computing performance without affecting the mathematical correctness of the result. We address the problem of selecting the variable ordering for cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD), an important algorithm in Symbolic Computation. Prior work to apply ML on this problem implemented a Support Vector Machine (SVM) to select between three existing human-made heuristics, which did better than anyone heuristic alone. Here we extend this result by training ML models to select the variable ordering directly, and by trying out a wider variety of ML techniques.
We experimented with the NLSAT dataset and the Regular Chains Library CAD function for Maple 2018. For each problem, the variable ordering leading to the shortest computing time was selected as the target class for ML. Features were generated from the polynomial input and used to train the following ML models: k-nearest neighbours (KNN) classifier, multi-layer perceptron (MLP), decision tree (DT) and SVM, as implemented in the Python scikit-learn package. We also compared these with the two leading human-made heuristics for the problem: the Brown heuristic and sotd. On this dataset all of the ML approaches outperformed the human-made heuristics, some by a large margin.
author:
- Matthew England
- Dorian Florescu
bibliography:
- 'CAD.bib'
title: |
Comparing machine learning models\
to choose the variable ordering for\
cylindrical algebraic decomposition
---
Introduction
============
A logical statement is *quantified* if it involves the universal quantifier $\forall$ or the existential quantifier $\exists$. The *Quantifier Elimination* (QE) problem is to derive from a quantified formula an equivalent un-quantified one. A simple example would be that the quantified statement, “$\exists x.\, x^2 + b x + c = 0$” is equivalent to the unquantified statement “$b^2 - 4c \geq 0$”, when working over the real numbers. QE is one definition for simplifying or solving a problem. The tools involved fall within the field of Symbolic Computation, implemented in Computer Algebra Systems (or more recently in SMT-solvers).
Our work is on Quantifier Elimination over the reals. Here the logical statements are expressed as *Tarski formulae*, Boolean combinations ($\land, \lor, \neg, \rightarrow$) of statements about the signs of polynomials with integer coefficients. QE in this theory was first shown to be soluble by Tarski [@Tarski1948] in the 1940s. However, the only implemented general real QE procedure has algorithmic complexity doubly exponential in the number of variables [@DH88], a theoretical result experienced in practice. For many problem classes QE procedures will work well at first, but as the problem size increases the doubly exponential wall is inevitably hit. It is hence of critical importance to optimise QE procedures and the formulation of problems, to “push the doubly exponential wall back” and open up a wider range of tractable applications.
QE procedures can be run in multiple ways to solve a given problem: they can be initialized with different options (e.g. variable ordering [@DSS04], equational constraint designation [@BDEW13]); tasks can be completed in different orders (e.g. order of constraint analysis [@EBCDMW14]); and the problem itself may be expressible in different formalisations [@WDEB13]. Changing these settings can have a substantial effect on the computational costs (both time and memory) but does not effect the mathematical correctness of the output. They are thus suitable candidates for machine learning: tools that allow computers to make decisions that are not explicitly programmed, via the statistical analysis of large quantities of data.
We continue in Section \[SEC:Background\] by introducing background material on the particular decision we study: the variable ordering for Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition. Here we also outline prior attempts to solve this problem; and prior applications of machine learning to computer algebra. Then in Section \[SEC:Methodology\] we describe our methodology covering datasets, software, features extracted from the problems, machine learning models tests, and how we test against human-made heuristics. We present our results in Section \[SEC:Results\] and final thoughts in Section \[SEC:End\].
Variable Ordering for CAD {#SEC:Background}
=========================
Cylindrical algebraic decomposition
-----------------------------------
A *Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition* (CAD) is a *decomposition* of ordered $\mathbb{R}^n$ space into cells arranged *cylindrically*: meaning the projections of any pair of cells with respect to the variable ordering are either equal or disjoint. The cells are (semi)-algebraic meaning each cell can be described with a finite sequence of polynomial constraints. A CAD is produced to be invariant relative to an input, i.e. *truth-invariant* for a logical formula (so the formula is either true or false throughout each cell). Such a decomposition can then be used to perform quantifier elimination on the formula by testing a finite set of sample points and constructing a quantifier-free formula from the semi-algebraic cell descriptions.
CAD was introduced by Collins in 1975 [@Collins1975] and works relative to a set of polynomials. Collins’ CAD produces a decomposition so that each polynomial has constant sign on each cell (thus truth invariant for any formula built with those polynomials). The algorithm first projects the polynomials into smaller and smaller dimensions; and then uses these to lift $-$ to incrementally build decompositions of larger and larger spaces according to the polynomials at that level. For full details on the original CAD algorithm see [@ACM84I].
QE has numerous applications throughout science and engineering (see for example the survey [@Sturm2006]). New applications are found regularly, such as the derivation of optimal numerical schemes [@EH16], and the validatation of economic hypotheses [@MDE18], [@MBDET18]. CAD has also found application independent of QE, such as reasoning with multi-valued functions [@DBEW12] (where we decompose to see where simplification rules are valid); and biological networks [@BDEEGGHKRSW17], [@EEGRSW17] where we decompose to identify regions in parameter space where multi-stationarity can occur.
The definition of cylindricity and both stages of the algorithm are relative to an ordering of the variables. For example, given polynomials in variables ordered as $x_n \succ x_{n-1} \succ \dots, \succ x_2 \succ x_1$ we first project away $x_n$ and so on until we are left with polynomials univariate in $x_1$. We then start lifting by decomposing the $x_1-$axis, and then the $(x_1, x_2)-$plane and so so on. The cylindricity condition refers to projections of cells in $\mathbb{R}^n$ onto a space $(x_1, \dots, x_m$) where $m<n$.
There have been numerous advances to CAD since its inception, for example: on how best to implement the projection [@Hong1990], [@McCallum1998], [@Brown2001a], [@MPP19]; avoiding the need for full CAD [@CH91], [@WBDE14]; symbolic-numeric lifting schemes [@Strzebonski2006], [@IYAY09]; adapting to the Boolean structure in the input [@BDEMW13], [@BDEMW16], [@EBD15]; and local projection approaches [@BK15], [@Strzebonski2016]. However, in all cases, the need for a fixed variable ordering remains.
Effect of the variable ordering
-------------------------------
Depending on the application requirements the variable ordering may be determined, constrained, or entirely free. The most common application, QE, requires that the variables be eliminated in the order in which they are quantified in the formula but makes no requirement on the free variables. For example, we could eliminate the quantifier in $\exists x.\, ax^2 + b x + c = 0$ using any CAD which eliminates $x$ first; giving six possible orderings to choose from. A CAD for the polynomial under ordering $a \prec b \prec c$ has only 27 cells, but needs 115 for the reverse ordering.
Note that since we can switch the order of quantified variables in a statement when the quantifier is the same, we also have some choice on the ordering of quantified variables. For example, a QE problem of the form $\exists x \exists y \forall a \, \phi(x, y, a)$ could be solved by a CAD under either ordering $x \succ y \succ a$ or ordering $y \succ x \succ a$.
The choice of variable ordering has been long known to have a great effect on the time and memory use of CAD, and the number of cells in the output. In fact, Brown and Davenport presented a class of problems in which one variable ordering gave output of double exponential complexity in the number of variables and another output of a constant size [@BD07].
Prior work on choosing the variable ordering
--------------------------------------------
Heuristics have been developed to choose a variable ordering, with Dolzmann et al. [@DSS04] giving the best known study. After analysing a variety of metrics they proposed a polynomial degree based heuristic (the heuristic sotd defined later). However the second author demonstrated examples for which that heuristic could be misled in CICM 2013 [@BDEW13]; showed that tailoring it to an implementation could improve its performance in ICMS 2014[@EBDW14]; and in CICM 2014 [@HEWDPB14] reported that a computationally cheaper heuristic by Brown actually outperforms sotd.
In CICM 2014 [@HEWDPB14] we used a support vector machine (SVM), an ML model widely used for non-linear classification, to choose which of three human-made heuristics to believe when picking the variable ordering. The experiments in [@HEWDPB14] identified substantial subclasses on which each of the three heuristics made the best decision, and demonstrated that the machine learned choice did significantly better than any one heuristic overall. This motivated the present study where we consider a wider range of machine learning models and have these pick the ordering directly from the full range of choices.
Other applications of ML to mathematical software
-------------------------------------------------
The CICM 2014 paper was the first to document the application of machine learning to CAD, or in fact to any symbolic computation algorithm / computer algebra system. Since then there have been two further studies:
- The same authors studied a different choice related to CAD (whether to precondition the input with Gröbner bases) in [@HEDP16] [@HEWBDP19], again finding that a support vector machine could make the choice more accurately than the human-made heuristic (if features of the Gröbner Basis could be used).
- At MACIS 2016 there was a study applying a support vector machine to decide the order of sub-formulae solving for a QE procedure [@KIMA16].
The survey paper [@England2018] and the ICMS Special Session on Machine Learning for Mathematical Software demonstrated the wide range of other potential applications. As discussed there, while the use of machine learning in computer algebra is rare it has become a key tool in other mathematical software development. Most notably automated reasoning [@Urban2007], [@KBKU13], [@BHP14], [@ACEISU16]; but also satisfiability checking [@XHHL08], [@LHPCG17].
Methodology {#SEC:Methodology}
===========
Dataset
-------
Despite its long history and significant software contributions the Computer Algebra community had a lack of substantial datasets [@HL15]: a significant barrier to machine learning. Despite efforts to address this[^1], the most substantial dataset of problems designed for CAD is [@WBD12_EX] with less than 100 examples.
However, CAD has recently found prominence in a new area: Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). Here, efficient algorithms for the Boolean SAT problem study the Boolean skeleton of a problem, with a theory solver then checking if a satisfying Boolean assignment is valid in the domain (learning new clauses if not) [@BSST09]. For the SMT domain of Non-linear Real Arithmetic (NRA), CAD can play the role of such theory solvers[^2], and so their test problems may be used to evaluate CAD. We use the `nlsat` dataset[^3] produced to evaluate the work in [@JdM12]. The main sources of the examples are: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MetiTarski</span> [@Paulson2012], an automatic theorem prover for theorems with real-valued special functions (it applies real polynomial bounds and then using QE tools like CAD); problems originating from attempts to prove termination of term-rewrite systems; verification conditions from Keymaera [@PQR09]; and parametrized generalizations of geometric problems.
The problems in the `nlsat` dataset are all fully existential (the only quantifier is $\exists$) which is why they may be studied by SAT solvers. Although CAD can make adaptions based on the quantifiers in the input (most notably via Partial CAD [@CH91]) the conclusions drawn are likely to be applicable outside of the SAT context.
We extracted $6117$ problems with $3$ variables from this database, meaning each has a choice of six different variable orderings. We randomly divided them into two datasets for training ($ 4612 $) and testing ($ 1505 $). The training dataset was used to tune the parameters of the ML models. The testing dataset was unknown to the models during training, and is used to compare the performance of the different ML models and the human-made heuristics.
Software
--------
We experimented using the CAD routine ` CylindricalAlgebraicDecompose` which is part of the `RegularChains` Library for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maple</span>. This algorithm builds decompositions first of $n$-dimensional complex space before refining to a CAD of $\mathbb{R}^n$ [@CMXY09], [@CM14b], [@BCDEMW14]. We ran the code in Maple $ 2018 $ but used an updated version of the `RegularChains` Library downloaded from <http://www.regularchains.org>, which contains bug fixes and additional functionality. We ignored the quantifiers and logical connectives, using only the polynomials as input to CAD. The function thus returned a sign-invariant CAD for the polynomials.
The training and evaluation of the machine learning models was done using the `scikit-learn` package [@SciKitLearn2011] v0.20.2 for Python 2.7. The features for machine learning were extracted using code written in the `sympy` package v1.3 for Python 2.7, as was the Brown heuristic. The sotd heuristic was implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maple</span> as part of the `ProjectionCAD` package [@EWBD14].
Timings
-------
CAD construction was timed in a Maple script that was called using the [*os*]{} package in Python for each CAD, to avoid Maple caching of results.
The target variable ordering for ML was defined as the one that minimises the computing time for a given SAT problem. All CAD function calls included a time limit. The problems in the training dataset were processed with an initial time limit of $4$ seconds on all variable orderings. The time limit was doubled if all $6$ orderings timed out. The process stopped when the CAD routine was completed for at least one ordering. All problems in the training dataset could be assigned a target variable ordering using time limits smaller than $64$ seconds.
The problems in the testing dataset were processed with a larger time limit of $ 128 $ seconds for all orderings. This was in order to allow a better comparison of the computing times for the ML and the heuristics. When a variable ordering timed out, the computing time was considered equal to $ 128 $ seconds.
Features
--------
We computed the same set of $ 11 $ features for each SAT problem as [@HEWDPB14], which are listed in Table \[tab1\]. All these features could be computed from the input polynomials immediately. A possibility for future work is to consider features that are more expensive, such as those from post-processing as in [@HEDP16], those from the end of CAD projection as sotd does, or perhaps even going further into partial lifting as in [@WEBD14]. The ML models associate a predicted variable ordering to each set of $ 11 $ features. The training and testing feature set were normalised using the mean and standard deviation of the training set.
**Feature number** **Description**
-------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------
1 Number of polynomials.
2 Maximum total degree of polynomials.
3 Maximum degree of $ x_0 $ among all polynomials.
4 Maximum degree of $ x_1 $ among all polynomials.
5 Maximum degree of $ x_2 $ among all polynomials.
6 Proportion of $ x_0 $ occuring in polynomials.
7 Proportion of $ x_1 $ occuring in polynomials.
8 Proportion of $ x_2 $ occuring in polynomials.
9 Proportion of $ x_0 $ occuring in monomials.
10 Proportion of $ x_1 $ occuring in monomials.
11 Proportion of $ x_2 $ occuring in monomials.
: The features used by ML to predict variable orderings.[]{data-label="tab1"}
ML models
---------
Four of the most commonly used deterministic ML models were tuned on the training data (for details on the methods see for example the textbook [@Bishop2006]):
- The K$-$Nearest Neighbours (KNN) classifier [@Bishop2006 §2.5].
- The Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier [@Bishop2006 §2.5].
- The Decision Tree (DT) classifier [@Bishop2006 §14.4].
- The Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier with RBF kernel [@Bishop2006 §6.3].
The KNN classifier is a type of [*instance-based*]{} classifier, i.e. it does not construct an internal model of the data but stores all the instances in the training data for prediction. So for each new data instance the model selects the nearest $k$ training instances. Selection can be performed by weighting instances equally, or by weighting a training instance inversely proportional to its distance from the new instance. The prediction is given by the class with the highest count among those training instances. Three algorithms are typically used to train KNN: the [*brute force*]{} algorithm computes the distances between all pairs of points, the [*k-dimensional tree*]{} algorithm partitions the data along Cartesian axes, and the [*ball tree*]{} algorithm partitions the data in a series of nesting hyper-spheres.
The DT is a non-parametric model that uses a tree-like model of decisions and their possible consequences. Each node in the tree represents a test on an attribute, each branch the outcome of the test. The [*leaves*]{} are the end points of each branch, representing the predicted class label. There are two common criteria used to assess the quality of a split in the DT. The Gini impurity criterion verifies how often a randomly chosen element would be correctly labelled if it were randomly labeled according to the distribution of labels in the subset. The entropy criterion assesses the information gain after each split.
The SVM is a model that can perform linear and non-linear classification, by selecting an appropriate kernel. It is also known as a maximum-margin classifier, because it identifies a hyperplane in the feature space that maximises the distance to the nearest data points5. The SVM kernel acts as a similarity function between the training examples and a few predefined [*landmarks*]{}, that can offer additional computing performance. The most common kernels are: [*linear*]{}, [*polynomial*]{}, [*sigmoidal*]{} and [*radial basis function*]{} (RBF). The RBF kernel is one of the most common kernel choices, given by $$\mathcal{K}({\bf x},{\bf \ell})=e^{-\gamma\cdot\|{\bf x}-{\bf \ell}\|^2},
\nonumber$$ where $ \gamma $ is the kernel hyperparameter, and $ {\bf \ell}\in\mathbb{R}^{n} $ is a predefined [*landmark*]{}, and $ {\bf x}\in \mathbb{R}^{n} $ is the training vector with $ n $ features.
The MLP is a class of feedforward artificial neural networks. It consists of a minimum of $3$ layers: the input, hidden and output layer. Both the hidden and output layers use a nonlinear activation function that can be selected during cross-validation. Some of the common activation functions are: [*identity*]{}, [*logistic*]{}, [*hyperbolic tangent*]{}, and [*rectified linear*]{}.
Training
--------
Each model was trained using grid search $ 5 $-fold cross-validation. Specifically, the training feature set was randomly divided in $ 5 $ equal parts. Each of the possible combinations of $ 4 $ parts was used to tune the model parameters, leaving the last part for fitting the hyperparameters by cross-validation. For each of the models, the grid search was performed for an initially large range for each hyperparameter. This range was increased until all optimal hyperparameters were inside the range, and not on the edge. Subsequently, the range was gradually decreased to home in on each optimal hyperparameter, until the performance plateaued. Each grid search lasted from a few seconds for simpler models like KNN to a few minutes for more complex models like MLP. The optimal hyperparameters selected during cross-validation are in Table \[tab3\].
**Model** **Hyperparameter** **Value**
---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
Decision Tree Criterion Gini impurity
Maximum tree depth $ 17 $
K-Nearest Train instances weighting Inversely proportional to distance
Neighbours Algorithm Ball Tree
Support Vector Regularization parameter $ C $ $ 316 $
Machine Kernel Radial basis function
$ \gamma $ $ 0.08 $
Tolerance for stopping criterion $ 0.0316 $
Multi-Layer Hidden layer size $ 18 $
Perceptron Activation function Hyperbolic tangent
Algorithm Quasi-Newton based optimiser
Regularization parameter $ \alpha $ $ 5\cdot10^{-5} $
: The hyperparameters of the ML models optimised with $ 5 $-fold cross-validation on the training dataset.[]{data-label="tab3"}
Comparing with human-made heuristics {#SUBSEC:Human}
------------------------------------
The ML approaches were compared in terms of prediction accuracy and resulting CAD computing time against the two best known human-made heuristics.
Brown
: This heuristic chooses a variable ordering according to the following criteria, starting with the first and breaking ties with successive ones:
(1) Eliminate a variable first if it has lower overall degree in the input.
(2) Eliminate a variable first if it has lower (maximum) total degree of those terms in the input in which it occurs.
(3) Eliminate a variable first if there is a smaller number of terms in the input which contain the variable.
It is named after Brown who documented it only in the notes of an ISSAC[^4].
sotd
: This heuristic constructs the full set of projection polynomials for each permitted ordering and selects the ordering whose corresponding set has the lowest **s**um **o**f **t**otal **d**egrees for each of the monomials in each of the polynomials. It was the reccommendation made after the study [@DSS04].
Unlike the ML, these human-made heuristics can end up predicting several variable orderings (i.e. when they cannot discriminate). In practice if this were to happen the heuristic would select one randomly (or perhaps lexicographically), however that final pick is not particularly meaningful for an evaluation. To accommodate this, for each problem, the prediction accuracy of such a heuristic is judged to be the the percentage of its predicted variable orderings that are also target orderings. The average of this percentage over all problems in the testing dataset represents the prediction accuracy. Similarly, the computing time for such methods was assessed as the average computing time over all predicted orderings, and it is this that is summed up for all problems in the testing dataset.
Results {#SEC:Results}
=======
We compare the four ML models on the percentage of problems where they selected the optimum ordering, and the total computation time (in seconds) for solving all the problems with their chosen orderings. We also compare the ML models with the two human-made heuristics (with the adaptations outlined in Section \[SUBSEC:Human\]) and finally the outcome of a random choice between the 6 orderings. The results are presented in Table \[tab2\]. We might expect a random choice to be correct one sixth of the time for this data set (16.6%). The actual accuracy is a little higher because the dataset is not uniform, and for some problem instances there were multiple variable orderings with equally fast timings.
DT KNN MLP SVM Brown sotd random
-------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
**Accuracy** $ 62.6 \% $ $ 63.3 \% $ $ 61.6 \% $ $ 58.8 \% $ $ 51 \% $ $ 49.5 \% $ $ 22.7 \% $
**Computation Time (s)** $ 9,994 $ $ 10,105 $ $ 9,822 $ $ 10,725 $ $ 10,951 $ $ 11,938 $ $ 30,235 $
: The comparative performance of DT, KNN, MLP, SVM, and the Brown and sotd heuristics on the testing dataset.[]{data-label="tab2"}
Moreover, we evaluate the distribution of the computation time for the ML methods and the heuristics. The differences between the computation time of each method and the minimum computation time, given as a percentage of the minimum time, are depicted in Figure 1.
![The histograms of the percentage increase in computation time relative to the minimum computation time for each method, calculated for a bin size of 1%.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Graphs.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Range of possible outcomes
--------------------------
We note that the minimum total computing time achieved by selecting an optimal variable ordering for every problem would be $8,623$s. Choosing at random would take $ 30,235 $s, almost 4 times as much. The maximum total computing time, determined by selecting the variable ordering with the longest computing time, is $ 64,534 $s. The choices with the quickest time among the methods considered were achieved by the Decision Tree model: $ 9,994 $s, which is $ 16\% $ more than the minimal possible. So there are clearly great time savings to be made by taking this choice into account.
Human-made heuristics
---------------------
Of the two human-made heuristics, Brown performed the best, as it did in [@HEWDPB14]. As was noted there this is surprising since the sotd heuristic has access to additional information (not just the input polynomials but also their projections). Unlike the ML models and the Brown heuristic, obtaining an ordering for a problem instance with sotd is not instantaneous. Generating an ordering with sotd for all problems in the testing dataset took over $ 30 $min.
Brown could solve all problems in 10,951s, 27% more than the minimum. While sotd is only 0.7% less accurate than Brown in identifying the best ordering, it is much slower at 11,938s or 38% more than the minimum. This shows that while Brown is not much better at identifying the best ordering, it does a much better job at discarding the worst!
ML choices
----------
The results show that all ML approaches outperform the human-made heuristics in terms of both accuracy and timings. Figure 1 shows that the human-made heuristics result in computing times that are often significantly larger than $ 1\% $ of the corresponding minimum time for each problem. The ML methods, on the other hand, all result in almost $ 1000 $ problems ($\sim 75\% $ of the testing dataset) within $ 1\% $ of the minimum time.
The key finding of the present paper is that there are significantly better models to use for the problem than SVM: each of the other three had 10% higher accuracy and much lower timings. It is interesting to note that the MLP model leads to a lower accuracy than DT and KNN, but achieves the lowest overall computing time. This suggests that on this dataset, the MLP model is best at leaving out variable orderings that lead to long computing times, even if it has a slightly higher chance of missing the target variable ordering.
Conclusion
----------
For a casual user of computer algebra the key consideration is probably that their computation does not hang, and that it finishes reasonably fast on the widest variety of questions. Hence of the tested models we may recommend the MLP for use going forward. However, all the models show promise and we emphasise that this conclusion applies only for the present dataset and we need wider experimentation to see if this finding is replicated.
Final Thoughts {#SEC:End}
==============
The experiment shows a clear advance on the prior state of the art: both in terms of accuracy of predictions for CAD variable ordering; and in understanding which models are the best suited for this problem. But we acknowledge that there is much more to do and emphasise that this is only the initial findings of the project. The following extensions will be undertaken shortly:
- Extending the experiment to include problems with more variables from the dataset. Unlike some CAD implementations the one used does not change algorithm when $n>3$; however, like all CAD implementation the time required will increase exponentially.
- Using the trained classifiers to test on CAD problems from outside the dataset, in particular, those which are not fully existentially quantified (SAT problems). In such cases the algorithms can change (terminate early) and it is not clear if models trained for the SAT case can be applied there.
- Using the trained classifiers to test on CAD implementations other than the one in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maple</span> `RegularChains` Library. For example, can the classifiers also usually pick variable orderings for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Qepcad-B</span>, [@Brown2003b], or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Redlog</span> [@DS97a].
- Examining how best to derive additional features to use for the training, and the use of feature selections tools to find an optimal subset.
- Test a dynamical selection of the variable ordering, where ML only picks the first variable for a problem, the polynomials are projected along that variable, and then the process repeats iteratively.
Finally, we note the wide variety of additional problems in computer algebra systems open to study with machine learning [@England2018].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors are supported by EPSRC Project EP/R019622/1: *Embedding Machine Learning within Quantifier Elimination Procedures*.
### Research Data Statement {#research-data-statement .unnumbered}
Data supporting the research in this paper is available at: <http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2658626>.
[^1]: E.g. the PoSSo and FRISCO projects in the 90s and the SymbolicData Project [@GNJ14].
[^2]: However, as discussed by [@AAB+16a] a more custom approach is beneficial.
[^3]: <http://cs.nyu.edu/~dejan/nonlinear/>
[^4]: <https://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/wcbrown/research/ISSAC04/handout.pdf>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a Newton-like method to solve inverse problems and to quantify parameter uncertainties. We apply the method to parameter reconstruction in optical scatterometry, where we take into account a priori information and measurement uncertainties using a Bayesian approach. Further, we discuss the influence of numerical accuracy on the reconstruction result.'
author:
- |
Martin Hammerschmidt, Martin Weiser, Xavier Garcia Santiago,\
Lin Zschiedrich, Bernd Bodermann, Sven Burger JCMwave GmbH\
Bolivarallee 22, D–14050 Berlin, Germany\
Zuse Institute Berlin (ZIB)\
Takustra[ß]{}e 7, D–14195 Berlin, Germany\
Institut für Theoretische Festkörperphysik (KIT)\
Wolfgang-Gaede-Stra[ß]{}e 1, D–76131 Karlsruhe, Germany\
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)\
Bundesallee 100, D–38116 Braunschweig, Germany
bibliography:
- 'this\_bibliography.bib'
title: |
Quantifying parameter uncertainties\
in optical scatterometry\
using Bayesian inversion
---
This paper will be published in Proc. SPIE Vol. [**10330**]{} (2017) 1033004 ([*Modeling Aspects in Optical Metrology VI*]{}, DOI: 10.1117/12.2270596) and is made available as an electronic preprint with permission of SPIE. One print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic or multiple reproduction, distribution to multiple locations via electronic or other means, duplication of any material in this paper for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the paper are prohibited.
Introduction {#section_introduction}
============
Scatterometric measurement configuration {#section_setup}
========================================
Reconstruction method {#section_reconstruction}
=====================
Reconstruction results {#section_results}
======================
Conclusion {#section_conclusion}
==========
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk[ł]{}odowska-Curie grant agreement No 675745 (MSCA-ITN-EID NOLOSS). This project has received funding from the EMPIR programme co-financed by the Participating States and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 14IND13 (PhotInd).
Appendix {#section_appendix .unnumbered}
========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.